Science Being Politicized by the Left ~ AIDS/HIV

(Originally Posted July, 2016)

The number of cases of syphilis, a sexually transmitted disease treatable with antibiotics, nearly doubled, from 8,724 to 16,663 between 2005 and 2013, according to the CDC summary of state health department data.

The report from the CDC found that majority of these cases were documented among gay and bisexual men. In 2012, 84% cases of syphilis were reported among gay and bisexual men.

The CDC team says that the increase in syphilis among MSM is a major public health concern, particularly because syphilis and the behaviors associated with acquiring it increase the likelihood of acquiring and transmitting human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)…

(read more)

Via Gay Patriot:

Scientist Sacked for Linking Gay Sex to HIV Transmission (site defunct)

In the Central American country of Belize, there is a political debate going on whether to repeal the country’s laws against Anal Sodomy. (a.k.a Buttsecks, for those of you in Rio Linda.) In 2013, the Supreme Court of Belize solicited a report from Dr. Brendan Bain… a renowned AIDS researcher and director of the Regional Coordinating Unit of the Caribbean HIV/AIDS Regional Training (CHART), an organization he helped create as part of his pioneering work studying HIV transmission. Dr. Bain, unfortunately, provided a scientifically accurate but politically incorrect report.

This report shows that the relative risk of contracting HIV is significantly higher among men who have sex with other men (MSM) in Belize than in the general population. This is also true in several other countries for which data are available, including countries that have repealed the law that criminalizes anal sex and countries where the law still applies.

Because of this report, some 35 “advocacy groups” banded together and demanded that Dr. Bain be sacked from CHART, because his report hurt the delicate feelers of gays and lesbians.

…read more…

I have come to the conclusion that love and concern for the well-being of the same-sex partner resides mostly with couples SS couples who are conservative. Why? Because they ask what is better for societies continued cohesion, and what is better for my partner. The Left destroys most things it touches, yes, even truth bows to their feelings:

This is from: VICTORY GIRLS

STD Rates Increasing; Leftists Blame “Homophobia”

Gonorrhea and syphilis are on the rise in the U.S., mostly in men who have sex with men, a trend the government said is linked to inadequate testing among people stymied by homophobia and limited access to health care.

What does Homophobia have to do with being sexually irresponsible and spreading diseases? Nothing, really, but it does excuse the Democrat left constituency from personal responsibility for bad behavior while villainizing people who don’t support the social left agenda.”

And since the social left has been using every tool in its arsenal… entertainment media, news media, public school indoctrination, and heavy-handed Government to normalize and celebrate homosexuality for the last twenty years or more; isn’t it admitting failure to claim that homophobia exists?

And here is an excerpt from my cumalative case against making marriage between same-sex couples the same-as hetero marriages:


GENERAL HEALTH — To explain why I end a couple of points with “THIS is the loving thing to do,” is because I was challenged with Scripture to “love my neighbor.” The person was equating acceptance of same-sex marriage with love. So I responded with the really loving thing to do.

If one of my boys came up to me and mentioned they were gay, my first concern would be their physical health. The death rate and the passing of bacteria directly into the blood stream in the gay relationship is very high. The CDC, to use one example, says that In 2008, “men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 63% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the United States.” The gay population of men is about 1.6% of the U.S. population. “… [N]ature designed the human rectum for a single purpose: expelling waste from the body. It is built of a thin layer of columnar cells, different in structure than the plate cells that line the female reproductive tract. Because the wall of the rectum is so thin, it is easily ruptured during intercourse, allowing semen, blood, feces, and saliva to directly enter the bloodstream. The chances for infection increases further when multiple partners are involved, as is frequently the case: Surveys indicate that American male homosexuals average between 10 and 110 sex partners per year (L. Corey and K. K. Holmes, ‘Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men,’ New England Journal of Medicine; and, Paul Cameron et al., ‘Sexual Orientation and Sexually Transmitted Disease,’ Nebraska Medical Journal). Not surprisingly, these diseases shorten life expectancy” (http://tinyurl.com/8jr3tt2). (Other diseases of course include HIV, and also: gonorrhea, herpes, hepatitis A and B, a variety of intestinal parasites including amebiases and giardiasis, and even typhoid fever at much higher rates.)

Damning Graphs

The chasm between the obvious and extreme health risks associated with “gay” male sex and the CDC’s politically correct, pro-homosexuality mindset reflects public policy malpractice on an Orwellian scale. “Gay” activist ideology and assumptions — including intrinsic (many would claim innate) “gay”/bi/transgender identities — go unquestioned at the CDC. Ironically, the most direct answer to the HIV-youth crisis — teaching young people NOT to practice unhealthy homosexual sex — is the one thing that is essentially forbidden. (CCV)

An in-depth study by a large insurance company which provides quotes from more than 200 insurers to people across the US, pointed out that gay men have a life expectancy 20 years shorter than heterosexual men (http://tinyurl.com/bnuspjv). An ALL POINTS BULLETIN going out to the Left: the gay lifestyle takes more years off of one’s life than smoking. Where are all the campaigns trying to save lives? Do you not care about gay men and women?

Here is a graph from the CDC tracking Syphilis from 2007-2011, something NARTH says that the newest 2012 report “finds that STDs continue to threaten the health and well-being of millions of Americans, particularly gay and bisexual men and young people.”

Source: CDC

 Click to enlarge

“Trend data available for the first time this year [speaking about the updated 2012 CDC report] show that primary and secondary syphilis cases – the most infectious stages of the disease — are increasing among gay and other men who have sex with men, who now account for more than 70 percent of all infections. If not adequately treated, syphilis can lead to paralysis, dementia and death. Syphilis infection can also place a person at increased risk for HIV infection. Given the high prevalence of HIV in the gay community, increasing syphilis infections among gay and bisexual men are particularly troubling.” (CDC)

Some more stats and studies:

1) Gay and bisexual men are at significant risk for developing anal cancer, and testing them for the disease would save many lives, says a new study in the American Journal of Medicine.Anal cancer in gay men is as common as cervical cancer was in women before the use of the Pap smear…. (WebMD)

2)An in-depth study by a large insurance company which provides quotes from more than 200 insurers to people across the US, pointed out that gay men have a life expectancy 20 years shorter than heterosexual men (life insurance). An ALL POINTS BULLETIN going out to the Left: the gay lifestyle takes more years off of one’s life than smoking. Where are all the campaigns trying to save lives? Do you not care about gay men and women?

3)primary and secondary syphilis cases – the most infectious stages of the disease — are increasing among gay and other men who have sex with men, who now account for more than 70 percent of all infections. (CDC) [That is less than 1.7% of the population that accounts for this LARGE percentage]

4) The nation’s HIV rate has fallen by a third in the last decade, the federal researchers said in a new report released Saturday. While many population groups shared in this welcome decline in new HIV cases, one group — young gay or bisexual men — saw a 133 percent increase over the time period….. Around 62 percent of HIV cases in the United States are due to MSM [men who have sex with men] sexual contact, the report’s data showed. (Washington Times)

5) Table 2 compares the life expectancy and loss in expectation of life attributable to HIV/AIDS at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men versus all men. Life expectancy at age 20 for gay and bisexual men ranged from 34.0 to 46.3 years for the three scenarios. The lowest figure was for the 3% scenario and highest when 9% of the total male population was assumed to be gay and bisexual. Figures for all three scenarios of gay and bisexual men were considerably lower than the life expectancy for all men of 54.3 years. The loss in life expectancy due to HIV/AIDS for gay and bisexual men ranged from 21.3 years to 9.0 years for the 3% and 9% scenarios respectively. (Oxford Journal)

  • Take note the number changes per the percentage of gay/bi-sexual men and women. The high percentage of gay is 2.8% ~ the low is 1.4% ~ but is most likely 1.7% — that is total gay men and women as well as bi-sexual. Gay men make up a small percentage of this total and the majority of HIV/AIDS, SyphilisHepatitis, anal cancer, and the like ~ which would even increase the mortality rat shown in the study.

All of the above [and much more not cited] lends to the following being confirmed:

WASHINGTON, DC, June 6, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new study which analyzed tens of thousands of gay obituaries and compared them with AIDS deaths data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), has shown that the life expectancy for homosexuals is about twenty years shorter than that of the general public. The study, entitled “Gay obituaries closely track officially reported deaths from AIDS”, has been published in Psychological Reports (2005;96:693-697).

In an interview with lifesitenews.com, Dr. Paul Cameron, the President of the Family Research Institute and the scientist who headed the study, indicated that he was not at all surprised by the findings. Rather he said that it only served as further confirmation for what had long been known and other studies have already shown.

One such study was conducted in Vancouver British Columbia and published in 1997 in the International Journal of Epidemiology (Vol. 26, 657-61). It almost exactly mirrors the findings of Cameron’s research.

The Vancouver study was conducted by a team of pro-gay researchers, who, upon finding that pro-family advocates were using the results of their research as confirmation for their beliefs about the risks of the homosexual lifestyle, issued a statement trying to curb this unintended after-effect. “The aim of our work,” said the research team, “was to assist health planners with the means of estimating the impact of HIV infection on groups, like gay and bisexual men, not necessarily captured by vital statistics data and not to hinder the rights of these groups worldwide.  Overall, we do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.”…. (LifeSite News)


UPDATE!


MOONBATTERY notes the following:

In a Center for Disease Control fact sheet that was put out in November 2015 with studies from 2014, which outlined the national data for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) in America, it was “particularly gay and bisexual men” who are at greatest risk for syphilis as rates of syphilis are increasing at an alarming rate. …

According to the fact sheet, “Trend data show rates of syphilis are increasing at an alarming rate (15.1 percent in 2014). While rates have increased among both men and women, men account for more than 90 percent of all primary and secondary syphilis cases. Men who have sex with men (MSM) account for 83 percent of male cases where the sex of the sex partner is known. Primary and secondary syphilis are the most infectious stages of the disease, and if not adequately treated, can lead to long-term infection which can cause visual impairment and stroke. Syphilis infection can also place a person at increased risk for acquiring or transmitting HIV infection. Available surveillance data indicate that an average of half of MSM who have syphilis are also infected with HIV.”

  • When the leftist social engineers in charge of most everything promote homosexuality, they are not just promoting decadence and degeneracy; they are promoting disease.

So if a homosexual male truly loved his partner, he would abstain from any sodomy type acts (this included hetero as well). If someone has a true friend who happens to be gay, they will in moments of friendship, counsel them to do the same — that is, curb gay sexual acts. In other words, society allows people to smoke, but it doesn’t encourage the action. I grew up in an era where “Marlborough” was on Formula One cars, TV shows had smoking, etc No more, and the truth about the consequences of smoking is passed on to young people. The homosexual lifestyle is not a healthy choice, and it isn’t an alternative lifestyle. And it shouldn’t be held up to young minds as being equal — talking health wise — to the hetero lifestyle. While showing my son love, I would challenge him to curb his desires, as society should as well.

THIS is the LOVING thing to do.


From a previous post


Since marriage is no longer about creating a stable environment for children, and has become (and this mainly the fault of heterosexual liberals [e.g., liberalism]) about personal fulfillment, validation, and access to social benefits, there literally is no constraint on how much more broadly it can be redefined. — GAY PATRIOT

Gay Patriot bravely steps out on this subject and accepts the challenge… as any rational thinking conservatarian would:

The New York Times has noticed that bareback sex is a thing gay people are doing, which is breaking news from about the mid-1990′s when (according to Wikipedia) gay publications like The Advocate first took note of the phenomenon of gay men having unprotected sex and, in some cases, deliberately seeking HIV infection.

Anyway, the Times, perhaps after failing to find a celebrity to comment on the issue, goes to the next best source for information on epidemiology and behavioral psychology… an English professor from SUNY-Buffalo. Who provides this analysis:

What I learned in my research is that gay men are pursuing bareback sex not just for the thrill of it, but also as a way to experience intimacy, vulnerability and connection. Emotional connection may be symbolized in the idea that something tangible is being exchanged. A desire for connection outweighs adherence to the rules of disease prevention.

And some guys are apparently getting intimate, tangible, emotional connections 10-20 times a night in bathhouses.

It also seems that the readers of the NY Times, based on the comments, are in complete denial that this phenomenon exists, and think the author is just making it up to attack the gay community. Liberals choose to blame the recent dramatic increases in HIV infection rates on “the stigma attached to HIV.” Um, excuse me, but don’t stigmas usually make people avoid those things to which stigmas are attached?

In the real world, stigmatizing a behavior results in less of it: Which is why people don’t use the N-word in public any more and smoking has declined as a social activity. When the social stigma is removed … as with HIV infection and teenage pregnancy … you get more of those things.

…READ MORE…

Bravo. I just wish to mention that this area of the body is not made for sex. And many will read the following and think that this is an attack on the humanity of the gay lifestyle/choice. It is not, it is a cry for gay men to become monogamous and cease having relations with the people they purport to love in that area. It is out of compassion, not hatred the following is pointed out:

Homosexuals also continue to contract and spread other diseases at rates significantly higher that the community at large. These include syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, hepatitis A and B, a variety of intestinal parasites including amebiases and giardiasis, and even typhoid fever (David G. Ostrow, Terry Alan Sandholzer, and Yehudi M. Felman, eds., Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Homosexual Men; see also, Sevgi O. Aral and King K. Holmes, “Sexually Transmitted Diseases in the AIDS Era,” Scientific American). This is because rectal intercourse or sodomy, typically practiced by homosexuals, is one of the most efficient methods of transmitting disease. Why? Because nature designed the human rectum for a single purpose: expelling waste from the body. It is built of a thin layer of columnar cells, different in structure than the plate cells that line the female reproductive tract. Because the wall of the rectum is so thin, it is easily ruptured during intercourse, allowing semen, blood, feces, and saliva to directly enter the bloodstream. The chances for infection increases further when multiple partners are involved, as is frequently the case: Surveys indicate that American male homosexuals average between 10 and 110 sex partners per year (L. Corey and K. K. Holmes, “Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men,” New England Journal of Medicine; and, Paul Cameron et al., “Sexual Orientation and Sexually Transmitted Disease,” Nebraska Medical Journal).

