Homosexual Behavior Fuels AIDS and STD Epidemic

Homosexual Behavior Fuels AIDS and STD Epidemic


Tuesday, July 02, 2013

Traditional Values Coalition, 139 C St. SE, Washington, DC 20003; 202-547-8570; www.traditionalvalues.org.

All graphics taken from AIDS.gov (http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/)

NOTE: This article contains somewhat graphic and potentially disturbing descriptions of homosexual acts and their consequences. It is not recommended for young or sensitive readers.

December, 2003 — The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced on November 26, 2003, that AIDS infections increased in 29 states in 2002 among Blacks, Latinos, and Homosexual and Bisexual men. The overall rate of increase was 5.1% over a four-year period between 1999-2002. Fifty-five percent of these infections are among Blacks; there was a 26% increase among Latinos; and a 17% increase among homosexuals and bisexuals. There was a 7% increase in AIDS infections among nonhomosexuals. These CDC statistics are published in the November 28 issue of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

Dr. John Diggs, Jr., has recently published statistics on the serious health consequences of engaging on homosexual sodomy. His report, “The Health Risks of Gay Sex,” was published by the Corporate Resource Council.

Dr. Diggs notes that homosexual sodomy is an efficient transmitter of a whole range of STD’s including AIDS. He also points out that human physiology makes it clear that anal intercourse itself is an unhealthy practice that damages the body and can lead to serious health consequences—including anal cancer. “Unhealthy sexual behaviors occur among both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Yet the medical and social science evidence indicate that homosexual behavior is uniformly unhealthy,” observes Diggs.

The sexual activities engaged in by homosexuals inevitably lead to a whole range of viral and bacterial infections that can result in sterility, cancer, and death.

Sex among homosexual males typically includes: oral and anal sex; rimming (mouth-to-anus contact); fisting (insertion of the hand and arm into the rectum); golden showers (urination); insertion of objects such as bottles, flashlights, and even gerbils into the rectum; sadomasochism (beatings with whips, chains, etc.); and other practices. These various behaviors cause trauma to the rectum, contribute to the spread of AIDS; increase incidences of oral and anal cancer; and result in serious infections due to the ingestion of fecal matter.

One of the largest surveys ever conducted of homosexual sex practices was published by two homosexual researchers in 1979. In The Gay Report by Jay and Young, 37% of homosexuals interviewed indicated they had engaged in sadomasochistic activities; 23% had been involved in “water sports,” (urinating on the sex partner); 4% had been involved in defecation; 11% had been involved in giving enemas to their sex partners.

Dr. Gisela L.P. Macphail, a physician at the University of Calgary in Canada, described the serious health risks of homosexual behavior in a letter to the Calgary Board of Education in September, 1996. She is an epidemiologist and regularly treats AIDS patients. According to Dr. Macphail, “Any practice which facilitates direct or indirect oral-rectal contact will enable the spread of fecal and rectal microorganisms to the sexual partner. Thus anilingus (rimming), a common practice among homosexual men, allows direct spread of pathogens such as Giardia, Entamoeba histolytica, and Hepatitis A and of the typical STD organisms such as herpes simplex and gonorrhea.” She warned the Calgary school district against promoting homosexual behavior among school children because of the serious health risks.

In August, 1984, just three years after AIDS was diagnosed as a public health threat to homosexuals, columnist Patrick Buchanan and researcher Dr. J. Gordon Muir published an in-depth look at the “Gay” lifestyle and the diseases associated with it in The American Spectator. Writing in “Gay Times and Gay Diseases,” the authors described a series of serious diseases comprising the “Gay Bowel Syndrome.”

Those viruses, parasites, and bacteria resulting from homosexual sexual practices include: Amebiasis, a parasitic colon disease which causes dysentery and liver abscesses; Giardiasis, a parasite that causes diarrhea; Shigellosis, another bowel disease causing dysentery, Hepatitis A, a viral liver disease spread by fecal contamination.
According to Buchanan and Muir, San Francisco saw a four-to-ten-fold increase in gay bowel diseases beginning in 1977. As long ago as 1988, San Francisco had a venereal disease infection rate 22 times the national average.

Anal Cancer — Dr. Stephen E. Goldstone, the medical director of GayHealth.com says he has found that 68% of HIV-positive and 45% of HIVnegative homosexual males have abnormal or precancerous anal cells. A 1987 study, “Sexual Practices, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and the Incidences of Anal Cancer” in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that “homosexual behavior in men increases the risk of anal cancer: 21 of the 57 men with anal cancer (37%) reported that they were homosexual or bisexual, in contrast to only 1 in 64 controls.”

HIV from Oral Sex — In August, 2001, researchers at the University of California released the results of a preliminary study of the risk of getting HIV from oral sex. They claimed that homosexuals are at a zero to 2% risk of getting HIV from oral sex. But a study released earlier in 2001 indicated that oral sex is implicated in at least 8% of HIV infections. This earlier study was published in February by the CDC and the University of California at San Francisco.

HIV from Anal Intercourse — In the U.S., anal intercourse continues to be the primary transmission route of HIV infection for homosexuals. The CDC says there are 40,000 new infections each year and the rate of infection is climbing because many younger homosexuals are engaging in risky behaviors. Many have become complacent about the epidemic because of new drugs that control the progression of the disease. As a result, homosexuals are staying alive longer and infecting more individuals. As of 1998, 54% of all HIV infections were homosexuals. An estimated 1 million Americans have been infected with HIV since it was first discovered in the early 1980s. Worldwide, 21 million people have died; 450,000 Americans have died so far from HIV-related diseases.

Sexually Transmitted Diseases — A 1999 study published in the American Journal of Public Health indicated that homosexuals are five times as likely to have Hepatitis B as their heterosexual counterparts. A 1999 study in Sexually Transmitted Diseases indicated that 25% of homosexuals have rectal Gonorrhea and Gonorrhea of the throat is prevalent because of oral sex practices. The book, The Ins and Outs of Gay Sex: A Medical Handbook for Men states that more than 50% of homosexual males have the Human Papilloma Virus. Homosexuals are acquiring Syphilis in record numbers. The CDC released two reports on Syphilis in February, 2001. One report said that Syphilis rates had declined by 22% in the U.S. since 1997. The second indicated that Syphilis rates among homosexuals in Southern California had risen from 26% to 51% in one year. The report also noted that in Southern California alone, 60% of Syphilis-infected homosexuals were also HIV positive.

