by Dr. Lawrence Wilson

© March 2021, LD Wilson Consultants, Inc. 













Traditional marriage is marriage only between one man and one woman.

Homosexual marriage is a marriage between two people of the same gender.  It also implies that a homosexual couple will have the same social and legal standing and rights, privileges and obligations as men and women who enter into a traditional marriage.

Sodomy.  This is another word for anal sex.




Our guidance from the planning souls on this very controversial issue is that homosexual marriage is improper and ruins any society that adopts it.  They are very clear about this.  This article presents the reasons for this perspective.

The author has no grudge against anyone personally and we hope this article is not offensive to anyone, as that is not its intent.

There is a powerful movement to force and shame people into accepting the idea that homosexuality is just an “alternative lifestyle” and that it is equal in every way to heterosexuality and heterosexual marriage.

Our guidance is that this is nothing but an effort to destroy Western societies. 




Up until about 20 years ago, all Western nations forbade homosexual marriage.  This was based upon reasons of hygiene and legal doctrines such as the British common law and others, many of which are based upon the Hebrew and Christian Bibles.

Over the past 20 years, some nations have decided to permit homosexual marriage.  In the Untied States, it was put in place not by the representatives of the people, but by a few judges in the Supreme Court of the United States.  In other nations, homosexual marriage was put in place by courts or by votes of parliament.

This article explains why homosexual marriage is a terrible idea that historically has ruined any society that adopts it.






For male homosexuals, it is well known that sodomy or anal sex is not as clean or healthful as heterosexual sex because the anal area is one of the most filthy parts of the body.  Sexually transmitted disease is already a serious problem, and sanctioning sodomy worsens this problem.

Male homosexuals (as well as female homosexuals) have more disease and a shorter lifespan on average than heterosexual people.




A fact that is not well known is that deep healing occurs during close relationships between a man and a woman.  The same does not occur with close relations between those of the same gender.

This truth is discussed in several articles on this website including Down Sex, Down Hugging and Empathic Healing.




- Protecting women.  One reason society promotes heterosexual marriage is to protect women.  Society benefits greatly from the protection of women, and traditional marriage is one of the best ways to do this. 

This does not mean that every woman is protected in a traditional marriage.  A few are abused.  However, the great majority of women do receive protection in a traditional marriage.

Relationships between two men or between two women do not provide the same protection for women.  It is not wise for society to approve an arrangement that puts women at greater risk.


- Protecting children.  Statistically, children do better in heterosexual relationships than in homosexual relationships.


- Protecting the family unit.  The family unit – one man and one woman – is the basis  for our modern civilized society – socially, psychologically, legally, sexually, and in other ways.  The family fulfills all these roles, and perhaps others in society.  So far, no other social arrangement has been found to be as powerful, satisfying and helpful for society.

The traditional family unit is under severe attack by those who don’t like it, namely world communist and world socialist organizations who seek to destroy Western civilization by stealth.  They seek to replace modern Western society with the old autocratic and monarchical societies.  To do this, they must destroy the family unit in Western society.

The family is under attack by the tax laws, the public school system, the welfare laws, and much more.  These attacks are very deliberate, and the push for homosexual marriage is just the latest attack.

Weakening the traditional family unit by not supporting it wholeheartedly is dangerous for the future of civilized society, and very foolish unless and until we have something to replace it with that is better.  Homosexual marriage does not fulfill that requirement, so it is best to leave marriage alone at this time. 




- Homosexual marriage weakens society by damaging the institution of marriage.  Most large societies on earth use the institution of heterosexual marriage as the most important mechanism by which to organize society, satisfy and control sexual needs, produce and successfully raise children as the future members and leaders of society, promote peace and harmony, and satisfy other human needs for companionship and protection. 

Heterosexual marriage is thus one of the most sacred and basic institutions of society.  Anything that weakens it is a serious problem for that society.

Sanctioning “alternative” marriages of any kind weakens traditional marriage in at least three ways:

1. By diluting and changing the meaning of the word marriage.

2. By confusing people about the meaning of the word.

3. By rewarding other arrangements by granting them government or other benefits previously reserved only for those who enter a heterosexual marriage.

Some argue that approving homosexual marriage does not weaken the traditional family, but this is lie.  It certainly weakens the traditional family because it sends the message that the traditional family is only one of several ways to organize the family and the society that are presumably equal.


- Weakening society by harming children.  It is vital for society to protect and promote lifestyles that result in the best environment to bear and raise children.  This should be obvious and a matter of common sense.  Otherwise, society puts its future in grave danger.

Many scientific studies show that the standard family with one man and one woman is best for raising a child.  Other arrangements result in more mental and physical problems for children.  Therefore, society should protect and promote heterosexual marriage and the traditional family, and not other arrangements.  All other arguments can be seen as just a matter of selfishness and disregard for the next generation.


- Weakening society by sanctioning a less healthful adult lifestyle.  Healthy societies must support lifestyles and behaviors that benefit its members the most.  Heterosexual adults live longer than homosexuals, and heterosexuals have lower rates of disease, violence, and domestic violence.  It makes little sense for society to sanction a lifestyle that causes more violence and a shorter lifespan. 




- Heterosexual marriage causes better energetic blending and therefore better partnerships than homosexual marriage.