Not surprisingly, these diseases shorten life expectancy. Social psychologist Paul Cameron compared over 6,200 obituaries from homosexual magazines and tabloids to a comparable number of obituaries from major American Newspapers. He found that while the median age of death of married American males was 75, for sexually active homosexual American males it is 42. For homosexual males infected with the AIDS virus, it was 39. While 80 percent of married American men lived to 65 or older, less than two percent of the homosexual men covered in the survey lived as long

…read more…

…these problems don’t remain personal and private. The drive, especially since this issue is associated with the word “gay rights,” is to make sure your worldview reflects theirs. To counter this effort, we must demand that the medical and psychiatric community take off their PC blinders and treat these people responsibly.  If we don’t, the next thing you know, your child will be taking a “tolerance” class explaining how “transexuality” is just another “lifestyle choice”…. After all, it is the only way malignant narcissists will ever feel normal, healthy, and acceptable: by remaking society – children – in their image

Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values (Roseville: Prima, 2003), 92, 206.

In the black community, for example, one of the major factors in the degradation of that sub-culture is fatherlessness. In order to stop the devolving of young men into criminals, the black community would have to step up to the plate and accept responsibility for their own actions and change behavior… not blaming outside forces. Similarly, the gay community will have to battle their demons as well to help their subculture. See my Cumulative Case for some ideas of what these demons are.

Many years ago, Tammy Bruce reemphasized this dangerous, self-destructive notion and action:

….What a difference treatment makes! As researchers succeeded in developing ever more effective drugs, AIDS became—like gonorrhea, syphilis, and hepatitis B before it—what many if consider to be a simple “chronic disease.” And many of the gay men who had heeded the initial warning went right back to having promiscuous unprotected sex here is now even a movement—the “bareback” movement—that encourages sex  without condoms. The infamous bathhouses are opening up again; drug use, sex parties, and hundreds of sex partners a year are all once again a feature of the “gay lifestyle.” In fact, “sexual liberation” has simply become a code phrase for the abandonment of personal responsibility, respect, and integrity.

In his column for Salon.com, David Horowitz discussed gay radicals like the writer Edmund White. During the 1960s and beyond, White addressed audiences in the New York gay community on the subject of sexual liberation. He told one such audience that “gay men should wear their sexually transmitted diseases like red badges of courage in a war against a  sex-negative society.” And did they ever. Then, getting gonorrhea was the so-called courageous act. Today, the stakes are much higher. That red badge is now one of AIDS suffering and death, and not just for gay men themselves. In their effort to transform society, the perpetrators are taking women and children and straight men with them.

Even Camille Paglia, a woman whom I do not often praise, astutely commented some years ago, “Everyone who preached  free love in the Sixties is responsible for AIDS. This idea that it was somehow an accident, a microbe that sort of fell from  heaven—absurd. We must face what we did.”

The moral vacuum did rear its ugly head during the 1960s with the blurring of the lines of right and wrong (remember “situational ethics”?),  the sexual revolution, and the consequent emergence of the feminist and gay civil-rights movements. It’s not the original ideas of these movements, mind you, that caused and have perpetuated the problems we’re discussing. It was and remains the few in power who project their destructive sense of themselves onto the innocent landscape, all  the while influencing and conditioning others. Today, not only is the blight not being faced, but in our Looking-Glass world, AIDS is romanticized and sought after….

Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values (Roseville: Prima, 2003), 96-97.

And take note I talk about the nihilistic culture in the gay community [infected by liberalism] in a more philosophical and religious sense than most places, from my chapter in my book:


…Foucault looked at truth as an object to be constructed by those whom wielded the power to define facts.  “Madness, abnormal sex, and criminality were not objective categories but rather social constructs.”[73] He embraced what mainstream society had rejected, which was sadomasochism and drug use. In 1984 Foucault died from contracting AIDS.  One should take note that Foucault so enjoyed his hope of dying “of an overdose of pleasure” that he frequented gay bathhouses and sex clubs even after knowing of his communicable disease.  Many people were infected because of Foucault and Foucault’s post-modern views.[74]  On a lighter note, Dinesh D’Souza tells of a contest about the time Foucault was dying.  The story is fitting for those who view hell as a real option:

People were debating whether AIDS victims should be quarantined as syphilis victims had been in the past.  [William F.] Buckley said no. The solution was to have a small tattoo on their rear ends to warn potential partners.  Buckley’s suggestion caused a bit of a public stir, but the folks at National Review were animated by a different question: What should the tattoo say?  A contest was held, and when the entries were reviewed, the winner by unanimous consent was Hart.[75]  He [Hart] suggested the lines emblazoned on the gates to Dante’s Inferno: “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.”[76]

You see, in order to have one’s alternative lifestyle accepted, one must attack “what truth is” in its absolute (Judeo-Christian) sense.  Truth is whatever the powerful decided it was, or so Foucault proposed.  This is the attack.  “We are subjected to the production of truth through power and we cannot exercise power except through the production of truth.”[77]  Foucault, sadly, never repented from violating God’s natural order and truth.  He was a living example in his death of what Paul said was naturally to follow in their rejection of God’s gracious revelation of Himself to humanity,[78] Romans 1:26-32 reads:

Worse followed. Refusing to know God, they soon didn’t know how to be human either—women didn’t know how to be women, men didn’t know how to be men. Sexually confused, they abused and defiled one another, women with women, men with men—all lust, no love. And then they paid for it, oh, how they paid for it—emptied of God and love, godless and loveless wretches.… And it’s not as if they don’t know better. They know perfectly well they’re spitting in God’s face. And they don’t care—worse, they hand out prizes to those who do the worst things best! [79]

Foucault said that “sex was worth dying for,”[80] but is it?…


NOTES:

[73] Ibid.
[74] Ibid.
[75] Jeffrey Hart, a professor many years ago at Dartmouth Univ.
[76] Dinesh D’ Souza, Letters to a Young Conservative: The Art of Mentoring (New York: Basic Books, 2002), 20.
[77] Flynn, 235-237.
[78] Walter A Elwell, Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), Romans 1:21
[79] Eugene H Peterson, The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2002), Romans 1:26-27, 30-32.
[80] Ibid., 235.


Keep in mind that monogamous gay-male relationships ARE A MYTH for the most part.

Gay Myths from the 70’s and 80’s (Persecution, AIDS, Reagan)

A bit of a FLASHBACK for the uninitiated:

(Just a thought from myself. Many government agencies attempted to restrict blood donations to the vaccinated only

I cannot tell you how many times in conversations, roaming the internet, or the like I see myths about Ronald Reagan or “gay persecution” in shutting down “clubs” and “bars”. Issues surrounding Harvey Milk as some kind of hero in the face of all this, etc ad infinitum. However: History Is A Bitch to the Left!

But before getting to the quote I am finally cataloging as well as the two large excepts in their entirety — one being an article written in 2014 and the other is an entire chapter from David Horowitz’s book Dark Agenda — I wish to first refute the angelic realm set up around Harvey Milk. Again. Here is a conservative gay commentary on the totalitarian (total thought) nature of the Left in promoting a false veneer of historical accuracies (take note Gay Patriot as a blog is sadly defunct):

Here is a portion of a short commentary by Gay Patriot:

Does anyone expect the activist left to be satisfied with their political victory?  If you’ve studied the history of the Civil Rights movement, you know they didn’t stop after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. There are plenty of new frontiers for the Lesbian Gay Bullying Totalitarians to pursue and keep the donations to the Sharptons and Jacksons of the HRC and other professional activist organizations rolling in.

  • Banning disagreement or criticisms of gay behavior through “anti-bullying” and “hate speech” legislation;
  • Mandating school curricula to include “gay history” as well as museums and monuments to be demanded to gay heroes like Harry Hay, Larry Bruckner, and Harvey Milk;
  • Forcing religious institutions to recognize gay marriages;
  • Churches must be forced to perform gay marriages or lose tax exempt status. (Mosques, probably not)

No, this is not the end. This is nowhere near the end. This is just another milestone on the road to our social Pyongyang. The Supreme Court has rejected the rule of law twice in two days in favor of a Judiciary Politburo

(RPT’s Early Thoughts on the Same-Sex Marriage Ruling)

Here is another note regarding Harvey Milk from another post of mine:

Okay… here is the small portion I always pull up in my head when I come across challenges in print or conversation, finally placed here on my site for my extended memory/reference:


“PERSECUTION” (Bath Houses and Blood Donations)


IN THE EARLY MORNING hours of June 28, 1969, New York City police raided the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar on Christopher Street in Greenwich Village. Police raids were a common occurrence at the Stonewall Inn, and the bar patrons usually cooperated with police. This night was different.

The patrons threw coins and bottles at police and refused to disperse. The commotion spilled out onto Christopher Street and attracted a crowd of onlookers. As arrests were made, a crowd of more than 400 people heckled and jeered the police. In minutes, the protest escalated into a violent clash in the street. Some protesters taunted the police with shouts of “Gay power!” That night, police arrested thirteen people, and dozens more were hospitalized.

The next night, a crowd again gathered in front of the Stonewall Inn. When police arrived, people shouted and chanted in protest. The gatherings clogged Christopher Street for six nights in a row. One of those nights again turned violent, causing numerous injuries. These events became known as the Stonewall Riots, and the site of the Stonewall Inn is considered the birthplace of the LGBT rights movement. “From the ashes of the Stonewall Riots,” boasted Mark Segal, one of the participants, “we created the Gay Liberation Front.”1

The Gay Liberation Front (GLF) took its name from the Vietnamese National Liberation Front, the official name of the Vietnamese Communist Viet Cong. This new movement would soon become as fierce an antagonist to the religious right (and vice versa) as the radical feminists. Eager to expand the gay rights community and increase its power, the Gay Liberation Front issued a manifesto of the movement’s goals: “We are a revolutionary homosexual group of men and women formed with the realization that complete liberation of all people cannot come about unless existing social institutions are abolished.”2 It was another grandiose leftist plan to reshape society and remake the world.

Sex with Strangers as a Revolutionary Act

The radicals defined gay liberation not as the inclusion of gay Americans into the existing social contract, but as the destruction of that contract. As the central symbol of their revolt, gay radicals practiced a defiant promiscuity. It was an in-your-face challenge to what they regarded as a repressive “sex-negative” culture. Gay radicals believed that monogamous marriage and the nuclear family were tyrannical structures imposed on them by their heterosexual “oppressors.” Their name for this oppression was “heteronormativity,” and they set out to overthrow it.

In the view of gay radicals, existing sexual prohibitions reflected no lessons drawn from humanity’s biological realities and moral experience; they were merely “social constructions” imposed by an oppressive culture. Consequently, gay liberators did not seek civic tolerance, respect, and integration into the public order of “bourgeois” life. On the contrary, they were determined to do away with traditional middle-class standards of morality, sexual restraint, and even public hygiene.

The effect of this radical agenda was immediate and devastating. At the height of the sixties, during the flowering of the sexual revolution, doctors saw the incidence of amebiasis, a parasitic sexually transmitted disease, increase fifty times in San Francisco, a center of gay life. The reason for this outbreak was promiscuous sex among gays.3 During the next decade, a tolerant American society retreated, while the sexual revolutionaries advanced. By the end of the seventies, two-thirds of gay men had already contracted hepatitis B.4 Yet criticism of gay sexual practices on any grounds whatsoever—including public health concerns—was immediately condemned as “homophobic,” a form of “racist” prejudice against gays.

Accommodating public officials licensed sexual gymnasiums called “bathhouses” and turned a blind eye toward public sex activity, including hookups between strangers in bookstore backrooms, bars, and “glory hole” establishments. A $100 million public sex industry flourished by decade’s end. Gay activists described the sex establishments as gay “liberated zones.”

One intellectual theorist of the movement, NYU professor Michael Warner, explained: “The phenomenology of a sex club encounter is an experience of world making. It’s an experience of being connected not just to this person but to potentially limitless numbers of people, and that is why it’s important that it be with a stranger”5 [emphasis added]. Warner was the leader of an organization called “Sex Panic!,” a name implying that anyone who thought that public sex with hundreds or thousands of strangers might be dangerous was merely having a panic attack caused by “sex-negative” prudery.

[….]

The only institution in a position to arrest the AIDS contagion at that time was the public health system. But public health officials were already under attack by gay radicals as instruments of the “sex-negative” society. Health officials were well aware that the gay bathhouses were a breeding ground for the various infections that ravaged the gay community. But fear of attacks from gay activists caused officials to take a hands-off policy toward the bathhouses.

Thus, an outbreak of herpes in the early seventies was a sufficient cause for public health officials to close heterosexual sex clubs like Plato’s Retreat. But gay sex clubs, which were spreading far more dangerous diseases, were left open. The reason was the revolution. Gay bathhouses were “symbols of gay liberation from a sex-negative society,” as one prominent activist put it.14 When health officials suggested that gay people could protect themselves by practicing “safer sex,” the gay left responded with hostility, calling the officials “homophobes,” “bigots,” and “Nazis.”

The radical harassment campaigns succeeded, and the bathhouses remained open. The enforcement of traditional public health practices had been rendered politically impossible. Consequently, the epidemic continued to spread, and young gay men continued to die.

[….]