Tuberculosis — Homosexuals are at high risk for spreading Tuberculosis. In June-August 1998, the Baltimore Health Department tracked the spread of TB by four black transgendered homosexual prostitutes. They had infected 22 others with TB through their sexual activities. TB infection was also spread from Baltimore to New York City.
Homosexual behavior is unsafe and should not be promoted as a healthful or harmless lifestyle!

Dr. Diggs notes, “A compassionate response to requests for social approval and recognition of GLB [gay, lesbian, bisexual] relationships is not to assure gays and lesbians that homosexual relationships are just like heterosexual ones, but to point out the health risks of gay sex and promiscuity. Approving same-sex relationships is detrimental to employers, employees, and society in general.”

Homosexual sex leads to serious venereal diseases, anal and oral cancer, and death from HIV infection. This behavior must be discouraged—not promoted as an alternative lifestyle. Sodomy kills.

FDA Policy on Blood Donations from Homosexual Men

FDA Policy on Blood Donations from Homosexual Men


Tuesday, July 02, 2013

The following is from the website of the Center for Disease Control (CDC). The page has since been updated, but they still hold to a policy of lifetime deferral for men who have sex with men (MSM). Their current policy can be viewed at http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm The graphics were taken from the CDC fact sheet on new HIV infections in the US. It can be viewed at http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/2012/HIV-Infections-2007-2010.pdf

What is FDA’s policy on blood donations from men who have sex with other men (MSM)?

Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors. This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.
The policy is not unique to the United States. Many European countries have recently reexamined both the science and ethics of the lifetime MSM deferral, and have retained it. This decision is also consistent with the prevailing interpretation of the European Union Directive 2004/33/EC article 2.1 on donor deferrals.

Why doesn’t FDA allow men who have had sex with men to donate blood?

A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. FDA’s policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products. The deferral for men who have had sex with men is based on the following considerations regarding risk of HIV:

  • Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors.
  • Men who have had sex with men account for the largest single group of blood donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing.
  • Blood donor testing using current advanced technologies has greatly reduced the risk of HIV transmission but cannot yet detect all infected donors or prevent all transmission by transfusions. While today’s highly sensitive tests fail to detect less than one in a million HIV infected donors, it is important to remember that in the US there are over 20 million transfusions of blood, red cell concentrates, plasma or platelets every year. Therefore, even a failure rate of 1 in a million can be significant if there is an increased risk of undetected HIV in the blood donor population.
  • Detection of HIV infection is particularly challenging when very low levels of virus are present in the blood for example during the so-called “window period”. The “window period” is the time between being infected with HIV and the ability of an HIV test to detect HIV in an infected person.
  • FDA’s MSM policy reduces the likelihood that a person would unknowingly donate blood during the “window period” of infection. This is important because the rate of new infections in MSM is higher than in the general population and current blood donors.
  • Collection of blood from persons with an increased risk of HIV infection also presents an added risk if blood were to be accidentally given to a patient in error either before testing is completed or following a positive test. Such medical errors occur very rarely, but given that there are over 20 million transfusions every year, in the USA, they can occur. That is one more reason why FDA and other regulatory authorities work to assure that there are multiple safeguards, not just testing.
  • Several scientific models show there would be a small but definite increased risk to people who receive blood transfusions if FDA’s MSM policy were changed and that preventable transfusion transmission of HIV could occur as a result.
  • No alternate set of donor eligibility criteria (even including practice of safe sex or a low number of lifetime partners) has yet been found to reliably identify MSM who are not at increased risk for HIV or certain other transfusion transmissible infections.
  • Today, the risk of getting HIV from a transfusion or a blood product has been nearly eliminated in the United States. Improved procedures, donor screening for risk of infection and laboratory testing for evidence of HIV infection have made the United States blood supply safer than ever. While appreciative and supportive of the desire of potential blood donors to contribute to the health of others, FDA’s first obligation is to assure the safety of the blood supply and protect the health of blood recipients.
  • Men who have sex with men also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in men who have sex with other men than in the general population. Additionally, men who have sex with men have an increased incidence and prevalence of Human Herpes Virus-8 (HHV-8). HHV-8 causes a cancer called Kaposi’s sarcoma in immunocompromised individuals.

What is self-deferral?

Self-deferral is a process in which individuals elect not to donate because they identify themselves as having characteristics that place them at potentially higher risk of carrying a transfusion transmissible disease. FDA uses self-deferral as part of a system to protect the blood supply. This system starts by informing donors about the risk of transmitting infectious diseases. Then, potential donors are asked questions about their health and certain behaviors and other factors (like travel and past transfusions) that increase their risk of infection. Screening questions help people, even those who feel well, to identify themselves as potentially at higher risk for transmitting infectious diseases. Screening questions allow individuals to self defer, rather than unknowingly donating blood that may be infected.

Is FDA’s policy of excluding MSM blood donors discriminatory?

FDA’s deferral policy is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, such as HIV, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor’s sexual orientation.

Male to male sex has been associated with an increased risk of HIV infection at least since 1977. Surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that men who have sex with men and would be likely to donate have a HIV prevalence that is at present over 15 fold higher than the general population, and over 2000 fold higher than current repeat blood donors (i.e., those who have been negatively screened and tested) in the USA. MSM continue to account for the largest number of people newly infected with HIV.
Men who have sex with men also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion.

What about men who have had a low number of partners, practice safe sex, or who are currently in monogamous relationships?
Having had a low number of partners is known to decrease the risk of HIV infection. However, to date, no donor eligibility questions have been shown to reliably identify a subset of MSM (e.g., based on monogamy or safe sexual practices) who do not still have a substantially increased rate of HIV infection compared to the general population or currently accepted blood donors. In the future, improved questionnaires may be helpful to better select safe donors, but this cannot be assumed without evidence.

