U.S. to Allow Homosexual Men to Donate Blood if Abstinent for at Least One Year

BloodbankWASHINGTON — The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued its final guidance on allowing homosexual men to donate blood, stating that men should be allowed to do so if they have been abstinent for at least one year.

As previously reported, the FDA first announced its intent to loosen its restrictions on blood donations from homosexual men last year, stating that it would “take the necessary steps to recommend a change to the blood donor deferral period for men who have sex with men from indefinite deferral to one year since the last sexual contact.”

The administration said that it compared its policies with current scientific evidence surrounding HIV transmission, as well policy changes implemented by other countries, before making its final guidance announcement on Monday.

“In reviewing our policies to help reduce the risk of HIV transmission through blood products, we rigorously examined several alternative options, including individual risk assessment,” explained Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D., deputy director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement.

“Ultimately, the 12-month deferral window is supported by the best available scientific evidence, at this point in time, relevant to the U.S. population,” he continued. “We will continue to actively conduct research in this area and further revise our policies as new data emerge.”

The FDA noted that the UK and Australia both have a one-year deferral period.

The administration first enacted its policy in 1983 during the height of the AIDS crisis, but some have decried the ban as being discriminatory toward homosexuals. The National Gay Blood Drive released a statement on its website this week that while it is “pleased to see the FDA has issued the final guidance” on homosexual blood donation, it still finds the rules tantamount to discrimination.

  • Connect with Christian News

“While gay and bisexual men will be eligible to donate their blood and help save lives under this 12 month deferral, countless more will continue to be banned solely on the basis of their sexual orientation and without medical or scientific reasoning,” it wrote.

The group wants homosexuality removed as a stigma surrounding blood donation.

“So today we begin the final push to eliminate discrimination based on sexual orientation from the blood donation process altogether. We strongly encourage the FDA to move toward a deferral based upon individual risk assessment,” it said.

But others state that they are concerned that the FDA has loosened its restrictions at all.

“There are several highly disturbing aspects to this politically-motivated change in the United States’ blood donation policy,” Peter LaBarbera, president Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, told reporters. “First of all, homosexual activists frame this entire issue in terms of so-called ‘anti-gay discrimination’ and equality, instead of prioritizing above all the safety of the American blood supply.”

“Secondly,” the FDA’s report shows that a small percentage of homosexual men have ignored the blood donation ban,” he continued. “Now we are going to trust practicing homosexuals with an even looser regulation?”

“Thirdly, the FDA report shows that the new standards are more lax than Australia’s policy—which threatens violators with prosecution if they are found to have lied about their behavior in making their blood donation—even though Australia was cited as the model for the U.S. making the change,” LaBarbera said.

Heterosexuals who are involved in prostitution, those who have had sex with a prostitute, or those involved in illicit drug activity are also included in the ban.

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has ChristianNews.net been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Josey

    So, the FDA will trust the homosexual who claims to not have had sex for 1 yr, unbelievable or a drug user! I lived in Germany as a military spouse for six years and am not allowed to give blood, still not exactly sure as to why except was told because they had that mad cow disease over there at that time but I bought USDA beef at commissary that all U.S. residents stateside were eating but regardless I don’t want a blood transfusion from a homosexual even if it’s been more than a year not that I’d believe them on their proclaimed abstinence anyway and my reason would be because of the risk of HIV. Homosexuals or sodomites are worried about the stigma, give me a break, they will not be satisfied until every aspect of their rebellion and the diseases associated with their sin is forced down societies throats just like Sodom and Gomorrah and drug users need money to buy another fix so they would lie to sell their blood even if it was ten dollars a pint. God forbid that I would ever need a transfusion but if I ever did I would want a family member to be the donator, someone I trusted, what another debacle. Are we that desperate for blood supplies that this would even be necessary? I personally don’t trust the FDA anyway even on the food we have in our grocery stores, now with beef coming from Mexico, Australia, how do we know that the beef was handled correctly and with the other issues with food products, best to ask God’s blessing over everything we take into our bodies and trust in Him, yet be wise also and ask God for wisdom concerning all things. JMO.

    • Yvonne Celeste Lee

      What are we going to do with the verses all through Acts that talk about not eating meat offered to idols? I used to think that verse was not applicable in our modern world, but now we have Muslims insisting McDonalds and other stores, prisons, etc. offer Halal meat (offered to Allah for his blessing), this is a concern.

      • Violet Vanderhelm

        good point. It should be labeled

  • Nidalap

    Oh yeah. Political correctness will surely protect us every bit as well as disallowing high-risk blood donors did…

    • mantis

      that’s what the testing process is for

      • Nidalap

        Exactly! This will require a lot of testing which would have been unnecessary before! So much added expense to an already strapped for cash health system. Good point! (^_^)

        • mantis

          all blood is tested no matter who donates it, it’s standard procedure

          • Nidalap

            Standard procedure! Right, just like disallowing donations from people who have high risk lifestyles used to be! One level of protection removed. Good call! 🙂

          • mantis

            being gay isn’t high risk in fact most aids patients are heterosexual

          • Nidalap

            They were (and are) until it became politically incorrect to call attention to that fact. If you go back to that time and read a list of high risk behavior, you’ll find it right there! 🙂

          • mantis

            they aren’t high risk and deny them the right to give blood is idiotic and discriminatory, all blood is tested anyway so there no reason that gay people shouldn’t be allowed

          • Nidalap

            Oh? So what you’re saying is, since they do testing anyway, ALL high risk folks should be allowed to donate! Yes indeed! Let’s just put all faith in the infallibility of the testing to protect us all!

            Sounds like a bit of a risk to me… 🙂

          • mantis

            being gay isn’t high risk

          • Nidalap

            Now we’re in a circular argument. See my post following the one you stated that in last time! 🙂

          • mantis

            your post doesn’t prove anything except you have a very wrong view of gay people

          • Nidalap

            ::Shrugs:: Right back at ya then! Impasse! (^_^)

          • mantis

            my views are backed by science yours are backed by superstition and stereotypes

          • Nidalap

            Well, those terms could be used to describe political correctness, I suppose! Exactly what did the health community have wrong in their criteria for listing homosexual behavior as high risk that’s since been found inaccurate? 🙂

          • mantis

            PC means not being a bigoted idiot which of course explains why conservatives hate it so much , the fact that it’s promiscuity that causes aids not homosexuality, look a charlie sheen

          • Nidalap

            That was a very un-PC statement! Promiscuity doesn’t cause aids. It SPREADS HIV, which can, in turn, become AIDS. That’s why it’s listed as yet another ::bom bom BOM:: high risk behavior! 🙂

          • mantis

            and your point?

          • Nidalap

            Well, it was amusing to point out! Let’s see…point, point…hmm…this is yet another group it would be unfair to ‘discriminate’ against, especially what with all the testing nowadays! 🙂

          • mantis

            what’s your point you stupid troll?

          • Nidalap

            ::Arches one eyebrow:: Here we are on the Christian news site and I’M the troll? Are you very certain you know what the term means? (^_^)

          • mantis

            it means someone who makes stupid statements to get a rise out of someone and you are making incredibly stupid statements

          • Nidalap

            Now, now! That’s hurtful talk! Not very PC again! Oh wait! It IS still acceptable for use against Christians! You may carry on! 🙂

          • mantis

            you have no idea what PC means do you?

          • Nidalap

            Yes! Personal Computer! ::Nods emphatically:: 🙂

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Haha. You “slightly” got under his skin. 🙂 Him calling you a troll?!? Projection, much?

          • afchief


            75% increase in rectal cancers in the gay male community
            30% increase in HIV in the last 5yrs…. (50% in San Fransisco alone)
            60% increase in demotic violence among same sex couples
            35% increase in single parents…do to the divorce rate among gay cpls.. (in states that decide it would be a good social experiment, and good for taxes)
            50% ADD (peoples choice for disorders) Diagnosed at a high rate in children with Same sex parents.
            100% uncontrolled hatred for people that speak out against the Militant Gay Agenda

          • mantis


          • afchief

            Why do homosexual men get AIDS at a much higher rate than the heterosexual population in North America? Three main reasons: 1) a level of promiscuity in the majority of gay men 70% that boggles the ordinary mind, with up to hundreds of partners a year. This is sex as addiction, and less than 5% of heteros e.g. Magic Johnson get anything approaching these numbers. 2) the back door is not designed for sex. Its lining is thin and friable and easily damaged, allowing the HIV virus access to the bloodstream. 3) high associated drug use making for sloppy unprotected sex.

            Why spend millions on research and drugs when it would be much cheaper to prevent most AIDS cases by giving youth proper instruction on the high risks of homosexual sex? Privileging gay activists’ desire to deny their disability and present themselves as normal over the health of the gay community is wrong. Presently, they want society to spend a lot of money celebrating their “normality” (who celebrates being normal?) and then sneak back and demand more funds spent fixing their self-inflicted health problems. It a cost passed on to us all!!!

          • mantis

            sill waiting for that truth you promised

          • afchief

            When you have a reprobate (depraved) mind, you cannot see the truth!!!

            Romans 1:28 (NASB) And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper

          • mantis

            still waiting for that truth you promised

          • afchief

            Your mind is not “sound”! It is blinded! It is perverted! It is deviant! It is lost!

            You need Jesus!!!

          • mantis

            I need a lot of things but Jesus ain’t one of them

          • Ax2root

            I am trying to COPY the FACTS from your post but the comment was deleted.

            Sad when Christians are not allowed to see the FACTS Just because some infantile thinkers are offended
            Can you repost the 17 times higher risk of rectal sex for homo behavers…from the CDC source

          • afchief

            Just move the gov over.

            http://www.cdc. gov/msmhealth/std.htm

          • Ax2root

            Great! Thank you AFchief.

          • John N

            >’1) a level of promiscuity in the majority of gay men 70% that boggles the ordinary mind, with up to hundreds of partners a year.’

            Of course you do have the necessary evidence tor support that 70% of homosexuals have up to hundreds of partners a year, don’t you? Otherwise we would have to think you were lying?

            >’2) the back door is not designed for sex. Its lining is thin and friable and easily damaged, allowing the HIV virus access to the bloodstream’

            This is correct, but then I would suggest you start warning heterosexual people, of which more are involved with anal sex than homosexuals are.

            >’3) high associated drug use making for sloppy unprotected sex.’

            Again this is correct. It will probably help a lot when religious homophobic bigots stopped discriminating people with a different sexual orientation.

          • afchief

            Another liar!!! When the CDC says that homos get anal cancer 17 times higher than hetros, YOU ARE A LIAR!!!!!

          • John N

            Am I?

            Then do explain why, according the CDC, women get anal cancer almost twice as often as man do.

            I strongly advice you to check your sources before accusing other people. We both know your god does not like his followers making false accusations.

          • afchief

            From the CDC;

            “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to get anal cancer than heterosexual men. Men who are HIV-positive are even more likely than those who do not have HIV to get anal cancer.”

            “It is estimated that about 3,000 new cases of HPV-associated anal cancers are diagnosed in women and about 1,700 are diagnosed in men each year in the United States.”

            Do homos ever stop lying?!?!?


          • John N

            I see. So women are twice more the victim of HPV-associated anal cancer than men.

            Then admit you are wrong and that heterosexuals are more affected by HPV-associated anal cancer than homosexuals, so they probably have a lot more anal sex.

            The alternative is you don’ t count women as humans.

            Anyway, you are dead wrong. So stop your hate mongering against homosexuals before you piss of your god.

          • afchief

            Hello! Do I need to do the math for you?!?!?!?!? Homos are only 2% of the population!!!!! Do some math!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            Everyone Should Know These Statistics on Homosexuals

            Frank Joseph, M.D.

            What is being pawned off on our children and grandchildren in public schools is the story that to be homosexual or lesbian is just another normal alternative lifestyle.

            Any of you, who have children in public schools, it would behoove you to print out the following and mail it to the principal of your child’s school, with a little note stating:

            I don’t know if the students at (name of school) are being indoctrinated that homosexuality is just another normal alternative lifestyle. If you have been, then you should print out the following and have it passed out to your students, as the truth must be told in order to preserve their health and avoid cutting off about 15-20 years of their life span.

            If the authorities give you a hard time, I would take my child out of that school and put him/her in a private school, and if you cannot afford it, I would homeschool him/her. And you can tell that to the principal.

            Or, you can wait until one day, your child comes home and says, “Mom, I think I’m homosexual.”

            I just heard that in the Los Angeles school district that the enrollments are considerably down (20-30,000) and has caused much grief to the school hierarchy, as the amount of money received is based on the number of students. Probably because more parents are homeschooling.

            burbtn.gif – 43 Bytes

            The statistics on homosexuality and its effects

            Some statistics about the homosexual lifestyle:

            One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners (3).

            One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.

            Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting (7).

            Many homosexuals don’t pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: “Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior” (16).

            Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years. “Guerrilla theater tactics and more straight-forward shouting matches characterized their presence” (2). Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia (except when the adult feels “subjective distress”) (27).

            Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States (5). They make up only 1-2% of the population.

            Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the “gay bowel syndrome” (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus (27).

            73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization (13).

            25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics (11).

            Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film “The Castro”, one minute stands) (3). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to “cruisy areas” and have anonymous sex.

            78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs (20).

            Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, “Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities” (10).

            Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, “30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals” (10).

            50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals (10).

            Dr. Daniel Capron, a practicing psychiatrist, says, “Homosexuality by definition is not healthy and wholesome. The homosexual person, at best, will be unhappier and more unfulfilled than the sexually normal person” (10). For other psychiatrists who believe that homosexuality is wrong, please see National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.

            It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us(10).

            Gay parade in New York

            Close-up of one of the New York “Gay Parades”

            Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then raised up violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population.

            Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne (8).

            37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism (8).

            41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs (8).

            Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries (8).

            The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75 (8).

            The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79 (8).

            Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person, 25 times more likely to commit suicide, and 19 times more likely to die in a traffic accident (8).

            21% of lesbians die of murder, suicide or traffic accident, which is at a rate of 534 times higher than the number of white heterosexual females aged 25-44 who die of these things(8).

            50% of the calls to a hotline to report “queer bashing” involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals) (18).

            About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians (12). Homosexuals prey on children.

            33% of homosexuals ADMIT to minor/adult sex (7).

            There is a notable homosexual group, consisting of thousands of members, known as the North American Man and Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). This is a child molesting homosexual group whose cry is “SEX BEFORE 8 BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.” This group can be seen marching in most major homosexual parades across the United States.

            Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor (19).

            73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age (9).

            Many homosexuals admit that they are pedophiles: “The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality” (22).

            Because homosexuals can’t reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children. Homosexuals can be heard chanting “TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT” in their homosexual parades. A group called the “Lesbian Avengers” prides itself on trying to recruit young girls. They print “WE RECRUIT” on their literature. Some other homosexuals aren’t as overt about this, but rather try to infiltrate society and get into positions where they will have access to the malleable minds of young children (e.g., the clergy, teachers, Boy Scout leaders, etc.) (8). See the DC Lesbian Avengers web page, and DC Lesbian Avengers Press Release, where they threaten to recruit little boys and girls. Also, see AFA Action Alert.

          • John N

            Yes please do the math. With these figures, do prove that more homosexuals engage in anal sex than heterosexuals.

            I’m waiting.

            And you really should consider buying some new books. As I showed you before, your pet homophobic doctor Frank Josephs’ citations are 30 years old, even before AIDS became a threath. And more important, refuted by more recent studies.

            In the end all you’ve got left is hate mongering. Hate versus people that have another sexual orientation that you do. So pathetic.

          • afchief

            Yes, homosexuality is a mental disorder!! It is perverted, deviant and dangerous!!!

            The Unhealthy Homosexual Lifestyle

            Medical researchers have known for many years that the “homosexual lifestyle” is a very disease-ridden lifestyle. (The fact that the dominant liberal media are downplaying and/or ignoring and/or censoring the following crucial information should give you a clue as to just how biased, untrustworthy, corrupt, and potentially detrimental they can be.)

            For example, one 1982 study mentioned in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the anal cancer rate for homosexuals is way above normal, maybe as high as 50 times normal.1 And a 1997 New England Journal of Medicine study again drew attention to the “strong association between anal cancer and male homosexual contact.”2 (The reason for the connection is that the lining of the anus, as opposed to the much thicker lining of the vagina, is only a single cell in thickness, tears easily, and thus is an easy point of entry for viruses and bacteria. Just as repeatedly assaulting lung tissue with cigarette smoke increases one’s lung cancer risk, repeatedly damaging the anus and rectum increases one’s anal cancer risk. Anal sex frequently results in damage to the anus and rectum. Too, this helps explain why AIDS is spread so easily in the homosexual community. However, even when there are not any tears in the anal lining, there is still a high risk for HIV infection because certain cells in its mucous lining [M-cells and Langerhans cells] can be infected and will then carry HIV deeper into one’s body.)

