A Religious Question: a response to the issue of homosexuality, slavery, and the Bible.

About a month ago, I shared a note pertaining to the question of homosexuality and Christianity. If you read it, you might recall that the author, Mr. Adkins, supported same-sex marriage and condemned Christians for their alleged lack of love for homosexual couples. The writer of the post also meandered off-topic to conflate the issue of slavery in the Old Testament.

Below, I re-post the note to which I am responding; and then proceed to answer each point made. This is my response to his multiple allegations....

A Religious Question.

Just a question to any Christian who feels the need to answer. Do not be offended. As its a serious question. A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ. Namely, the New Testament. So why is it, that you feel your religion is against gays?(if this is applicable to you. even if you don't hate gays. Doesn't mean you wouldn't agree with the previous) You do know Jesus never spoke one word on the subject right? If it really was such an offense, why would he not talk about it? He sure did a lot of speaking against rich people though. So if he took the time to point out that the wealthy people tended to be bad, wouldn't he point out that homosexuals who apparently do a much larger crime? Then you can say, "Well in the Old Testament," yes, in the old testament there are a few lines that can allude to gays, however even that's debatable. And do you really want to point to the Old Testament? With how angry and bitter God was in it? Where slavery is tolerated happily? Sure, God aparently wanted you to treat your slaves well, but called no moral questioning to the fact, and excuse my language, you had a fucking slave. If you bring that fact up, a typical response will be, "Well I believe in the New Testament," which brings us back to nothing. Jesus never bothered. (if he ever existed at all, by the way, that is not set in stone fact). The point is,

Your Christ told you to love. That's all. To love and treat other well. No matter what they did to you. Or what they did themselves. Your suppose to love. And if gays are "going to hell" and shouldn't be getting married. That is not why your here to make that call anyways. That's for your God, Jesus, or whatever magical leap of faith you've conjured up to take care of that matter.

So, let gays get married, love everyone like your suppose to, and move on with your life. You don't need to come home and kick the dog because gays are happy. And they'll ruin marriage and the American Family? Please? Have you watched Cable? Have you ever heard of Vegas?

Get, over it

~Cody Adkins

I respond by quoting the post, part by part, and giving an answer after each quotation:

“Just a question to any Christian who feels the need to answer. Do not be offended.”

I’m not offended. Since you've opened your questions to “any Christian,” I feel quite comfortable with responding, however, and with as much enthusiasm and liberty as you've taken in your note. You've offered several challenges here. They can be answered fairly easily. However, can you answer the challenges made by numerous Christians concerning your views?

“A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ. Namely, the New Testament.”

Correct, a Christian is one who follows Jesus Christ. However, both Testaments are crucial to the Christian faith, from Genesis to Revelation. The Old Testament has just as much authority as the New Testament. Nonetheless, the OT was written in anticipation of the Messiah; while the NT was penned after His earthly presence. Certain aspects of Old Testament Law were fulfilled in Christ, and written in anticipation of His coming. Since He has already come, there is no longer any need to sacrifice animals, just for an example, because Christ is our ultimate sacrifice. Likewise, it is no longer mandatory to keep the Sabbath because Christ is our Sabbath.

“So why is it, that you feel your religion is against gays?(if this is applicable to you. even if you don't hate gays. Doesn't mean you wouldn't agree with the previous)”

Because the Bible—both OT and NT—clearly condemns homosexuality as an abomination and a grievous sin against God (but more on that later).

You are correct to anticipate that not all of us hate gays. I don’t hate gays either. However, just because I may love someone, does not mean they are not committing sins. Our religion is not against the people themselves, but against the practice and the political movement—the gay agenda. There will also be more on this subject later.

“You do know Jesus never spoke one word on the subject right? If it really was such an offense, why would he not talk about it?”