Are there other donors who have increased risks of HIV or other infections who, as a result, are also excluded from donating blood?
Intravenous drug abusers are excluded from giving blood because they have prevalence rates of HIV, HBV, HCV and HTLV that are much higher than the general population. People who have received transplants of animal tissue or organs are excluded from giving blood because of the still largely unknown risks of transmitting unknown or emerging pathogens harbored by the animal donors. People who have recently traveled to or lived abroad in certain countries may be excluded because they are at risk for transmitting agents such as malaria or variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD). People who have engaged in sex in return for money or drugs are also excluded because they are at increased risk for transmitting HIV and other blood-borne infections.

Why are some people, such as heterosexuals with multiple partners, allowed to donate blood despite increased risk for transmitting HIV and hepatitis?
Current scientific data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that, as a group, men who have sex with other men are at a higher risk for transmitting infectious diseases or HIV than are individuals in other risk categories. While statistics indicate a rising infection rate among young heterosexual women, their overall rate of HIV infection remains much lower than in men who have sex with other men. For information on HIV-related statistics and trends, go to CDC’s HIV/AIDS Statistics and Surveillance web page.

Isn’t the HIV test accurate enough to identify all HIV positive blood donors?
HIV tests currently in use are highly accurate, but still cannot detect HIV 100% of the time. It is estimated that the HIV risk from a unit of blood has been reduced to about 1 per 2 million in the USA, almost exclusively from so called “window period” donations. The “window period” exists very early after infection, where even current HIV testing methods cannot detect all infections. During this time, a person is infected with HIV, but may not have made enough virus or developed enough antibodies to be detected by available tests. For this reason, a person could test negative, even when they are actually HIV positive and infectious. Therefore, blood donors are not only tested but are also asked questions about behaviors that increase their risk of HIV infection.

Collection of blood from persons with an increased risk of HIV infection also presents an added risk to transfusion recipients due to the possibility that blood may be accidentally given to a patient in error either before testing is completed or following a positive test. Such medical errors occur very rarely, but given that there are over 20 million transfusions every year, in the USA, they can occur. For these reasons, FDA uses a multi-layered approach to blood safety including pre-donation deferral of potential donors based on risk behaviors and then screening of the donated blood with sensitive tests for infectious agents such as HIV-1, HIV-2, HCV, HBV and HTLV-I/II.

How long has FDA had this MSM policy?
FDA’s policies on donor deferral for history of male sex with males date back to 1983, when the risk of AIDS from transfusion was first recognized. Our current policy has been in place since 1992.

FDA has modified its blood donor policy as new scientific data and more accurate tests for HIV and hepatitis became available. Today, the risk of getting HIV from a blood transfusion has been reduced to about one per two million units of blood transfused. The risk of hepatitis C is about the same as for HIV, while the risk of hepatitis B is somewhat higher.
Doesn’t the policy eliminate healthy donors at a time when more donors are needed because of blood shortages?
FDA realizes that this policy will defer many healthy donors. However, FDA’s MSM policy minimizes even the small risk of getting infectious diseases such as HIV or hepatitis through a blood transfusion.

Would FDA ever consider changing the policy?
FDA scientists continue to monitor the scientific literature and to consult with experts in CDC, NIH and other agencies. FDA will continue to publicly revisit the current deferral policy as new information becomes available.

On March 8, 2006, FDA conducted a workshop entitled “Behavior-based donor deferrals in the Nucleic Acid Test (NAT) era”. The workshop addressed scientific challenges, opportunities, and risk based donor deferral policies relevant to the protection of the blood supply from transfusion transmissible diseases, seeking input on this topic. Participants were given the opportunity to provide scientific data that could support revising FDA’s MSM deferral. The workshop provided a very active, open and broad-based scientific dialogue concerning current behavior-based deferrals and explored other options that may be considered and the data needed to evaluate them.

FDA’s primary responsibility is to enhance blood safety and protect blood recipients. Therefore FDA would change this policy only if supported by scientific data showing that a change in policy would not present a significant and preventable risk to blood recipients. Scientific evidence has not yet been provided to FDA that shows that blood donated by MSM or a subgroup of these potential donors, is as safe as blood from currently accepted donors.

FDA remains willing to consider new approaches to donor screening and testing, provided those approaches assure that blood recipients are not placed at an increased risk of HIV or other transfusion transmitted diseases.

 

References:

1. Germain, M., Remis, R.S., and Delage, G. The risks and benefits of accepting men who have had sex with men as blood donors. Transfusion 2003; 43:25-33.
2. Busch MP, Glynn SA, Stramer SL, Strong DM, Caglioti S, Wright DJ, Pappalardo B, Kleinman SH; NHLBI-REDS NAT Study Group. A new strategy for estimating risks of transfusion-transmitted viral infections based on rates of detection of recently infected donors. Transfusion 2005, 45:254-264
3. Presentation at FDA Blood Products Advisory Committee Meeting, September 2000.
4. Soldan, K. and Sinka, K. Evaluation of the de-selection of men who have had sex with men from blood donation in England. Vox Sanguinis 2003; 84:265-273.

The High Cost of Sodomy (Part 1)

The High Cost of Sodomy (Part 1)


Tuesday, March 26, 2013

This article was originally posted by Life and Liberty Ministries in 2005 and can be viewed at http://www.lifeandlibertyministries.com/archives/000201.php

by Family Research Institute

Late in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court added sodomy to its list of newly protected activities. Unlike heterosexual sex, which is necessary to produce children, sodomy entertains its participants, but contributes nothing in return. Instead, sodomy costs society a great deal, both monetarily and otherwise. In fact, sodomy may be the most costly of the Court’s recently created ‘rights.’

Of course, many of the costs associated with sodomy are ‘hidden’ or difficult to ‘price.’ How do we estimate the cost of having to re-organize society to accommodate changes in marriage and family law or practice, for instance? What about changes in public accommodations or discrimination law due to new ‘civil rights?’

While the societal changes beginning to unfold are rather extensive, other costs of sodomy are more easily calculated. Two of these include:

1) Costs in life, and
2) Costs in property

The Cost of ‘Free Speech’

Any change in social policy involves some expense. Nevertheless, some changes are much more costly than others. The most expansive definition of the ‘right to free speech’ may at times intrude on one’s life and cause annoyance. An expansive definition of ‘free speech’ may also lead to future social costs. But usually one can usually avoid the ‘speech’ in question, by turning the channel, not attending the parade, etc. Further, most of the future costs are theoretical — costs that may be debatable and for which the empirical evidence is mixed. Sodomy, on the other hand, is both highly intrusive — something one almost can’t avoid — and very expensive, in both lives and property. And these are facts, not theory.