            Another study found that: 1) 80% of syphilitic patients are homosexual; 2) about one-third of homosexuals are infected with active anorectal herpes simplex viruses; 3) chlamydia infects 15% of homosexuals; and 4) “a host of parasites, bacterial, viral, and protozoan are all rampant in the homosexual population.”3

            Another study found that: 1) amoebiasis, a parasitic disease, afflicts around 32% of homosexuals; 2) giardiasis, also a parasitic disease, afflicts 14% of homosexuals (no heterosexuals in the study were found to have either amoebiasis or giardiasis); 3) gonorrhea afflicts 14% of homosexuals; and 4) 11% of homosexuals had anal warts.4

            Another study found that anorectal sepsis, a potentially toxic bacterial infection, is 4 times more common in homosexual than heterosexual men.5

            According to another study, the “prevalence of EBV type 2 [the Epstein-Barr type 2 virus] among homosexual men was significantly higher than it was among heterosexual men (39% vs. 6%).”6 (That virus causes infectious mononucleosis and is associated with two types of cancer: Burkitt’s lymphoma and nasopharyngeal carcinoma.)

            And other studies have found abnormally high rates of hepatitis B infection,7 hepatitis A infection,8 prostate cancer,9 colitis, enteritis, proctitis, and proctocolitis10 in homosexual men.

            In 1997 a writer for the pro-homosexual New York Times noted that a young male homosexual in America has about a 50% chance of getting H.I.V. by middle age, that many homosexuals have abandoned “safe sex” in favor of unprotected anal sex, and that the incidence of gonorrhea rose 74% among homosexuals between 1993 and 1996.11

            According to a study by the CDC, in 2002, 88% of San Francisco syphilis cases were found among homo/bisexual men.12

            The Chicago Department of Public Health reported that the percentage of Chicago AIDS diagnoses connected to homo/bisexual men increased from 37% in year 2000 to 44% in 2003; and in mid-2006 it also reported that homo/bisexual men accounted for approximately 73% of Chicago syphilis cases for the year 2005. And a September 2010 report from the Centers for Disease Control titled “HIV among Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM)” noted: “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s….At the end of 2006, more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU [injection drug user].” And according to a CDC report, 75% of syphilis cases in this country were found in homo/bisexuals in 2012.

            Regarding HIV/AIDS, the HIV/AIDS rate for homo/bisexual males, even after all the years of warnings, continues to be so abnormally high that the Sept./Oct. 2012 edition of The Gay & Lesbian Review actually described HIV/AIDS as a “Gay Disease” and “primarily a ‘gay’ problem” and noted that “Gay men are sixty times more likely than heterosexual men…to be diagnosed with HIV.”13

            We’ll conclude this section on male homo/bisexual STDs with three short refreshingly honest quotes from the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association. These were found on its website, http://www.glma. org, on Nov. 4, 2009, in a document titled “Top 10 Things Gay Men Should Discuss with their Healthcare Provider.” (It may still be on its website.)

            The quotes: 1) “[M]en who have sex with men are at an increased risk of HIV infection….[T]he last few years have seen the return of many unsafe sex practices.”

            2) “Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) occur in sexually active gay men at a high rate. This includes…syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, pubic lice,…Hepatitis A, B, or C virus, Human Papilloma Virus, etc.”

            3) “Gay men may be at risk for death by prostate, testicular, or colon cancer….[And there are] increased rates of anal cancers in gay men.”

            Regarding lesbians, they face a higher breast cancer risk. One study of lesbians found that: “Sixty-three percent of the lesbians had never been pregnant….[And] Not having children increases a woman’s breast cancer risk by between two to six times.”14 Not having children also “may be a risk factor for ovarian cancer and may be implicated in endometrial cancer as well.”15

            Another study found bacterial vaginosis occuring in 33% of the lesbians but only in 13% of heterosexual women, and found that: “Cervical cytology abnormalities were uncommon but only found in the lesbians.”16 (Those abnormalities may be precursors to cervical cancers.)

            Another study of lesbians found a “relatively high prevalence of the viral STDs, herpes simplex and human papillomavirus [HPV].”17 And according to another: “Genital HPV infection and squamous intraepithelial lesions are common among women who are sexually active with women.”18 HPV has been connected to cervical cancer. “DNA analysis has revealed that about 15 types of the virus account for more than 99 percent of all cervical cancer cases.”19

            (One reason lesbians have a relatively high incidence of STDs is that, as some studies have documented, lesbians have more sexual partners than heterosexual women. For example, a large University of Chicago study concluded that lesbians have four times as many sexual partners as straight women.20)

            Two short quotes from the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association. These were found on its website in a document titled “Top 10 Things Lesbians Should Discuss with their Healthcare Provider.”

            1) “Lesbians have the richest concentration of risk factors for breast cancer than any subset of women in the world.”

            2) “Lesbians have higher risks for many of the gynecologic cancers.”

            We’ll conclude this section on lesbian STDs with this quote from the Oct. 2012 Advocate, a homosexual magazine: “A link between lesbians and cancer, particularly breast cancer, is more than speculation, say experts….[E]xperts believe that lesbians have an increased risk of developing breast cancer….[T]he National LGBT Cancer Network says cancer disproportionately affects lesbians.”21

            It should be noted that lesbian sexual diseases have not been researched nearly as much as male homosexual sexual diseases. This is because lesbian sex was presumed to be relatively safe. Some doctors are fairly calling for more research into the health of lesbians. With more study, we may find the “lesbian lifestyle” is not so safe after all.

            Another relatively unknown fact: the blood of male homosexuals tends to be so contaminated with various viruses and bacteria that all male homosexuals who have been sexually active since 1977 are barred from donating blood.

            A contributing factor to all the diseases found in homosexuals is habitual promiscuity; and a contributing factor to their promiscuity is the popularity of drug use among them. As a homosexual columnist for the Windy City Times, Jose Zuniga, has reported, there is “out-of-control drug use undermining our [homosexual] community’s health and well-being, and contributing to the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases.”22

            Homosexual author Dennis Altman, in one of his books, likewise noted the popularity of drugs among homosexuals: “What is disturbing is the degree to which much of the gay world rests on a sea of alcohol and drugs.”23

            Liberals and their media love to restrict the rights of consenting adults who smoke (because smoking can be harmful), who drink alcohol (for obvious reasons), who own guns (because accidents and murders happen), who believe homosexual activity is immoral and penalizeable (because liberals mistakenly think that there is a right to aberrations like homosexual behavior and also think that any “speech” that reflects negatively on homosexuals—like the information you are reading on this website—should be considered “hate speech”), etc., etc. Liberals love to patronizingly restrict our freedoms (“for our own good”).

            However, liberals apparently believe it’s perfectly okay for people to spread sexual diseases all over this country. Why, we can’t restrict the rights of people who spread STDs! That’s oppression and fascism! Liberals are such hypocrites.

            Incidentally, spending on AIDS research is excessive, totally out-of-whack, unconscionably unfair—and homosexuals are so selfish they don’t care. In the year 2000 we spent around $180 million on prostate cancer research versus around $7 billion on AIDS research, but the number of men who are stricken with prostate cancer each year in the U.S.A. is several times the number of people annually stricken with AIDS!! And in the year 2000 we spent only around $425 million on breast cancer research versus the $7 billion on AIDS research, even though the number of women who are stricken with breast cancer each year is again several times the number of people annually stricken with AIDS in this country!! It’s pretty clear that homosexuals care little about those who die of prostate and breast cancers and other diseases that are relatively underfunded compared to AIDS. Where is their humanity and sense of fairness?

            Another point that needs making: homosexuals have done much damage to this country. For example, thousands of innocent hemophiliacs died of AIDS in years past because HIV-positive homosexuals infected the blood supply. (In 1984 “the Centers for Disease Control found 74 percent of hemophiliacs who received blood factors made from the plasma of U.S. donors were HIV positive.”24) And for another example, we are spending millions and millions of taxpayer dollars on anti-AIDS drugs for homosexuals who voluntarily engaged in unsafe sex. Because of these outrages homosexuals collectively owe America an apology and reparations for the damages.

            To sum up, for various reasons (homosexual acts are physiologically unnatural, homosexuals are inclined to be notably promiscuous), the “homosexual lifestyle” tends to be a very unhealthy one—unhealthy both to individuals and to the society that indirectly pays for or suffers the consequences. To encourage anyone to engage in homosexual activity is clearly irresponsible and depraved.

            (Since anal sex was discussed above, this section of our website is as good a place as any to note the following: One homosexual was honest enough to admit that the feeling of being “fisted,” i.e., having a fist moving back and forth in one’s rectum, is “like the feeling your funny bone gets when it’s hit, only it travels all over your body.”25 Being fisted is clearly not a truly pleasurable experience. Now, since an erect phallus moving back and forth in a rectum is somewhat analogous to being “fisted,” it seems reasonable to conclude that being the recipient of “anal sex” is not a truly pleasurable experience—indeed, it may be just the opposite. And if having matter—like a phallus—moving in a rectum was truly pleasurable, then defecating would also be pleasurable since when we defecate we have matter moving through our anal tissues. But only people with a psychological problem find the act of defecating pleasurable. To psychologically healthy people, defecating is no more pleasurable than drinking water, though it can be painful if one is constipated. We apologize for the graphic nature of this paragraph, but its content is relevant.)


            1. Council on Scientific Affairs, “Health care needs of gay men and lesbians in the United States,” JAMA, May 1, 1996, p. 1355. Because the homosexual anal cancer rate is so much higher than the heterosexual anal cancer rate, and because the difference is associated with the frequency of anal sex, we find many homosexuals and their supporters try to flat-out deny the inconvenient truth. Since this is a significant fact which reflects negatively on the physiologically unnatural homosexual lifestyle, we are going to provide ample documentation to prove our point. The following medical journal articles, in no particular order, also refer to the abnormally high homosexual anal cancer rate (we don’t mean to imply these are the only ones that do—we’re sure there are other such articles since that rate is very well-documented): M. Frisch, “On the etiology of anal squamous carcinoma,” Dan Med Bull, Aug. 2002, 49(3), pp. 194-209; M. Frisch and others, “Cancer in a population-based cohort of men and women in registered homosexual partnerships,” Am J Epidemiol, June 1, 2003, 157(11), pp. 966-72; D. Knight, “Health care screening for men who have sex with men,” Am Fam Physician, May 1, 2004, 69(9), pp. 2149-56; S. Goldstone, “Anal dysplasia in men who have sex with men,” AIDS Read, May-June 1999, 9(3), pp. 204-8 and 220; Reinhard Hopfl and others, “High prevalence of high risk human papillomavirus-capsid antibodies in human immunodeficiency virus-seropositive men: a serological study,” BMC Infect Dis, April 30, 2003, 3(1), p. 6; R.J. Biggar and M. Melbye, “Marital status in relation to Kaposi’s sarcoma, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and anal cancer in the pre-AIDS era,” J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol, Feb. 1, 1996, 11(2), pp. 178-82; P.V. Chin-Hong and others, “Age-related prevalence of anal cancer precursors in homosexual men: the EXPLORE study,” J Natl Cancer Inst, June 15, 2005, 97(12), pp. 896-905; R. Dunleavey, “The role of viruses and sexual transmission in anal cancer,” Nurs Times, March 1-7, 2005, 101(9), pp. 38-41; P.V. Chin-Hong and others, “Age-Specific prevalence of anal human papillomavirus infection in HIV-negative sexually active men who have sex with men: the EXPLORE study,” J Infect Dis, Dec. 15, 2004, 190(12), pp. 2070-6; J.R. Daling and others, “Human papillomavirus, smoking, and sexual practices in the etiology of anal cancer,” Cancer, July 15, 2004, 101(2), pp. 270-80; and A. Kreuter and others, “Screening and therapy of anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) and anal carcinoma in patients with HIV-infection,” Dtsch Med Wochenschr, Sept. 19, 2003, 128(38), pp. 1957-62.

            2. M. Frisch and others, “Sexually transmitted infection as a cause of anal cancer,” N Engl J Med, Nov. 6, 1997, p. 1350.

            3. S.D. Wexner, “Sexually transmitted diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus. The challenge of the nineties,” Dis Colon Rectum (EAB), Dec. 1990, from the abstract, p. 1048. For further reading: J.F. Beltrami and others, “Trends in infectious diseases and the male to female ratio: possible clues to changes in behavior among men who have sex with men,” AIDS Educ Prev, Dec. 2005, 17(6 Suppl. B), pp. 49-56; (No authors listed) “Latest STD data in United States continues to portend problems with prevention, HIV. Other research notes high STDs among HIV-infected women,” AIDS Alert, Dec. 2005, 20(12), pp. 133-6; H.M. Truong and others, “Increases in sexually transmitted infections and sexual risk behaviors without a concurrent increase in HIV incidence among men who have sex with men in San Francisco: a suggestion of HIV serosorting,” Sex Transm Infect, Dec. 2006, 82(6), pp. 461-6; R.E. Baughn and D.M. Musher, “Secondary syphilitic lesions,” Clin Microbiol Rev, Jan. 2005, 18(1), pp. 205-16.

            4. J. Christopherson and others, “Sexually transmitted diseases in hetero-, homo-and bisexual males in Copenhagen,” Dan Med Bull (DYN), June 1988, from the abstract, p. 285.

            5. N.D. Carr and others, “Noncondylomatous, perianal disease in homosexual men,” Br J Surg (B34), Oct. 1989, from the abstract, p. 1064.

            6. D. van Baarle and others, “High prevalence of Epstein-Barr virus type 2 among homosexual men is caused by sexual transmission,” J Infect Dis, June 2000, from the abstract, p. 2045.

            7. K.S. Lim and others, “Role of sexual and non-sexual practices in the transmission of hepatitis B,” Br J Vener Dis (B40), June 1977, from the abstract, p. 190; R.S. Remis and others, “Association of hepatitis B virus infection with other sexually transmitted infections in homosexual men,” Am J Public Health, Oct. 2000, 90(10), pp. 1570-4; P.J. Saxton, “Sexually transmitted diseases and hepatitis in a national sample of men who have sex with men in New Zealand,” N Z Med J, July 26, 2002, 115(1158), p. U106.

            8. J.J. Ochnio and others, “Past infection with hepatitis A virus among Vancouver street youth, injection drug users and men who have sex with men: implications for vaccination programs,” CMAJ, Aug. 7, 2001, 165(3), pp. 293-7.

            9. J.S. Mandel and L.M. Schumann, “Sexual factors and prostate cancer: results from a case-control study,” J Gerontol, May 1987, from the abstract, p. 259.

            10. Council on Scientific Affairs, op cit, p. 1356.

            11. Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “Gay Culture Weighs Sense and Sexuality,” New York Times (late edition, east coast), Nov. 23, 1997, section 4, p. 1.

            12. CDC, “Internet use and early syphilis infection among men who have sex with men—San Francisco, California, 1999-2003,” MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, Dec. 19, 2003, 52(50), pp. 1229-32.

            13. John-Manuel Andriote, “Reclaiming HIV as a ‘Gay’ Disease,” The Gay & Lesbian Review, Sept./Oct. 2012, p. 29.

            14. Jim Ritter, “Breast cancer risk higher in lesbians,” Chicago Sun-Times, Oct. 16, 1998, p. 50. Another reference for further reading: S.L. Dibble and others, “Comparing breast cancer risk between lesbians and their heterosexual sisters,” Women’s Health Issues, March-April 2004, 14(2), pp. 60-8.

            15. Council on Scientific Affairs, op cit, p. 1355.

            16. C.J. Skinner and others, “A case-controlled study of the sexual health needs of lesbians,” Genitourin Med, Aug. 1996, from the abstract, p. 227.

            17. A. Edwards and R.N. Thin, “Sexually transmitted diseases in lesbians,” Int J STD AIDS, May 1990, from the abstract, p. 178.

            18. J.M. Marrazzo and others, “Genital human papillomavirus infection in women who have sex with women,” J Infect Dis, Dec. 1998, from the abstract, p. 1604.

            19. Josh Fischman, “Sticking It To Cancer,” U.S. News & World Report, Apr. 3, 2006, p. 58.

            20. E.O. Laurnarm and others, The social organization of sexuality: sexual practices in the United States, U. of Chicago Press, 1994.

            21. Camille Beredjick, “The Lesbian Breast Cancer Link,” The Advocate, Oct. 2012, p. 16.

            22. Jose Zuniga, “Viagra Vexation,” Windy City Times, May 28, 1998, p. 14.

            23. Dennis Altman, The Homosexualization of America, the Americanization of the Homosexual (NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1982), p. 222.