Most of Jesus’ earthly ministry was toward the Jews living under Roman authority in those days. The subject of committing homosexual acts or whether such acts were morally acceptable was not controversial to the Jewish mind. It was simply considered unholy and repugnant. Think about it. Let’s use murder as an example: if my audience already agrees that murder is wrong, how much time would you expect me to spend teaching them that murder is wrong? None, right? He didn't address that issue directly because it wasn't a controversy in His day. He did, however, address the topic indirectly.

He talked about what marriage was, defining it as a covenantal union between a man and a woman. He then commanded that no one break this covenant:

“But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Mark 10:6–9 NASB).

Notice the reason for the union? It says because God made them male and female. He is alluding to the creation of man and woman in Genesis. This is what marriage is, by definition, according to Jesus Christ. In other words, He is agreeing with the Old Testament teachings about the purpose and definition of marriage. He then commands us to let no man separate the very union that God instituted upon making His creation.

“He sure did a lot of speaking against rich people though. So if he took the time to point out that the wealthy people tended to be bad, wouldn't he point out that homosexuals who apparently do a much larger crime?”

It is true that Jesus spoke against rich people on numerous occasions. However, it wasn't merely because they had wealth. Job had wealth, but God did not speak against him because of it. Solomon and David also had wealth, but God praised these men. The issue is the love of money. It is about greed, avarice, and treating others poorly. God blesses some people with wealth, but they squander it, loving their money and status more than they love the God who blessed them with it.

“Then you can say, "Well in the Old Testament," yes, in the old testament there are a few lines that can allude to gays, however even that's debatable.”

Well, actually it isn't debatable: The OT does, in fact, condemn homosexuality. Furthermore, the verses do not just vaguely “allude” to gays, but clearly condemns homosexual acts and practices. Had Mr. Adkins been familiar with the OT, he would have known this.

In the book of Genesis, God appears before Abraham and announces that He will destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for their sin. God calls their sin “exceedingly grave” (Gen 18:20) and tells us what this grievous sin is:

“Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. And he said, “Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant’s house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way.” They said however, “No, but we shall spend the night in the square.” Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.” But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.” But they said, “Stand aside.” Furthermore, they said, “This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them.” So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door. But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. They struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway” (Gen 19:1–11).

The men of Sodom wanted to have sexual relations with the two men visiting Lot. The men of Sodom did not know that they were angels of the Lord, but thought they were merely foreigners. Homosexuality clearly permeated the culture of Sodom. Lot knew this. He even offered up his own daughters in exchange for the protection of his guests, which he also did not know to be angels. While this was a sinful act on Lot’s part, it does seem to indicate that Lot had been affected by the wickedness of Sodom while living there. As we will see, pervasive homosexuality does indeed affect those who live amongst it. Not only had it corrupted Lot, but we later learn that even Lot’s own daughters had some severe misconceptions about sexuality when they attempt to have sex with their own father. The men of Sodom had a “sexual orientation” and were very forceful about it, somewhat like the Gay agenda today. At any rate, God destroys this city shortly afterwards because their sin was exceedingly grave.

The book of Leviticus also condemns the practice of homosexuality:

“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Lev 18:22).

“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them” (Lev 20:13).

Clearly, these commands do more than merely “allude” to gays. They outright condemn such practices.

“And do you really want to point to the Old Testament? With how angry and bitter God was in it? Where slavery is tolerated happily? Sure, God aparently wanted you to treat your slaves well, but called no moral questioning to the fact, and excuse my language, you had a fucking slave.”

I do not know any Christian who owns a slave, and I certainly never had one. Judging by the curse word, and the fact that it is contained in a belligerent sentence, it leads me to believe that this was an emotional response. However, I wonder how far Mr. Adkins goes to avoid products or clothing made by modern-day, slave labor? I honestly must wonder about the sincerity of a culture that condemns the practice when talking about early American history or the Old Testament, but does not seem to mind benefiting from the fruits of slave-labor. I suppose as long as it’s over-seas (or as long the American farmer’s crop is decently priced), benefiting from another’s slavery is okay, right? The reason you get your clothes and technologies so cheaply, Mr. Adkins, is because some Asian fellow is getting worked to death just to have a meal. Many oriental families live in horrible poverty, but work nearly every waking hour. That way, their masters can sell you products at little expense to them. The United States is the largest consumer in the world, and much of it comes from slave-labor.