Consider for instance the Supreme Court’s recent expansion of ‘free speech’ to guarantee the right to disseminate computer generated ‘children’ engaging in sex. Comparing the financial and human costs of this ‘right’ with the ‘right’ to sodomy is highly instructive.

Computer-generated images of children do not intrude on everyone’s life. No one has to watch these depictions — indeed, it probably takes some effort to even find them. Still, social costs may rise because of this new ‘freedom.’ Because such pictures are legal, more adults may get access to them and develop an interest in sex with children, or those currently interested in sex with children may be stimulated to act out their fantasies. If this kind of pornography causes or influences interest in adult-child sex, more children may be sexually molested because of these depictions.

We know that the social costs of child molestation are often large and fairly persistent — molested children are often troubled, some become mentally disturbed, and a few even take up the practice of molesting children themselves. So computer-generated depictions — if they lead to more child molestation — could be a valid social concern.

Uncertain Connections

Unfortunately, the theoretical connection between the computer-generated pictures and child molestation is arguable. Partially because the empirical data is too ‘mixed’ to say for certain what exposure to pornography does to individuals, the two federal commissions on pornography came down in different places. One said it had no effect, the other concluded it was bad for society. On balance, it is somewhat ‘up for grabs’ as to what effect computer-generated sexual images of children will have.

The same kind of arguments can be made about most sexual influences. Take for instance, the nation’s television programs. Certainly they are becoming more and more sexually explicit — definitely raunchy, perhaps even pornographic. And kids and teens watch a lot of TV. Yet the proportion of teenagers retaining their virginity appears to have increased a bit of late. Obviously then, the availability of raunchy TV (or even pornography) isn’t the only factor that drives sexual activity. Other forces are also at work (e.g., abstinence education, more single mothers, parental involvement, and so on). The availability of more pornography doesn’t necessarily lead to more sexual activity among youth. And the computer-generated pictures may not necessarily lead to more child molestation. Or, then again, they may.

On an even more fundamental level, whether or not we are galled or even horrified by the nature and purpose of these computer-generated sexual images, it is hard to think of a scenario in which someone dies or is harmed directly because of them (child molestation would be an indirect effect). After all, the children in these pictures are not real. They are also currently easy to avoid, nor is it certain that their existence will precipitate an increase in our taxes.

On the other hand, sodomy is ‘in our face,’ and more so all the time. It has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans. Additionally, it has cost our society hundreds of billions of dollars. And we as taxpayers are on the hook for almost all the costs. The high cost of sodomy is not theory — it is fact . Let us consider some estimates of the social price of sodomy — both in lives lost and money spent.

Sodomy Costs Money: The Impact of AIDS

We all know that AIDS is a very expensive disease and that it started with male homosexuals and spread from them to others (e.g., drug abusers, wives, prostitutes, blood recipients, etc.). Today, half (50.3%) of the people in the United States living with AIDS are males-who-have-sex-with-males [MSM]. And, after a bit of a lull in the 1990s, the proportion of HIV infections in MSM is once again rising. In 2002, for those whose risk category was identified, 56% of new HIV infections were among MSM.1 So AIDS started out as a gay disease, remains primarily a gay disease, and is increasingly a gay disease.

So how expensive is AIDS? One report from the Los Angeles Times in 1995 summarized various academic and governmental research, arriving at an estimate that AIDS would consume 0.9% to 1.1% of the nation’s annual Gross Domestic Product [GDP] by the year 2000.2

One percent of the GDP is HUGE. AIDS is, in fact, close to having had as great an overall impact as the Spanish flu of 1918-1919 in which 675,000 Americans died (0.6% of the population). The Spanish flu left devastation in its train. Unlike the Civil War — which didn’t cause a population decline — the overall population of the U.S. verged on it during the Spanish flu. In 1917, the U.S. population was 103,414,000; in 1918 it was 104,550,000, and in 1919 it was 105,063,000.

Unlike most flu, which kills the very young and the old, the Spanish flu tended to kill those aged 20 to 40 years of age, so its impact was probably on the order of 3% to 5% of GDP for the two years at its height. But it left and life resumed. HIV is ‘hanging around and around,’ steadily infecting more and more of the sexually loose and drawing down society’s resources.3

Disease and GDP

While cancer and heart conditions incapacitate and kill many more people per year, these diseases generally happen to old people. As a class, the old generally draw from, rather than contribute to GDP. But that is the way it is supposed to be. The old worked hard when they were younger, contributed more than they got to society, and then live a few years on society’s dime. The old are not a net drain on GDP. They paid in, they get some back.

On the other hand, a debilitating disease when one is young or middle-aged means consuming large amounts of society’s resources. He or she draws from the GDP during the time when they could be making their greatest contribution. Unlike the old, they haven’t paid off their keep, nor have they added more to the economic pie prior to retirement. Instead, they have contributed a little and now take a lot. This is how those who engage in sodomy seriously impact the GDP.

Right now, in the world’s wealthiest and most prosperous city, about 3% of all the men in New York City have HIV. In our prisons, the prevalence of HIV is about 17 times as high as outside the prison gates.4 These are not the elderly. Rather they are men in their prime, when they should be most productive.

The United States labor force — all those 16 years and over who work for money or profit, about 142 million workers — is the world’s most productive, generating over $10.2 trillion GDP in 2001 (all figures are from the 2002 Statistical Abstract of the United States). So, on average, each worker produced about $73,000 in value. Of this amount, workers were rewarded for their labor, with the average household bringing home about $42,000 in income, and much of the rest going to profit, regulation, taxes, capital replacement, research, etc. They were also rewarded with the benefit of highways, dams, and other infrastructure.

One percent of GDP in 2001 equaled about $102 billion. Since gays account for somewhat over half of those suffering from AIDS, at least half of this total or $51 billion was the cost of sodomy-that-led-to-AIDS. So the ‘gay sodomy tax’ for AIDS alone in 2001 was about $359 for every U.S. worker. In 2002, the sodomy tax was a little bit more.