            24. Monifa Thomas, “Baxter, other drug firms hit with AIDS-related lawsuit,” Chicago Sun-Times, April 25, 2005, p. 65.

            25. Seymour Kleinberg, Alienated Affections (NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1980), p. 178.

          • John N

            Afchief, copying and pasting from a homophobic hate-website like the ‘Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment’ doesn’t forward your case, certainly not when it references studies of thirty years ago.

            Did you actually read one of these studies? So then, come with the actual evidences from those studies.

            So please give us the evidence that ‘homosexuality is a mental disorder, it is perverted (why? who defined the standards of perversion?), it is deviant (deviant from what?) and dangerous (of course it is dangerous – all sexual contacts are dangerous).

          • afchief

            Homosexual Activists Intimidate American Psychiatric Association into Removing Homosexuality from List of Disorders

            BY RYAN SORBA

            “It was never a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came so fast…It was a political move.”

            “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.”

            -Barbara Gittings, Same-gender sex activist

            Let us, for a moment, rewind to the year1970. In this year, same-gender sex activists began a program of intimidation aimed at the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Activist Frank Kameny states the movement’s objective clearly, “I feel that the entire homophile movement…is going to stand or fall upon the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sickness, and upon our taking a firm stand on it…” (The Gay Crusaders, by Kay Tobin and Randy Wicker, p. 98)

            In 1970, psychiatrists generally considered sexual desires toward members of one’s own gender to be disordered. Karoly Maria Kertbeny’s term, “homosexual” was the official descriptor for those inflicted by this mental-physical disassociative disorder. Psychiatry’s authoritative voice influenced public opinion, which at the time was negative toward same-gender sex. Of course, public sexual activity in parks and public restrooms contributed to societies negative views about the types of people that did such things, but “scientific opinion” was crucial in the public attitude.

            Led by radicals like Frank Kameny, same-gender sex activists attacked many psychiatrists publicly, as Newsweek describes, “But even more than the government, it is the psychiatrists who have experienced the full rage of the homosexual activists. Over the past two years, gay-lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months ago—in the movements most aggressive demonstration so far—a group of 30 militants broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos for twenty minutes. ‘We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered,’ shouted the group’s leader, Dr. Franklin Kameny, while the 2,000 shocked psychiatrists looked on in disbelief. ‘For us, as homosexuals, your profession is the enemy incarnate. We demand that psychiatrists treat us as human beings, not as patients to be cured!’” (Newsweek, 8-23-71, p.47)

            Ironically, at the very moment Franklin Kameny was claiming that same-gender sex was healthy, safe, and natural, a deadly virus was silently passing through communities of men all over the nation as a result of the promiscuous, unhealthy nature of the sex they were having. Only a decade later, thousands of men would be dead or dying, of AIDS.

            On June 7, of the following year, 1971, Franklin Kameny wrote a letter to the Psychiatric News threatening the APA with not only more, but worse, disruptions. In this letter he states, “Our presence there was only the beginning of an increasingly intensive campaign by homosexuals to change the approach of psychiatry toward homosexuality or, failing that, to discredit psychiatry.” (The Gay Crusaders p. 130-131)

            Same-gender sex activists continued to pressure the APA through 1973. A same-gender sex magazine, The Advocate, talks of “…what happened in 1973…referring to the widespread protests by the gay and lesbian community that led to the APA’s dropping homosexuality from the DSM.” (The Advocate, 12-28-93, p.40) As a result of the pressure, in the words of the prominent journalist and same-gender sex activists, Andrew Sullivan, in December of 1973 the APA, “…under intense political pressure…removed homosexuality from its official list of psychiatric disorders…” (Love Undetectable, book by Andrew Sullivan, 1998, p. 107) Under this “intense political pressure” the APA’s board of trustees finally caved in to the demands of same-gender sex activists. Another same-gender sex activist Mark Thompson writes, “Just before the first of the year, the American Psychiatric Association’s board of trustees declared we were no longer sick.” (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 97)

            After the vote by the American Psychiatric Associations Board of Trustees, some members of the APA, led by Dr. Charles Socarides called for a full vote by the APA’s 17,905 members. (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 104)

            On April 9, 1974, results of the vote were announced. Only 10,555 of the 17,905 APA members had voted in the election. The results were as follows,

            Total APA members eligible to vote: 17,905

            Number of APA members that actually voted: 10,555

            Number of members that “Abstained”: 367

            Number of “ No” votes-votes to keep “homosexuality” in the DSM as a mental disorder: 3,810

            Number of “Yes” votes-votes to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM as a mental disorder: 5,854

            It should be noted that the number of “Yes” (5,854) made up only 32.7 percent of the total membership of the APA. Only slightly less than one-third of the APA’s membership approved the change. It should be further noted that the “National Gay Task Force” was able to obtain APA members addresses and the “NGTF” (with-out identifying itself) and they sent creepy letters to all members urging them to vote to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM. Bruce Voeller, the head of the NGTF admits, “Our costly letter has perhaps made the difference.” (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 105-106) Dishonesty and intimidation had won the day for the same-gender sex movement, and when activists publicly claim that this vote was a scientific decision; they hide three years of deceit and intimidation. In same-gender sex publications, however, activists are remarkably candid about the reality of the vote. For example, Kay Tobin Lahausen, co-author of The Gay Crusaders describes a variety of activism. “We did all sorts of protests…When the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations came out of some meeting and got in his big black limousine, I remember going crazy, rocking and beating on the limousine…He had never been besieged by a bunch of homosexuals before. But he had said something that got us going.” (Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights, 1945-1990: an Oral History by Eric Marcus p.216-217) (–Author Marcus has worked as an associate producer for “CBS This Morning” and “Good Morning America.”)

            Lahausen’s lover, Barbara Gittings was a well known activist during this time as well. Gittings was the first head of the American Library Association Gay Task Force, although she was not a librarian her objective was to bring books advocating the same-gender sex movement to the attention of librarians in hopes of having them included in libraries. At one American Library Association meeting Gittings set up a same-gender kissing booth, to attract attention to the same-gender sex. Gittings tells about her activism against the APA. “Besides the ALA, I was also very involved, along with many other people, in efforts to get the American Psychiatric Association… to drop its listing of homosexuality as a mental illness. Psychiatrists were one of the three major groups that had their hands on us. They had a kind of control over our fate, in the eyes of the public, for a long time. “Religion and law were the other two groups that had their hands on us. So, besides being sick, we were sinful and criminal. But the sickness label infected everything that we said and made it difficult for us to gain any credibility for anything we said ourselves. The sickness issue was paramount.” (Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights, 1945-1990: an Oral History by Eric Marcus p.221)

            Gittings took place in the disruptive attacks (“saps”) on the APA. She states, “I am not opposed to sap tactics. In fact, I spearheaded a sap at a psychiatrists meeting and I’m ready to do it again.” (The Gay Crusaders, p.234) Barbara Gittings recounts, “The 1970 convention in San Francisco was disrupted by a group of feminists and gay men who were enraged by what the psychiatrists were saying about them—and newspapers all around the country carried the story” (The Gay Crusaders, p.216). The “Gay” Militants, a book about that time, adds details, “On May 14, 1970 psychiatrists became the hunted. An invasion by the coalition of ‘gay’ and woman’s liberationists interrupted the national convention of the American Psychiatric Association in San Francisco to protest the reading of a paper by an Australian psychiatrists on the subject of ‘aversion therapy,’ a system of treatment which attempts to change gay orientation by keying unpleasant sensations (such as electric shocks) to homosexual stimuli. By the time the meeting was over, the feminists and their gay cohorts were in charge…and the doctors were heckling from the audience.’” (The Gay Militants, by Donn Teal, p.272-273)

            Same-gender sex activists took over the podium and microphones. Then, “Konstantin Berlandt, of Berkeley GLF, paraded through the hall in bright red dress. Paper airplanes sailed down from the balcony. With two papers still unread, the chairman announced adjournment.” (Ibid., p.274) On June 23, 1970 same-gender sex activists disrupted yet another meeting, this time in Chicago, be repeatedly shouting down the main speakers discourse. (Ibid., 275) Then, in October at a meeting at the University of Southern California, same-gender sex activists shouted down a speaker and then took over the stage and the microphone. (Ibid., pp.276-280)

            Kay Lahusen and Barbera Gittings know what really happened to the APA. In the book, Making History they are quite open about the reality.

            Kay: This was always more of a political decision than a medical decision.

            Barbara: It never was a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came so fast. After all, it was only three years from the time that feminists and gays first sapped the APA at a behavior therapy session to the time that the Board of Trustees voted in 1973 to approve removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. It was a political move.” (Making History, p.224)

            The APA was thoroughly intimidated. Later in the same year (1974), after the APA’s vote, Gittings was interviewed by a historian of the same-gender sex movement, Jonathan Ned Katz. Gittings brags, “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.” (Gay American History, by Jonathan Ned Katz, 1992, p.427. This interview was taped July 19, 1974). Anytime a scientific organization endorses same-gender sex, remember Gittings words: “They are running scared.” Same-gender sex activists have learned that intimidation works and they are never hesitant about using intimidation, psychological manipulation and deceit to reach the goals of their radical agenda.

            Later in 1974, same-gender sex activists set their vicious sights on an individual member of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. David Rueben, who was perhaps the best-known psychologist in the area of human sexuality at the time. Unbeknownst to Dr. Reuben, same-gender activists were lying in wait outside one of his lectures, and his physical safety was at risk. A same-gender sex activist and writer, Leigh Rutledge describes the attack in her book The Gay Decades, “June 16, A fist fight broke out at a Philadelphia playhouse when ten gay activists interrupt a lecture by Dr. David Rueben and denounce him as ‘a criminal’ for his views on male homosexuality. One policeman and a protestor are injured in the melee.” (The Gay Decades, by a man that engages in same-gender sex and writer, Leigh W. Rutledge, 1992, p.69) On that same page, this book tells us that, “The Centers for Disease Control estimate that gay or bisexual men account for as much as one-third of the syphilis cases in the U.S.”

            Apparently, the American Psychological Association also got the message of intimidation, because they caved in to same-gender sex activists in 1975. In the book, The Long Road to Freedom the author writes, “January…The American Psychological Association and American Association for the Advancement of Science echoed the American Psychiatric Association in deeming homosexuality not an illness.” (The Long Road to Freedom, pp.115) The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) publishes the scientific journal Science, intimidation by same-gender sex activists was over for them. “Under pressure from gay scientific groups, Science magazine banned anti-gay bias in its staff hiring and advertisement.” (The Long Road to Freedom, pp.214)

            Could the AAAS have been thinking about “pressure from gay scientific groups” when they published the poorly done studies by LeVay (“gay” brains) and Hamer (“gay” gene)? Two scientists who protested the LeVay study raise serious questions about AAAS, Science, and same-gender sex activists. “The appearance of LeVay’s paper highlights a serious issue in science public policy. Should such a study, based on a questionable design, with subjects drawn from a small, highly selected and non-representative sample, receive the kind of international attention and credibility that publication in a journal with the stature of Science lends?” (Science, 11-1-91, p.630)

            If Dr. LeVay was not able to draw a proper sample and to fulfill other basic requirements for a scientific study, why did he conduct the study at all? If the study was not done for scientific reasons it must have been done for political reasons. Indeed, LeVay’s study was part of a public relations campaign, (the born “gay” hoax) to make the public believe that individuals were born “gay.” Science, a supposedly reputable publication, must have been intimidated to risk their own legitimacy by published such shoddy work. When unethical political movements dominate science, pushing science in unscientific directions, science suffers and leads society astray. One lesson from these facts is unmistakable: every time a scientific group repeats the same-gender sex movement’s propaganda, you may justifiably suspect that these groups are acting out of ignorance or intimidation.

            Another lesson is that same-gender sex activists are so desperate to cover their deeply dysfunctional condition that they will stop at nothing to hide the facts from the public. Award-winning writer and same-gender sex activist Randy Shilts describes the denial among men that have sex with men, about their unhealthy lifestyles causing AIDS to be epidemic among them when he writes, “…the desperation of denial: how when something is so horrible you don’t want to believe it, you want to out it out of your mind and insist it isn’t true, and how you hate the person who says it is.” (And the Band Played On, 1988, p. 182) Desperate denial –this seems to be what drives the deceit, psychological manipulation, and intimidation of both scientific groups and the public.

          • John N

            More homophobic hate stuff.

            Have you actually got any ideas and arguments from your own?

            Or is this what you call ‘apologetics’ – lying for your religion?

          • afchief

            Ideas and arguments of my own? Why? Because you do not want to hear the truth!!!! That’s why!!!

            Any rational and logical mind KNOWS how perverted, deviant and dangerous homosexuality is. A reprobate mind does NOT!!!

          • John N

            >’Ideas and arguments of my own? Why? Because you do not want to hear the truth!!!! That’s why!!!’

            Because I want to respond to your own arguments, not to one of a homophobic hatesite, that’s why.

            ‘Any rational and logical mind KNOWS how perverted, deviant and dangerous homosexuality is. A reprobate mind does NOT!!!’

            So you don’t mind explaining me the rational and logic of perversion and deviancy, do you?

          • afchief

            Any rational and logical mind knows the “back door” is a ONE WAY street. A reprobate mind does not!!

            The anal muscle is what’s known as a “round muscle”. Think of it as being like a rubber band, rather than a sheet stretching from one area to another. These muscles have a very specific design and function. They are meant to keep things closed.

            If that muscle is stretched, it develops microtears. Now with a regular muscle, microtears mend and the muscle is built up, which is how exercise gets you toned and/or built. Round muscles don’t work that way. Microtears never fully heal, and the entire muscle is weakened.

            That is *why* gay men end up needing diapers over time. The anal muscle can no longer close tightly enough to prevent leakage.

          • John N

            And that’s why I asked you to warn heterosexuals to stop doing this because, like I showed you when you called me a liar, there are many more heterosexuals engaged in anal sex than homosexuals.

            I guess you really feel worried about them as well and will urge them to stop having any sex at all, like you want homosexuals to do.

            Maybe you call them perverts, deviants, dangerous people, because like you seem to think, any argument is good to avoid them harming themselves.

            I suggest you start with your friends and neighbours.

          • afchief

            Whether your a hetro or a homo anyone using the back door for sex is of a reprobate mind!!!

            It is that simple!!!

          • John N

            But still you target specially homosexuals for what you admit also heterosexuals do?

            You know how that kind of behaviour is called, do you?

            Again afchief, your god doesn’t like his followers to lie, falsely accuse other people, spreading hate or behave like a hypcrite. You’ve done all these things here. And still you think you have the right to push your fundamentalistic morals on other people?

          • afchief

            Let me repeat what I said! Whether your a hetro or a homo anyone using the back door for sex is of a reprobate mind!!!

            It is that simple!!!

          • Valri

            You really need to watch it when you start to accuse gay people of “perverted” sexual practices. They are a lot more limited in what they can do in the bedroom than Herero people. In fact, practically any act you want to jump on gay people for doing is also done by straights.

          • afchief

            I will watch nothing!!! I speak the hard truths and the hard facts others won’t.

            Like I said, people using the back door for sex whether hetro or homo are of a “reprobate mind”, period.

          • afchief

            Homosexuality: The Mental Illness That Went Away

            by PHIL HICKEY on OCTOBER 8, 2011

            According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness. Freud had alluded to homosexuality numerous times in his writings, and had concluded that paranoia and homosexuality were inseparable. Other psychiatrists wrote copiously on the subject, and homosexuality was “treated” on a wide basis. There was little or no suggestion within the psychiatric community that homosexuality might be conceptualized as anything other than a mental illness that needed to be treated. And, of course, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness in DSM-II. (The DSM – Diagnostic and Statistical Manual – is the APA’s standard classification of their so-called mental disorders, and is used by many mental health workers in the USA and other countries.)

            Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.

            What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard. And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed. And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy. So they quickly “cut loose” the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.

            The APA claimed that they made the change because new research showed that most homosexual people were content with their sexual orientation, and that as a group, they appeared to be as well-adjusted as heterosexual people. I suggest, however, that these research findings were simply the APA’s face-saver. For centuries, perhaps millennia, homosexual people had clung to their sexual orientation despite the most severe persecution and vilification, including imprisonment and death. Wouldn’t this suggest that they were happy with their orientation? Do we need research to confirm this? And if we do, shouldn’t we also need research to confirm that heterosexual people are happy with their orientation? And if poor adjustment is critical to a diagnosis of mental illness, where was the evidence of this that justified making homosexuality a mental illness in the first place?

            Also noteworthy is the fact that the vote of the membership was by no means unanimous. Only about 55% of the members who voted favored the change.

            Of course, the APA put the best spin they could on these events. The fact is that they altered their taxonomy because of intense pressure from the gay community, but they claimed that the change was prompted by research findings.