When public health officials tried to institute screening procedures for the nation’s blood banks, and when they asked the gay community not to donate blood during the epidemic crisis, gay leaders denounced the proposals. They claimed that such proposals stigmatized homosexuals and infringed on their “right” to give blood.

The San Francisco Coordinating Committee of Gay and Lesbian Services, chaired by city official Pat Norman, issued a policy paper asserting that donor screening was “reminiscent of miscegenation blood laws that divided black blood from white” and “similar in concept to the World War II rounding up of Japanese-Americans in the western half of the country to minimize the possibility of espionage.”20 The fact that tainted blood donations gave surgical patients and other blood recipients a deadly incurable disease was not a consideration.

During my interview with Don Francis, I asked him when the primary public health methods of testing and contact tracing would be resumed. He said, “When enough people are dead.” It never happened. Apparently, the death toll was never high enough. In 1983, when our AIDS story was published, there were only 3,000 AIDS cases nationally, but they were doubling every six months.21

David Horowitz, Dark Agenda: The War to Destroy Christian America (West Palm Beach, FL: Humanix Books, 2018), 80-82, 85, 87-88. (JUMP TO FOOTNOTES)


“Ronald Reagan” (Calling Audibles and Budgets)


Ronald Reagan and AIDS: Correcting the Record (REAL CLEAR POLITICS | O.C. REGISTER)

I’ve never met Larry Kramer, but he and I have something in common: In the 1980s, we found Gary Bauer maddeningly obtuse on the question of whether Ronald Reagan should speak to Americans about the AIDS epidemic.

I was a reporter in the San Jose Mercury News Washington bureau covering the federal response to the epidemic. Bauer was a Reagan administration official aligned with other social conservatives resistant to having the president play a visible role on AIDS. Kramer was, and remains, a prominent gay rights activist.

In early 1987, after Bauer became chief White House domestic policy adviser, prominent voices in the medical community were calling for Reagan to deliver a major address about the crisis. Why have a “Great Communicator” in office, they said, if he won’t communicate the message that safe sex is a matter of life-or-death?

I put that question to Bauer in March of that year. He expressed dismay at the thought of a U.S. president uttering the word “condom.” But with so many people dying of this disease, I found his concern callous—and told him so.

Larry Kramer tells a similar tale, but with more sinister undertones. He claims that in “a personal communication with me in his White House office in April of 1983,” Bauer told him that the president was “irrevocably opposed to anything having to do with homosexuality.”

I’m skeptical. For starters, in 1983 Gary Bauer didn’t work in the White House; he was a mid-level functionary in the Department of Education. More importantly, even before he became president, Reagan had proven the opposite of “irrevocably opposed” to gays, and had demonstrated this tolerance at substantial risk to his presidential ambitions. One can argue that no American politician ever confronted anti-gay prejudice more courageously.

That was in 1978. I was covering education for a California newspaper at the time. Three years removed from the governorship, Reagan was the anointed hero of American conservatism and the presumptive 1980 Republican presidential nominee when an Orange County state legislator, John Briggs, spearheaded a ballot initiative called Proposition 6 to bar gays and lesbians from teaching in public schools.

Reagan’s political handlers advised him to steer clear, but gay Republicans privately asked him to get involved, as did some Democratic friends and some Hollywood pals. Briggs, who wrongly assumed Reagan was on his side, publicly goaded him, too.

Intensive politicking by the California’s liberal establishment had pared Proposition 6’s support from a whopping 75 percent to 55 percent, but that’s where the needle stayed—until Reagan spoke out. In September, he told reporters of his opposition, and followed up with an op-ed saying Proposition 6 would do “real mischief.” Support for it eroded, even in Briggs’ home county, and it lost handily.

One of those who’d urged Reagan to intervene was Los Angeles gay activist David Mixner, a friend of future president Bill Clinton. “Never have I been treated more graciously by a human being,” Mixner said of his meeting with Reagan. “He turned opinion around and saved that election for us. He just thought it was wrong and came out against it.”

This didn’t surprise those who knew Reagan. Like most movie actors, he had several gay friends. But even this is used against him by partisans. “Reagan did not even mention the word AIDS,” Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote last week, “until the disease was impossible to ignore and his friend Rock Hudson had died from it.”

This is almost true. It was Hudson who wouldn’t discuss AIDS; Reagan actually mentioned the disease publicly for the first time two weeks before his friend passed away. But Cohen gets his information about Reagan and AIDS from Larry Kramer—his column was touting Kramer’s new HBO movie—and Kramer is not a reliable source on the 40th president.

He often claims that Reagan never mentioned AIDS for the first seven years of his presidency. Although this falsehood is easily checked, it has spread, like its own kind of virus, into official government documents, liberals’ institutional memories, and countless news accounts from organizations with contrary evidence in their own files. It’s a fabrication with consequences. Three years after Reagan’s death, a New York Review of Books essay offering a measured reassessment of Reagan prompted this response from Kramer:

“Ronald Reagan may have done laudable things but he was also a monster and, in my estimation, responsible for more deaths than Adolf Hitler,” he wrote. “He is one of the persons most responsible for allowing the plague of AIDS to grow from 41 cases in 1981 to over 70 million today. He refused to even say the word out loud for the first seven years of his presidency and when he did speak about it, it was with disdain.”

Comparing a political opponent to Hitler is obvious evidence of fanaticism, but we are living in hyper-partisan times. Rep. Henry Waxman’s official congressional website repeats the “seven years” calumny while adding that “the Reagan administration consistently refused to commit the resources and effort necessary to provide urgently needed research, health care, and preventive services.”

For the record, Reagan first mentioned AIDS, in response to a question at a press conference, on Sept. 17, 1985. On Feb. 5, 1986, he made a surprise visit to the Department of Health and Human Services where he said, “One of our highest public health priorities is going to be continuing to find a cure for AIDS.” He also announced that he’d tasked Surgeon General C. Everett Koop to prepare a major report on the disease. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, Reagan dragged Koop into AIDS policy, not the other way around.

As for Waxman’s recollections about AIDS funding, he does an unusual thing for a politician: He’s forgotten the success he and other Democrats had in convincing Reagan to spend more money. The administration increased AIDS funding requests from $8 million in 1982 to $26.5 million in 1983, which Congress bumped to $44 million, a number that doubled every year thereafter during Reagan’s presidency.

Finally, the claim that Reagan spoke about AIDS sufferers with “disdain” is simply a smear. Nothing like that ever happened, except maybe in the fictional “The Reagans” miniseries in which Barbra Streisand’s husband played Reagan as a bigot and rube.

In real life—that is to say in 1983, early in the AIDS crisis—HHS Secretary Margaret Heckler (accompanied by New York City Mayor Ed Koch, another Larry Kramer target), went to the hospital bedside of a 40-year-old AIDS patient named Peter Justice. Heckler, a devout Catholic, held the dying man’s hand, both out of compassion and to allay fears about how the disease was spread.

“We ought to be comforting the sick,” said Ronald Reagan’s top-ranking health official, “rather than afflicting them and making them a class of outcasts.”

“I’m delighted she’s here,” Justice said. “I’m delighted she cares.” 


Here is the entire 9th chapter from David Horowitz’s book, David Horowitz, Dark Agenda: The War to Destroy Christian America (West Palm Beach, FL: Humanix Books, 2018).

9 A Radical Epidemic

IN THE EARLY MORNING hours of June 28, 1969, New York City police raided the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar on Christopher Street in Greenwich Village. Police raids were a common occurrence at the Stonewall Inn, and the bar patrons usually cooperated with police. This night was different.

The patrons threw coins and bottles at police and refused to disperse. The commotion spilled out onto Christopher Street and attracted a crowd of onlookers. As arrests were made, a crowd of more than 400 people heckled and jeered the police. In minutes, the protest escalated into a violent clash in the street. Some protesters taunted the police with shouts of “Gay power!” That night, police arrested thirteen people, and dozens more were hospitalized.

The next night, a crowd again gathered in front of the Stonewall Inn. When police arrived, people shouted and chanted in protest. The gatherings clogged Christopher Street for six nights in a row. One of those nights again turned violent, causing numerous injuries. These events became known as the Stonewall Riots, and the site of the Stonewall Inn is considered the birthplace of the LGBT rights movement. “From the ashes of the Stonewall Riots,” boasted Mark Segal, one of the participants, “we created the Gay Liberation Front.”1

The Gay Liberation Front (GLF) took its name from the Vietnamese National Liberation Front, the official name of the Vietnamese Communist Viet Cong. This new movement would soon become as fierce an antagonist to the religious right (and vice versa) as the radical feminists. Eager to expand the gay rights community and increase its power, the Gay Liberation Front issued a manifesto of the movement’s goals: “We are a revolutionary homosexual group of men and women formed with the realization that complete liberation of all people cannot come about unless existing social institutions are abolished.”2 It was another grandiose leftist plan to reshape society and remake the world.

Sex with Strangers as a Revolutionary Act

The radicals defined gay liberation not as the inclusion of gay Americans into the existing social contract, but as the destruction of that contract. As the central symbol of their revolt, gay radicals practiced a defiant promiscuity. It was an in-your-face challenge to what they regarded as a repressive “sex-negative” culture. Gay radicals believed that monogamous marriage and the nuclear family were tyrannical structures imposed on them by their heterosexual “oppressors.” Their name for this oppression was “heteronormativity,” and they set out to overthrow it.

In the view of gay radicals, existing sexual prohibitions reflected no lessons drawn from humanity’s biological realities and moral experience; they were merely “social constructions” imposed by an oppressive culture. Consequently, gay liberators did not seek civic tolerance, respect, and integration into the public order of “bourgeois” life. On the contrary, they were determined to do away with traditional middle-class standards of morality, sexual restraint, and even public hygiene.

The effect of this radical agenda was immediate and devastating. At the height of the sixties, during the flowering of the sexual revolution, doctors saw the incidence of amebiasis, a parasitic sexually transmitted disease, increase fifty times in San Francisco, a center of gay life. The reason for this outbreak was promiscuous sex among gays.3 During the next decade, a tolerant American society retreated, while the sexual revolutionaries advanced. By the end of the seventies, two-thirds of gay men had already contracted hepatitis B.4 Yet criticism of gay sexual practices on any grounds whatsoever—including public health concerns—was immediately condemned as “homophobic,” a form of “racist” prejudice against gays.

Accommodating public officials licensed sexual gymnasiums called “bathhouses” and turned a blind eye toward public sex activity, including hookups between strangers in bookstore backrooms, bars, and “glory hole” establishments. A $100 million public sex industry flourished by decade’s end. Gay activists described the sex establishments as gay “liberated zones.”

One intellectual theorist of the movement, NYU professor Michael Warner, explained: “The phenomenology of a sex club encounter is an experience of world making. It’s an experience of being connected not just to this person but to potentially limitless numbers of people, and that is why it’s important that it be with a stranger”5 [emphasis added]. Warner was the leader of an organization called “Sex Panic!,” a name implying that anyone who thought that public sex with hundreds or thousands of strangers might be dangerous was merely having a panic attack caused by “sex-negative” prudery.

Calculated to Provoke the Religious Right

As the gay epidemics metastasized, nature began to assert itself with ever more devastating results. Opportunistic but treatable infections flourished in the petri dish of the liberated culture, as gay radicals went on with their defiant acts. Even the overloaded venereal disease clinics became trysting places in the liberated culture.

In his authoritative history of the AIDS epidemic, gay reporter Randy Shilts described the atmosphere in the liberated zones on the eve of the AIDS outbreak:

Gay men were being washed by tide after tide of increasingly serious infections. First it was syphilis and gonorrhea. Gay men made up about 80% of the 70,000 annual patient visits to [San Francisco’s] VD clinics. Easy treatment had imbued them with such a cavalier attitude toward venereal diseases that many gay men saved their waiting-line numbers, like little tokens of desirability, and the clinic was considered an easy place to pick up both a shot and a date.6

Far from causing radical activists to rethink their agenda, the burgeoning epidemics prompted them to escalate their assault. When Dr. Dan William, a gay specialist, warned of the danger of continued promiscuity, he was publicly denounced as a “monogamist” in the gay press. When playwright Larry Kramer issued a similar warning, he was accused in the New York Native of “gay homophobia and anti-eroticism.”

At a public meeting in the year preceding the first AIDS cases, Edmund White, coauthor of The Joy of Gay Sex, proposed that “gay men should wear their sexually transmitted diseases like red badges of courage in a war against a sex-negative society.” Michael Callen, a gay youth present at the meeting, had already had 3,000 sexual partners and was shortly to come down with AIDS. When he heard White’s triumphant defiance of the laws of nature, he thought, “Every time I get the clap I’m striking a blow for the sexual revolution.”7

Callen later founded People With AIDS, and, in a courageously candid reflection, wrote:

Unfortunately, as a function of a microbiological . . . certainty, this level of sexual activity resulted in concurrent epidemics of syphilis, gonorrhea, hepatitis, amoebiasis, venereal warts and, we discovered too late, other pathogens. Unwittingly, and with the best of revolutionary intentions, a small subset of gay men managed to create disease settings equivalent to those of poor third-world nations in one of the richest nations on earth.8

Nor did the diseases remain stable. The enteric diseases—amebiasis, gay bowel syndrome, giardiasis, and shigellosis—were followed by an epidemic of hepatitis B, which Randy Shilts called “a disease that had transformed itself, via the popularity of anal intercourse, from a blood-borne scourge into a venereal disease.”9 The hepatitis B virus was transmitted in exactly the same way as the newly identified AIDS virus.

While these epidemics were progressing, the political leaders of the gay community held gay pride parades in major cities like Chicago, San Francisco, and New York. The theme of these parades reflected the liberation ethos of the movement. Half-naked (and sometimes fully naked) men brazenly flaunted their sexuality for maximum shock effect—a deliberate attempt to offend and affront what they regarded as the reactionary culture of the time.