At present, about 6,000 males-who-have-sex-with-males [MSM] a year die of AIDS and about 20,000 MSM per year are getting infected with HIV. Obviously, unless the costs of medical treatment and other AIDS-related expenses drop significantly, the prospects loom for AIDS to cost appreciably more GDP in the future.

Cost in Perspective

Putting this in perspective, President Bush has talked about landing men on Mars as soon as possible. If his vision were adopted, analysts estimate an expenditure of around $20 billion a year for many years would be required. The total projected cost of getting men to and from Mars would total about $750 billion.5 That is, a Mar’s landing would cost about as much as 15 years of the ‘gay AIDS tax.’

Looked at another way, the CDC has estimated that the medical costs of all accidents in the U.S. — auto, home, work — total about $117 billion per year.6 Quite a few people — 45 million people or 16% of the population — required treatment for injury in 2000. Indeed, injuries accounted for about 10% of all medical expenditures. Likewise, smoking — practiced by about a quarter of all adults — is estimated to consume at least 6.5% of medical costs. So AIDS is almost as expensive as all the medical costs associated with accidents. And each year, the ‘gay AIDS tax’ would pay for nearly all the costs associated with smoking, and about half of the costs associated with accidents.

Or consider education. The U.S. spends about half a trillion dollars per year on K-12 education. At over $50 billion, the male homosexual portion of AIDS expenditures is comparably about 10% of this figure.

So Where Does All the Money Go?

Health care : In 2000 there were about 31.7 million hospital discharges. Of these, 173,000 (0.55%) involved AIDS sufferers. But those suffering from AIDS stayed in the hospital longer — 7.3 days compared to the average stay of 4.9 days. This means that almost 1% of the nation’s hospital days were AIDS-related. MSM accounted for about half of this expense – or about 0.5% of all U.S. hospital days in 2000.

Medicaid is the largest U.S. payer for medical services to those with AIDS. Indeed, about 50% of AIDS patients’ treatments were paid for by Medicaid in 2000.7 The lifetime treatment costs per patient on protease inhibitors (the current drug regimen of choice) range from $71,000 to $425,000, depending upon when the patient dies. For those merely infected with HIV (but who haven’t progressed to AIDS), the protease inhibitor drugs cost $14,000 per patient per year, which then increases to about $35,000 per patient per year at the onset of various AIDS-associated complications.

Now, not all AIDS sufferers qualify for Medicaid, since they don’t meet the required definition of ‘disabled.’ However, “the majority of these individuals who are uninsured receive their care through the Ryan White CARE Act programs,” yet another layer of taxpayer-funded federal legislation.

Still another source of federal money is the AIDS Drug Assistance Programs [ADAP] which “buy 20% of the HIV drugs prescribed in the U.S., enough for 92,000 people. (The other 80% have insurance or are covered by federal programs).”8

The Washington Blade reported an even larger estimate of the number of drug regimens purchased, namely “more than 100,000.”9 The Blade pointed out that 3,010 (48%) of the 6,212 AIDS cases in Virginia were covered by ADAP. In addition, ADAP enjoys a charmed existence. In 7 years, it’s budget has jumped from $52 million to $714 million — a 1373% increase! Name another federal program with such a growth curve!!

The bottom line on all these federal programs is that AIDS is one of the very few diseases where the government assumes almost all the costs of treatment for those without private insurance. Accident victims don’t have all their bills covered. Nor do those with heart conditions, cancer, or diabetes. Yet ADAP is eating up ever more of the possible health-care pie that might be directed to other kinds of health sufferers.

Research : AIDS research is also expensive, and it has sucked funding from the research funds for other diseases. The National Institutes of Health has allocated $2.5 billion in research funds for AIDS (14,175 people died of AIDS in 2001), $790 million for diabetes (from which 71,372 died), $640 million for breast cancer (421,809 deaths), $595 million for Alzheimer’s (53,852 deaths), and $345 million for prostate cancer (30,719 deaths).10

Translated, these figures amount to about $178,000 per AIDS death, $16,000 per breast cancer death, and $11,000 per death for diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and prostate cancer. Privately funded research is similarly biased toward AIDS. We will never know, of course, how many sufferers from cancer or Parkinson’s would have been saved if research efforts hadn’t been diverted to AIDS.

Living Expenses : When a person is on disability, Social Security will pay his living expenses, such as food, rent, and entertainment. Many male homosexuals with AIDS are on disability Social Security, although exactly how many is not clear. Because of this, a price tag is difficult to estimate.

Despite the difficulty of accounting for all the costs, the total government dollars allocated to homosexuals with AIDS are nonetheless staggering. And these costs only represent a single disease. Those who engage in homosexuality are also much more apt to have other kinds of medical conditions.

Some of these diseases are gotten the same way HIV is — through sex. Gays are many times more apt to get anal or rectal cancer. Likewise for hepatitis B and C. These apparently are transmitted via rectal sex. Gays are also more apt to get esophageal or stomach cancer, and hepatitis A — apparently from oral sex. And lesbians are much more apt to get breast cancer and other cancers of the reproductive organs.

Ancient Killer

The ancient killer, syphilis, is intermixed with HIV. Syphilis is a significant cost of sodomy. In theory, because it can be cured, syphilis could potentially be eradicated, much like small pox. Yet syphilis is still hanging around, and ironically, a significant reason is the expensive anti-viral treatments that are used to keep homosexuals with AIDS alive!

After declining every year since 1990, the number of reported cases of syphilis increased slightly in 2001. In 2000, the rate of syphilis in the United States declined to 2.1 cases per 100,000 population, the lowest rate since reporting began in 1941. In 2001, the rate of syphilis increased slightly, to 2.2, when 6,103 cases were reported, a 2.1% increase in reported cases compared with 2000.11

MSM are driving much of this increase. If a homosexual with AIDS is given the best and most expensive anti-viral treatment, he often feels pretty healthy. So what does he do? He has more sex — what else? In 2003, the CDC estimated that 40% of all reported cases of syphilis in the U.S. involved MSM.12 To be sure, syphilis was disproportionately homosexual through the early 1990s. But since then it has acquired an even gayer color.