            So all the people who had this terrible “illness” were “cured” overnight – by a vote! I remember as a boy reading of the United Nations World Health Organization’s decision to eradicate smallpox. This was in 1967, and by 1977, after a truly staggering amount of work, the disease was a thing of the past. Why didn’t they just take a vote? Because smallpox is a real illness. The human problems listed in DSM are not. It’s that simple. You can say that geese are swans – but in reality they’re still geese.

            The overall point being that the APA’s taxonomy is nothing more than self-serving nonsense. Real illnesses are not banished by voting or by fiat, but by valid science and hard work. There are no mental illnesses. Rather, there are people. We have problems; we have orientations; we have habits; we have perspectives. Sometimes we do well, other times we make a mess of things. We are complicated. Our feelings fluctuate with our circumstances, from the depths of despondency to the pinnacles of bliss. And perhaps, most of all, we are individuals. DSM’s facile and self-serving attempt to medicalize human problems is an institutionalized insult to human dignity. The homosexual community has managed to liberate themselves from psychiatric oppression. But there are millions of people worldwide who are still being damaged, stigmatized, and disempowered by this pernicious system to this day.

          • afchief

            Ravages of the Lifestyle

            But one may ask, “Why shouldn’t gays be allowed to marry. After all, who does it hurt?” Today’s society is lying to us about homosexuality. We are told that it is biblical—clearly incorrect. We are told that it is genetic—no evidence for it. And we are told that it can be a beautiful and loving lifestyle—wrong again.

            Statistics show that homosexual behavior is marked by death, disease, disappointment, promiscuity, perversity, addiction, and misery. The real threat to persons in the homosexual lifestyle does not seem to be discrimination, but physical devastation.

            Please note—the purpose of our web site is to present the testimony and evidence as best we know it. The statistics below are harsh. If you have contrary evidence, we would be glad for you to provide it. Here are a few of the available statistics:

            The best available evidence indicates that those practicing homosexual behavior have a 20% to 30% shorter life expectancy than the rest of the population, not even accounting for death from AIDS.

            25% to 33% of people in the homosexual lifestyle are alcoholics compared to 7% in the general population.

            60% of all syphilis cases are among homo and bi-sexual men.

            Homosexual men have an HIV infection rate 60 times higher than the general public.

            Most people in the homosexual lifestyle are loving and caring. But we cannot merely sweep under the rug the statistics that indicate that homosexuals are 16 times more likely than heterosexuals to molest a child and 15 times more likely to murder.

            In addition to increased molestation, empirical research shows that children of a homosexual couple have more frequent harms such as social difficulties, emotional turmoil, gender role disruption, etc.

            For further statistics, see the educational pamphlet Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do. (This pamphlet, as well as others available from the Family Research Institute, are excellent to distribute at your workplace if you are forced to attend an indoctrination on homosexuality!) They are available at this website: Family Research Institute (See “Pamphets” and “Scientific Articles” in the upper left hand corner of the home page.)

            According to the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, a stunning 31 percent of lesbians in relationships had experienced physical violence from a partner within the past year. According to John Klofas of the Rochester Institute of Technology, “Trends suggest that as many as half of lesbian relationships experience some form of abuse.” Meanwhile, gay males, according to the peer-reviewd journal Violence and Victims “are more likely to be killed by their partners than [by] a stranger.” The increased potential for violence has been confirmed in numerous studies (see Conservapedia and John Jay College), as well as by gay advocacy groups such as the Gay Men’s Domestic Violence Project.

            Child Molestation appears to be staggeringly higher among gays. See Pedophilia.

            Encouraging people to enter relationships so much more dangerous for them than marriage is not responsible behavior on the part of any government. Likewise, legalizing gay marriage hurts homosexuals in general. When the government says that gay marriage is fine, it teaches (often through public elementary education, see Spain), that homosexual behavior is fine. But unfortunately, these behaviors are linked to a number of serious health problems, including drug abuse. Gay men are infected 50 times more often than straight men, and and have a much higher incidence of anal cancer (among men), breast cancer and gynocological cancers (among women), and 4 times more likely to commit suicide.

            The pathology of homosexual practice gives the reasons for many of the ravages of this lifestyle. In a 1991 paper, James Holsinger Jr, a physician nominated for the post of Surgeon General, explained that the structure and function of the male and female reproductive systems are fully complementary. But the rectum is incapable of mechanical protection against severe damage. Not only is the rectum not lubricated, but the anal sphincters are designed for only the outward passage of objects.

            Holsinger stated, “From the perspective of pathology and pathophysiology, the varied sexual practices of homosexual men have resulted in a diverse and expanded concept of sexually transmitted disease and associated trauma.” Among items in a long list of problems listed by Holsinger are these: enteric diseases (infections from a variety of viruses and bacteria including a very high incidence of amoebiasis, giardiasis, and hepatitis, etc.), trauma (fecal incontinence, anal fissure, rectosigmoid tears, chemical sinusitis, etc.), sexually transmitted diseases (AIDS, gonorrhea, simplex infections, genital warts, scabies, etc.).

            Homosexuals do not want you to think about what they do. This is why Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty created such a stir when he simply stated the obvious: “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

            The following link is an open admission from a homosexual male regarding the norm in this lifestyle: Self Destruction.

            Also see this link concerning the health of various lifestyle groups: Health.

            The gay political movement largely follows the methods described in Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen’s strategy manual After the Ball. This includes making themselves seem victimized in order to gain sympathy—carrying out a “conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media,” and marginalizing people and groups who oppose homosexual behavior. But the facts are that the gay lifestyle itself creates its own victims.

            We should make a logical distinction between human characteristics. It is bigotry to oppose someone on the basis of race. But it is wise to oppose someone because they practice destructive behavior.

            http://www.faithfacts. org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-rights

          • afchief

            Why Homosexuals Tend To Be Sexually Exploitative

            For way too many homosexuals, even in these AIDS-ridden times, impersonal or casual sex with numerous partners is popular. Indeed, a couple of recent studies support the contention that unsafe sex by homosexuals has significantly increased over the last few years.1

            Extreme promiscuity has in fact been a common occurrence among homosexuals for a long time. Back in 1982, homosexual Dennis Altman even admitted: “now there is a move toward claiming that this [i.e., promiscuity] is part of a different, perhaps even superior, way of managing sexual relationships….[T]he assumption that it is desirable to have frequent and varied sex partners is increasingly seen as a positive part of the gay life style.”2

            A couple of homosexual authors, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, noted that “gay men aren’t very good at having and holding lovers.”3 This is because, they say, “gay men tire of their partners (sexually, at any rate) more rapidly than straight men.”4

            According to Kirk and Madsen, the average homosexual first “seeks [sexual] novelty in partners, rather than practices, and becomes massively promiscuous; [but] eventually, all bodies become boring, and only new practices will thrill.”5

            If loving relationships sound rare among homosexuals it is because they are. Jean Genet, a homosexual, observed: “What is a homosexual? A man for whom, first of all, the entire female sex, half of humanity, doesn’t exist….For him romance is only a kind of stupidity or deception–for him only pleasure exists.”6

            Homosexual author Seymour Kleinberg: “The prodigiousness of sex really depends deeply on change, and promiscuity is the easiest kind of change for gay men.”7

            Homosexual author Simon LeVay: “In a study in the San Francisco Bay area in the 1970s…almost one-half of the white gay men and one-third of the black gay men claimed to have had at least five hundred different male sex partners.”8

            For many homosexuals the world seems to intentionally be a cold, loveless place where people just use other people’s bodies for their own selfish, sexual purposes. Is that the kind of world we want? Is that the kind of world psychologically healthy people want?

            (Hollywood, incidentally, is materially contributing to that sexually exploitative world. Actor Woody Harrelson, for example, admits: “Every [acting] business I ever entered into in New York seemed to have a casting couch….I’ve seen so many people sleep with people they loathe in order to further their ambition.”9

            (Jenny McCarthy similarly noted: “[In Los Angeles you] hear about casting couches–which I thought were just big fluffy couches–but you don’t know till you experience it how corrupt it is. I was the only girl in my clique who wasn’t sleeping with someone to get a job.”10

            (Chris Hanley, producer of over 20 movies [“American Psycho,” “The Virgin Suicides,” etc.] “told his class reunion at Amherst College in Massachusetts about the Hollywood casting process: ‘Almost every leading actress in all of my 24 films has slept with a director or producer or a leading actor to get the part that launched her career.'”11

            (And Peter Keough, a writer for the Chicago Tribune, sounded a kindred tune. He described Hollywood as “a town where everyone is selling body and soul for fame and fortune, and all–especially women–are considered commodities.”12

            (We probably should boycott Hollywood until they clean up the place. If we allow Hollywood to impose its cold-blooded, money-grubber values on us we’ll all be reduced to heartless bodily things to be used as sex objects and for money or to be discarded when convenient [e.g., abortion].

            (While on the subject of Hollywood, here are a couple of revealing quotes. First, from Teller [of Penn and Teller fame]: “It shouldn’t be true, but I’m afraid it’s more true than I’d like to admit. People in the entertainment business actually celebrate the fact they are working for the lowest common denominator, that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”13

            (And second, from film director Joel Schumaker [of “Batman Forever” and “The Client” fame]: “I think [the studios] have a tendency to think the audience is stupid and unsophisticated. I think there’s a notion in a lot of people’s minds in Hollywood that…everybody’s like the people in [the movie] ‘Deliverance.'”14 The public is enriching people who think the public is stupid.)

            People who are promiscuous are basically saying: “I don’t think you’re worth marrying but I’ll use you for sex.” Promiscuity, sleeping together, pre-marital sex, living together–they are all just euphemisms for sexual exploitation.

            We can have a warm, loving world where people are treated with respect; or, we can have a cold, impersonal, exploitative world where people are treated as things, as commodities. Which would you prefer?


            1. See, for example, a September 2010 report from the Centers for Disease Control titled “HIV among Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM)” http://www.cdc. gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm. According to this report: “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s….At the end of 2006, more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU.” And for another example, in February 2005 the Chicago Department of Public Health reported that “HIV cases linked to gay and bisexual men rose 10 percent from 2000-2003 [the last year for which there were available stats at the time this was released] in Chicago,” mirroring the national trend (“Study charts rise in HIV among gays” by Gary Barlow, Chicago Free Press [a homosexual newspaper], Feb. 9, 2005, p. 11).

            2. Dennis Altman, The Homosexualization of America, the Americanization of the Homosexual (NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1982), pp. 16-7.

            3. Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, After the Ball (NY: Doubleday, 1989), p. 320.

            4. Ibid., p. 319.

            5. Ibid., p. 304.

            6. Thomas McGonigle, “By his nature, out of step,” Chicago Tribune, Oct. 24, 1993, section 14, p. 3.

            7. Seymour Kleinberg, Alienated Affections (NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1980), p. 171.

            8. Simon LeVay, Queer Science (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1996), p. 159.

            9. Stephanie Mansfield, “Wild and Woody,” Chicago Sun-Times, USA Weekend sec, July 5-7, 1996, p. 5.

            10. Cheryl Lavin, “Dumb like a fox,” Chicago Tribune, Aug. 24, 1997, sec. 10, p. 16.

            11. “News from the casting couch,” Chicago Sun-Times, June 10, 2005, p. 52.

            12. Peter Keough, “Taking it off takes off,” Chicago Tribune, April 30, 1995, sec. 13, p. 3.

            13. Bill Zwecker, “Penn & Teller find magic in full disclosure,” Chicago Sun-Times, May 31, 1998, “Showcase” section, p. 3E.

            14. Mark Caro, “The ‘science’ of who sits in the movie seats,” Chicago Tribune, Oct. 15, 2000, sec. 7, p. 7.

          • afchief

            Some Quotes Regarding The AIDS Epidemic

            § From a September 2014 article in the Wall Street Journal (online): “Gay and bisexual men represent an estimated 2% of the U.S. population but more than half of all people living with HIV and 66% of new HIV infections. They are the only population group in the United States for which HIV infections are rising. Projections have shown that if current trends continue, half of all gay and bisexual men will be HIV-positive by age 50” (Drew Altman, “Behind the Increase in HIV Infections Among Gay and Bisexual Men,” Sept. 25, 2014).

            § According to a September 2013 report, “CDC e-HAP FYI Updates: Sixth Annual National Gay Men’s HIV/AIDS Awareness Day” , from the Centers for Disease Control: “Gay and bisexual men of all races and ethnicities are still at the center of the HIV epidemic in the United States. Just 2% of the U.S. population, they accounted for 63% of all new HIV infections in 2010 and 52% of people living with HIV infection in the United States in 2009. From 2008 to 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections rose 12% among MSM overall and 22% among young MSM (aged 13 to 24 years).”

            § According to a 2013 report by the Centers for Disease Control, titled “HIV Surveillance in Adolescents and Young Adults”, approximately 92% of all AIDS cases found in American males age 13 to 24 are found in males who have sex with other males. OUT magazine, a homosexual magazine, noted in its October 2013 issue that there has been “a 22% rise in HIV rates in young gay men in recent years….[And that] if HIV infections continue to rise at current rates, half of young gay men will have HIV by age 50….[And that] gay men forego condoms up to half the time” despite the years of warnings about AIDS (Tim Murphy, “Is This The New Condom,” OUT, p. 72).

            § According to a CDC report released Dec. 19, 2012, titled “Estimated HIV Incidence in the United States, 2007-2010”: “Comparing 2008 to 2010, the number of new HIV infections remained stable, with 47,500…new infections in 2008 and 47,500…in 2010….Comparing 2008 to 2010, the number of new HIV infections among MSM [men who have sex with men] increased 12% from 26,700…in 2008 to 29,800…in 2010.” Thus, we can conclude that in 2010 roughly 63% of new HIV infections in the U.S. occured among MSM, a small minority.

            § From the June 8, 2011 Windy City Times, a homosexual newspaper out of Chicago: “Lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) youth are more likely than their heterosexual peers to be at increased risk for unhealthy behaviors such as tobacco, alcohol, and other drug use…[plus] sexual behaviors that could lead to infection with HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases” (“Study: LGB youth more at risk” by Dana Rudolph, p. 4). This helps explain why the average homosexual lifespan is significantly shorter than the average heterosexual lifespan. Too, one wonders if the homosexuals who run the Windy City Times are being labeled bigots, haters, and homophobes by other homosexuals and their misguided straight supporters for publishing those facts. That’s the kind of nonsensical treatment decent, moral people have to deal with on a daily basis from many homosexuals and their straight supporters. Conveying inconvenient truths about homosexuals is verboten.

            § From the June 5, 2011 Chicago Sun-Times: “A year’s worth of HIV medication can cost $18,000 or more, and about 30 percent of people with HIV are uninsured….Gay men continue to account for more than half of new infections, and they are the only group in which the number of new infections is rising” (“AIDS turns 30—and life goes on” by Monifa Thomas, p. 19A).

            § From the June 5, 2011 Chicago Tribune: “[G]ay and bisexual men represent just 2 percent of the American population….[N]early 20 percent of gay and bisexual men in major U.S. cities are HIV-positive” (“At 30, AIDS still scourge” by Melissa Healy & Thomas H. Maugh II, section 1, p. 4).

            § From the Aug. 28, 2009 Washington Blade, a homosexual newspaper (http://www.washblade. com/2009/8-28/news/national/15098.cfm): “Gay and bisexual men account for half of new HIV infections in the U.S. and have AIDS at a rate more than 50 times greater than other groups, according to Centers for Disease Control & Prevention data presented at the National HIV Prevention Conference this week in Atlanta [underline ours].”

            § From a 2006 Associated Press report: “An American diagnosed with the AIDS virus can expect to live for about 24 years on average, and the cost of health care over those two-plus decades is more than $600,000….[T]he average annual cost of care is about $25,200….[T]he monthly cost of care…[is] $2,100, with about two-thirds of that spent on medications.”1

            § The Chicago Sun-Times reported on Nov. 27, 2003, that there has been “a 17 percent increase in new HIV cases among gay men over the last three years….The CDC [Centers for Disease Control] said the infection rate among heterosexuals and intravenous drug users did not change significantly.”2

            § U.S. News & World Report interestingly described AIDS as one of those “scourges that start in the upper reaches of society [i.e., the ‘upper classes’] and come tumbling down the social ladder.”3 As some of the following quotes show, AIDS has struck hard at young urban professionals. These quotes imply an unusual correlation between education and unsafe sex. (One would think educated professionals should be intelligent enough to avoid risky, life-threatening sex.)

            § “A CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] study released…this month [July 2002] found that many gay and bisexual men who are HIV-positive don’t know it. Overall, 77 percent of the…HIV-positive men in the study were unaware they were infected.”4 (One would think “intelligent” people engaging in unsafe sex would know they are at risk for AIDS and would be tested and would know whether they have it. And is smoking a sign of intelligence? The Sept. 13, 2004, edition of U.S. News & World Report [p. 55], noted that “Up to 50 percent of adult gay men are smokers…compared with 28 percent of men in the general population.”)