These flamboyant displays of gay liberation persisted for twenty years, inspiring a satiric critique by the liberal website The Onion, “Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance of Gays Back 50 Years.” The article quotes an imaginary straight female who witnesses a gay pride march in Los Angeles, remarking, “I’d always thought gays were regular people, just like you and me, and that the stereotype of homosexuals as hedonistic, sex-crazed deviants was just a destructive myth. Boy, oh, boy, was I wrong.”10

Flaunting one’s sexuality was considered a revolutionary act. The gay liberation activists were not merely trying to get attention or offend heterosexual society, or, more importantly, to persuade society to accept them as individuals on their own terms. They were trying to change the world by forcing society to accept aggressive public sexuality and, more importantly, promiscuous sexual behavior.

The political effect of these public displays of hedonism was the equivalent of a Supreme Court decision overthrowing tradition and precedent. They were calculated to provoke extreme reactions from the religious right. And they did.

A Clash of Hatreds

The leading religious opponent of gay liberation was Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell. He said, “AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.”11 It was a statement bigoted and un-Christian. Similar views were expressed by other vocal leaders of the religious right, while the majority of believers, however repugnant they found these antics, observed the Christian creed to “love the sinner but hate the sin.”

The loud and confrontational voices of the gay radicals were also a minority within the gay community, albeit a large and active one. Most gay people had no interest in taking part in gay pride parades. They just wanted to be accepted and go about their lives. But to much of society, the antagonistic gay activists were the face of gay liberation. They were the leaders—and their rhetoric was no less hateful, deplorable, and intimidating than Falwell’s.

Larry Kramer, a prominent gay writer and activist, was an opponent of such radical organizations as Michael Warner’s Sex Panic! But like many of his peers, Kramer blamed the Republican president for the epidemic. Kramer was well aware that Reagan had been elected with the support of the religious right, which he regarded as the oppressor enemy. “Ronald Reagan may have done laudable things,” Kramer said, “but he was also a monster and, in my estimation, responsible for more deaths than Adolf Hitler.”12 This was the expression of an extreme and baseless hatred all too common on the left.

There was little that Ronald Reagan could have done to stop the epidemic. He was so hated and mocked by the left that any attempt to speak about the AIDS epidemic would have meant entering a political minefield. The claim that he didn’t provide enough money for research was a canard, since public health officials already knew before they isolated the virus that HIV was transmitted like hepatitis B, which meant that unprotected anal sex with strangers was an extremely dangerous practice.

Members of the Reagan administration also demonstrated genuine concern for the victims of the epidemic. In 1983, still early in its progress, Reagan’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, Margaret Heckler, made a publicized visit to the hospital bedside of a forty-year-old gay man dying of AIDS. Not only was Heckler the top-ranking health official in the Reagan administration; she was a devout Catholic. She held the man’s hand out of compassion—and also to calm public fears that the disease might be spread by casual contact. Afterward she said, “We ought to be comforting the sick, rather than afflicting them and making them a class of outcasts.”13

The only institution in a position to arrest the AIDS contagion at that time was the public health system. But public health officials were already under attack by gay radicals as instruments of the “sex-negative” society. Health officials were well aware that the gay bathhouses were a breeding ground for the various infections that ravaged the gay community. But fear of attacks from gay activists caused officials to take a hands-off policy toward the bathhouses.

Thus, an outbreak of herpes in the early seventies was a sufficient cause for public health officials to close heterosexual sex clubs like Plato’s Retreat. But gay sex clubs, which were spreading far more dangerous diseases, were left open. The reason was the revolution. Gay bathhouses were “symbols of gay liberation from a sex-negative society,” as one prominent activist put it.14 When health officials suggested that gay people could protect themselves by practicing “safer sex,” the gay left responded with hostility, calling the officials “homophobes,” “bigots,” and “Nazis.”

The radical harassment campaigns succeeded, and the bathhouses remained open. The enforcement of traditional public health practices had been rendered politically impossible. Consequently, the epidemic continued to spread, and young gay men continued to die.

The Myth of the “Equal Opportunity Virus”

I coauthored of one of the early articles on AIDS in 1983.15 When I interviewed Don Francis, the Centers for Disease Control official in charge of fighting both the hepatitis B and AIDS epidemics, he explained why public health officials didn’t close the bathhouses during the epidemics that preceded AIDS in the 1960s and 1970s. “We didn’t intervene,” he told me, “because we felt that it would be interfering with an alternative lifestyle.”16 I understood what he really meant. He didn’t want his agency to be picketed and attacked as homophobic, and he didn’t want gay activists calling the health officials Nazis.

In 1983 when the article appeared, the AIDS epidemic was still confined to three cities with large homosexual communities: San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York. At the time, the number of AIDS carriers was small enough that aggressive public health methods might have prevented the outward spread of the contagion. But every effort to take normal precautionary measures was thwarted by the political juggernaut that the gay liberation movement had created.

All three epicenters of the epidemic were controlled by the Democratic Party. Gay radicals were a key faction in the party, especially in San Francisco. Gays were also part of the radical “rights coalition,” which included feminists and pro-abortion crusaders. The Democratic Party lined up behind the radicals and supported their efforts to block the enforcement of public health policy.

I interviewed Dr. Mervyn Silverman, the liberal director of public health for the City of San Francisco, and asked him why he didn’t close the bathhouses, since they were greenhouses of the disease. He told me he wouldn’t do so because they were valuable centers of “education” about AIDS.17 He told me this even though there was no such education going on in them. The bathhouses existed only to facilitate anonymous, promiscuous, and dangerous public sex.I knew exactly where Dr. Silverman got his medical expertise on this subject. He was speaking the party line of the Sex Panic! fanatics.18

In fact, the public health system had long been developing and using successful methods for fighting sexually transmitted diseases. Testing and contact tracing were among the most tried and true measures to identify carriers and warn potential targets. Separating carriers from the uninfected who were at risk was the key to fighting an epidemic, as Don Francis had informed me.

But gay leaders successfully attacked and blocked both procedures, which would have made these precautions possible. They condemned commonsense preventive measures as “homophobic” efforts to stigmatize gays and identify them for future “roundups.” Employing these proven public health measures, gay radicals claimed, would make the victims responsible for their plight. Such emotional arguments ignored the fact that those already victimized by AIDS were now potential predators able to infect healthy members of the gay community.

Studies showed that the sexual transmission of the virus overwhelmingly occurred through passive anal sex. Yet that term, or “promiscuous anal sex,” never appeared in public health warnings about the disease—omissions demanded by gay leaders. A $100 million government “information” campaign, led by Surgeon General Everett Koop, was conducted with the slogan “AIDS is an equal opportunity virus.” This claim—and only this claim —was politically permissible, according to gay leaders.

But the claim was false. Sexually transmitted AIDS wasn’t an equal opportunity virus that affected heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Twenty years into the epidemic, eight out of ten sexually transmitted AIDS cases stemmed from men having sex with men.19

A Preventable Death Toll

The only purpose of the “AIDS information” campaign was to soothe gay sensibilities, so gay people wouldn’t fear that they were about to be put into concentration camps, as their leaders claimed. When public health officials tried to institute screening procedures for the nation’s blood banks, and when they asked the gay community not to donate blood during the epidemic crisis, gay leaders denounced the proposals. They claimed that such proposals stigmatized homosexuals and infringed on their “right” to give blood.

The San Francisco Coordinating Committee of Gay and Lesbian Services, chaired by city official Pat Norman, issued a policy paper asserting that donor screening was “reminiscent of miscegenation blood laws that divided black blood from white” and “similar in concept to the World War II rounding up of Japanese-Americans in the western half of the country to minimize the possibility of espionage.”20 The fact that tainted blood donations gave surgical patients and other blood recipients a deadly incurable disease was not a consideration.

During my interview with Don Francis, I asked him when the primary public health methods of testing and contact tracing would be resumed. He said, “When enough people are dead.” It never happened. Apparently, the death toll was never high enough. In 1983, when our AIDS story was published, there were only 3,000 AIDS cases nationally, but they were doubling every six months.21

When I was researching the AIDS article in 1983, many doctors and researchers I spoke to speculated—correctly, as it turned out—that an AIDS vaccine would be decades away, if one was ever developed at all. To date, there is no licensed HIV/AIDS vaccine, although HIV-infected patients are living longer thanks to new antiviral therapies. Hearing that prospects for a vaccine were so bleak made me feel helpless and deeply saddened. When I did a mental calculation of the coming death toll, I figured that in twenty years there would be 200,000 dead. My arithmetic was faulty. By 2003 there were 523,442 recorded deaths from AIDS in the United States, most of them young, and previously healthy, gay men.22 Most of those deaths could have been prevented if the public health system had not been crippled by radical ideologues.

Attack on a Church

The gay radicals kept the bathhouses open as “symbols of the revolution.” They shut down the testing and contact-tracing programs, which would have exposed the path of the epidemic, allowing health officials to warn those in its path. The radicals did, however, agree on one prophylactic measure to save lives: the use of condoms to practice “safe sex.” The gay community leaders turned it into a campaign with posters proclaiming “Safe Sex Is Hot Sex.”23 Unlike other measures to prevent the spread of disease, condom use was not viewed as “homophobic” by the gay community and wouldn’t interfere with the liberated lifestyle.

Using condoms was prudent advice, but it relied on the responsible behavior of individuals. Responsibility, on the other hand, was precisely the moral characteristic that gay liberation had thrown to the winds. Condom use also brought the activists up against the moral positions of their Christian nemesis, the Catholic Church. The church advocated sexual abstinence and opposed prophylactic measures, even though condoms didn’t serve a contraceptive purpose in gay sex. In a statement titled, “Call to Compassion,” the Catholic bishops warned against the notion of safe sex because it “compromises human sexuality and can lead to promiscuous behavior.” Promiscuous behavior was, of course, the rallying cry of the liberationists— and the root cause of the epidemic.24

This moral conflict led directly to the most notorious demonstration of the AIDS-era protests. In 1989, Larry Kramer’s newly formed ACT-UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) joined with WHAM! (Women’s Health Action and Mobilization) to attack a Sunday mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City. Over 4,000 raucous protesters gathered outside the cathedral while dozens rushed inside screaming “You’re killing us!” and “Murderers!” at the bewildered congregation. In a calculated outrage that brought widespread condemnation, even from the gay community, one activist crushed a wafer symbolizing the body of Christ. The cardinal called it a “desecration.”

While extreme, these acts of violent hatred were not unusual. A New York Times reporter sympathetic to the gay cause observed:

Rarely are Act-Up’s adversaries seen as well-meaning people working in a complicated world. In Act-Up’s eyes they are liars, hypocrites—even murderers. In 1988, Dr. Joseph, then the city’s Health Commissioner, reduced by half his estimate of the number of city residents infected by the virus. While Dr. Joseph accompanied his study with the warning that no one should think it “in any way reduces the services needed,” Act-Up members accused him of a plot to accomplish that and other nefarious ends. They splashed paint and posters on his house, occupied his office, and called him a Nazi.25

Yet the Times story praised ACT-UP’s offensive tactics for allegedly prodding the government to approve experimental drugs faster. Drugs, however, could not provide an immediate solution to the drug-resistant virus. Thirty years after the attack on St. Patrick’s, medical advances have reduced fatalities and stemmed the tide of the epidemic—but there still is no cure for AIDS.

By promoting sexual promiscuity as a revolutionary act, by disregarding proven social restraints, and by viciously attacking all critics, gay activists led their own community into one of the worst human disasters in American history. The radicals were so focused on their agendas, and so bent on destroying their perceived enemies, that they lost sight of reality: their revolution was killing the people it was intended to liberate.

A Leftist Assault on Freedom and Equality

The radicals rejected the traditional American framework of pluralism, civility, and compromise in favor of a revolutionary agenda. Like radical feminists, they perceived any limits to their desires as oppression by the social order—concluding that the social order had to be destroyed. Such sweeping attempts at social transformation have brought disaster throughout history, no more so than in the last century, which saw epic catastrophes created by National Socialists and Communists seeking better worlds.

Unfortunately, the radical left was able to continue on its long march through America’s institutions, particularly universities, the media culture, and the Democratic Party, coalescing its forces and marshaling its weapons under the ideological banner of “identity politics.” This was the same politics that made the gay community resistant to proven public health methods and common sense. This was the same victim-versus-oppressor politics that caused homosexuals to view heterosexuals and “heteronormativity” as their enemies.

Since the seventies, the radical movement had been establishing a political base in the universities, purging conservative faculty and texts, and transforming scholarly disciplines into political training programs. These leftist indoctrination programs are referred to as “oppression studies,” “social justice studies,” “feminist studies,” “whiteness studies,” and the like. So advanced has this transformation become that Andrew Sullivan, a principled liberal and prominent gay activist, felt impelled to sound an alarm. He pointed out that this radical movement posed an existential threat to the American order of pluralism and individual freedom:

When elite universities shift their entire worldview away from liberal education, as we have long known it, toward the imperatives of an identity-based “social justice” movement, the broader culture is in danger of drifting away from liberal democracy as well. If elites believe that the core truth of our society is a system of interlocking and oppressive power structures based around immutable characteristics like race or sex or sexual orientation, then sooner rather than later, this will be reflected in our culture at large. What matters most of all in these colleges—your membership in a group that is embedded in a hierarchy of oppression—will soon enough be what matters in the society as a whole.26

Sullivan went on to describe how this notion constituted an assault on the fundamental American principle of the freedom and equality of individuals:

The whole concept of an individual who exists apart from group identity is slipping from the discourse. The idea of individual merit—as opposed to various forms of unearned “privilege”—is increasingly suspect. The Enlightenment principles that formed the bedrock of the American experiment—untrammeled free speech, due process, individual (rather than group) rights—are now routinely understood as mere masks for “white male” power, code words for the oppression of women and nonwhites. Any differences in outcome for various groups must always be a function of “hate,” rather than a function of nature or choice or freedom or individual agency. And anyone who questions these assertions is obviously a white supremacist himself.