We could also discuss the ethics of such a matter from an evolutionary standpoint—Survival of the fittest, right?—but I know such an emotional (or moral) objection could hardly be derived from that. The irony here is that Mr. Adkins’ objections about slavery come from his cultural conditioning; and those moral objects which our culture uses concerning slavery come from the Bible—both OT and NT.

Nonetheless, it is a bit of a dilemma: If we completely stopped buying such products, I highly doubt that slavery would end in those countries. Instead, those slave-laborers would have nothing, and they would starve, right? Those civilizations do not have the benefit of biblical ethics. They have no beginning moral foundations within their non-Christian world-views to even imagine that such a thing like slavery is wrong. Let’s think about this for a moment.

Throughout world history, the primary countries to abolish slavery have been those traditionally steeped in a biblical world-view. Why? Let’s look at India, for example. They have caste-system, where there is no upward mobility, no one helps the poor, and slavery conditions are perfectly acceptable. Mr. Adkins may not realize it, but it there are actually religious reasons why India’s culture is set up in such strict, caste systems.

In traditional Hinduism, there is no belief that all people are, somehow, intrinsically equal. They believe in reincarnation, a system that teaches that there are, indeed, hierarchies embedded in the very nature of living things—from insects on up to men. Even within humankind, there are those who are of lesser societal value, because they are not “enlightened,” to those who have attained such statuses as “godhood,” because they have become “enlightened.” Furthermore, there is hardly any charity given to those who suffer because the belief is, well, that they are paying their penance for sins committed in a previous life. It is wrong to interfere. Karma is at work. So, what religious motive would drive such a culture to refuse something like slavery? Leaving a person in the societal role of slavery is seen as a good thing—which is precisely why they have caste systems with no upward mobility. The same is true in traditional Buddhist countries too. Buddhism evolved out of Hinduism.

By contrast, anti-slavery movements came largely out of the Christian church. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a reverend. When he said, “I have a dream that all men were created equal,” he made this appeal on the basis of Genesis, where all people were created in the image of God, and derive their value and purpose from being made after the likeness of God. When Martin Luther King exhorted Americans to deliver slaves unto freedom, he appealed to the OT God’s deliverance of slaves from the hand of Pharaoh in the book of Exodus. Likewise, when our American forefathers taught that American citizens should have equal and inalienable rights, liberty and justice for all, and sought to abolish the tyranny of government, they appealed to Genesis to validate those beliefs. Having “inalienable rights” means that these rights are not to be foreign to mankind, because they are required as per the dignity of his very nature, which he derives from being made in the image of the Old Testament God.

God allows evil and suffering to occur in the world in accordance with the counsel of His own will. It is true that God prescribed certain laws for the treatment of slaves; however, stating that such a institution was “happily” accepted fails to seriously engage what times were like in those days as well as the way in which the OT engages the problem of slavery.

For one thing, there were actually several different varieties of slavery in Old Testament times. Most slavery, for example, was actually voluntary and even chattel slaves could still own their own property. For those of you who are familiar with the Bible, you know that Moses himself served as a slave. Some slaves were taken as spoils of war, these would more appropriately be called vassals. God had judged the nations for their grievous sins—like idolatry and child-sacrifices—and condemned them to death. The nation of Israel was His chosen tool in orchestrating that punishment, which included slavery. After all, in ancient times, the two most common ways to deal with prisoners of war and so forth was to either kill them or take them as spoils of war (vassals). So, really the question boils down to whether a holy God has the right to judge others for their sins, and sentence them to slavery. I think He does. According to what superior moral law does Mr. Adkins judge God?