            § “In New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, the number of cases of syphilis in homosexual men approximately doubled every year from 1998 through 2001, and it looks like they will double again this year [2002]….[T]he syphilis outbreaks not only tell us that our hopes of eliminating this disease with the next decade are gone, but also confirm predictions that we will see a second wave of HIV infection in gay men.”5

            § The “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported…that the incidence of new HIV infections diagnosed among homosexual men climbed 14 percent between 1999 and 2001, significantly higher than the 8 percent growth among the entire U.S. population.”6

            § The total number of Americans infected with HIV is estimated to be 900,000 to one million for 2002; and the number of infected has been rising in recent years by about 25,000 annually (40,000 new HIV infections every year, but, since the advent of potent anti-AIDS drugs, only 15,000 deaths due to AIDS annually—-40,000 minus 15,000 equals 25,000).7

            § “The average [health care] cost for an HIV-positive patient [in the U.S. in 2002] is $14,000 per year, while care for those with full-blown AIDS averages $34,000 a year….[But] the figures may, in fact, be conservative [because wholesale, not retail, prices for anti-AIDS drugs were used in the computations].”8

            § “The whole theater community has lost so many to AIDS.”9

            § “The AIDS epidemic has taken a disproportionately large number of its victims from the arts world; certainly no one who works in opera has not lost friends and colleagues to it.”10

            § “Gail Kalver, general manager of the Hubbard Street Dance Company,…has observed the ranks of many ballet and dance troupes depleted by death through AIDS.”11

            § “[T]he tremendous losses AIDS has brought upon the figure skating community…[is due to] the prevalence of homosexual men in the figure skating world.”12

            § “In every branch of culture—-dance, theater, literature, music, design, fashion, art, television, movies—-the devastation from AIDS continues.”13

            § “So many artists I’ve known are dead [from AIDS], and so many more are going to die. Choreographers, dancers, musicians, opera singers, designers.”14

            § “AIDS took hold of so many artists.”15

            § “State prisons [in Illinois] spent $2.5 million on AIDS drugs during the first seven months of 1998.”16

            § Illinois “spent $16 million this fiscal year [1996-97] on a program to provide drugs to poor HIV patients.”17

            § In 1999, Medicaid spent $617 million funding anti-AIDS drug regimens for poor HIV-infected people.18

            § “Before anyone knew much about the [AIDS] scourge, the virus had contaminated the blood supply and infected thousands of people….In the early 1980s, 1 out of 50 bags of blood collected in San Francisco contained HIV.”19

            § “Between 1979 and 1984, with syphilis peaking and bathhouses serving thousands of men a week, HIV tore through the gay population in magnet cities like San Francisco and New York. Reconstructions of the [AIDS] epidemic estimate that close to half of gay men in these cities—-and between 270,000 and 490,000 nationwide—-became infected in just these few years.”20

            § In the 1980s, “tainted blood infected 20,000 Americans with HIV [most if not all of whom have probably died of AIDS by now]….Fueled by new testing technology, the cost of a pint of blood has increased from $40 two decades ago to $150 to $200 today [2003]—-almost four times the increase in the general inflation rate.”21 Those “politically (in)correct” liberal Neanderthals, who think that whatever happens in the privacy of one’s bedroom is nobody else’s business, are plainly wrong and are plainly in need of some educating. Because so many people, homosexual and bisexual and heterosexual, are engaging in unsafe sex, we have to put donated blood through many more expensive screening tests than we did in more sexually conservative times. Unsafe sex is obviously not cost-free.

            § From the Chicago Free Press, a homosexual newspaper: “In a thoughtful and important commentary published in New York’s Gay City News (3/15/07), longtime AIDS activist Spencer Cox and psychologist Bruce Kellerhouse explore some reasons for rising rates of HIV infection among mid-life gay men. They write: ‘New data released by the (New York City) Department of Health show that the highest rates of new HIV infections are among gay men 35-49 years old.'”22

            § From the Nov. 28, 2007 Journal of the American Medical Association: “MSM [men who have sex with men] have accounted for a higher proportion of AIDS cases than any other group in countries such as the United States (44%), Canada (65%), and Australia (64%)….[And there was a] 10-fold increase in primary and secondary syphilis cases reported among MSM in the United States from 2001 to 2005….Recent U.S. surveys of MSM document high rates of unsafe sex.”23


            1. Associated Press, “U.S. HIV forecast: 24 years, $600,000,” Chicago Tribune, Nov. 12, 2006, section 1, p. 8.

            2. “HIV increase worries feds,” Chicago Sun-Times, Nov. 27, 2003, p. 43.

            3. Michael Barone and David Gergen, “Tomorrow,” U.S. News & World Report, Sept. 17, 1990, p. 32.

            4. Kevin McKeough, “With STDs, many still wind up sorry instead of safe,” Chicago Tribune, July 31, 2002, sec. 8, p. 1.

            5. Tom Farley, “Cruise Control (Bathhouses are reigniting the AIDS crisis),” Washington Monthly, Nov. 2002, pp. 37-41.

            6. “CDC reports 1% increase in AIDS cases,” Chicago Tribune, Feb. 12, 2003, sec. 1, p. 12.

            7. Thomas Maugh II, “Untreated HIV soars, U.S. warns,” Chicago Tribune, Feb. 26, 2002, sec. 1, p. 11.

            8. Thomas Maugh II, “Report: AIDS has orphaned 13.4 million,” Chicago Tribune, July 11, 2002, sec. 1, p. 4.

            9. Neil Steinberg, “50,000 Join AIDS Walk,” Chicago Sun-Times, Sept. 18, 1995, p. 8.

            10. Sarah Bryan Miller, “Operatic AIDS benefit hits most of the right notes,” Chicago Tribune, Oct. 18, 1995, sec. 5, p. 2.

            11. Richard Christiansen, “Artists face AIDS with craft and care,” Chicago Tribune, March 15, 1992, sec. 1, p. 12.

            12. Liesl Schillinger, “Cut-throats on ice,” Chicago Sun-Times, March 10, 1996, “Showcase” sec., p. 14.

            13. David Ansen, “A Lost Generation,” Newsweek, Jan. 18, 1993, p. 16.

            14. Mark Morris, “The Artist,” U.S. News & World Report, June 17, 1991, p. 26.

            15. Chris Jones, “Success from sorrow, and a predecessor for ‘Smokefall,'” Chicago Tribune, Sept. 26, 2014, section 5, p. 6.

            16. Tim Novak, “Fewer inmates dying from AIDS,” Chicago Sun-Times, Aug. 31, 1998, p. 19.

            17. Dave McKinney,”AIDS deaths down 21% but decline is uneven,”Chicago Sun-Times, Oct. 16, 1997, p. 14.

            18. Andrew Zajac and Bruce Japsen, “Medicaid pays more for AIDS drugs,” Chicago Tribune, July 27, 2001, sec. 3, p. 1.

            19. Rachel K. Sobel, “A bloody mess,” U.S. News & World Report, Sept. 3, 2001, p. 37.

            20. Tom Farley, “Cruise Control (Bathhouses are reigniting the AIDS crisis),” Washington Monthly, Nov. 2002, p. 37.

            21. David Kohn, “Debate on blood supply heats up,” Chicago Tribune, Dec. 1, 2003, sec. 1, p. 14.

            22. Paul Varnell, “AIDS in Mid-Life,” Chicago Free Press, March 28, 2007, p. 4.

            23. Drs. Harold Jaffe, Ronald Valdiserri, and Kevin DeCock, “The Reemerging HIV/AIDS Epidemic in Men Who Have Sex With Men,” Journal of the American Medical Association, Nov. 28, 2007, p. 2412.

          • afchief

            Do you need some more facts? I have plenty of them showing this lifestyle perverted, deviant and extremely dangerous.

          • John N

            Facts? I did not see any facts. I don’t think you know what ‘facts’ actually are.

            I saw you dumping outdated information from known homophobic hatesites.

            Which explains a lot about your state of mind.

          • afchief

            What I thought!

          • Valri

            Boy, are you ever out to lunch in this subject. Back in the 80s, yes, AIDS was the “gay disease” but the highest demographic these days is straight black women.

            Promiscuity is promiscuity, and straight people are equally guilty of it. Ever been to a sleazy bar?

            “Hundreds of sex partners a year”, are you actually serious? You do know that there are only 365 days in a year, right? So gay men take new partners every day or every other day? Who would have time for that, never mind meet new people at that rate?

            As for your “back door” comment, you have to know that anal sex is done more commonly by straight people than homosexual. And how many lesbians do you think do it?

            Haven’t thought this through, have you? And if gay people are so promiscuous, why are they fighting so hard for the right to marry?

            What you are posting is hate, nothing more.

          • afchief

            Liar! Go to the CDC website and see the truth. HIV/AIDS is a homo disease, period!! Like I said, the only way for hetros to catch it is when a woman has sex with a bi man or by using infected needles!!!

            STOP WITH YOUR LIES!!!!

          • Valri

            The liar here is yourself, either that or you’re seriously out of your mind. HIV is passed many ways including dirty needles. And from unprotected sex. THAT is how you get HIV.

          • afchief

            I know you can’t see the truth, but at least TRY!!!!

            (CNSNews. com) — Men who have sex with men comprise about 2% of the U.S. population but they are the risk group most affected by HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in their latest Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

            The CDC also states that, “Most gay and bisexual men acquire HIV through anal sex, which is the riskiest type of sex for getting or transmitting HIV.”

            In the Sept. 26 MMWR, the CDC states, “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the risk group most affected by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).”

            “In 2010,” says the CDC, “among persons newly infected with HIV, 63% were MSM” and “among persons living with HIV, 52% were MSM.”

            In noting that Sept. 27 was “National Gay Men’s HIV/AIDS Awareness Day,” the CDC further said it wanted to “direct attention to the continuing and disproportionate impact of human immunodeficiency virus infection (HIV) and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) on gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) in the United States.”

            In addition to reporting that most homosexual men “acquire HIV through anal sex,” the CDC website says, “Having more sex partners compared to other men means gay and bisexual men have more opportunities to have sex with someone who can transmit HIV or another STD. Similarly, among gay men, those who have more partners are more likely to acquire HIV.”

            Despite federal spending to combat AIDS and the ongoing efforts of the CDC, the health agency reported that between 2008 and 2010, “new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) gay and bisexual men and 12% among gay and bisexual men overall,” regardless of age.

          • Valri

            CNSNEWS dot com. Right.

            First thing that hits you in the face when you go to this site is a pop-up asking for a donation to “join the fight”.

            It’s so full of right-wing hate rhetoric you can’t move for all the exclamation marks. They use nearly as many as you do, afchief.

            Read more about this REALLY WELL-BALANCED NEWS SITE here:

            http://rationalwiki. org/wiki/Media_Research_Center

          • afchief

            HELLO!!!! It’s quoting the CDC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            Yes, liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Ax2root

            As expected you didn’t deal with the FACTUAL STATS FROM THE CDC they reported but you immaturely attempted to shoot the messenger.

          • Valri

            Look up “quote mining”.

          • April J

            This is completely false.

          • afchief

            “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young gay and bisexual men (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all gay and bisexual men. At the end of 2011, an estimated 500,022 (57%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men, or gay and bisexual men who also inject drugs.”

            http://www.cdc. gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html

            You need to get out more!!! AND EDUCATE YOURSELF!!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            Actually, promiscuity doesn’t spread HIV. Unprotected high-risk sexual acts, as well as needle sharing, spreads HIV.

          • Nidalap

            And promiscuity is a high risk behavior. 🙂

          • acontraryview

            Promiscuity, in and of itself, is not a high-risk behavior.

          • Nidalap

            Is so too! 🙂

          • acontraryview

            If a person how is promiscuous and practices safe sex, how is being promiscuous a high risk behavior?

          • Ax2root

            Insane thinker alert

          • acontraryview

            Thoughtful of you to alert us to your presence.

          • Michex

            It’s all about politics.
            When homosexuals complain, they usually get their way.
            Is homosexual blood somehow better than others’ blood?
            Do homosexuals wake up in the morning and say “Gee, I wish I could donate blood right after I have breakfast” ?
            The most important thing in America now is to see that homosexuals are happy in every way. Their opinions trump everyone else’s.

          • NGN

            poor oppressed mitchy..the evil gays are out to get you…could you sound anymore pathetic?

          • Josey

            totally agree, not a risk I’d take.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            And here is the data to back you up:

            A fact sheet released at the end of June by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) warns that HIV rates, already at epidemic proportions, are continuing to climb steadily among men who have sex with men (MSM).

            “Gay and bisexual men remain at the epicenter of the HIV/AIDS epidemic,” says Jonathan Mermin, the director of the CDC’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention.

            The CDC notes that while homosexual men make up only a very small percentage of the male population (4%), MSM account for over three-quarters of all new HIV infections, and nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of all new infections in 2010 (29,800).

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            A fact sheet released at the end of June by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) warns that HIV rates, already at epidemic proportions, are continuing to climb steadily among men who have sex with men (MSM).

            “Gay and bisexual men remain at the epicenter of the HIV/AIDS epidemic,” says Jonathan Mermin, the director of the CDC’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention.

            The CDC notes that while homosexual men make up only a very small percentage of the male population (4%), MSM account for over three-quarters of all new HIV infections, and nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of all new infections in 2010 (29,800).

          • mantis

            worldwide aids statics show that most aids patients are straight

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            But the question is one of risks – AND we are here in the US, not Africa. So, my data stands: MSM are MUCH higher risk than heterosexuals.

            But, liberals get to feel good about themselves, so that is all that matters. 🙂

          • mantis

            no they aren’t so take your bigotry and piss off

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            So, your reply to my peer-reviewed secular data is to call me a “bigot” and tell me to “piss off?” 🙂 It would seem that your worldview is more emotional, less logical.

          • mantis

            you didn’t provide any date now piss off

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Except for the CDC data. 🙂 You seem to have a fascination with urine. 🙂

          • mantis

            which you didn’t provide.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I gave it to you above. Here is more (just takes the spaces out):

            http://www .cdc .gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/factsheets/cdc-msm-508 .pdf


            “While CDC estimates that only 4 percent of men in the United States are MSM, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the United States is more than 44 times that of other men.”

          • acontraryview

            And how is that relevant to the criteria for donation of blood?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            The fact that a subgroup of the population is 44 times riskier than the population at large is “slightly” relevant. Pretty simple.

          • acontraryview

            Based upon the criteria and testing that is involved, how is that relevant?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Testing and a one year waiting period do not protect against the high rates of long-term dormancy for HIV. Pretty simple and logical.

          • Valri

            Because all gay people have HIV?

          • acontraryview

            The CDC obviously disagrees. What is your basis for saying they are wrong?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            The CDC is disagreeing with their own data – for politically correct reasons. My basis is already stated directly above. Why is that so difficult for you to follow?

          • acontraryview

            You have stated nothing that indicates that testing and a one year waiting period do not protect against HIV infection.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yes I did. You just don’t like my reasons as much as PC.

          • acontraryview

            My apologies. I should have said: “you have stated nothing factual that indicates that testing and a one year waiting period do not protect against HIV infection through donated blood.”

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Haha. If by “nothing factual,” you mean “peer-reviewed medical data,” then you are correct. 🙂

          • acontraryview

            What “peer-reviewed medical data” suggests that testing and a 1-year waiting period are insufficient to guard against the transmission of HIV by blood donors?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            The data that shows that the 10 year plus dormancy period has resulted in an infected population up to 60 times greater than believed.

          • acontraryview

            I’ll ask again: What “peer-reviewed medical data” suggests that testing and a 1-year waiting period are insufficient to guard against the transmission of HIV by blood donors?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            The ones I provided to you and Michael.

          • acontraryview

            You have provided me no “peer-reviewed medical data” which suggests that testing and a 1-year waiting period are insufficient to guard against the transmission of HIV by blood donors

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Sure I have – it just hurts your feelings, so you disregard it.

          • acontraryview

            Perhaps I miss missed it. Would you please copy and past the peer-reviewed research which states that the guidelines for blood donation are inadequate to protect people from possible HIV infection from the use of donated blood.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            See my reply to Michael in this thread.

          • acontraryview

            I was unable to find an answer you gave to Micheal that cites peer-reviewed research which states that the guidelines for blood donation are inadequate to protect people from possible HIV infection from the use of donated blood.

            Is is really that hard for you to copy and paste the information? Or is it that no such information exists?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Not your research genie.

            But, it would not matter. Your mind is clearly closed to truth. You trust the PC government more than you trust science – and so there is NO amount of evidence I could give you that would convince you.