The only thing Sullivan missed in this ominous warning was the religious foundation of the principles under attack—the “priesthood of all believers” and the salvation of individual souls. These were the beliefs, rooted in faith, that made the Christian right the most vocal and dedicated opponent of the movement Sullivan feared.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Mark Segal, “I Was at the Stonewall Riots. The Movie ‘Stonewall’ Gets Everything Wrong,” PBS.org, September 23, 2015, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/stonewall-movie.

[2] “Gay Revolution Comes Out,” New York Rat Magazine, August 12–26, 1969. The Rat was a publication put out by the Students for a Democratic Society.

[3] Randy Shilts, And the Band Played On (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1987), Kindle edition, p. 19.

[4] Ibid., p. 18.

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_Panic!.

[6] Shilts, op. cit., p. 39.

[7] Michael Callen, Surviving AIDS (New York: HarperCollins, 1990).

[8] Ibid.

[9] Shilts, op. cit., p. 39.

[10] https://www.theroot.com/where-s-the-pride-in-pride-parades-1790869593.

[11] http://thinkexist.com/quotation/aids_is_not_just_god-s_punishment_for_homosexuals/198214.html.

[12] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/06/01/ronald_reagan_and_aids_correcting_the_rec

[13] Ibid.

[14] My interview with gay activist Konstantin Berlandt.

[15] Peter Collier and David Horowitz, “Whitewash,” California Magazine, July 1983. Reprinted as “Origins of a Political Epidemic,” in David Horowitz, Culture Wars, which is volume V of The Black Book of the American Left (Los Angeles: Second Thought Books, 2015).

[16] My interview with Dr. Don Francis.

[17] My interview with Dr. Mervyn Silverman.

[18] Michael Warner, The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life (New York: Free Press, 1999), p. 216.

[19] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_HIV/AIDS#United_States.

[20] Shilts, op. cit., p. 246.

[21] Collier and Horowitz, op. cit.

[22] http://www.amfar.org/thirty-years-of-hiv/aids-snapshots-of-an-epidemic/.

[23] Anthony M. Petro, After the Wrath of God: AIDS, Sexuality, and American Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), Kindle edition, p. 146.

[24] Ibid., p. 133.

[25] https://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/03/nyregion/rude-rash-effective-act-up-shifts-aids-policy.html.

[26] https://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/we-all-live-on-campus-now.html.

New Vaccine Studies Showing Critics Were Right

A Swedish study published on Friday demonstrated and confirmed that the mRNA in the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid injections infiltrate cells and transcribes its message onto human DNA within 6 hours, altering our own DNA. The study was conducted in vitro, in other words outside the living body and in an artificial environment.

A previous study published in October 2021 from Sweden found the spike protein enters into our cells’ nuclei and impairs the mechanism our cells have to repair damaged DNA. We’ve included this study here as The Highwire made an easy-to-understand video explaining it, including graphics, and so it is a good starting point to help understand the significance of the latest study from Sweden. (DAILY EXPOSE)

A must read article at AMERICAN GREATNESS…. excerpts to follow:

COVID Vaccine Bombshells You Probably Missed
When a critical mass of American people realize what has
been done to them, there will need to be a reckoning.

In recent weeks, there have been several stunning revelations concerning the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines—and they are being all but ignored by a corporate media eager to change the subject.

The FDA on Tuesday released a large tranche of Pfizer clinical trials documents in response to a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request by the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency. The documents show that the company knew people were at risk of experiencing more than 1,000 unique adverse side-effects to the mRNA injections.

Additionally, scientists last week revealed that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine can enter human liver cells and be converted into DNA—something the fact-checkers and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control assured the public could never happen. Scientists also recently discovered that a sequence of genetic material patented by Moderna in 2018 bears a suspicious similarity to the spike protein in Sars-Cov2.

And a new study published on March 2 found that the synthetic mRNA found in the vaccines does not degrade quickly as promised, but continues to produce spike proteins for nearly two weeks.

Amid these new discoveries, the medical establishment won’t stop pushing the genetic vaccines that have failed to stop the coronavirus.

The COVID pandemic now plays second fiddle to the Russia-Ukraine war in the media, but the virus continues to rage through highly vaccinated countries, afflicting the triple-vaxxed most of all.

“Hong Kong hospitals can’t keep up with the deaths amid an Omicron surge,” reads a recent New York Times headline. “Dead bodies are piling up on gurneys in hospital hallways as Hong Kong’s health system is overloaded by its biggest Covid-19 outbreak of the pandemic.”

In the United Kingdom, only 394 vaccine-free persons died in weeks 5-8 of 2022, compared to the 3,527 who were vaccinated, according to the UK Health Security Agency. This means unvaccinated Brits only comprised 10 percent of all COVID deaths during those weeks.

In the face of failure, tyrannical medical policies continue to disrupt our lives, including the military mandate, the CMS mandate, the blocking of early treatments, and the appalling push to inject children with the ineffective experimental vaccines.

Here’s a partial list of potential vaccine injuries the medical establishment is subjecting us to, as chronicled in Pfizer’s clinical trial documents.

Via Children’s Health Defense:

The list includes acute kidney injury, acute flaccid myelitis, anti-sperm antibody positive, brain stem embolism, brain stem thrombosis, cardiac arrest, cardiac failure, cardiac ventricular thrombosis, cardiogenic shock, central nervous system vasculitis, death neonatal, deep vein thrombosis, encephalitis brain stem, encephalitis hemorrhagic, frontal lobe epilepsy, foaming at mouth, epileptic psychosis, facial paralysis, fetal distress syndrome, gastrointestinal amyloidosis, generalized tonic-clonic seizure, Hashimoto’s encephalopathy, hepatic vascular thrombosis, herpes zoster reactivation, immune-mediated hepatitis, interstitial lung disease, jugular vein embolism, juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, liver injury, low birth weight, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, myocarditis, neonatal seizure, pancreatitis, pneumonia, stillbirth, tachycardia, temporal lobe epilepsy, testicular autoimmunity, thrombotic cerebral infarction, Type 1 diabetes mellitus, venous thrombosis neonatal, and vertebral artery thrombosis among 1,246 other medical conditions following vaccination.

It’s no wonder Pfizer wanted to hide the data for 75 years.

“This is a bombshell,” said Children’s Health Defense (CHD) president and general counsel Mary Holland. “At least now we know why the FDA and Pfizer wanted to keep this data under wraps for 75 years. These findings should put an immediate end to the Pfizer COVID vaccines. The potential for serious harm is very clear, and those injured by the vaccines are prohibited from suing Pfizer for damages.”

Another bombshell from Current Issues of Molecular Biology helps explain why the messenger RNA shots are so dangerous.

The Swedish study, released last week, found that the mRNA from Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is able to enter human liver cells and can be converted into DNA, as reported by the Epoch Times.

The researchers found that when the mRNA vaccine enters the human liver cells, it triggers the cell’s DNA, which is inside the nucleus, to increase the production of the LINE-1 gene expression to make mRNA.

The mRNA then leaves the nucleus and enters the cell’s cytoplasm, where it translates into LINE-1 protein. A segment of the protein called the open reading frame-1, or ORF-1, then goes back into the nucleus, where it attaches to the vaccine’s mRNA and reverse transcribes into spike DNA.

Reverse transcription is when DNA is made from RNA, whereas the normal transcription process involves a portion of the DNA serving as a template to make an mRNA molecule inside the nucleus.

“In this study we present evidence that COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 is able to enter the human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro,” the researchers wrote.  “BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA as fast as 6 [hours] after BNT162b2 exposure.”

BNT162b2 is another name for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine that is marketed under the brand name Comirnaty.

The entire process reportedly takes place quickly within six hours, so after only one shot of the Pfizer vaccine,  DNA of affected cells can be permanently altered.

Mathematician Igor Chudov noted on his Substack that this is something that wasn’t supposed to happen: “For over a year, our trusted ‘health experts and fact checkers’ kept telling us the opposite.”……….

(THE ENTIRE ARTICLE SHOULD BE READ)

 

Percentage of Gays

(Originally posted Jun 29, 2017) This grew out of a conversation on my FaceBook and mainly deals with percentages of gays (the high is 2.8% ~ the low is 1.4% ~ but is most likely 1.7%), and behaviors that cause the AIDS epidemic in Africa and here in the states.

Mike Slater went to the San Diego Pride Parade and played “Which Bigot Said It.”

Here’s the study from the Center for Disease Control: “Results—Based on the 2013 NHIS data, 96.6% of adults identified as straight, 1.6% identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7% identified as bisexual

(TOWNHALL) Ten percent of the population is gay. Ten percent has been the number tossed around for a long time, but perhaps understandably, many people think the gay percentage of the population is even higher based on popular culture’s obsession with homosexuality.

The American public estimates on average that 23% of Americans are gay or lesbian, little changed from Americans’ 25% estimate in 2011, and only slightly higher than separate 2002 estimates of the gay and lesbian population.

In actuality, the percentage of gay Americans is tiny.

The survey taken by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention asked a simple question of 34,557 adults nationwide: “Which of the following best represents how you think of yourself?” The five possible answers were straight, lesbian/gay, bisexual, “something else” and “I don’t know the answer.” Transgenders, the “T” in LGBT, were not included.

The survey found that a mere 1.6 percent of the adult population self-identifies as “lesbian/gay,” and an even smaller 0.7 percent told interviewers they were bisexual. The bisexuals were outnumbered by the 1.1 percent who didn’t know, wouldn’t answer or said they were “something else.”

This result was far from the 10 percent that homosexual rights advocates have claimed since the 1970s.

As I am want to do at various times and seasons, is debate hot topic issues. I do not normally do this but rather those who wish dialogue find me out. Case in point, a post elsewhere on the Net about water bottles quickly led to talk about female hormones and HIV/AIDS. I know, its crazy right? Here is where the conversation gets good. I respond:

AIDS is largely confined to the drug culture and the homosexual. Since this is the way it is most easily passed on to others. Most heterosexual cases can be tied back to some infection passed through this community.

Which is why I have to sit in amazing disgust about the “barebacking” and “bug chasers” are a sad phenomenon and puzzle to us — gay or straight — whom take a common sense approach to life.

That second article says: “The number of gay men looking to become positive seems to be growing. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control (The CDC) reports a new surge in the incidence of HIV among gay males, in part due to this unthinkable practice. But what can drive such a desire? Why would a life with HIV be desirable to some?”

Something I have pointed out Tammy Bruce says in her book The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values. A great read by the way. You get to see why a conservative gay person is so concerned about our culture and maybe how morally equating all choices and actions hurts it rather than helps it:

….What a difference treatment makes! As researchers succeeded in developing ever more effective drugs, AIDS became—like gonorrhea, syphilis, and hepatitis B before it—what many if consider to be a simple “chronic disease.” And many of the gay men who had heeded the initial warning went right back to having promiscuous unprotected sex here is now even a movement—the “bareback” movement—that encourages sex  without condoms. The infamous bathhouses are opening up again; drug use, sex parties, and hundreds of sex partners a year are all once again a feature of the “gay lifestyle.” In fact, “sexual liberation” has simply become a code phrase for the abandonment of personal responsibility, respect, and integrity.

In his column for Salon.com, David Horowitz discussed gay radicals like the writer Edmund White. During the 1960s and beyond, White addressed audiences in the New York gay community on the subject of sexual liberation. He told one such audience that “gay men should wear their sexually transmitted diseases like red badges of courage in a war against a  sex-negative society.” And did they ever. Then, getting gonorrhea was the so-called courageous act. Today, the stakes are much higher. That red badge is now one of AIDS suffering and death, and not just for gay men themselves. In their effort to transform society, the perpetrators are taking women and children and straight men with them.

Even Camille Paglia, a woman whom I do not often praise, astutely commented some years ago, “Everyone who preached  free love in the Sixties is responsible for AIDS. This idea that it was somehow an accident, a microbe that sort of fell from  heaven—absurd. We must face what we did.”

The moral vacuum did rear its ugly head during the 1960s with the blurring of the lines of right and wrong (remember “situational ethics”?),  the sexual revolution, and the consequent emergence of the feminist and gay civil-rights movements. It’s not the original ideas of these movements, mind you, that caused and have perpetuated the problems we’re discussing. It was and remains the few in power who project their destructive sense of themselves onto the innocent landscape, all  the while influencing and conditioning others. Today, not only is the blight not being faced, but in our Looking-Glass world, AIDS is romanticized and sought after

Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values (Roseville: Prima, 2003), 96-97.

GAY PATRIOT makes this “moral equivalence” claim as well:

The New York Times has noticed that bareback sex is a thing gay people are doing, which is breaking news from about the mid-1990′s when (according to Wikipedia) gay publications like The Advocate first took note of the phenomenon of gay men having unprotected sex and, in some cases, deliberately seeking HIV infection.

Anyway, the Times, perhaps after failing to find a celebrity to comment on the issue, goes to the next best source for information on epidemiology and behavioral psychology… an English professor from SUNY-Buffalo. Who provides this analysis:

What I learned in my research is that gay men are pursuing bareback sex not just for the thrill of it, but also as a way to experience intimacy, vulnerability and connection. Emotional connection may be symbolized in the idea that something tangible is being exchanged. A desire for connection outweighs adherence to the rules of disease prevention.

And some guys are apparently getting intimate, tangible, emotional connections 10-20 times a night in bathhouses.