Since 1999, San Francisco has had the highest rates of primary and secondary syphilis of any metropolitan area in the United States.13 In 1998, San Francisco had 41 syphilis cases, by 2002 it had 495. The proportion of syphilis cases traceable to gays went from 22% in 1998 to 88% in 2002. And if only the 434 ‘recently acquired cases’ are considered, it turns out that 68% of these MSM were infected with HIV. Furthermore, the 415 syphilitic homosexuals who completed interviews reported 6,482 sex partners in the last 12 months (an average of 16 partners per person, with a median of 6).

Two case reports are illustrative: a 36 year-old man reported that for the past 12 months he had had 16 partners — 4 lived in San Francisco, 3 in Los Angeles, one in Minneapolis, and one in Phoenix. He wasn’t sure about the rest. A 43 year old man reported that for the past 3 months he had 13 partners — 3 lived in San Francisco, but he didn’t know where the rest lived. One of the men he infected reported 50 partners in the past 12 months, of which he had sex with a considerable proportion during travels to Chicago.

This increase in syphilis due to MSM is is a world-wide phenomenon. An Internet search on PubMed using ‘syphilis homosexual’ yields articles about the ‘increase in syphilis in gays’ in Europe, Canada, Australia, etc.

Cancer, Too

Syphilis, of course, is not the most costly disease. It can be cured and seldom leads to disability or death. But syphilis and a host of other ‘minor’ diseases add to our health care costs. In addition, not all the diseases are ‘minor.’ A recent census of cancer cases in Scotland discovered that HIV-infected MSM were 21 times more apt to get cancer than the general population.14

Cancer is an exceptionally costly disease, and it is often fatal. Furthermore, it is likely that HIV infection brings on or exacerbates many other diseases. No single disease may ‘break the bank.’ But when 2-4% of the male population is responsible for a disproportionate amount of the costs of disease after disease — it adds up.

Other medical conditions are associated with the rebellious and anti-social nature of the homosexual lifestyle. In the 1996 National Household Survey of Drug Abuse , 13% of non-homosexuals versus 31% of homosexuals claimed to use an illegal drug in the past 12 months. Thus, homosexuals are fairly certain to disproportionately suffer from the diseases and ailments — in addition to AIDS — that those who use illegal drugs are prone to get. They are also more apt to require drug treatment: 11% of homosexuals versus 4% of non-homosexuals reported having gotten substance abuse treatment.

And drug treatment is not only costly; it seldom ‘works.’ So a person who gets the treatment is generally a good bet to be back for more of it. In the same government survey, homosexuals were also almost twice as apt as non-homosexuals to smoke. And we know what smoking does to medical costs.

High-Cost Nightmare

All in all, sodomy is a high-cost medical nightmare. How high can be seen by comparing the health costs of homosexuals against the average person. The Wall Street Journal recently reported per capita spending on health care for the year 2000 by age group.15

Those aged:

13-18 averaged $1,066/year
19-29 averaged $1,054/year
30-39 averaged $1,643/year
40-49 averaged $2,180/year
50-59 averaged $3,753/year
60-64 averaged $3,753/year
65-80 averaged $5,260/year
81+ averaged $6,279/year.

By comparison, male homosexuals with AIDS average about $35,000 per year in medical costs. And if they take certain drugs, their costs are much higher. Take Serostim, a growth hormone prescribed to fight the wasting syndrome that can affect AIDS patients. A 12-week supply costs $21,000, but if your doctor puts you on for a year, it runs about $80,000.

The CDC has calculated that 800,000 to 900,000 people in the U.S. are infected with HIV, and that 385,000 of these have AIDS.16 Furthermore, somewhat over half of all those living with HIV or AIDS — amounting to over 400,000 of the infected and about 200,000 of those living with AIDS — are male homosexuals.17

Using an upper bound of 4% of all U.S. men, if there are as many as 3 million gays, then at least one of every 15 has AIDS and one of every 8 is infected with HIV, for a total of approximately 20% of the homosexual male sub-population.

Now, approximately 80% of MSM with AIDS or HIV are aged 25-49. A male homosexual with AIDS costs society about $35,000/year in medical costs, while one with HIV costs society about $14,000/year. This compares to the average toll in medical costs for men of the same age of about $1,700.

MSM with HIV/AIDS thus cost society about 10-20 times more in medical costs per year than non-homosexuals of the same age. To compute a rough estimate of the typical medical costs for the ‘average homosexual male,’ we could assume that those who have not been infected with HIV or AIDS have the same level of medical expense per year as non-homosexuals (undoubtedly a lower bound given the many other diseases associated with homosexual practice), and then add in the costs associated with HIV and AIDS. This gives an estimate of $5,560 per year per male homosexual compared to the average of $1,700 per year for non-homosexuals.

Thus, simply adding up the medical costs of one disease — AIDS — leads to the conclusion that the typical homosexual costs society somewhere between 3 and 4 times the amount of the typical non-homosexual. And the problem is likely to get worse. Another 20,000 or so MSM get infected with HIV each year (Clark C. CNN , 5/30/01). Since fewer than 6,000 homosexuals are dying of AIDS per year, the number for whom society will be paying medical costs is bound to grow.

Sodomy is indeed expensive.

References:

1 CDC, HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report , 2002
2 Oldham J, The economic cost of AIDS, 10/13/95
3 Regaldo, A, McKay B. Flu researchers partially re-create killer strain of 1918. Wall Street Journal 2/3/04, B1, B7
4 Wall Street Journal , 2/11/04, D2
5 Hill, G, Power, S, Pasztor. Bush team’s plan for space mission faces obstacles. Wall Street Journal , 1/12/04, B5
6 MMWR 1/16/04;53(01);1-4
7 Graydon, RT Medicaid and the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the United States, Health Care Financing Review , 2000; 22:117-122
8 V. Fuhrmann, Medical dilemma: costly new drug for AIDS means some go without, Wall Street Journal 1/13/04, A1
9 A. Brune. VA. AIDS drug funding intact despite federal cuts. Pp. 10,17, 1/30/04
10 Regalado A, U.S. Research into prion diseases is limited. Wall Street Journal 1/3/04, B1
11 MMWR 11/1/02
12 Washington Blade 12/26/03
13 MMWR Internet use and early syphilis infection among men who have sex with men — San Francisco, California, 1999-2003. 12/19/03
14 Allardice GM, Hole DJ, Brewster DH, Boyd J, Goldberg DJ. Incidence of malignant neoplasms among HIV-infected persons in Scotland . Br J Cancer . 2003 Aug 4;89(3):505-7
15 Wysocki, B, 12/29/03, A3
16 CDC HIV prevalence trends in selected populations in the United States: results from national serosurveillance, 1993-1997, August 2001
17 MLNews, Associated Press 8/10/03