          • acontraryview

            So, you cannot cite any peer-reviewed research which states that the guidelines for blood donation are inadequate to protect people from possible HIV infection from the use of donated blood. In other words, you were lying. Got it. Thanks.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I cited it – and I referred to it again in our thread – you just don’t like it, because your requirements for “evidence” are those that affirm your false ideology only. Don’t blame ME that YOU are so narrow minded. I used to be an atheist – I remember those days. 🙂

          • acontraryview

            As I said to you, I was unable to find any citation by you of peer-reviewed research which states that the guidelines for blood donation are inadequate to protect people from possible HIV infection from the use of donated blood. I apologize if I missed it.

            Fortunately, it is very easy for you to find what you said, copy, and then paste it into a reply to me. Yet, for some reason, you refuse to do so. Why is that?

            When you were an atheist you were narrow-minded, but now that you believe that there is one, and only one, truth, you are not narrow-minded? Fascinating.

            Just FYI, I’m not an atheist.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Yet, for some reason, you refuse to do so. Why is that?”

            It is clear to me that you are not a truth seeker – not open-minded to data that conflicts with your ideology.

            “When you were an atheist you were narrow-minded, but now that you believe that there is one, and only one, truth, you are not narrow-minded?”

            Precisely! For the atheist, materialism is the only game in town, but theists are open to supernatural concepts like God, love, abstract objects and concepts, etc. These things cannot exist under materialism.

            “Just FYI, I’m not an atheist.”

            You sure argue a lot with theists. What are you, pray tell?

          • acontraryview

            “It is clear to me that you are not a truth seeker – not open-minded to data that conflicts with your ideology.”

            Since you haven’t provided any, how is it you are able to come to that conclusion. Your response is truly pathetic – blaming someone else for your inadequacy. Have you always been so insecure that you are unable to admit that you made something up?

            “but theists are open to supernatural concepts like God, love, abstract objects and concepts, etc.”

            Theists who cling to a single religious belief and hold that their belief is the one and only “true” one, are not open-minded at all.

            “You sure argue a lot with theists.”

            Not because they are theists.

            “What are you, pray tell?”


          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Since you haven’t provided any, how is it you are able to come to that conclusion.”

            I provided it in that thread, and I even gave the main points in a specific reply to you. You just refuse to accept it for PC reasons. Don’t blame me for your ideologically driven closed-mindedness.

            “Theists who cling to a single religious belief and hold that their belief is the one and only “true” one, are not open-minded at all.”

            Oh, but, of course, a person can be so open-minded that his brain falls out. 🙂 That might apply to you as well. There are many situations where the one and only true belief is the one and only truth. Like the chemical makeup of water for instance. Being open-minded on that is not so smart.

            “Not because they are theists.”

            Great! Show me where you argue with atheists.


            Do you mean “deist?”

          • acontraryview

            “I provided it in that thread”

            So you keep saying, but I have been unable to find it. Since you have provided it once, according to you, it should be very easy for you to copy and paste it in a reply, no? Yet you fail to do so. Why is that?

            “Great! Show me where you argue with atheists.”

            I’m not aware of having any arguments with atheists, but I may have. If so, the argument had nothing to do with their being an atheist.

            “Do you mean “deist?””

            Yes, I did. Sorry about the typo. I corrected it.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Heck, I can’t even remember what we are arguing about! 🙂

            I provided evidence that HIV has a dormancy of 10 years or longer and that the infected population is estimated to be 60 times larger than expected – I think that was it. As an engineer who did risk analysis on spacecraft, I can tell you that such is a VERY risky combination. If I had a space environment that was so poorly characterized that I was now finding out that the damaging part of that environment was potentially 60 times larger than what we thought we were looking at, my spacecraft design would have to be completely overhauled.

            But, again, I do not believe that I could give you ANY evidence that would convince you – I do not think you are willing to follow the evidence to its conclusion. Do you believe we landed on the moon? I was engaging with a pro-abort not too long ago and showed her what the pictures of dismembered post-abortive babies looked like, and she denied them. Then I asked her if she thought we had landed on the moon, and she said it was cold war propaganda.

            My point is that this younger generation has been really harmed by a terribly dumbed down educational system to the point that they have no ability to discern and are mostly ideologically driven. To be fair, the Apollo Lunar Landings were such an incredible accomplishment that I can understand why some people do not believe in them. But, to deny basic biology is just really insane.

            What led you to deism?

          • acontraryview

            “Heck, I can’t even remember what we are arguing about! :-)”

            Here, let me remind you: You stated that you had peer-reviewed research which states that the guidelines for blood donation are inadequate to protect people from possible HIV infection from the use of donated blood. Yet, you have failed to provide any such citation.

            “I provided evidence that HIV has a dormancy of 10 years or longer”

            And I clarified that while it can 10 years for symptoms to manifest themselves as a result of the virus, that does not mean that tests for the virus have no validity for 10 years after infection. While symptoms may take up to 10 years to manifest, the body beings producing anti-bodies to the virus within 3 months of infection. It is the presence of these anti-bodies that show up in testing. Therefore, the potential 10-year delay in symptom manifestation is unrelated to the ability of blood tests to determine if a person is infected.

            “that the infected population is estimated to be 60 times larger than expected”

            While that estimate is merely that – an estimate – it is unrelated to the ability of blood tests to determine if the virus is present in a person and therefore is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

            “I was now finding out that the damaging part of that environment was potentially 60 times larger than what we thought we were looking at, my spacecraft design would have to be completely overhauled.”

            Not if you were able to test for potential damage on your route prior to leaving.

            “But, to deny basic biology is just really insane.”

            Who is denying basic biology as it relates to this issue?

            “What led you to deism?”

            Did you mean Deism?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “that does not mean that tests for the virus have no validity for 10 years after infection. ”

            Prove it.

            “While that estimate is merely that – an estimate – it is unrelated to the ability of blood tests to determine if the virus is present in a person and therefore is irrelevant to the issue at hand.”

            The fact that the affected population is so much larger than expected IS a sign that the risk levels and testing are insufficient. It is most relevant indeed – and is the outcome of the latent dormancy.

            “Not if you were able to test for potential damage on your route prior to leaving.”

            You couldn’t do it – your population has exploded, and you cannot do much real time design in space either. Furthermore, you have to prove that the testing is adequate, and the fact that the characterization is so far off means you are going to poorly design your tests. You are relying on your faith in government to minimize that risk. Good luck with that.

            “Who is denying basic biology as it relates to this issue?”

            We had switched to abortion. But, it sounds like you are, even on this issue. Why is it such a big deal to you to include a VERY high risk population into the blood donor system? That would seem to be the opposite of compassion – even IF, as you have not proven (and the burden is yours because this is a safety issue), the blood could be adequately tested, and testing is far from perfect. I sure wouldn’t do it on a spacecraft where a lot fewer human lives were at stake. You seem to be willing to risk a lot of innocent people in order to introduce a VERY high risk sub-population into the donor system. That smacks of tremendous irresponsibility, and is morally incoherent.

            “Did you mean Deism?”

            Just answer the question. If you aren’t lying – which I am pretty certain you are.

          • Ax2root

            READ THE STATS

          • acontraryview

            I have. Did you have a point?

          • Valri

            Blood is tested.

          • Valri

            You are being dishonest with your posts. The web links are entirely factual but you’re using them to suggest that being a homosexual man is going to give you HIV (and presumably therefore you should not be homosexual – as if anyone could choose such a thing).

            Men in general are more driven by sex and women more by relationships, security, etc. That’s a generalization but it also explains why HIV rates would be higher. It’s not a homosexual thing at all – it’s a MAN thing. So when you get homosexual men, highly charged sexual creatures have fewer inhibitions.

            But so what? That completely ignores the fact that if you’re a gay man, you aren’t necessarily a club-hopper who goes from bed to bed. You could be, and many ARE, committed and devoted to a single person, and if that’s the case, HIV is never going to enter the picture. You are attacking homosexuals when if you really want to see HIV rates go down, you should be attacking promiscuity and unsafe sexual practices across the board.

          • afchief

            This is a lie straight from the pits of hell. We ALL know AIDS is a gay disease. For a hetro to catch it a woman would have to have sex with an infected man or by someone using infected needles. The HIV epidemic is covered up 100%. It is blamed on monkeys, and innocent people who get caught in the spread and everyone but not males having anal intercourse. Back in the early 80s doctors originally called AIDS GRIDS, Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome, because only gays contracted it. Liberal outcries forced the change to the more neutral name. Ignoring the medical data, liberals told Americans that we must spend a fortune to cure AIDS because everyone might soon die of it. Another example of a common liberal meme; pseudoscience reveals a problem so you must spend tons of taxpayer money to fix it.

            AIDS is a politically protected disease, thanks to the homosexual lobby. It is the cover ups that are the proof of the evil. HIV is caused by homosexual behavior. Like most diseases it can be spread to innocent victims and it has and that is lied about. It is constantly mutating against the medical serums that attempt to control it and that creates related drug resistant viruses that can be blamed on something other than HIV. The corruption of the industry created by this creates a voter base to keep it going, not cure it. This is lied about. The annual HIV death rate averages 15,000 in this country and 1.7 million around the world. Add to that 19,000 a year due to related viruses, most notably gonorrhea for which there is no longer a cure and has the highest incidence among males in the western part of the country. This is reported by the CDC but not sensationalized by the gay media.

          • mantis

            you’re insane.

          • afchief

            The truth always offends!!! Does it not!!

          • mantis

            I don’t know, tell the truth and find out.

          • afchief

            Ahh but I do!!! The Spirit of truth lives in me and leads and guides me into all truth!!! If i’m wrong I will admit that I am wrong. In this case I KNOW I’m right!!!!!

            John 16:13 (NASB) But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth

          • mantis

            sill waiting for that truth you promised.

          • afchief

            Since you are stuck in sin (homosexuality) you cannot see the truth!!!

            2 Corinthians 4:4 (NASB) in whose case the god of this world (satan) has blinded the minds of the unbelieving

          • acontraryview

            “The Spirit of truth lives in me and leads and guides me into all truth!!!”

            Is that the same Spirit that encourages you to falsely accuse others of lying and to plagiarize?

          • afchief

            Ahhhh yes, the truth always offends a liar!!! You are proof!!!

          • acontraryview

            I’m sorry if you were offended.

            I’ll ask again: Is that the same Spirit that encourages you to falsely accuse others of lying and to plagiarize?

          • NGN

            nope but you offend. I would love for you to tell some of my patient’s parents this drivel. You wouldn’t be standing long. You give all service members a bad name by having served. You are pathetic.

          • Ax2root

            No….but you are in this area of denying the facts

          • NGN

            idiot. GRIDS hasn’t been used in many years. Its because not only gays have AIDS or HIV. Are you in the medical field? Very doubtful. You might want to try speaking on something you know about like your holy book and leave medicine to those who know. Its a gay disease? You uneducated bigot! Tell that to my pediatric patients who have AIDS and HIV. You have no business spreading such falsehoods. You need help.

          • Ax2root

            Thanks for the info AFchief !

            A Blessed New Year to you and yours!

          • afchief

            You to Ax. I see you are back on Charisma.

          • Ax2root

            What? I am still blocked.
            Is someone using my avatar?
            I can read the mag and put upvotes but that’s all….I can press recommend also….but I don’t know if the upvotes stay.

          • afchief

            I was on there a couple of days ago and I saw your name on there.

          • Ax2root

            If it was recent it wasn’t me.
            I tried a few days ago and was still blocked.

            Maybe it was an old story?

          • April J

            You need to get out more. And pay more attention to real life.

          • acontraryview

            That does not change the fact that the majority of HIV infections in the world are the result of heterosexual encounters and child birth.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            1. We are in the US – no shifting the goalposts.

            2. We are concerned that a subgroup of the population is 44 times riskier than the population at large. Pretty simple.

          • acontraryview

            1. Facts are facts.

            2. What is your concern?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            1. You shifted the goalposts to countries unaffected by US policy decisions. So, while your facts are correct, they are not relevant to the discussion.

            2. I have compassion for those who receive blood transfusions now that their risk of developing HIV will be higher for nothing more than PC reasons. Pretty simple.

          • acontraryview

            1. I’m glad we agree I am correct.

            2. What is your basis for saying that those who receive blood transfusions will no have a higher risk of developing (which, by the way, one does not “develop” HIV) HIV?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            1. We agree that your facts are correct, but because you shifted the goalposts outside of the country, they are irrelevant. We thus agree that your argument is irrelevant. Are you actually doubling down on shifting the goalposts?!? I was beginning to (erroneously?) think you were reasonable.

            2. My goodness. How many times do I have to say my basis to you?!? You have a sub-group that is 44 times riskier than the norm and a disease that often lies dormant for 10 years or more, meaning that the affected population is some 60 times larger than what we thought. That is all secular science. But, I guess it is not PC, so you do not accept it? It is the symptoms that develop and the disease progresses through various stages of development.

            Do all of the folks on this site arguing for gay rights not actually know any gay people or anything about the gay lifestyle?!?

          • acontraryview

            1. There were no goalposts to move. I did not present an argument. I simply stated a fact.

            2. Ok, so clearly you do not understand this disease very well. From a symptomatic standpoint, it can take up to 10 years for HIV to show affects on a person who is infected. That does NOT mean the virus is “dormant”, it simply means that the damage being done by the virus has not manifested itself yet. Further, that does not mean that its presence is not detectable.

            There are no tests which look for HIV in a person. Rather, the tests look for anti-bodies that are present in the system when someone has become infected with HIV. Those anti-bodies show up within 3 months of infection, regardless of what damage has been done by the virus or what symptoms a person may or may not be exhibiting.

            There is not a danger that a person infected with HIV, after 1 year of waiting, will pass a blood test.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “That does NOT mean the virus is “dormant”, it simply means that the damage being done by the virus has not manifested itself yet.”

            Then why is the term “dormant” used in the literature?

          • acontraryview

            Because the symptoms have not yet manifested.

            You may find this explanation helpful:

            “You are getting the testing requirements and the actual development of symptoms mixed up.

            Except for a short term bout of flu like symptoms (known as ARS) shortly after transmission, HIV has no symptoms for many years. It is not unusual that until one begins to develop a severely damaged immune system that symptoms begin to be seen. This can take as long as 10 years after the initial transmission. HIV isn’t “dormant” in the sense that it isn’t doing damage or one isn’t infectious to others but rather that the human immune system is one tough cookie and it takes a while to severely damage it.

            However, in terms of TESTING, the recommended time period for this is at least 3 months after a potential exposure. Screening does not check for the presence of the actual virus; rather it checks for antibodies the immune system begins to produce after transmission has taken place. It takes a while for these antibodies to be present in a quantity that can be picked up by current testing methods. Thus, the recommendation to wait at least three months after a possible exposure to get tested.”

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Most people do not get tested before the symptoms show up. 🙂 And, the CDC estimates that the population of HIV-infected individuals is 60 times larger than what is now known, due to this dormancy and its effect.

          • acontraryview

            That is not relevant to the testing and waiting periods that are a part of the screening process.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            How so? Because the testing and waiting periods are inadequate? I guess if one sets up inadequate quality control, then important risk considerations will not be relevant. 🙂

          • acontraryview

            Because not being tested is irrelevant to the issue since the blood will be tested. It matters not if the person has been previously tested. If they have been abstinent for a year, then the virus will be detected once it is donated.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            That’s not what the science shows. But, if it makes you feel better to believe it.

          • Michael C

            I see that you know what MSM stands for.

            A gay person who hasn’t had sex in a year is not having sex with men, they’re not MSM.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Are you saying that men who HAD sex with men are not more likely to develop HIV because they stop having sex with men?!?

          • Michael C

            Is that a serious question? HIV doesn’t “develop.” You either have it or you don’t.

            How would a person who hasn’t had sex in a year magically contract HIV?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            HIV can remain dormant for 10 years or more, Michael. The fact that one has it does not mean that symptoms have developed or that it is even clinically detectable.

            http://www .ibtimes .com/hivs-dormant-period-helps-it-spread-part-virus-evolutionary-survival-strategy-1829418

            http://healthland .time .com/2013/10/24/more-hiv-lies-dormant-than-previously-thought/

            I would like to believe that all people had compassion for those with HIV, as well as those who might contract it through blood transfusions. Sadly, it appears that political correctness is more important than people’s lives these days.

          • Michael C

            I’m glad that you understand how HIV works, it was unclear based on your “develop” comment.

            Every person who gives blood falls somewhere on the risk level scale. Odds are, a gay man who has not had sex in a year falls in the category of lower risk.

            If you think that telling a monogamously married man that he is not eligible to give blood specifically because he is monogamously married to another man is “PC”, I don’t know what to tell you.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “it was unclear based on your “develop” comment.”