- For the creation of children, heterosexual marriage is much better than homosexual marriage.




- The flawed “civil rights” argument.  Recently the United States Supreme Court ruled that homosexual couples should have the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples in states that permit homosexual marriage.  This is based on an argument that marriage is a “civil right”.  A civil right is a right granted by the government to the people.

However, no such right is found in American law.  Civil rights must be granted by an act of the Congress of the United States.  This is the case with other civil rights, but not with homosexual marriage.  Therefore, the Supreme Court just invented it!  This is quite outrageous and clearly an overstepping of their authority. 

In fact, there was a law passed by the representatives of the people of the United States called the Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA.  It specifically states that marriage is between one man and one woman.


- The legal basis for traditional marriage in America.  All public servants in the United States take an oath to uphold the US Constitution.  This document is firmly based on the common law of England.  This body of law is firmly based upon the Hebrew and Christian Bibles.

For this reason, public servants violate their oath of office if they even consider voting for homosexual marriage.

Today, there is an effort to discredit and destroy the basis for the American legal system.  Some call it secularization.  This is a progressive discounting and degrading of things that are taught in traditional religious and spiritual texts, supposedly in favor of what is called scientific inquiry.

In fact, the latter is not necessarily scientific, even if it appears that way.  The problem with “science” is that it has its own biases, and is always based upon incomplete knowledge.  Often, it is also corrupt, meaning that special interests influence it heavily.

Some will say, but there must be “separation of church and state”.  However, this specious legal doctrine is found nowhere in the US Constitution.  It is nothing more than a perversion of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from setting up a state religion.  All or most of the American founders were religious men and women, who insisted that their religious convictions be carried forth into the political arena.


- Opening the door for unusual arrangements.  Allowing homosexual marriage opens the door for other “marriage arrangements” that studies show are not wholesome. 

For example, if we want to be “fair” and “unbiased”, then why not approve polygamous marriage?  Why not marriage between four or five people?  Why not marriage between a human being and a dog who is a “best friend”?  There are few limits to what some believe is “fair”.

Studies show that the one man-one woman arrangement works best, not these others.  In fact, whenever an advanced society has endorsed homosexuality and homosexual marriage, its destruction soon follows.  We are not sure of all the reasons for this, but it is a truth of history.




All the major religions on earth forbid homosexuality.  It is called an abomination in the Hebrew Bible.

Also, the Ten Commandments given to Moses include “Do not commit adultery”.  We assert that the true meaning of this commandment is that sex is to be between marriage partners only and that marriage is only between a man and a woman.  This needs to be clarified and hopefully will be clarified in the future.


 - The effects of a development program.  We have observed that when a person follows a development program, if one was a homosexual, their sexual preference changes to heterosexual.  This requires no counseling or special effort of any kind.

We do not understand exactly why this occurs, but it is a consistent finding among our clients.  It may have to do with hormonal balancing and/or the release of old traumas. 

Based on these observations, it would seem that homosexuality has to do with poor health, and that it is not “genetic” and “irreversible”, as many claim.

If this is true, then the answer is not to change the definition of marriage.  Instead, the best course of action in regard to homosexual feelings is to assist these individuals to improve their health.






The reasons given to approve homosexual marriage are based on:

1. Fairness.  On the surface, it seems unfair to not give homosexual people all the same rights and privileges as others.  However, this argument only applies if homosexuality is “equal” as a lifestyle to traditional marriage.  This article discusses this hypothesis.  

2. Marriage is a civil right, so it is fine to change it to keep up with modern trends.  This sounds good.    However, marriage is not a civil right.  A civil right is a right conferred by the government.

Marriage is an ancient arrangement between a man and a woman that long predates all current governments.

3. Sanctioning homosexual marriage is a way to give financial, inheritance and other benefits equal to those given to heterosexual couples.  This is related to the two reasons above, but is a purely economic reason.  This argument is again based on the idea that homosexuality is “equal” to heterosexual marriage, and should thus be rewarded by society in the same way.  This is not true, however.




The possible positions on this issue are widely varying.  They range from:

1. Changing the definition of marriage to allow homosexual marriage.

2. Leaving marriage alone, but setting up a separate legal category of same-sex partnership with some or all of the financial and other benefits as those of heterosexual marriage.

3. Leave the situation basically as is, with homosexuality a marginal lifestyle that does not get government rewards given to married couples.

4. Some religious people want older laws against sodomy, for example, enforced and a return to Biblical religious values in America and elsewhere.




Marriage between two men or between two women, in general, does not work as well physically, sexually, or energetically as marriage between a man and a woman.  It is also not at all recommended by the Bible, a text that is the basis for the Western legal system and indeed much of Western morality and law.  It is also not as good for children, according to current studies.

Based on this, we do not think it is wise for society to endorse or support homosexual marriage, and certainly not wise to change the definition of marriage.

If a homosexual couple wants insurance coverage or other financial benefits that accrue to traditional married couples, they need to go to work for companies that offer such benefits.  However, we feel it is wrong for our government to grant the same privileges and rights to a living arrangement that benefits society less much than traditional marriage.

For more on this topic, please read Homosexuality on this website.



Home | Hair Analysis | Saunas | Books | Articles | Detox Protocols

Courses | About Dr. Wilson | The Free Basic Program