It also seems that the readers of the NY Times, based on the comments, are in complete denial that this phenomenon exists, and think the author is just making it up to attack the gay community. Liberals choose to blame the recent dramatic increases in HIV infection rates on “the stigma attached to HIV.” Um, excuse me, but don’t stigmas usually make people avoid those things to which stigmas are attached?

In the real world, stigmatizing a behavior results in less of it: Which is why people don’t use the N-word in public any more and smoking has declined as a social activity. When the social stigma is removed as with HIV infection and teenage pregnancyyou get more of those things.

To which my young antagonist responded:

….But hold on a sec. You think gay people WANT AIDS? I hope you’re able to see that this really makes no sense at all. Sometimes it seems like you believe gay people are some subhuman race of self hating suicidal maniacs who are addicted to sinful pleasures just so that people like you can hate them for it. They are people. Just like us. They want AIDS just as much as you do.

And i don’t see you complaining to the porn industries every time some poor girl has to take one that way for a film shoot. I’m not sure if you want to believe that this is some kind of plague from god, but the truth is, homosexuals make up a small portion of people infected with AIDS. Most studies conducted found numbers as low as 3% of the total population. A New York times study in 1965 found a prevalence of 10%, which is the largest ever found.

Sorry dude. But AIDS is everyone’s problem.

As you can seer this convo is rolling along now. Not only do I have to deal with an engrained myth of 10% of the population is gay, I have to answer the topic of “the porn industry.” Fun time!

The 10% is a myth. There are entire books on Kinsey’s craziness, the least of which was his study accuracy. I have written and posted great audio about the transition of human sexuality, here is a great example of this idea from my post:

  • the new study finds only 1.4% of the population identifying with same-sex orientation….Among women 18-44, for instance, 12.5% report some form of same sex contact at some point in their lives, but among the older segment of that group (35-44), only 0.7% identify as homosexual and 1.1% as bisexual. Read more: RPT

So with such a low number of gay men it is a tragedy that they make up for about 70% of AIDS cases. And as I have pointed out previously both from Tammy Bruce’s book and other studies there is a growing segment within the gay community who practice unsafe sex and bug chasing as a badge of honor? That is a fact.

Yes, AIDS is transmitted through sex the easiest, so the porn industry, as you rightly point out, is a vehicle for passing it I imagine. However, even this most recent AIDS scare in the porn industry had its genesis in Derrick Burts:

  • But that didn’t put the matter to rest. The new question became: How did Derrick Burts, who says that outside of work his only sex partner was his girlfriend, get infected? The answer to that question may reveal some hard truths about the porn industry. Burts’ girlfriend tested negative. And no HIV-positive performer has stepped forward to admit to working with Burts. When it comes to working in a sex industry, however, “straight” is a flexible term. Like many male porn actors, Burts sometimes went “gay for pay,” performing in both straight porn with women under the name Cameron Reid, and gay porn with other men under the name Derek Chambers. The reason for two distinct names is that in the porn industry, doing both gay and straight porn—called “crossing over”—is both relatively common and also fairly taboo. Many female performers believe that the risk of contracting HIV during a scene is vastly increased if their male partner participates in gay porn. In October, when the alarm bells were first sounded about the still anonymous Patient Zeta, porn star Courtney Cummz told The Daily Beast she was “terrified” by stars who cross over, and thought the Occupational Safety and Health Administration should step in to prevent it…. For one thing, according to a recent study by the CDC, men who have sex with men are 44 times more likely to contract HIV than men who don’t. But perhaps the larger perceived problem is that HIV testing standards are completely different in gay porn than they are in straight porn. While most of the straight porn industry mandates a monthly HIV testing regimen, a significant portion of the gay porn world uses condoms—yet doesn’t require its performers to get tested. (DAILY BEAST)

SO EVEN in this industry, it seems that the homosexual side of it is masochistic.

Here is the response to my post:

The article i posted showing the results of numerous studies could be worth taking another look at. You say the 10% is a myth (even though most studies find somewhere between 3-6% prevalence) yet you offer me nothing substantial to back that claim up. I understand you get some info from books, but if the studies exist and have credibility, they should be as available as the studies I found. I question your understanding of the disease and its impact on the human race. You may have a bias to condemn people you see to be sinful, but if this were an act of god, then why is it striking Africa harder than any other country? why are 50% of all people with AIDS black. Did they somehow piss god off too?

Maybe if we look at HIV/AIDS for what it is, a non discriminatory disease, the big picture will make a little more sense.

Firstly, one should note God was never part of our discussion. This is telling. I used references to gay authors, court cases, articles, and the like. The fact still remains that in America the gay population is 1.7% but make up over 70% of the AIDS cases. Now the antagonist in the picture is bringing in worldwide statistics on AIDS, not only that, but also has imported God into the picture! I never used theology or my faith to make any of the points. In fact, I will post here the referenced blog I did on the stats aspect of this:


Michael Medved’s article on a recent poll that the above radio show is based on (with emphasis thanks to Kicking the Darkness): 

Key Concept

The nation’s increasingly visible and influential gay community embraces the notion of sexual orientation as an innate, immutable characteristic, like left-handedness or eye color. But a major federal sex survey suggests a far more fluid, varied life experience for those who acknowledge same-sex attraction. (from Medved article)

The results of this scientific research shouldn’t undermine the hard-won respect recently achieved by gay Americans, but they do suggest that choice and change play larger roles in sexual identity than commonly assumed. The prestigious study in question (released in March by the National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) discovered a much smaller number of “gays, lesbians and homosexuals” than generally reported by the news media. While pop-culture frequently cites the figure of one in 10 (based on 60-year-old, widely discredited conclusions from pioneering sex researcher Alfred Kinsey) the new study finds only 1.4% of the population identifying with same-sex orientation.

Moreover, even among those who describe themselves as homosexual or bisexual (a grand total of 3.7% of the 18-44 age group), overwhelming majorities (81%) say they’ve experienced sex with partners of the opposite gender. Among those who call themselves heterosexual, on the other hand, only a tiny minority (6%) ever engaged in physical intimacy of any kind with a member of the same sex These figure indicate that 94% of those living heterosexual lives felt no physical attraction to members of the same sex, but the great bulk of self-identified homosexuals and bisexuals feel enough intimate interest in the opposite gender to engage in erotic contact at some stage in their development.

A one-way street

In other words, for the minority who may have experimented with gay relationships at some juncture in their lives, well over 80% explicitly renounced homosexual (or even bisexual) self-identification by age of 35. For the clear majority of males (as well as women) who report gay encounters, homosexual activity appears to represent a passing phase, or even a fleeting episode, rather than an unshakable, genetically pre-determined orientation.Gay pride advocates applaud the courage of those who “come out,” discovering their true nature as homosexual after many years of heterosexual experience. But enlightened opinion denies a similar possibility of change in the other direction, deriding anyone who claims straight orientation after even the briefest interlude of homosexual behavior and insisting they are phony and self-deluding. By this logic, heterosexual orientation among those with past gay relationships is always the product of repression and denial, but homosexual commitment after a straight background is invariably natural and healthy. In fact, numbers show huge majorities of those who “ever had same sex sexual contact” do not identify long-term as gay. Among women 18-44, for instance, 12.5% report some form of same sex contact at some point in their lives, but among the older segment of that group (35-44), only 0.7% identify as homosexual and 1.1% as bisexual.

The once popular phrase “sexual preference” has been indignantly replaced with the term “sexual orientation” because political correctness now insists there is no factor of willfulness or volition in the development of erotic identity. This may well be the case for the 94% of males and 87% of females (ages 18-44) who have never experienced same-sex contact of any kind and may never have questioned their unwavering straight outlook — an outlook deemed “normal” in an earlier age….

…(read more)…

(Nope… not God in that post.) It is obvious to anyone that when backed in a corner many liberals merely start to use ad hominem attacks, creating straw-man arguments, and the like. I will come back to the African connection, as it is very important for the reader to be able to respond to such positions/”facts”. However, let us return to the conversation as found on the Net. So picking back up, here is my first response:

If you do not know about Kinsey, I suggest – in the least – reading the second chapter of a book entitled “Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas.” The second chapter which deals with Kinsey is entitled “‘SCIENCE: How a Pervert Launched the Sexual Revolution.” This is where the 10% myth came from, Kinsey.

I have read the major biography of him (“Alfred C. Kinsey: A Life”) as well as two great books entitled:

1) Sexual Sabotage: How One Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion on America (there is a generous preview of the book at Amazon)
2) Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences: The Red Queen and the Grand Scheme

All this is to say, I know where the 10% myth came from. And, I linked to one of my posts which not only had audio regarding the study PROVING my point, but also a link to the largest most in-depth study to date. I would listen to the audio portion as well, a gay man calls at the very end of the show making the point supported by the best evidence available yet.

[….]

Again, if you follow the links in my post you would have found this (PDF):

I suggest you listen to the 16-minute audio also found in the post in regards to this study.

More modern survey data has modified even that claim. In fact, an overwhelming majority of the population are exclusively heterosexual. However, of the small number of people who have ever experienced homosexuality on any of the three measures of sexual orientation (attractions, behavior, and self-identification), the number who have been exclusively homosexual on all three measures throughout their lives is vanishingly small—only 0.6% of men and 0.2% of women. Even if we go by the measure of self-identification alone, the percentage of the population who identify as homosexual or bisexual is quite small. Convincing evidence of these has come from an unlikely source—a consortium of 31 of the leading homosexual rights groups in America. In a friend-of-the-court brief they filed in the Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas sodomy case in 2003, they admitted the following:

✦ The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994). So it’s fair to say that the “ten percent” myth has been discredited even by pro-homosexual groups themselves.

More:

  •  The CDC reported that a 2002 National Survey of Family Growth set the number closer to 2.8% of adults claiming homosexuality.
  •  In 1993, USA Today reported that only 2.3% of males ages 20 to 30 said they had a same-sex experience in the last decade.
  •  In 1991, the National Opinion Research Center found that respondents who claimed they were active homosexuals only numbered .7%.
  •  As far back as 1988 a Canadian survey found that 98% of first-year college students under 25 indicated they were heterosexual.
  •  And the 2000 Census found that only .42% of American households consisted of same sex, unmarried couples as heads of households. This is less than 1%.

Still, the largest and most thorough study done yet puts the number of firmly gay people at 1.7%. Some studies put it at slightly more, some less.

So what about Africa? One of my favorite columnists/authors is Michael Fumento. He has some great insights into the problem of Africa. I will post his article on the issue, as, i think it is an important topic… I will highlight portions I think are fitting for this discussion. you will see Michael’s true care and concern near the end:

Why is HIV So Prevalent in Africa?

Ninety-nine percent of AIDS and HIV cases in Africa come from sexual transmission, and virtually all is heterosexual. So says the World Health Organization, with other agenciestoeing the line. Some massive condom airdrops accompanied by a persuasive propaganda campaign would practically make the epidemic vanish overnight. Or would it?

A determined renegade group of three scientists has fought for years – with little success – to get out the message that no more than a third of HIV transmission in Africa is from sexual intercourse and most of that is anal. By ignoring the real vectors, they say, we’re sacrificing literally millions of people.

These men are no crackpots. John Potterat is author of 140 scholarly publications. He began working for the El Paso County, Colorado health department in 1972 and initiated the first U.S. partner-tracing program for AIDS/HIV.

Stuart Brody, who has just accepted a full professorship in Psychology at University of Paisley in Scotland, has published over 100 scholarly publications, including a book called “Sex at Risk.” Economist and anthropologist David Gisselquist has almost 60 scholarly publications to his name and is currently advising the government of India on staunching its potentially explosive epidemic.

These renegades point out that a reason we know vaginal sex can’t be the risk in Africa it’s portrayed to be is that it hasn’t been much of one risk in the U.S. Here 12 percent of AIDS cases are “attributed to” heterosexual transmission, meaning they claimed to have gotten it that way. Of these, over a third are males.

Yet San Francisco epidemiologist Nancy Padian evaluated 72 male partners of HIV-infected women over several years, during which time only one man was infected. Even in that case, there were “several instances of vaginal and penile bleeding during intercourse.” So even the small U.S. heterosexual figure appears grossly exaggerated.

The chief reason it’s so hard to spread HIV vaginally is that, as biopsies of vaginal and cervical tissue show, the virus is unable to penetrate or infect healthy vaginal or cervical tissue. Various sexually transmitted diseases allow vaginal HIV infection, but even those appear to increase the risk only by about 2-4 times.

So if vaginal intercourse can’t explain the awful African epidemic, what can? Surely it’s not homosexuality, since we’ve been told there is none in Africa. In fact, the practice has long been widespread.

For example, German anthropologist Kurt Falk reported in the 1920s that bisexuality was almost universal among the male populations of African tribes he studied. Medical records also show that African men who insist they’re straighter than the proverbial arrow often suffer transmissible anorectal diseases.

Yet almost certainly greater – and more controllable – contributors to the African epidemic are “contaminated punctures from such sources as medical injections, dental injections, surgical procedures, drawing as well as injecting blood, and rehydration through IV tubes,” says Brody.

You don’t even need to go to a clinic to be injected with HIV: Almost two-thirds of 360 homes visited in sub-Saharan Africa had medical injection equipment that was apparently shared by family members. This, says Brody, can explain why both a husband and wife will be infected.

For those who care to look, there are many indicators that punctures play a huge role in the spread of disease. For example, during the 1990s HIV increased in Zimbabwe at approximately 12 percent annually, even as condom use increased and sexually transmitted infections rapidly fell.

Or consider that in a review of nine African studies, HIV prevalence in inpatient children ranged from 8.2% to 63% – as many as three times the prevalence in women who’d given birth. If the kids didn’t get the virus from their mothers or from sex, whence its origin? Investigations of large clinical outbreaks in Russia, Romania, and Libya demonstrate HIV can be readily transmitted through pediatric health care.