            I was thinking of symptoms development and disease progression, but, yes, there might be a better word for that. Any suggestions?

            “Odds are, a gay man who has not had sex in a year falls in the category of lower risk.”

            I’d like to see some numbers on that actually. We know that MSM are 44 times more likely to get HIV than heterosexuals, and we also know that the latent population of HIV affected persons might be some 60 times higher than we now think. How those numbers go to “low risk” is beyond me – it seems like even with the year wait, we are talking about very high risk in that sub-population. There is actually a way for me to calculate this risk, but I am now almost 8 years into retirement, and when I look back at my dissertation, my one thought is “Wow, I was once pretty smart.” 🙂 More importantly, I am too lazy now to do it – but my “risk detector” says that this ruling is more about PC than anything else. The numbers seem to support this concern.

            “If you think that telling a monogamously married man that he is not eligible to give blood specifically because he is monogamously married to another man is “PC”, I don’t know what to tell you.”

            Michael, let’s get straight here (pun intended :-)): if you are at all familiar with the gay community, you and I both know that monogamy means something very different there than “1 partner at a time.” (And, I am good family friends with a gay man who was 1 partner at a time for much of his life – but who survived the AIDS scare in the 80’s and lost not a few friends.)

          • Michael C

            “…you and I both know that monogamy means something very different there than ‘1 partner at a time.'”

            No. I don’t know that. I have a feeling that you don’t either.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Do you actually know any gay people, Michael?!?

            http://www .nytimes .com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0

            http://www .slate .com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/06/26/most_gay_couples_aren_t_monogamous_will_straight_couples_go_monogamish.html

          • Valri

            Right, because two articles say so, the whole of homosexual coupledom is incapable of monogamy. Do you think after you type, Crazy? I know MANY gay people and they are as committed to one another as their straight counterparts.

            I think what is the most insulting about this is that you could just as easily search for straight couples in an “open” relationship and find a hell of a lot more examples.

          • Valri

            The point you seem to be trying to make is that by being homosexual and having sex, you are at high risk for HIV. That’s crap, Crazy, and you know it.

            You are trying to pretend that monogamous gay men don’t exist. Of course they do, and are at no higher risk of any disease than any other people who are monogamous.

          • thelordlives2011

            Wrong answer. A man having ANAL SEX with another man is high risk and is perverted. You need to wake up.

          • mantis

            perversion is a matter of opinion and anal sex isn’t high risk so long as you take the right precautions

          • afchief

            Ahhh, that is another lie! The anal muscle is what’s known as a “round muscle”. Think of it as being like a rubber band, rather than a sheet stretching from one area to another. These muscles have a very specific design and function. They are meant to keep things closed.

            If that muscle is stretched, it develops microtears. Now with a regular muscle, microtears mend and the muscle is built up, which is how exercise gets you toned and/or built. Round muscles don’t work that way. Microtears never fully heal, and the entire muscle is weakened.

            That is *why* gay men end up needing diapers over time. The anal muscle can no longer close tightly enough to prevent leakage.

          • mantis

            nothing you’ve said is true

          • afchief

            The dirty truth of the matter is homosexuality is not about ‘love’, it is about sex. You can love someone without fulfilling a hedonistic lustful desire. Nothing about the homosexual ‘movement’ is honest. No one will ever convince true Christians and clear thinking people of our country that there is anything normal about homosexuality. It is a deviant, perversion and sin.

            There is no biological or genetic basis for homosexuality; it’s obviously a lifestyle choice. Since it’s probably a choice made very early in childhood development, it’s not an informed choice, so the homosexuals can feel “proud” and pose as victims at the same time.

            No words or pretense can change nature’s and God’s design. Two men or two women does not a marriage make. Changing the legal definition does not change reality. Sorry, it will always be two homosexuals pretending to be normal…ALWAYS

          • mantis

            sill waiting for that truth you promised.

          • afchief

            All it takes is a reasonable and logical mind to know the homosexual lifestyle is dangerous to one’s health. Let me tell you what is being covered up by your homo friendly websites, all the media and our government. The only way two people having sex can catch or create it who don’t have aids already are by 2 males having anal intercourse. It is caused by the intermingling of male sperm, blood, and male feces. If you are a male and have ever had sex even just once in your life with another male you are disqualified as a blood donor. The reason is simple. Some people have aids but test negative and some test positive with no symptoms. You could be spreading the disease and not know it. The virus mutates against the medicines as fast as they are created, just like the common cold. More and more drug resistant viruses are popping up every day. I wonder why. The CDC reported 19000 drug resistant HIV related deaths in addition to the 15000 HIV deaths in a single year in this country alone. The CDC also reported that the last known cure for gonorrhea is no longer effective and the highest rate of incidence is among males in the western part of our country. These facts are covered up and lied about and soon it will probably be illegal to quote them. This cover up should be criminal. Much worse than what these same people crucified the tobacco companies for covering up the dangers of smoking.

          • mantis

            still waiting for that truth you promised.

          • NGN

            chef boy ar dee has no interest in the truth. he hates gay folks so much that it eats him up inside. he is probably closeted. probably his boyfriend in the avatar… good luck. the chef thinks he is all knowing but everyone that reads his posts know better…

          • Ax2root

            Then read his posts.

          • April J

            I think you spend more time thinking about gay sex than most gay men.

          • afchief

            I just love spreading truth!!!!!

          • Ax2root

            Then read his posts

          • Valri

            You have said some blatantly ridiculous things here, but this is about the worst. So homosexuality is not about love? Who are all these gay people clamoring to get married then? Are they just doing it for show? Are they just doing it to fulfill lust? Would you say that about straight people as well?

            Give your head a shake. People of the same sex can, and do, fall in love just like everyone else. I don’t know what it is about specifically religious minds that they warp the obvious truth so readily. Lying for Jesus is still lying.

          • afchief

            The Case Against Homosexual Activity

            (Note: While this section is specifically about homosexuality, it was written in the knowledge that we are ALL imperfect beings who struggle, in our own individual ways, with immoral desires, whatever their causes.)

            Some of the most emotional and divisive issues in our society—specifically issues such as homosexual marriage, adoption by homosexuals, and other “gay rights” issues—revolve around two central and critical issues. Those issues are: is homosexual activity moral and “legalizeable” or immoral and “illegalizeable”?

            If we can rationally conclude that homosexual activity is moral and that it should be protected via legislation, then by logical extension we must also conclude that such things as homosexual marriage and adoption should likewise be legal.

            Conversely, if we can rationally conclude that homosexual activity is immoral and “illegalizeable,” then by logical extension we must also conclude that homosexual marriage and adoption should be illegal.

            Or, to frame it another way: We have laws against such things as consenting-adult polygamy, consenting-adult incest, consenting-adult prostitution, consenting-adult exhibitionism, etc. For around two hundred years we had laws against consenting-adult homosexual activity—and the country did just fine. Does the elimination of the laws against homosexual activity (and marriage and adoption) make any sense?

            In an effort to bring clarity to these issues and to help unify us around truth, rather than keep us divided by untruth and confusion, what follows is a rigorously logical analysis of those aforementioned central homosexual issues.

            To begin, a little history. For many many years in this country homosexual activity was deemed immoral and was not legal. It was only first decriminalized in Illinois in 1961. Other states eventually followed the precedent Illinois set. Also, for decades the American Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality a disorder. The APA only removed homosexuality from its official list of psychological disorders in 1973. The APA’s controversial decision to do so was nowhere near a unanimous decision by its then members because—just as a female mind in a male body and a male mind in a female body are sure signs that something went wrong somewhere, in either nature and/or nurture—a homosexual mind in a heterosexual body was widely considered to be a disorder. The associated fact that homosexuals were basically impotent with the opposite gender also was part of the equation.

            Now, why was homosexual activity deemed immoral and why wasn’t it legal? And why do so many people still deem homosexual activity immoral?

            For centuries, the position of “traditional value” people re homosexual activity essentially boils down to this: homosexual activity is a negative deviation from the reasonable heterosexual norm; and if we condone homosexual deviations then we must fairly allow other aberrant people their own particular deviations.

            Members of our group have debated many homosexuals and their supporters over the years and we are stunned at how many of them hold this hypocritical and contradictory position: It is okay to “discriminate” against sexual deviants like exhibitionists (e.g., people who masturbate or have sex in public) and incestuous couples, even if these deviants are consenting adults and even if they aren’t hurting anybody; but it is NOT okay to “discriminate” against homosexual and bisexual deviants. They try to rationalize this absurd position by saying things like “Exhibitionists offend people.” We point out that tens of millions of Americans and several billion people around the world are offended by homosexual activity, such as public homosexual kissing and hand-holding. We don’t want to depress homosexuals and their supporters, but their position simply makes no sense. They ARE wrong. It is obvious to us and should be obvious to anyone NOT in denial about reality.

            Legal homosexual acts are bad legal and moral precedents. Let us explain in more detail.

            Can we justly discriminate in favor of some unreasonable deviations and against others? No. If we tolerate deviations from reasonable sexual standards, then we will fairly have to tolerate deviations from other reasonable standards because all of the different kinds of deviates will demand consistency from us and nondiscriminatory equal treatment.

            For example, many towns have ordinances restricting what people can do with their homes and yards. These towns want to prevent slums from forming and ruining their environments. Now, what if someone wants to move into a picturesque section of such a town and wants to have a yard of mud with paper littered around it and wants to have a house which has the exterior’s coating of paint badly chipped up? We should tolerate that if we tolerate homosexual acts.

            To those “freedom-loving” liberals who disagree with that last sentence, we can just ask them if they would outlaw any action that lowered someone’s property values. And if they would, we could point out that an openly homosexual person moving into a conservative area would likely lower property values in that area since many conservatives might decide to move out of that area, just like black people moving into certain predominantly white areas can unfortunately and wrongly cause “white flight” and lower property values. Does that mean liberals would agree to outlaw homosexual behavior in that geographic area? Or would they outlaw black people moving into certain white areas of the country? This gives the reader an idea of the kind of legal and moral swamp liberal extremists are wont to create. (Let us remember that trial lawyers, who are big contributors to liberal Democrat politicians, thrive when our laws are confusing and contradictory. Do liberal politicians intentionally create confusing laws which help keep trial lawyers busy as a payback for campaign contributions by those lawyers?)

            And if liberals would not outlaw actions that lower property values, then if they tolerate homosexual deviations they would fairly have to tolerate other deviations (as the aforementioned pig sties). In either case, whether “freedom-loving” liberals would choose to outlaw actions that lower property values or not outlaw, the consequences are very messy for them and their ideology. Once they’ve established the principle that negative deviations from reasonable norms are okay, to selectively apply that principle is discriminatory.

            Incidentally, we should stress that we are NOT arguing that homosexual activity is a heinous crime, just as we would not say stealing a penny is a heinous crime. But just like legalizing the stealing of a penny is an absurd legal precedent (why not then legalize stealing two pennies? a nickel? a dollar? etc.), so legalizing homosexual deviations is an absurd legal precedent.

            Homosexuals like to say, as part of their defense of homosexual acts, that they are not hurting anybody when they engage in such acts (though, because they do tend to be more promiscuous than “normal,” they do spread more sexual diseases per capita than more sexually “normal” people). Well, people who live in an ugly pig sty like the one described above can say the same thing about that pig sty—it doesn’t hurt anybody. That does not carry much weight. Many actions are wrong that do not “hurt” anybody.

            If we tolerate such deviations we will wind up with an ugly, confused, and sick society. Let us learn from the decay and fall of the great Roman and Greek societies, which came to value debauchery. Once people depart from decent moral standards it is frequently all downhill after that because it is harder to be moral than immoral, generally speaking. This is because being moral requires some effort (self-restraint or self-denial), and people tend to take the “path of least resistance.”

            Indeed, over the last 40 years or so, as our society has become more accepting of immoral behavior, our divorce rate has soared, as has the out-of-wedlock birthrate and teen suicide rate, we have seen the rise of an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, etc., etc.

            Thus, we should ever try to see to it that morality is the path of least resistance by creating inhibitions to immorality, by at least attaching serious social stigmas to immorality and preferably by illegalizing immoral behavior. (To those who say that we cannot legislate morality, we can reply that outlawing murder, rape, theft, racist behaviors, sexist behaviors, indecent exposure, disturbing the peace, etc., etc., is legislating morality and is obviously proper.)

            Ultimately, all the rules or laws against homosexual activity, normal or deviant sex in public, indecent exposure, obscene literature and videos, the utterance of certain swearwords in public or using them in newspapers and magazines and on TV and radio—all the rules or laws against those things rest on the same basis as the laws or ordinances against the existence of such things as ugly, unkempt houses and yards. What is that basis? Nothing more than this: a large number of people find such things unpleasant or offensive or repugnant, etc., etc.

            It is a matter of maintaining high standards at the least, and at the most of slowly raising those standards as we make society better. Allowing people to lower our standards, to take us down toward a more animalistic state of being, is to allow people to slowly ruin our advanced and advancing society.

            Sure we can survive (after a fashion) if we allow (for examples) public heterosexual or homosexual sexual activity, but what kind of life would that be? Sure we can survive in a muddy, unkempt, littered, ugly neighborhood (as opposed to a grassy, flowered, neat neighborhood), but what kind of life is that?

            The fact is, in a democracy, if enough people find a certain behavior (not orientation or belief) disagreeable they can pass laws against that behavior. And behavior is the key word. Generally speaking, we cannot discriminate on the basis of natural characteristics as race, gender, or age. Generally speaking, we cannot discriminate on the basis of belief or speech. We cannot violate fundamental rights like freedom of speech or religious belief or political belief. But behavior, unpleasant, repugnant, degraded behavior, can be rightly illegalized.

            (We believe it is fairly clear that our Constitution does not even come close to granting a fundamental or inalienable right to aberrant sex like homosexual sex. And having mentioned “race” in the preceding paragraph—homosexuals love to compare their status with the status of racial minorities like black people. The comparison is absurd. Many blacks and other racial minority members are understandably offended when they are compared to people who voluntarily engage in sexually aberrant activity.)

            Homosexuals try to “naturalize” their behavior by saying that such behavior can be found in nature. Even if that is true, homosexual behavior is the exception rather than the rule. Too, nature makes mistakes all the time. There are mutations, genetic defects, etc. There are genes which predispose people to cancer, heart disease, etc., etc. Just because something can be found in nature does not make it good or right. If every person was homosexual the human race would die out because there would be no reproduction. That is just one of the drawbacks to homosexual behavior. Others will be discussed later.

            (There does exist quite a bit of seemingly homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. For examples, in cattle and dogs and monkeys, a male will occasionally “mount” another male as he would mount a female for sex; except there is no sex between the males, the act being an asexual communication of dominance and submission. Also, some sexually deprived animals, e.g., pet dogs, will try to mate with practically anything that moves, like human arms or legs or same-sex animals. But that does not indicate homosexual desire, just orgasm desire.)

            As to whether homosexual desire is natural or instinctual or genetic in some people: in people with some natural physical abnormality in their brains that may be true for them, but it is irrelevant. We all, being imperfect creations, occasionally have immoral desires (as, for examples, to cheat, steal, be violent, etc.). Immoral desires obviously should not be acted upon, whether they are natural or instinctual or in a way man-made. (To go to extremes to clearly illustrate a point—what if some poor guy felt a “natural/instinctual” desire to have sex with a consenting sheep—are we supposed to allow a human-animal sexual relationship? Preposterous, though not so preposterous to a liberal Princeton University philosopher named Peter Singer who rationalized human-animal sex. And what if there is a necrophilia-gene? Having sex with dead people doesn’t “hurt” anyone. How ridiculous and bizarre are we supposed to allow the world to get?)

            “There’s a big difference between engaging in homosexual acts, and engaging in exhibitionist deviations or consenting-adult brother/sister or parent/offspring sexual deviations,” we’ve heard multiple times from homosexuals, as if those differences are very relevant. There is a big difference between stealing five dollars and stealing a million dollars, yet they are both obviously wrong—stealing is stealing. Homosexual deviations are immoral; exhibitionist deviations are immoral; brother/sister and parent/offspring sexual deviations are immoral; all are wrong, differences or no differences.

            Also, if homosexuals are going to place much emphasis on such differences, then they ought to start with the most significant of such differences—the differences between man and woman, between heterosexual and homosexual sex. They want to point out the differences that are most “convenient” to them and their rationalizations; but they want to ignore, conveniently, the differences between man and woman. Hypocritical.

            “But it’s love,” homosexuals say. Irrelevant. If you love your parents or your sibling or your baby or your pet dog are you going to have sex with them? Different types of love-objects and different types of love warrant different behaviors. Love doesn’t justify immoral sexual activity.