While such judgments upon sin are a part of the over-arching structure of the OT, so too is the release from the bondage of slavery. Indeed, slavery as well as the freedom from it are crucial parts of both Old and New Testaments: Mr. Adkins’ divisions of the two is quite artificial. Christians do not read the Old Testament without considering what is in the NT. To us, it would be somewhat akin to reading a novel without considering its final chapters. Who does that? The point and the consummation of the novel is revealed in the story’s final culmination.

Nonetheless, the OT does not just “happily” accept the institution of slavery. Indeed, its very dealings on the matter create tensions of the sort which effectively undermine the institution in some profound ways. For one thing, isn't the entire book of Exodus about how God chose a slave-race of people, demonstrating His mercy and exposing the wickedness of Pharaoh for not setting them free? Did Mr. Adkins just not notice the pattern where it is not the cruel masters God shows partiality towards, but it is the slaves He shines His mercies upon? Surely more astute readers would wonder why God would take Moses, a prince of Egypt, and make him a slave BEFORE he heard the calling of God?

In contrast, wasn't much of early American slavery rooted in notions of evolution, where some races were superior humans while other, less-evolved races were “sub-human?” Indeed, we also have Hitler who murdered six million Jews based on his eugenics program. Does anyone seriously think eugenics came from the Bible, when we all know it came from an atheistic world-view? Interestingly, eugenics was the idea of an amateur scientist, Francis Galton, who was a cousin of Charles Darwin. He accredited Darwin for his theories, in letters to him, and thanked Darwin for helping him give up his religious beliefs as a Quaker. Likewise, Mr. Adkins also seems oblivious to that fact that the Nazi’s planned to obliterate the Christian church. Hitler merely applied Galton’s atheistic theories. As early as 1937, Protestant churches issued a manifesto objecting to Nazi policies, and the Nazis retaliated by arresting 700 pastors, infiltrating their offices. Hitler wrote his own bible, teaching his followers a “survival of the fittest” ideology. They were told that they have sinned against natural selection and that weaker races should be exterminated.

At any rate, the concept of slavery as it appeared in the “New World” (the Americas) was foreign to the Bible. The vast majority of slavery found in the Old Testament was voluntary and done in order to pay debts. God instituted a number of laws in order to restrain the evils which might occur in this arrangement, recognizing the humanness of the slave and setting time-limits for the duration of his required services. Furthermore, OT slavery was mostly conducted within family clans. People in Old Testament times—the ancient Near East—did not value personal freedoms in the ways modern Americans do. Instead, they valued belonging to a group, partly because of the protections provided to them through their clan elders/ masters. The particular type of slavery used in the early Americas was not known by the Old Testament, ancient Near East. Their word for “slavery” did not mean the same thing.

The accusation of God being “bitter and angry” in the OT is a gross misrepresentation. God was both just and merciful in both testaments, not just one of them. God did not create slavery, but He did use it as a tool for his purposes of justice as well as mercy. We could also get into NT books, like Philemon, where Paul pleads for the release of Onesimus at his own cost. However, I would challenge anyone to make a list of the things which make slavery evil and see for themselves if such things are condoned in the Bible. I do believe that what you will find is that slavery was not created by God, that treating others with undue cruelty is explicitly forbidden, and that God’s plan involved the abolition of slavery from the beginning.

Would anyone like to provide a rationale for the abolition of slavery from the atheistic perspective of “survival of the fittest?” It’s funny what they do not mention in history classes concerning the influence of Darwinism nowadays. The very objections you have against slavery did not come from atheistic, Darwinian beliefs, but from the pages of the Bible into our Western culture, being passed on to you, Mr. Adkins. Where was the atheist during the trading of black slaves? Making a profit, of course! Where was the atheist during the Holocaust? Constructing the Nazi death camps to help evolution along. After all, might makes right.

