The Dangers of Homosexuality

Why aren’t we being warned?

by Trevor Thomas

June 20, 2010

My wife and I have recently been watching a lot of DVDs. (With four children under nine-years-old, we don’t get out to movie theatres often.) Many of the newer DVDs we’ve recently seen have a common anti-smoking ad at the beginning. (See it here.) The ad portrays cigarette companies as deceptive: “They tell you tough, hard-working people smoke their cigarettes; that you’ll look cool, hip, rebellious; that smoking makes you independent, beautiful, and mysterious.” The ad concludes with a dilapidated-looking man in a wheelchair with several tubes coming out of him, laboriously declaring, “But the reality is that you could end up looking like this.” It is rather powerful.

We’ve been hearing about the dangers of tobacco for decades, while, during the same period, tobacco companies have been strictly limited in the forms of marketing they may use to peddle their product. Cigarette ads on radio and television have been banned in the U.S. since 1971. Likewise, on-air smokeless tobacco ads have been banned in the U.S. since 1986. In 1965 Congress enacted the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, which required tobacco companies to carry warnings on their cigarette packaging.

Last June, President Obama, a smoker, signed into law The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The law requires new warnings on tobacco products. It bans the use of “light” and “ultra-light” cigarettes, along with banning flavored cigarettes, except for menthol. The bill also requires print tobacco advertisements to consist of black text on a white background; the use of color is prohibited except under very limited circumstances. Certainly, we’ve all gotten the message: tobacco is very, very bad for us, and the government is here to protect us.

What if I were to tell you about another activity which is also exceptionally dangerous? This activity leads to:

A twenty-five to thirty-year decrease in life expectancy.
Chronic, potentially fatal, liver disease—infectious hepatitis, which increases the risk of liver cancer.
Inevitably fatal immune disease including associated cancers.
Frequently fatal rectal cancer.
Multiple bowel and other infectious diseases.
A much higher than usual incidence of suicide.

These are only some of the consequences, according to Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, the author of Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. That’s right. The above consequences are all linked directly to homosexuality, especially male homosexuality.

According to the CDC, gay and bisexual men account for more than 60 percent of all syphilis cases, and more than 82 percent of all known sexually-transmitted AIDS cases in 2006 were the result of male-to-male sexual contact. During its 2010 National STD Prevention Conference, the CDC revealed that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women. Also, the rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women.

According to Kevin Fenton, M.D., director of the CDC's National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, “While the heavy toll of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men has been long recognized, this analysis shows just how stark the health disparities are between this and other populations.”

Also occurring at a much higher rate among MSM are gonorrhea, various forms of hepatitis, and anal and genital warts. What’s more, in 2007 the Los Angeles Times reported the frequency of methamphetamine use is 20 times greater among MSM than in the general population.

Of course, it is not the homosexuality itself which leads to such severe diseases. It is the typical behavior (such as meth use) of homosexuals, again, especially male homosexuals, which places them in such danger. As Dr. Satinover puts it, “the typical homosexual lifestyle—especially among males—differs dramatically from American averages.” According to Dr. Satinover, there are two major risk factors that contribute to the disproportionately greater incidence of non-AIDS disease among (male) homosexuals: promiscuity and anal intercourse.

Multiple surveys and studies paint an extremely promiscuous lifestyle for the typical homosexual (again, especially male). A 1996 survey of homosexuals revealed that 42% had sex with more than 100 different partners and 16% claim between 40 and 100 partners. A University of Chicago study released in 2003 found that 61 percent of homosexual men in Chicago's Shoreland area had had more than 30 sexual partners. In September of 2006, the Agape Press reported that “A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20 percent of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8 percent having had more than 300.”

According to many who have studied and observed (whether first-hand or not) the homosexual lifestyle, another essential feature of the male homosexual is anal intercourse. One researcher referred to it as the “sine qua non of sex for many gay men.” A 1994 survey noted that among gay and bisexual men, 76% of the survey respondents had experienced insertive anal intercourse and 82% receptive. Also, in February of this year, the international AIDS charity AVERT reported on a British study that revealed that about 70% of homosexual men have had anal sex.

Anal intercourse, as Satinover points out, traumatizes the soft tissues of the rectal lining. “These tissues are meant to accommodate the relatively soft fecal mass…and are nowhere near as sturdy as vaginal tissues. As a consequence, the lining of the rectum is almost always traumatized to some degree by any act of anal intercourse. Even in the absence of major trauma, minor or microscopic tears in the rectal lining allow for immediate contamination and the entry of germs into the bloodstream.” According to the CDC, “The risk of HIV transmission through receptive anal sex is much greater than the risk of transmission via other sexual activities.”

As I noted at the beginning of this, for decades we have been warned about the dangers of tobacco use—especially smoking. There has been a coordinated campaign by activists and like minded politicians to inform us all when it comes to the risks of tobacco use. This has been especially true with adolescents. Schools have been heavily involved in the crusade against “big tobacco.”

A large part of the campaign against tobacco has involved informing (or scaring) us about the physical dangers of tobacco use. According to the CDC, smoking increases the risk of coronary heart disease by 2 to 4 times; stroke by 2 to 4 times; men developing lung cancer by 23 times; and women developing lung cancer by 13 times.

Yet, as I also noted above, most of these numbers pale in comparison to the increased risks of dangerous STDs that result from homosexual behavior. What’s more, the World Health Organization places sexually transmitted diseases fifth on its list of leading causes of preventable deaths worldwide (resulting in 3 million deaths). Smoking tobacco is second, resulting in 5 million deaths. But where is the educational, pro-health campaign when it comes to homosexuality? Why aren’t young people warned of the dangers of such behavior? Where are the billboards, the moving TV ads, and the Hollywood testimonials? Where are the laws to protect us?

Along with the federal laws mentioned above, state legislatures, city councils, and county commissions across the country have enacted significant bans on public smoking. Some ban indoor smoking in all public places, including bars and restaurants. Many places have enacted outdoor bans as well.

According to the Associated Press, as recently as 1960 every state had an anti-sodomy law, which essentially made most male homosexual activity illegal. (Sodomy has been broadly defined as a sexual “crime against nature,” but can strictly refer to only anal sex.) By 2003, in the name of “individual liberty,” 37 states had their statutes repealed by legislatures or blocked by the courts. In November of 2003 the Supreme Court, in a 6 to 3 ruling, overturned the Texas sodomy law, and therefore invalidated similar laws in the 12 states that still had them on their books.

Most of these laws had religious motivations; however, as has been demonstrated, just as with smoking, there are significant health reasons for banning such behavior, especially anal sex, whether it involves homosexuals or heterosexuals.

Yet, in the effort to legitimize homosexuality, many Americans have been deceived. With almost the same fervor that has been behind the anti-tobacco campaign, a pro-homosexual campaign has been, and continues to be, waged in America. Politicians, Hollywood, and many in the media have been complicit in this effort. Whether it is reversing sodomy laws or seeking marital rights, for several decades homosexuals have fought, and in many cases won, legal battles across the U.S.

However, none of this changes the facts behind homosexual behavior. The endeavor against tobacco and in favor of homosexuality is another example of scandalous liberal hypocrisy. The same kind of deception that many claim has been rampant within the tobacco companies (such as with the ad I mentioned in the opening paragraph), has been and continues to be a part of the pro-homosexual agenda. Americans, especially our young people, deserve the truth.