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.
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.
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
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.
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.”
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
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.”
to many who have studied and observed (whether first-hand or not) the
homosexual lifestyle, another essential feature of the male homosexual is anal
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.
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.”
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
2010, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.