“If you bring that fact up, a typical response will be, "Well I believe in the New Testament," which brings us back to nothing. Jesus never bothered.”

Actually, you are quite wrong. Jesus dealt with issues such as power, favoritism, poverty, and status on numerous occasions. Many of His own followers either had been or were slaves. You simply do not understand the cultural backdrop of His day or the Bible. In regards to the world of man, Jesus put everyone on equal footing in respect to power, favoritism, poverty and status—this included masters and slaves. He rebuked and preached against the very attitudes and beliefs which comprise the institution of slavery throughout His entire ministry. The biblical writers followed suit. What you do not understand, however, is that Jesus’ ministry was not about abolishing Roman political institutions. Actually, He attacked such evils at their very roots, which are spiritual in nature. His mission was to lead many out of their bondage of spiritual slavery to sin. He did this knowing that earthly manifestations of sin flow out of spiritual bondage.

It is true that Jesus did not deal with the institution of New World slavery specifically; but it is silly to expect such a thing, since it did not yet exist. You are imposing modern controversies on an ancient text, and modern sensibilities onto an ancient world, without realizing that issues such as slavery or culture are very complex.

“(if he ever existed at all, by the way, that is not set in stone fact).”

That depends on what you regard as “stone fact” and whether or not you are willing to look at the evidence objectively and coherently. I happen to believe that the evidence for His existence is simply irrefutable. It becomes much more difficult to explain Him away than to simply accept the overwhelming evidence. However, that does not stop many people. If human beings have the capacity to deny a truth because it offends them, how much more would you suppose that they might deny The Truth?

“The point is,…Your Christ told you to love. That's all. To love and treat other well. No matter what they did to you. Or what they did themselves. Your suppose to love.”

Your understanding of Jesus and what He taught (or what all of Scripture teaches) is obviously very limited. Have you even bothered to read the very book you are criticizing? You don’t even seem to be aware that some of the strongest condemnations against homosexuality is actually in the NT. You also do not seem to have much of a grasp on the larger picture: God has announced already His condemnation upon homosexuals. It is not my condemnation, but His. I am merely warning them about the impending judgment they will face, not because I desire to see them burn (as popular culture has misinformed you), but because I want to see them saved from God’s righteous judgment, just I have been. They hate Christians for this—and do not seem to mind mislabeling and judging us—but we do it because a sincere love and concern for their well-being, both in this life and the one to come.

Furthermore, you also seem oblivious to how absolutely destructive the homosexual lifestyle is to the very people who engage in it. Anyone who would ever promote such a lifestyle is the one who must be full of hatred. You seem to think that Christians refer to Genesis as a fairy-tale to be used at their convenience in order to excuse their contempt for others. You are quite wrong. The reason why Christians tell you that God created them male and female is to demonstrate God’s purposes for His creation. To deviate from God’s intended purposes is to fall into futility and the corruption of the very faculties which He design for our own well-being and His glory. In other words, when things are designed for one thing, but misused for another, there are very serious consequences attached to such misuses. For example, with food, if we are designed to be nourished through one means but exchange those means for another, then we become malnourished until we either die or do what is suitable for our diet. Likewise, society and culture is nourished by the union of one man and one woman—through marriage. It is through the union of one man and one woman that society may continue, propagate with children, and maintain relative health. You have been brought up to believe the myth that what we do, as private individuals, has no impact on the larger society. Therefore, it is no one else’s business. This is called individualism and it is a myth. Let me lay down the brutal facts of the homosexual lifestyle; and then we’ll look at how the Gay agenda (and the Gaystapo) deconstructs and corrupts the very identity of people as men and women through legal tyranny, political misinformation, and the systematic enforcement and propagation of its reconstituted death culture.