Good people can differ on exactly how much of the HIV in Africa is spread vaginally – including our three renegades themselves. Nevertheless, their findings readily belie the official figures. AIDS studies in Africa, Potterat says, are “First World researchers doing second rate science in Third World countries.”

There’s no one reason for the mass deception. In part, once people have established any paradigm it becomes much easier to justify than challenge.

“These guys are wearing intellectual blinders,” says Potterat. “Only a handful are even looking at routes other than sex. They have sex on the brain.” Other reasons:

● Grant money goes to those who follow the dictates of the paradigm, not to those challenging it. “Sex is sexy,” notes Potterat.
● There’s fear that blame for the epidemic will fall on the medical profession.
● To the extent vaginal sex does play a role in spreading the disease, there’s fear people will stop worrying about it.

Finally, says Brody, for researchers to concede they were wrong would be “to admit they’re complicit in mass death. That’s hard to admit that to yourself, much less to other people.” Hard, yes. And too late for many. But not too late for millions more in Africa and other underdeveloped nations – if we act now.

So what has been done in the above. The porn industry example was annihilated, the Africa example decimated, and the 10% myth blown apart, and the best available evidence puts AIDS as an epidemic in the bi-sexual, gay, and drug culture, except in Africa, where it is partly the medical fields issue as well. Why is this a problem with anal intercourse?

Homosexuals also continue to contract and spread other diseases at rates significantly higher that the community at large. These include syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, hepatitis A and B, a variety of intestinal parasites including amebiases and giardiasis, and even typhoid fever (David G. Ostrow, Terry Alan Sandholzer, and Yehudi M. Felman, eds., Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Homosexual Men; see also, Sevgi O. Aral and King K. Holmes, “Sexually Transmitted Diseases in the AIDS Era,” Scientific American). This is because rectal intercourse or sodomy, typically practiced by homosexuals, is one of the most efficient methods of transmitting disease. Why? Because nature designed the human rectum for a single purpose: expelling waste from the body. It is built of a thin layer of columnar cells, different in structure than the plate cells that line the female reproductive tract. Because the wall of the rectum is so thin, it is easily ruptured during intercourse, allowing semen, blood, feces, and saliva to directly enter the bloodstream.

This is why any anal sex should be rejected even in hetero relationships/marriage.

Ahhh, just another day in the trenches… this one just a bit deeper than others.

A Medical Doctor Fired For Expressing “Health Pride”

Health and religious pride excluded… only gay pride allowed. (Hat-Tip to Gospel for Life) If you are a medical doctor, do not say the following… as true as it may be:

  • “The evidence is irrefutable that behaviors common within the homosexual community are unhealthy and high risk for a host of serious medical consequences, including STD’s, HIV and AIDS, anal cancer, hepatitis, parasitic intestinal infections, and psychiatric disorders,” Church reportedly wrote. 
  • “Life expectancy is significantly decreased as a result of HIV/AIDS, complications from the other health problems, and suicide. This alone should make it reprehensible to the medical community, who has an obligation to promote and model healthy behaviors and lifestyles.”

By the way… if you are “up-in-the-air,” or undecided on if the homosexual lifestyle has a “net” negative effect (especially for gay males), you may want to take some time and read my post on the matter:

Here is a short video and LINK to Mass Resistance’s story:

World Magazine has this to say about the situation:

HIV/AIDS is the most politicized disease of the modern era. From the start of the epidemic, political correctness dampened mobilization against it. When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) first published its report on the strange disease on June 5, 1981, staffers wrangled over how to note the homosexual aspect of the pandemic: Would mentioning that gay men were predominantly affected offend the gay community? Would it inflame and legitimize “homophobes”? Many skittish doctors and leaders tiptoed around telling the gay community to stop having reckless sex. 

Medicine and public health reflect political and social climates. The American Medical Association (AMA)—the largest association of physicians and medical students in the United States—has at least 35 LGBT-related policies, several with little or nothing to do with medical practice. One AMA policy calls the denial of same-sex marriage “discriminatory” and “harmful.” Another supports child adoption by same-sex partners. Another suggests “improving” the curriculum in medical schools to portray sexual history in a “nonjudgmental” and “sensitive” manner.

Such LGBT-affirming narrative has infiltrated many medical institutions so deeply that Christian medical professionals find it tough to speak out, even from a medical standpoint. 

[….]

Paul Church is another such doctor who’s facing hostility for voicing his medical and moral convictions. As an urologist working in Boston for almost 30 years, Church has had dozens of patients who self-identify as LGBT. Over the years, Church observed a pattern with his gay patients: A majority also suffered from a gamut of serious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, parasitic infections, hepatitis, and anal cancer.

Church’s patients reflect well-documented, nationwide statistics: Individuals who practice homosexual behaviors face higher risks of various diseases and sexually transmitted infections. Research also shows the LGBT community has higher instances of mental issues, such as depression, suicide, substance abuse, and eating disorders.

So when the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), one of the nation’s top health facilities and a major teaching hospital for Harvard Medical School, started actively promoting the LGBT movement, Church became alarmed. As a member of the BIDMC staff and Harvard Medical School faculty, he voiced his opposition by citing medical, religious, and moral concerns.

[….]

That struck him as irresponsible healthcare, Church told me: “The hospital is not Home Depot or Starbucks. In medicine, we have a higher commitment and mission to promote healthy lifestyles and behaviors, but promoting homosexuality is contrary to that mission.”

Debating Gay Myths, Africa, and AIDS ~ Not God (Updated)

First Published November of 2011

Mike Slater went to the San Diego Pride Parade and played “Which Bigot Said It.”

Here’s the study from the Center for Disease Control: “…Results—Based on the 2013 NHIS data, 96.6% of adults identified as straight, 1.6% identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7% identified as bisexual…”

As I am want to do at various times and seasons, is debate hot topic issues. I do not normally do this but rather those who wish dialogue find me out. Case in point, a post elsewhere on the Net about water bottles quickly led to talk about female hormones and HIV/AIDS. I know, its crazy right? Here is where the conversation gets good:

...RPT (Me)

AIDS is largely confined to the drug culture and the homosexual. Since this is the way it is most easily passed on to others. Most heterosexual cases can be tied back to some infection passed through this community.

Which is why I have to sit in amazing disgust about the “barebacking” and “bug chasers” are a sad phenomenon and puzzle to us — gay or straight — whom take a common sense approach to life.

That second article says: “The number of gay men looking to become positive seems to be growing. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control (The CDC) reports a new surge in the incidence of HIV among gay males, in part due to this unthinkable practice. But what can drive such a desire? Why would a life with HIV be desirable to some?”

Something I have pointed out Tammy Bruce says in her book The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values. A great read by the way. You get to see why a conservative gay person is so concerned about our culture and maybe how morally equating all choices and actions hurts it rather than helps it:

….What a difference treatment makes! As researchers succeeded in developing ever more effective drugs, AIDS became—like gonorrhea, syphilis, and hepatitis B before it—what many if consider to be a simple “chronic disease.” And many of the gay men who had heeded the initial warning went right back to having promiscuous unprotected sex here is now even a movement—the “bareback” movement—that encourages sex  without condoms. The infamous bathhouses are opening up again; drug use, sex parties, and hundreds of sex partners a year are all once again a feature of the “gay lifestyle.” In fact, “sexual liberation” has simply become a code phrase for the abandonment of personal responsibility, respect, and integrity.

In his column for Salon.com, David Horowitz discussed gay radicals like the writer Edmund White. During the 1960s and beyond, White addressed audiences in the New York gay community on the subject of sexual liberation. He told one such audience that “gay men should wear their sexually transmitted diseases like red badges of courage in a war against a  sex-negative society.” And did they ever. Then, getting gonorrhea was the so-called courageous act. Today, the stakes are much higher. That red badge is now one of AIDS suffering and death, and not just for gay men themselves. In their effort to transform society, the perpetrators are taking women and children and straight men with them.

Even Camille Paglia, a woman whom I do not often praise, astutely commented some years ago, “Everyone who preached  free love in the Sixties is responsible for AIDS. This idea that it was somehow an accident, a microbe that sort of fell from  heaven—absurd. We must face what we did.”

The moral vacuum did rear its ugly head during the 1960s with the blurring of the lines of right and wrong (remember “situational ethics”?),  the sexual revolution, and the consequent emergence of the feminist and gay civil-rights movements. It’s not the original ideas of these movements, mind you, that caused and have perpetuated the problems we’re discussing. It was and remains the few in power who project their destructive sense of themselves onto the innocent landscape, all  the while influencing and conditioning others. Today, not only is the blight not being faced, but in our Looking-Glass world, AIDS is romanticized and sought after…

Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values (Roseville: Prima, 2003), 96-97.

Gay Patriot makes this “moral equivalence” claim as well:

[color-box]

The New York Times has noticed that bareback sex is a thing gay people are doing, which is breaking news from about the mid-1990′s when (according to Wikipedia) gay publications like The Advocate first took note of the phenomenon of gay men having unprotected sex and, in some cases, deliberately seeking HIV infection.

Anyway, the Times, perhaps after failing to find a celebrity to comment on the issue, goes to the next best source for information on epidemiology and behavioral psychology… an English professor from SUNY-Buffalo. Who provides this analysis:

What I learned in my research is that gay men are pursuing bareback sex not just for the thrill of it, but also as a way to experience intimacy, vulnerability and connection. Emotional connection may be symbolized in the idea that something tangible is being exchanged. A desire for connection outweighs adherence to the rules of disease prevention.

And some guys are apparently getting intimate, tangible, emotional connections 10-20 times a night in bathhouses.

It also seems that the readers of the NY Times, based on the comments, are in complete denial that this phenomenon exists, and think the author is just making it up to attack the gay community. Liberals choose to blame the recent dramatic increases in HIV infection rates on “the stigma attached to HIV.” Um, excuse me, but don’t stigmas usually make people avoid those things to which stigmas are attached?

In the real world, stigmatizing a behavior results in less of it: Which is why people don’t use the N-word in public any more and smoking has declined as a social activity. When the social stigma is removed … as with HIV infection and teenage pregnancy … you get more of those things.

[/color-box]

To which my young antagonist responded:

….But hold on a sec. You think gay people WANT AIDS? I hope you’re able to see that this really makes no sense at all. Sometimes it seems like you believe gay people are some subhuman race of self hating suicidal maniacs who are addicted to sinful pleasures just so that people like you can hate them for it. They are people. Just like us. They want AIDS just as much as you do.

And i don’t see you complaining to the porn industries every time some poor girl has to take one that way for a film shoot. I’m not sure if you want to believe that this is some kind of plague from god, but the truth is, homosexuals make up a small portion of people infected with AIDS. Most studies conducted found numbers as low as 3% of the total population. A New York times study in 1965 found a prevalence of 10%, which is the largest ever found.

Sorry dude. But AIDS is everyone’s problem.

As you can seer this convo is rolling along now. Not only do I have to deal with an engrained myth of 10% of the population is gay, I have to answer the topic of “the porn industry.” Fun time!

The 10% is a myth. There are entire books on Kinsey’s craziness, the least of which was his study accuracy. I have written and posted great audio about the transition of human sexuality, here is a great example of this idea from my post:

✦ …the new study finds only 1.4% of the population identifying with same-sex orientation…. Among women 18-44, for instance, 12.5% report some form of same sex contact at some point in their lives, but among the older segment of that group (35-44), only 0.7% identify as homosexual and 1.1% as bisexual. Read more: http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/2011/06/perceptions-of-the-general-public-vs-reality-in-regards-to-homosexuality-michael-medved/#ixzz1e42CTRQA

So with such a low number of gay men it is a tragedy that they make up for about 70% of AIDS cases. And as I have pointed out previously both from Tammy Bruce’s book and other studies… there is a growing segment within the gay community who practice unsafe sex and bug chasing as a badge of honor? That is a fact.

Yes, AIDS is transmitted through sex the easiest, so the porn industry, as you rightly point out, is a vehicle for passing it I imagine. However, even this most recent AIDS scare in the porn industry had its genesis in Derrick Burts:

✦ But that didn’t put the matter to rest. The new question became: How did Derrick Burts, who says that outside of work his only sex partner was his girlfriend, get infected? The answer to that question may reveal some hard truths about the porn industry. Burts’ girlfriend tested negative. And no HIV-positive performer has stepped forward to admit to working with Burts. When it comes to working in a sex industry, however, “straight” is a flexible term. Like many male porn actors, Burts sometimes went “gay for pay,” performing in both straight porn with women under the name Cameron Reid, and gay porn with other men under the name Derek Chambers. The reason for two distinct names is that in the porn industry, doing both gay and straight porn—called “crossing over”—is both relatively common and also fairly taboo. Many female performers believe that the risk of contracting HIV during a scene is vastly increased if their male partner participates in gay porn. In October, when the alarm bells were first sounded about the still anonymous Patient Zeta, porn star Courtney Cummz told The Daily Beast she was “terrified” by stars who cross over, and thought the Occupational Safety and Health Administration should step in to prevent it…. For one thing, according to a recent study by the CDC, men who have sex with men are 44 times more likely to contract HIV than men who don’t. But perhaps the larger perceived problem is that HIV testing standards are completely different in gay porn than they are in straight porn. While most of the straight porn industry mandates a monthly HIV testing regimen, a significant portion of the gay porn world uses condoms—yet doesn’t require its performers to get tested. (Daily Beast)

So even in this industry, it seems that the homosexual side of it is masochistic.

