For those of you who have been around long enough, do you remember when the AIDS epidemic started to make headlines back in the early 1980s? Remember how we knew from the start that the disease was overwhelmingly prevalent within the homosexual community?
Do you also remember when that perception started to change? It was probably around the late 1980s and early 1990s when the whitewash began in earnest. The media began telling us that this really wasn't a disease that primarily hit homosexuals, and we even had television shows with characters who got AIDS from blood transfusions to "prove it." Meanwhile, those statistics which showed the vast majority of AIDS victims were in the homosexual community quietly stopped showing up in the news...but their numbers never really changed.
After all, our trusted "objective media" was increasingly telling us that homosexuality was normal, natural and healthy. They were telling us, both in news reports and in pop television shows, that there was nothing dangerous or abnormal about homosexuality, and that "AIDS doesn't discriminate."
Meanwhile, more people kept coming into the homosexual lifestyle, more people stayed in the homosexual lifestyle, and more homosexuals died.
From CNS News, a new homosexual whitewash is beginning over the MRSA, or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, infection, which is hitting the homosexual community in San Francisco hard:
Barber said the initial reporting of the outbreak was "pretty solid" and news accounts related the facts "as is," but the coverage began to change after conservative groups like CWA noted that this variant is primarily spread by men having anal sex.
"The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and other organizations began to jump up and down a bit and scream, and The New York Times and other organizations started to backpedal," Barber said.
"The story was no longer the dangers associated with the outbreak - and the behaviors associated with it," said Barber. "The story now became about how groups like mine were supposedly misrepresenting the outbreak as some sort of 'new gay plague' or 'the new AIDS' - things we never said."
Indeed, HRC accused CWA and others of being "anti-gay bigots" for recommending that one way to stop this outbreak of the infection is for homosexual men to curtail having anal sex - at least for a while.
"Serious medical issues deserve serious consideration, not wildly off-the-mark press releases from anti-gay groups trying to capture media attention," HRC President Joe Solmonese said in a news release.
"We saw this kind of hysteria in the early 1980s around HIV/AIDS, and I'll be damned if we will sit idly by in 2008 and let them perpetrate that type of anti-gay hysteria without calling them out on it," he said.
Michael Coats, the Rapid City area's chief homosexual activist, recently claimed that these findings were being "distorted." Distorted in what way he did not clarify. Seems pretty plain to me, that if a reputable media outlet like Reuters that no one accuses of Right-wing bias says that "Sexually active gay men in San Francisco are 13 times more likely to be infected than their heterosexual neighbors, the researchers reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine" that this is a health problem primarily generated within the homosexual community. That's not hate, that's not bigotry, that's just facts.
Of course, you usually have those scientists and researchers who put these facts out there, then are surprised when people examine the data and are led to conclusions that sometimes include moral implications. Then they usually try to downplay these natural deductions with protest of "we didn't mean that" and "you're being bigoted." Perhaps these elitist scientists expect the rest of us to be "above" conclusions that have moral implications, but it's a simple fact of life that the things we do usually have both practical and moral implications. It's a fact no more and no less than the data itself. What good are raw facts if they don't help you reach practical conclusions?
Facts are pretty inconvenient things for homosexuals. They don't like the fact that the Bible is clear in both Old and New Testaments that homosexuality is wrong, so they work overtime to make pretzels of the Bible. Though with our culture rapidly abandoning the Bible as a moral guide, they're not so concerned about that anymore.
Health facts are also not the friend of the homosexual. Many studies done by many different groups in different countries for the past 20 years or so have shown that homosexual behavior results in drastically increased risk of things like AIDS, Chlamydia, herpes, HPV, “gay bowel syndrome,” gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis, anal cancer, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, depression, anxiety, suicide, domestic violence and a much shorter life span. Yet homosexuals want the unsuspecting public to believe that their behavior is normal, natural and healthy. Their behavior is none of these things.
When in a recent letter to the editor of a local newspaper I cited a Centers for Disease Control report that pretty plainly shows 72% of AIDS cases are contracted through homosexual behavior and homosexuals doing drugs, Coats accuses me of "distorting" and "misrepresenting" this and other studies which show that homosexuality is a very, very dangerous practice. While it's true that some statistics can be manipulated, how can you possibly interpret this statistic any other way?
Using illegal drugs doesn't carry a range of health risks as broad as homosexual behavior, yet no one sees anything wrong or bigoted about anti-drug-use campaigns. Even smoking, as vilified as it has become in pop culture, doesn't carry as many risks as homosexuality.
Why not a public campaign to discourage people from engaging in the unhealthy and dangerous practice of homosexuality? Apparently because our culture has bought the whitewash hook, line and sinker.
Apparently, for homosexual activists, whitewashing the tremendous health risks of homosexual behavior is more important than warning people about the dangers and saving lives.
Despite what pop culture tells us, there's no love in letting someone run headlong into danger. It's not an act of love to encourage someone to continue their dangerous behavior.
Is the sexual gratification which lasts only a brief time really worth the suffering and lives cut short?