I refer to it as a death culture for some very obvious reasons, not just as a function of rhetoric. The average lifespan of a homosexual male is about 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual male. While it has been argued that the reasons for this are due to discrimination and its associated pressures, the empirical data does not seem to support such an explanation. When comparing the U.S. to Denmark, for example, a highly tolerant society toward gays, lesbians, and homosexuals, there is no difference in the data. Furthermore, homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse compared to the rest of the population, and those who have engaged in the homosexual lifestyle are about 200% more likely to commit suicide.[i] In addition, while only 2% of the population is gay, it accounts for 61% of all HIV infections[ii] and are the only risk group in which new HIV have been increasing steadily since the 1990’s.[iii]

It might be interesting to note that the Greek word translated as “homosexual” in the NT (1 Co. 6:9) is “arsenocoitus.” The word literally refers to one who burns in sexual passions. The Book of Romans indicates a loss of control over this sexual faculty and an exchange from a natural desire to an unnatural one (1:26-27). These biblical teachings are apparent in our own times, as the statistical data fully notes:

"In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners."[iv] Indeed, one Kinsey study showed that 79% of the homosexual men surveyed reported that over half of their sexual encounters were with strangers, with 70% reporting that over half of their partners were people with whom they’ve only had sex once. In other words, the reality about the homosexual life-style does not so much entail committed or monogamous relationships, but rather strongly indicates casual encounters outside of any sense of a committed relationship.

This fact seems to better explain the discontent so prevalent in the gay community, despite Mr. Adkins’ claims that they are happy. Actually, when one investigates the domestic trends and mental well-being of the gay community from a more objective, empirical stand-point, one cannot help but notice the deeply ingrained dissatisfaction and unhappiness prevalent to the lifestyle.

In a national health study, 75% of nearly 2,000 lesbian respondents said they had pursued some form of psychological counseling of some form, much of which involved treatment for long-term depression or sadness.[v] According to another study, homosexual men are about six times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexual men.[vi] Domestic violence and abuse is nearly doubled in gay co-habitations; [vii] while a survey of lesbian couples showed that 54% had experienced ten or more incidents of abuse, 74% had experienced six or more incidents, 60% reported a pattern to the abuse, and 71% claimed it grew worse over time.[viii] Meanwhile, The National Violence against Women Survey found that "same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Thirty-nine percent of the same-sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabitating partner at some time in their lifetimes, compared to 21.7 percent of the opposite-sex cohabitants. Among men, the comparable figures are 23.1 percent and 7.4 percent."[ix]

In addition to the detrimental domestic trends and psychological health of adult gays and lesbians, children raised by same-sex couples are two to four times more likely to be homosexuals. Adult children of homosexual parents were found to be about fifty times more likely to be victims of sexual molestation by their gay parent—29% of children with homosexual parents versus 0.6% of children with heterosexual parents.

At any rate, these are only a few of the statistics. Many more could be added. The point, however, is to ask: how is it loving to encourage others to embrace a life-style which clearly lowers their quality of life, as well as longevity, makes them more prone to deep dissatisfaction, and exposes them to various dangers, diseases, molestation, and violence?

Skipping ahead, Mr. Adkins demonstrates where he gets his faulty understanding concerning the morbid world of gays and lesbians when he writes, “So, let gays get married, love everyone like your suppose to, and move on with your life. You don't need to come home and kick the dog because gays are happy. And they'll ruin marriage and the American Family? Please? Have you watched Cable? Have you ever heard of Vegas?”

Welcome to the reality outside the television box Mr. Adkins.





[i] onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=255614.

[ii] Center for Disease Control, cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/HIVIncidencePressRelease.html.

[iii] Ibid, http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm.

[iv] Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.

[v] J. Bradford et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81.

[vi] Bell and Weinberg, “Homosexualities…”, Table 21.12.

[vii] D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991): 14.

[viii] William C. Nichols, et al, editors, Handbook of Family Development and Intervention(New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2000): 393.

[ix] "Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence," U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs (July, 2000): 30.


Original posted on Facebook December 8, 2011.