Here is the response to my post:

The article i posted showing the results of numerous studies could be worth taking another look at. You say the 10% is a myth (even though most studies find somewhere between 3-6% prevalence) yet you offer me nothing substantial to back that claim up. I understand you get some info from books, but if the studies exist and have credibility, they should be as available as the studies I found. I question your understanding of the disease and its impact on the human race. You may have a bias to condemn people you see to be sinful, but if this were an act of god, then why is it striking Africa harder than any other country? why are 50% of all people with AIDS black. Did they somehow piss god off too?

Maybe if we look at HIV/AIDS for what it is, a non discriminatory disease, the big picture will make a little more sense.

Firstly, one should note God was never part of our discussion. This is telling. I used references to gay authors, court cases, articles, and the like. The fact still remains that in America the gay population is 1.7% but make up over 70% of the AIDS cases. Now the antagonist in the picture is bringing in worldwide statistics on AIDS, not only that, but also has imported God into the picture! I never used theology or my faith to make any of the points. In fact, I will post here the referenced blog I did on the stats aspect of this:


Michael Medved’s article on a recent poll that the above radio show is based on (with emphasis thanks to Kicking the Darkness): 

Key Concept

The nation’s increasingly visible and influential gay community embraces the notion of sexual orientation as an innate, immutable characteristic, like left-handedness or eye color. But a major federal sex survey suggests a far more fluid, varied life experience for those who acknowledge same-sex attraction. (from Medved article)

The results of this scientific research shouldn’t undermine the hard-won respect recently achieved by gay Americans, but they do suggest that choice and change play larger roles in sexual identity than commonly assumed. The prestigious study in question (released in March by the National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) discovered a much smaller number of “gays, lesbians and homosexuals” than generally reported by the news media. While pop-culture frequently cites the figure of one in 10 (based on 60-year-old, widely discredited conclusions from pioneering sex researcher Alfred Kinsey) the new study finds only 1.4% of the population identifying with same-sex orientation.

Moreover, even among those who describe themselves as homosexual or bisexual (a grand total of 3.7% of the 18-44 age group), overwhelming majorities (81%) say they’ve experienced sex with partners of the opposite gender. Among those who call themselves heterosexual, on the other hand, only a tiny minority (6%) ever engaged in physical intimacy of any kind with a member of the same sex These figure indicate that 94% of those living heterosexual lives felt no physical attraction to members of the same sex, but the great bulk of self-identified homosexuals and bisexuals feel enough intimate interest in the opposite gender to engage in erotic contact at some stage in their development.

A one-way street

In other words, for the minority who may have experimented with gay relationships at some juncture in their lives, well over 80% explicitly renounced homosexual (or even bisexual) self-identification by age of 35. For the clear majority of males (as well as women) who report gay encounters, homosexual activity appears to represent a passing phase, or even a fleeting episode, rather than an unshakable, genetically pre-determined orientation.Gay pride advocates applaud the courage of those who “come out,” discovering their true nature as homosexual after many years of heterosexual experience. But enlightened opinion denies a similar possibility of change in the other direction, deriding anyone who claims straight orientation after even the briefest interlude of homosexual behavior and insisting they are phony and self-deluding. By this logic, heterosexual orientation among those with past gay relationships is always the product of repression and denial, but homosexual commitment after a straight background is invariably natural and healthy. In fact, numbers show huge majorities of those who “ever had same sex sexual contact” do not identify long-term as gay. Among women 18-44, for instance, 12.5% report some form of same sex contact at some point in their lives, but among the older segment of that group (35-44), only 0.7% identify as homosexual and 1.1% as bisexual.

The once popular phrase “sexual preference” has been indignantly replaced with the term “sexual orientation” because political correctness now insists there is no factor of willfulness or volition in the development of erotic identity. This may well be the case for the 94% of males and 87% of females (ages 18-44) who have never experienced same-sex contact of any kind and may never have questioned their unwavering straight outlook — an outlook deemed “normal” in an earlier age….

…(read more)…

(Nope… not God in that post.) It is obvious to anyone that when backed in a corner many liberals merely start to use ad hominem attacks, creating straw-man arguments, and the like. I will come back to the African connection, as it is very important for the reader to be able to respond to such positions/”facts”. However, let us return to the conversation as found on the Net. So picking back up, here is my first response:

If you do not know about Kinsey, I suggest – in the least – reading the second chapter of a book entitled “Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas.” The second chapter which deals with Kinsey is entitled “‘SCIENCE: How a Pervert Launched the Sexual Revolution.” This is where the 10% myth came from, Kinsey.

I have read the major biography of him (“Alfred C. Kinsey: A Life”) as well as two great books entitled:

1) Sexual Sabotage: How One Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion on America (there is a generous preview of the book at Amazon)
2) Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences: The Red Queen and the Grand Scheme

All this is to say, I know where the 10% myth came from. And, I linked to one of my posts which not only had audio regarding the study PROVING my point, but also a link to the largest most in-depth study to date. I would listen to the audio portion as well, a gay man calls at the very end of the show making the point supported by the best evidence available yet.

[….]

Again, if you follow the links in my post you would have found this: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf

I suggest you listen to the 16-minute audio also found in the post in regards to this study.

More modern survey data has modified even that claim. In fact, an overwhelming majority of the population are exclusively heterosexual. However, of the small number of people who have ever experienced homosexuality on any of the three measures of sexual orientation (attractions, behavior, and self-identification), the number who have been exclusively homosexual on all three measures throughout their lives is vanishingly small—only 0.6% of men and 0.2% of women. Even if we go by the measure of self-identification alone, the percentage of the population who identify as homosexual or bisexual is quite small. Convincing evidence of these has come from an unlikely source—a consortium of 31 of the leading homosexual rights groups in America. In a friend-of-the-court brief they filed in the Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas sodomy case in 2003, they admitted the following:

✦ The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994). So it’s fair to say that the “ten percent” myth has been discredited even by pro-homosexual groups themselves.

…More:

  •  The CDC reported that a 2002 National Survey of Family Growth set the number closer to 2.8% of adults claiming homosexuality.
  •  In 1993, USA Today reported that only 2.3% of males ages 20 to 30 said they had a same-sex experience in the last decade.
  •  In 1991, the National Opinion Research Center found that respondents who claimed they were active homosexuals only numbered .7%.
  •  As far back as 1988 a Canadian survey found that 98% of first-year college students under 25 indicated they were heterosexual.
  •  And the 2000 Census found that only .42% of American households consisted of same sex, unmarried couples as heads of households. This is less than 1%.

Still, the largest and most thorough study done yet puts the number of firmly gay people at 1.7%. Some studies put it at slightly more, some less.

So what about Africa? One of my favorite columnists/authors is Michael Fumento. He has some great insights into the problem of Africa. I will post his article on the issue, as, i think it is an important topic… I will highlight portions I think are fitting for this discussion. you will see Michael’s true care and concern near the end:

Why is HIV So Prevalent in Africa?

Ninety-nine percent of AIDS and HIV cases in Africa come from sexual transmission, and virtually all is heterosexual. So says the World Health Organization, with other agenciestoeing the line. Some massive condom airdrops accompanied by a persuasive propaganda campaign would practically make the epidemic vanish overnight. Or would it?

A determined renegade group of three scientists has fought for years – with little success – to get out the message that no more than a third of HIV transmission in Africa is from sexual intercourse and most of that is anal. By ignoring the real vectors, they say, we’re sacrificing literally millions of people.

These men are no crackpots. John Potterat is author of 140 scholarly publications. He began working for the El Paso County, Colorado health department in 1972 and initiated the first U.S. partner-tracing program for AIDS/HIV.

Stuart Brody, who has just accepted a full professorship in Psychology at University of Paisley in Scotland, has published over 100 scholarly publications, including a book called “Sex at Risk.” Economist and anthropologist David Gisselquist has almost 60 scholarly publications to his name and is currently advising the government of India on staunching its potentially explosive epidemic.

These renegades point out that a reason we know vaginal sex can’t be the risk in Africa it’s portrayed to be is that it hasn’t been much of one risk in the U.S. Here 12 percent of AIDS cases are “attributed to” heterosexual transmission, meaning they claimed to have gotten it that way. Of these, over a third are males.

Yet San Francisco epidemiologist Nancy Padian evaluated 72 male partners of HIV-infected women over several years, during which time only one man was infected. Even in that case, there were “several instances of vaginal and penile bleeding during intercourse.” So even the small U.S. heterosexual figure appears grossly exaggerated.

The chief reason it’s so hard to spread HIV vaginally is that, as biopsies of vaginal and cervical tissue show, the virus is unable to penetrate or infect healthy vaginal or cervical tissue. Various sexually transmitted diseases allow vaginal HIV infection, but even those appear to increase the risk only by about 2-4 times.

So if vaginal intercourse can’t explain the awful African epidemic, what can? Surely it’s not homosexuality, since we’ve been told there is none in Africa. In fact, the practice has long been widespread.

For example, German anthropologist Kurt Falk reported in the 1920s that bisexuality was almost universal among the male populations of African tribes he studied. Medical records also show that African men who insist they’re straighter than the proverbial arrow often suffer transmissible anorectal diseases.

Yet almost certainly greater – and more controllable – contributors to the African epidemic are “contaminated punctures from such sources as medical injections, dental injections, surgical procedures, drawing as well as injecting blood, and rehydration through IV tubes,” says Brody.

You don’t even need to go to a clinic to be injected with HIV: Almost two-thirds of 360 homes visited in sub-Saharan Africa had medical injection equipment that was apparently shared by family members. This, says Brody, can explain why both a husband and wife will be infected.

For those who care to look, there are many indicators that punctures play a huge role in the spread of disease. For example, during the 1990s HIV increased in Zimbabwe at approximately 12 percent annually, even as condom use increased and sexually transmitted infections rapidly fell.

Or consider that in a review of nine African studies, HIV prevalence in inpatient children ranged from 8.2% to 63% – as many as three times the prevalence in women who’d given birth. If the kids didn’t get the virus from their mothers or from sex, whence its origin? Investigations of large clinical outbreaks in Russia, Romania, and Libya demonstrate HIV can be readily transmitted through pediatric health care.

Good people can differ on exactly how much of the HIV in Africa is spread vaginally – including our three renegades themselves. Nevertheless, their findings readily belie the official figures. AIDS studies in Africa, Potterat says, are “First World researchers doing second rate science in Third World countries.”

There’s no one reason for the mass deception. In part, once people have established any paradigm it becomes much easier to justify than challenge.

“These guys are wearing intellectual blinders,” says Potterat. “Only a handful are even looking at routes other than sex. They have sex on the brain.” Other reasons:

● Grant money goes to those who follow the dictates of the paradigm, not to those challenging it. “Sex is sexy,” notes Potterat.
● There’s fear that blame for the epidemic will fall on the medical profession.
● To the extent vaginal sex does play a role in spreading the disease, there’s fear people will stop worrying about it.

Finally, says Brody, for researchers to concede they were wrong would be “to admit they’re complicit in mass death. That’s hard to admit that to yourself, much less to other people.” Hard, yes. And too late for many. But not too late for millions more in Africa and other underdeveloped nations – if we act now.

So what has been done in the above. The porn industry example was annihilated, the Africa example decimated, and the 10% myth blown apart, and the best available evidence puts AIDS as an epidemic in the bi-sexual, gay, and drug culture, except in Africa, where it is partly the medical fields issue as well. Why is this a problem with anal intercourse?

Homosexuals also continue to contract and spread other diseases at rates significantly higher that the community at large. These include syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, hepatitis A and B, a variety of intestinal parasites including amebiases and giardiasis, and even typhoid fever (David G. Ostrow, Terry Alan Sandholzer, and Yehudi M. Felman, eds., Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Homosexual Men; see also, Sevgi O. Aral and King K. Holmes, “Sexually Transmitted Diseases in the AIDS Era,” Scientific American). This is because rectal intercourse or sodomy, typically practiced by homosexuals, is one of the most efficient methods of transmitting disease. Why? Because nature designed the human rectum for a single purpose: expelling waste from the body. It is built of a thin layer of columnar cells, different in structure than the plate cells that line the female reproductive tract. Because the wall of the rectum is so thin, it is easily ruptured during intercourse, allowing semen, blood, feces, and saliva to directly enter the bloodstream.

This is why any anal sex should be rejected even in hetero relationships/marriage.

Ahhh, just another day in the trenches… this one just a bit deeper than others.

MUST Bake Cakes for Gay Events, Plus, Reeducation Camps For You

In another case a Christian bakery shut down due to mob tactics (e.g., fascism):

NPR’s Nina Totenberg, on the July 8, 1995 edition of Inside Washington wished for Jesse Helms and/or his grandkids to get AIDS.

Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests

….“It’s a sad day for Christian business owners and it’s a sad day for the First Amendment,” owner Aaron Klein told me. “The LGBT attacks are the reason we are shutting down the shop. They have killed our business through mob tactics.”

Last January, Aaron and Melissa Klein made national headlines when they refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.

Klein tells me he has nothing against homosexuals — but because of their religious faith, the family simply cannot take part in gay wedding events.

“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman,” he said. “I don’t want to help somebody celebrate a commitment to a lifetime of sin.”

The lesbian couple filed a discrimination with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and told their story to local newspapers and television statements.

Within days, militant homosexuals groups launched protests and boycotts. Klein told me he received messages threatening to kill his family. They hoped his children would die. [an old liberal tactic, see video to the right.]

The LGBT protestors then turned on other wedding vendors around the community. They threatened to boycott any florists, wedding planners or other vendors that did business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa.

“That tipped the scales,” Klein said. “The LGBT activists inundated them with phone calls and threatened them. They would tell our vendors, ‘If you don’t stop doing business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa, we will shut you down.’”….

See previous post on “camp” topic: The Kiss of Tolerance = “Tolerance” Camps for Dissenters