Ten Things Gay Men Should Discuss with their Health Care Providers: Commentary

Ten Things Gay Men Should Discuss with their Health Care Providers: Commentary


Monday, March 25, 2013

by Vincent M. B. Silenzio, MD, MPH
Board of Directors, GLMA
Co-Editor, Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association
Private Practice & Assistant Professor, Columbia University, New York

The following list was originally released by the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association in 2002. It can be viewed at http://www.publichealth.pitt.edu/docs/10things_gay.pdf

1. HIV/AIDS, Safe Sex

That men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of HIV infection is well known, but the effectiveness of safe sex in reducing the rate of HIV infection is one of the gay community’s great success stories. However, the last few years have seen the return of many unsafe sex practices. While effective HIV treatments may be on the horizon, there is no substitute for preventing infection. Safe sex is proven to reduce the risk of receiving or transmitting HIV. All health care professionals should be aware of how to counsel and support maintenance of safe sex practices.

2. Substance Use

Gay men use substances at a higher rate than the general population, and not just in larger communities such as New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. These include a number of substances ranging from amyl nitrate (“poppers”), to marijuana, Ecstasy, and amphetamines. The long-term effects of many of these substances are unknown; however current wisdom suggests potentially serious consequences as we age.

3. Depression/Anxiety

Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate than in the general population. The likelihood of depression or anxiety may be greater, and the problem may be more severe for those men who remain in the closet or who do not have adequate social supports. Adolescents and young adults may be at particularly high risk of suicide because of these concerns. Culturally sensitive mental health services targeted specifically at gay men may be more effective in the prevention, early detection, and treatment of these conditions.

4. Hepatitis Immunization

Men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of sexually transmitted infection with the viruses that cause the serious condition of the liver known as hepatitis. These infections can be potentially fatal, and can lead to very serious long-term issues such as cirrhosis and liver cancer. Fortunately, immunizations are available to prevent two of the three most serious viruses. Universal immunization for Hepatitis A Virus and Hepatitis B Virus is recommended for all men who have sex with men. Safe sex is effective at reducing the risk of viral hepatitis, and is currently the only means of prevention for the very serious Hepatitis C Virus.

5. STDs

Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) occur in sexually active gay men at a high rate. This includes STD infections for which effective treatment is available (syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, pubic lice, and others), and for which no cure is available (HIV, Hepatitis A, B, or C virus, Human Papilloma Virus, etc.). There is absolutely no doubt that safe sex reduces the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, and prevention of these infections through safe sex is key.

6. Prostate, Testicular, and Colon Cancer

Gay men may be at risk for death by prostate, testicular, or colon cancer. Screening for these cancers occurs at different times across the life cycle, and access to screening services may be negatively impacted because of issues and challenges in receiving culturally sensitive care for gay men. All gay men should undergo these screenings routinely as recommended for the general population.

7. Alcohol

Although more recent studies have improved our understanding of alcohol use in the gay community, it is still thought that gay men have higher rates of alcohol dependence and abuse than straight men. One drink daily may not adversely affect health, however alcohol-related illnesses can occur with low levels of consumption. Culturally sensitive services targeted to gay men are important in successful prevention and treatment programs.

8. Tobacco

Recent studies seem to support the notion that gay men use tobacco at much higher rates than straight men, reaching nearly 50 percent in several studies. Tobacco-related health problems include lung disease and lung cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure, and a whole host of other serious problems. All gay men should be screened for and offered culturally sensitive prevention and cessation programs for tobacco use.

9. Fitness (Diet and Exercise)

Problems with body image are more common among gay men than their straight counterparts, and gay men are much more likely to experience an eating disorder such as bulimia or anorexia nervosa. While regular exercise is very good for cardiovascular health and in other areas, too much of a good thing can be harmful. The use of substances such as anabolic steroids and certain supplements can adversely affect health. At the opposite end of the spectrum, overweight and obesity are problems that also affect a large subset of the gay community. This can cause a number of health problems, including diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease.

10. Anal Papilloma

Of all the sexually transmitted infections gay men are at risk for, human papilloma virus —which cause anal and genital warts — is often thought to be little more than an unsightly inconvenience. However, these infections may play a role in the increased rates of anal cancers in gay men. Some health professionals now recommend routine screening with anal Pap Smears, similar to the test done for women to detect early cancers. Safe sex should be emphasized. Treatments for HPV do exist, but recurrences of the warts are very common, and the rate at which the infection can be spread between partners is very high.

Is AIDS a noble disease?

Is AIDS a noble disease?


Monday, March 25, 2013

Do the people who die of AIDS deserve the honor and respect given to, say, children who were victims of the Holocaust?  Greg says no way.
by Gregory Koukl

This article is a transcript of the Stand to Reason radio show with Greg Koukl, and was originally posted on str.org in 1995.  It can be viewed at http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5364

Some of you know what yesterday was. You saw it in the paper. You saw things on the news pertaining to it. It was AIDS Awareness Day. I have spoken in the past, quite a number of times, about what happens when a culture becomes thoroughly relativistic in its morality. When morality is just a matter of individual opinion and people are demonized for drawing moral conclusions about other people’s behavior, more and more people, in general, become less and less capable of thinking in a morally coherent way. I’ve talked about how things just seem to be topsy-turvy. Those things which we deem right and have considered so in the past are now not only considered morally benign, but are considered wrong in themselves. Such that it is a greater moral faux pas, in the minds of many people, to make a moral judgment on sexual behavior than the aberrant sexual behavior itself. This is a bit of ethical confusion that doesn’t only limit itself to the notion of right and wrong, but to a subspecies of that moral category, that which is honorable and dishonorable.