            And in addition to homosexual partners being negative deviations from the norm and setting bad legal and moral precedents, homosexuals contract certain diseases fairly regularly (details on this point can be found in the section of our website called On The Unhealthy Homosexual Lifestyle). Some of the diseases are hepatitis B, genital herpes, chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, anal cancer, and AIDS. These diseases are nature’s way of telling people that something is wrong with their behavior, that they are abusing or misusing their bodies. These diseases are other good reasons to not engage in homosexual acts.

            Homosexuals point out that many unnatural (i.e., man-invented or artificial) things are valued by human beings—from things like cars and airplanes to complex entertaining actions like contortionist feats to things like purple hair. They rightly say that just because homosexual acts may be unnatural does not necessarily mean they are immoral.

            The response to that is: allowing “unnatural” things like airplanes or physical acts like contortionist feats is fine because they are not bad legal precedents; they are either good legal precedents (e.g., despite occasional accidents airplanes can help a society run much more efficiently) or are essentially neutral legal precedents (e.g., while purple hair is not all that valuable to society, it does not have negative ramifications for society, generally speaking, and one can say the same for contortionist feats). On the other hand, homosexual acts are bad legal precedents because they can lead to social approval of other deviant sex acts. (As noted previously, a misguided Princeton University professor, one Peter Singer, has actually and explicitly defended consenting human-animal sex.) And let us not forget there is a group of homosexuals, the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), organized to push for the legalization of man-boy sex.

            “Who are you to judge others?” we have actually been seriously asked by homosexuals. If we stop judging others we have to legalize murder, rape, theft, etc.—obviously ludicrous things to do. One can feel perfectly free and right to rationally judge others. And if homosexuals do not believe in judging others, then they should not hypocritically judge people like yours truly and tell us we are wrong and “homophobic” for being against homosexual activity.

            Then there is the argument that homosexual acts are effective population-control measures and so are justified. That argument is so bad, so ridiculous it could even be used by pedophiles. Pedophiles can say that if adults were just having sex with 5-year-olds we wouldn’t have a population problem! Hey, murder is an effective population-control measure. So what. Too, any sex act that a man can do with another man and not make anyone pregnant (like oral sex), that man can do with a woman and still not make anyone pregnant. We do not need to go to ridiculous lengths, like homosexual acts (or, to get a little bizarre to make a point, necrophilia or bestiality) to control our population numbers.

            Then there is the “consenting adults” argument: that, generally speaking, anything that happens between consenting adults is fine, including homosexual acts. But first of all, it is obvious that nobody has the right to do wrong, even consenting adults (and homosexual acts are wrong). If two so-called consenting adults choose to rob a bank, we would not legalize bank-robbing.

          • afchief

            Part II

            Secondly, society has better things to do with its people and resources than treat diseases that homosexuals bring on themselves by consentingly or voluntarily engaging in unsafe and/or physiologically unnatural sex acts. (Resources would be better spent finding cures for diseases people do not bring on themselves, do not “ask” for, as diseases associated with the involuntary aging process. We also could spend that money feeding the starving children of the world. In a very real sense, children are starving because some people, including some heterosexuals, think they have the right to engage in unsafe sex and spread disease. If that doesn’t outrage you you may have lost your humanity. Homosexuals should apologize for all the STDs they’ve spread, and all the money those STDs have cost, and especially for setting bad moral examples for our children.)

            And third, two people engaging in immoral sex acts in absolute privacy is one thing; coming out of the closet with one’s vices and demanding equal rights is quite another and should be frowned upon to say the least. When someone’s behavior becomes public knowledge, when it thereby affects the public, it becomes the public’s business, and the public acquires the right to legislate against that behavior should the public decide logically that it would be advisable to do so.

            Homosexuals like to especially point out that people of the same sex can understand each other better than they can understand the opposite sex, because people of the same sex are naturally more similar to each other.

            There is some truth to that, but when homosexuals conclude from it that homosexual relationships are therefore better and/or more moral than heterosexual ones they go too far. While men and women have their differences, they have many things in common. Let’s build on the things we have in common. Let’s unify the populace, not sexually segregate and disunify it as homosexuals apparently would prefer. Besides, people of the opposite sex can be much more attractive and exciting, naturally.

            By the way, the more lesbians there are in the population, the fewer potential mates for straight men. No red-blooded heterosexual male should want that. And the more male homosexuals there are in the population, the fewer potential mates for straight women. No red-blooded heterosexual female should want that. Plus, from an evolutionary standpoint regarding reproduction, the more homosexuals there are the narrower the available gene pool (due to fewer potential mates), which isn’t good.

            Some critics point out that, in the wide circle of people we at H.O.M.E. know and love and like, there are probably some closet homosexuals. They argue that since we already like them, what difference should their homosexuality make? The fact that this type of “argument” is even being used, like some of the other seriously flawed arguments discussed above, shows how badly our educational system is failing. In the wide circle of people you know and love and like, odds are there are one or two closet racists or sexists or “homophobes” or thieves or pedophiles (etc.). That isn’t much of an argument for anything.

            It should be stressed that numerous homosexuals and bisexuals have a large number of sexual partners, many of whom are essentially perfect strangers. These people just use others for sex and have a difficult time loving. They are contributing to making the world a colder and more exploitative place. (Incidentally, promiscuity says basically this: I do not think you are worth marrying but I’ll use you for sex. Promiscuous sex is actually somewhat of an insult to thinking people. It’s just sexual exploitation.)

            Homosexuals have told straight people that straights must have sexual hang-ups and inhibitions because they do not sexually desire people of their own gender. Well, it is evident that anyone (like a homosexual) who cannot or will not desire/love/marry/enjoy the opposite sex must also have some big hang-ups and inhibitions. Too, since many bisexuals tend to prefer their own sex when it comes to sexual partners, those bisexuals must have the same hang-ups and inhibitions afflicting homosexuals, though to a lesser degree. (If bisexuals fully enjoyed the opposite gender sexually, they wouldn’t waste their time on same-sex partners. Something, some sexual inhibitions and hang-ups, must be interfering with bisexuals’ enjoyment of the opposite sex.)

            Also, as a review of the numerous studies done through the years on homosexuals bears out, it is a fact that many many homosexuals were sexually abused when young (for more info on this fact see the section of our website called Sexual Abuse: A Major Cause Of Homosexuality?). That abuse is what has so disoriented the sexual desires of many homosexuals. In other words, many homosexuals were not born homosexual and so can choose to be what they were born to be—heterosexual. Such a choice may not be easy and may require therapy, but for many disoriented people it is a viable option. And for these people to choose to remain homosexual just lets the degenerates who abused them have too much power over them—the power to determine their sexual orientations.

            Modern psychology knows that people can be conditioned to be practically anything. The environments we grow up in can make us tyrannical or meek, generous or selfish, loving or hateful, etc., etc. Human beings seem to be almost infinitely malleable—capable of becoming pedophiles, necrophiliacs, torturers, whatever. Identical twins can grow up to be very different people, with one even being heterosexual and the other homosexual. Homosexuals are not trapped in their homosexuality any more than identical twins are trapped in their sexuality by their genes. Homosexuals should be able to become enjoyably heterosexual if they concentrate and “train” themselves to. They cannot justify not doing so. Let’s go forward, not back thousands of years to the ancient Greek and Roman debauched societies. Let’s progress not regress. Homosexuals should not be afraid of change, should not be afraid of becoming heterosexual.

            Males are attracted to females by chemical substances (pheromones), just like dogs in heat, and are attracted by flirtatious behavior and perhaps by physical traits like breasts. This is how nature works. Even lower animals flirt. This natural “programming” is why normal men are attracted to women and vice versa.

            Being what we are, i.e., fulfilling our natures, within reason, makes us happiest. Being heterosexual is within reason, engaging in homosexual activity is not within reason. That is just the way it is. Just like we should not eat poison ivy or bask in the sun to excess (getting sunstroke and/or severe sunburn) or lay naked in the snow too long (getting hypothermia). That is just the way it is. Our natures entail limits.

            It would be wrong for society to allow homosexuals to impose their “morality,” their be-tolerant-of-aberrant-sexualities “morality,” on us. It would be wrong for us to allow homosexuals to dictate to us what we will and will not tolerate. It would be wrong for us to yield to their unreasonable demands for toleration and legalization of homosexual acts. Like it or not, that is reality. That is just the way it is. Most people can easily accept that. If homosexuals do not want to appear irrational or prejudiced they also ought to accept that.

            Indeed, any honest and logical homosexual has to admit that the decisive argument against homosexual acts, the argument that legal homosexual activity is a bad legal and moral precedent, is a perfectly valid argument. This is because homosexuals and their liberal supporters use the same type of argument to try to defend their values. Liberals like to ask those who want to censor some book or some smutty rock and roll lyrics: “Where will the censorship stop? What’s next on your list?”

            If homosexuals and their supporters recognize the validity of the bad-legal-precedent argument, the “slippery slope” argument, and they do, then they have to admit that such an argument helps demonstrate that homosexual acts are immoral and illegalizeable.

            Also, as noted previously, for decades the American Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality a disorder (until it was taken over by pro-homosexual ideologues who are now letting sexual politics trump science and logic). In the section of our website titled “Is Homosexuality A Disorder?” we make the case that it is, though we view it as a comparatively minor one. (And, again, we are all born imperfect.) Still, it makes no sense to treat a disorder as if it were not a disorder.

            On another matter, those adults who mislead young sexually confused people into thinking homosexual activity is okay are just instilling a false hope. They are taking advantage of the young and confused. They are doing a disservice to everyone, and they are heartlessly setting young homosexuals up for a big fall. When young homosexuals debate conservative intellectuals and find out they cannot justify homosexual activity, when young homosexuals find out all their arguments are flawed, they can become seriously depressed. We should not be instilling the false hope—we should not be fooling young people into believing—that homosexual activity is okay when thinking people have known for centuries it is not.

            The biggest reason that the so-called “gay rights” (sad wrongs) movement has gotten as far as it has is that the major media, which for decades have been dominated by pro-homosexual liberals, have conducted a massive, sophisticated propaganda campaign in favor of homosexuality. They have willfully disseminated exaggerations and falsehoods, plus have engaged in widespread censorship of inconvenient facts concerning homosexuality.

            We wish more Americans knew just how much their values and emotions have been insidiously manipulated by media “malpractitioners.” Someday in the future people are going to look back at this era and wonder how so many pro-homosexual people let themselves be taken in by fallacious propaganda.

            (For those who want to know more about media manipulation—and about all the in-depth psychological research done on people with the goal of learning how to push our buttons, how to get us to respond in certain ways to various stimuli—a good and important read is the classic book Hidden Persuaders by Vance Packard.)

            Before we close this section, some words on the mean-spirited use of the term “homophobic” by those who love to call people like this writer pejorative and inflammatory names. Homophobia doesn’t really exist. Are people who are morally opposed to theft or rape or whatever, theftphobes, or rapephobes, or whateverphobes? Obviously not. Principled opposition to homosexual activity is clearly not a phobia, is clearly not a pathological fear. People who label others “homophobic” are just revealing their ignorance and naivety.

            To conclude: penalizing people for engaging in homosexual behavior is clearly not discrimination, just like penalizing people for exhibitionism or incest is not discrimination. Penalizing people for immoral or illegal behavior is simply the right thing to do. That is a truth homosexuals (and bisexuals) should be able to understand. And with all the genuinely serious problems in the world that need our attention, don’t homosexuals and their supporters have anything better to do with their time than struggle to legalize immoral sexual activity? These extremists should get a life.

          • Ax2root

            Homosexuality does not involve love because it’s root is demonic.

            You err in thinking people are defined by their sexual actions.

            All people are created heterosexual

          • Valri

            Oh, “demonic”, what a pile of crap! Read a psychology text or a medical journal or the American Psychological Assiciation’s website sometime and stop listening to bigoted religious twits.

          • Ax2root

            You are spiritually ignorant.

            Worse, you don’t even realize it

          • Valri

            Peddle your fundie hate elsewhere. I’m not buying.

          • NGN

            any proof? nopers just lies for Christ. you are truly pathetic. Love how you parrot this drivel. You must have been motorpool in the chair farce…LOL! Mental midget

          • thelordlives2011

            You must have forgotten your Anatomy and Physiology. Your Anus is for defection and removal of body waste and anyother use is ABNORMAL AND PERVERTED.

          • mantis

            perversion is a matter of opinion and anal sex isn’t high risk so long as you take the right precautions

          • Ax2root

            CDC says ALL ANAL SEX is vulnerable to HIV passage.

            CDC says condoms ARE NOT PREVENTIVE against HIV in anal sex.

          • Valri

            And two straight people having anal sex, that isn’t high risk and perverted? It goes on a lot more often than two men doing it.

          • Michael C

            People who abstain from sex are considered “high risk”?

        • acontraryview

          No added expense. Blood was already tested.

          • Nidalap

            Unless they chased down those not allowed to donate and tested them anyway, I think not! 🙂

          • acontraryview

            Ahhh…so you are complaining about the cost of testing additional blood donors. Therefore, you would not discourage anyone who has not given blood before from starting to now, due to the increase in cost, correct?

          • Nidalap

            Hmm…you MAY have put one too many negatives in that sentence! 🙂 And the cost factor was never the main reasoning, just another angle!

          • acontraryview

            I did include an extra negative. Thanks for point that out. i modified my post.

            “And the cost factor was never the main reasoning, just another angle!”

            So then cost would not be a factor upon which you would discourage people who have not before donated blood from doing so now, is that correct?

            By the way, most blood donations are done through private organizations that have nothing to do with “an already strapped for cash health system.”

          • Nidalap

            You’re welcome! In the battle against the double negative, we must be eternally vigilant! 🙂
            I WOULD discourage folk from accepting donations from high-risk folk! (^_^)

        • gizmo23

          What is your secret of being able to tell who is gay and who isn’t?

          • Nidalap

            They’ll probably check a little box or something! If not, where’s the story? 🙂

          • gizmo23

            There is no story here. Gay people have been donating blood for years and there is no way to check and see who had sex or not.
            I donate on ocassion and are never asked if I’m gay or when I had sex last. Just another issue to scare people with

  • 201821208 :)

    “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” Rom. 1:26-27

  • Michex

    Why the urgency to have homosexuals donate blood?
    Are homosexuals somehow particularly excited to walk into a donor center and donate blood? Is their blood better than that of other people?
    I think we all know that underneath it all, it’s political and has nothing to do with health, science, or safety.
    When homosexuals demand something, virtually everyone caves in.
    One might think that they now rule the country, and maybe they do.
    Shows just what a bunch of cowards 90% of elected officials are.

    • NGN

      no urgency. they want to be able to donate to help save lives. back to boobwire and your butt buddies mason and rcq…..moron

      • Michex

        Yeh, because homosexuals are such great humanitarians.
        They wake up every morning with their partners, and say “Gee, I wish I could jog down to my local red cross and donate a few pints of my superior blood every day of the week.”
        “Oh well,” they say, “I guess I just have to keep those extra pints of blood today flowing in my body.”

        • NGN

          you have no idea. you spend far too much time obsessed with gay men and women on boobwire. surprised you came to a site without the moderation that boobwire has. too funny….. you are the typical faux christian who lies for christ on the web

    • Ax2root

      The devil hates and wants to kill more people.

      ” the life is in the blood”

      We need to know how NOT to get blood transfusions……what are the medical alternatives since now we know because of FASCIST P/ C BS the USA BLOOD SYSTEM is now COMPROMISED

  • acontraryview

    ““There are several highly disturbing aspects to this politically-motivated change in the United States’ blood donation policy,” Peter LaBarbera, president Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, told reporters.“First of all, homosexual activists frame this entire issue in terms of so-called ‘anti-gay discrimination’ and equality, instead of prioritizing above all the safety of the American blood supply.””

    Given the experiences in other countries, just change does not affect the safety of the American blood supply.

    ““Secondly,” the FDA’s report shows that a small percentage of homosexual men have ignored the blood donation ban,” he continued. “Now we are going to trust practicing homosexuals with an even looser regulation?””

    How would changing the regulation result in a change in the number of people who have “ignored the blood donation ban”?

    ““Thirdly, the FDA report shows that the new standards are more lax than Australia’s policy—which threatens violators with prosecution”

    No, the standards are not more lax. The punishment for lying is not as severe, but the standards are the same.

    So three for three on the lying scale for Mr. Labarbara. No surprise there.

  • Becky

    Another futile attempt to force citizens to accept homosexuality as normal. Praise God Almighty, ’tain’t gonna happen. By God’s grace, Christians will never accept it as something natural or good. God called it an abomination, therefore it will always be an abomination.

    • John N

      I’m afraid citizens all over the western world have accepted homosexuality as ‘normal’ some time ago. So it already happened, despite your almighty god.

      That leaves only fundamentalistic christians on the homophobic side. Together with fundamentalistic moslims, of course. Same god?