When I was in Israel earlier this year, I had an opportunity to visit Vad Y’Shem which is the memorial in Jerusalem to those who were fallen as a result of the Nazi holocaust in the Second World War. I have been to a number of these kinds of memorials. The others that I’ve been to are actually on sites of former concentration camps in Germany and Poland. Auschwitz is one example. Midonick, in Poland, is another one. In this particular presentation in Jerusalem, you walk through a hall that is lit very cleverly so that it seems like you are surrounded by candle flames. There’s glass and reflections and mirrors and things. It just seems like there are these flickering flames all around you. These are to represent the lives of children snuffed out by the Nazi holocaust. You hear in the background the slow and solemn reading of the names of children, one after another after another, who lost their lives to Nazi gas chambers. It is a very touching moment, actually.

Yesterday I heard something similar. It was a group of people that had gathered together at a church as a part of AIDS Awareness Day. The names of those who had died of AIDS were spoken in the same fashion as those children’s names were spoken in Vad Y’Shem. They were spoken slowly, graciously, with weight, with pathos, one after another. The point was to honor those who have died of AIDS.

I was troubled by this and I’ll tell you why. Why do we attach honor to dying of AIDS? They said, We’re reciting these names in honor of those who have died of AIDS. I said, Why do we attach honor, nobility to the notion of dying of AIDS? Think about it for a minute. What kind of people do we honor when they die? Well, we honor people at their death for the manner of life that they lived in our midst. An honorable life, for example. That’s why we honor them in death. Like when we eulogize a great person. We also honor people for what they were doing when they died. The noble activity that brought about their death. Those who die in war, for example. People who were fighting for a noble cause and were willing to spill their blood and spend their life for that cause. We remember them and we honor them for the manner in which they died. And the manner in which they died was connected to a noble activity.

We sometimes honor people for the noble way in which they faced death. Generally this happens only when the people had a noble life to go with their noble death. Like godly martyrs who go the stake and the flames with equanimity, with peace of mind. We look at them and we see their holiness and we see what they stand for, and we realize that they’re dying for something good and great and wonderful. They know they can face death with calmness, and even a smile on their face and oftentimes with a song on their lips. We honor people like that.

Sometimes we even honor people who met death as unfortunate victims of other human depravity, as when we honor children who were victims of the holocaust as they do in Vad Y’Shem in Israel.

But ladies and gentlemen, remember we are talking about honor here and the issue is our moral confusion. Not just about right and wrong, but about honor and dishonor. When do we give honor to people simply because of the disease that killed them, especially when, with regards to AIDS, in most cases they are diseased due to freely chosen conduct? At this point I need to say, as a disclaimer, that it is inconsequential for my analysis whether you think the conduct moral or immoral. The key here is that it was their choice. Their freely chosen conduct actually led to the disease. They were willing accomplices in the process. Do we honor people like that? Do we take a moment and recall them because their choice led to their untimely death?

The issue of AIDS relates somewhat to the issue of homosexuality, but not solely to the issue of homosexuality. I want to clarify and point out and underscore this so it is understood that, in this analysis, I’m not making any commitments to the morality or immorality of homosexuality. We are setting that aside. Regardless of how you feel about that issue, the question I raise is, whenever do we honor a person for a disease as we honored people in many places around the country yesterday for AIDS Awareness Day? We haven’t just remembered them. We haven’t just taught about the disease so people are more aware of it and can avoid it, which are all valid and good things. But I’m talking specifically about those occasions like the one I listened to in part yesterday when we honor, give honor to those who have died of AIDS.

To make my point a little more obvious, would it seem natural to set aside time to honor drug addicts specifically because they died of drug overdoses? Or would it make sense to eulogize the nobility of alcoholism simple because somebody died of cirrhosis of the liver? Oh, that is bizarre, Koukl. I agree that it’s bizarre. But how is that different from what we did yesterday in many cases? Why not a day of mourning for the unfortunate and honorable chain smokers who became the unwitting victims of lung cancer? Or, more to the point, shall we honor Al Capone because the poor guy was cut down by syphilis in his prison cell? That is a sexually transmitted disease. There’s something wrong with each one of those suggestions that I’m sure you bristled at. We would never honor those things. Then why do we honor those who die of AIDS? I don’t get it.

There is no honor in dying of AIDS, regardless of how you got it. It was not honorable that Rock Hudson died of AIDS. Or acclaimed journalist Randy Schiltz, or photographer Robert Mapplethorpe. Each was tremendously gifted and skilled. Each died as a result of his own vice, a self-inflicted wound as it were.

You know, Ernest Hemingway died like that. But his wasn’t the slow death of disease. He simply pulled the trigger and blew his brains out. We mourn the loss of this tremendous talent, a Randy Schiltz, a Robert Mapplethorpe, a Rock Hudson, and the seemingly endless line of names of people that had so much to offer the world and were so gifted and skilled by God, even if they didn’t acknowledge Him as the source of their gift or skill. All are gone now. All cut down in the prime of life because of AIDS. Do we give honor to that? Is that an honorable thing, or is that tragic? We mourn the loss of this tremendous talent. We mourn the loss of an Ernest Hemingway, too. But do we honor the man for the manner of his death? “We bow our heads as we read the names of our sainted fallen comrades who have blown their brains out. We honor you.” That’s silly.

When we honor a person in a situation like that, it shows that we are morally muddled, that we have lost our compass. We don’t know what honor is. There is no honor here for these people. Only shame and tragedy. Well, not everybody dies of AIDS because of homosexuality or illicit drug use. No, agreed. And what of them? What of the multitude of others? The gifted Arthur Ashes, the young Ryan Whites? Well, there’s no honor in these deaths either. There is no shame here like there ought to be in the others that I mentioned, but there is a sense of tragedy that is actually more intense.

The AIDS activists took a public health issue and they made it into a political issue, an issue of personal rights. And they have caused the rest of us to weep at the symptoms. To weep at the tragedy of death for the multitude of unfortunate people stricken with AIDS. It is tragic. But they cause us to weep at the symptoms and then applaud the disease. The behavior, whether it is homosexual or illicit drug use, that caused this parochial affliction, was limited to a small space for a time, to now become a national epidemic and concern. Again, we weep at the symptoms but we applaud the disease. I don’t mean the disease of AIDS. I mean the disease behind the disease of AIDS. You see, AIDS Awareness Day is not about AIDS. There are a host of other diseases that take more lives whose victims are due more honor. This is not about AIDS. This is about homosexuality. And I will not honor that, nor should you.