Bryan Fischer
Why homosexual behavior should be against the law
By Bryan Fischer
I received a phone call this morning from a reporter for NBC Action News in Kansas City by the name of Josh Luch. He contacted me in response to my blog entry of last Friday, in which I suggested that it is proper for our culture to impose legal sanctions on homosexual behavior for health reasons alone.
The leftwing blogosphere has virtually lost its mind in response to my Friday post. Many of them falsely accused me of saying that I wanted all homosexuals to be locked up, and the response of many of these voices of tolerance was to declare that they wanted me locked up instead and locked away from civil society so my voice would be silenced.
Josh asked for some more information from me, regarding my position, including links to relevant FDA and CDC websites, and below is the email I wrote to Josh this morning.
Josh,
Thanks for contacting me for clarification, and demonstrating journalistic integrity by reading my blog entry for yourself rather than forming your judgment based on what the left wing blogs have claimed I said.
I nowhere in my blog said we should lock homosexuals up in prison. What I said is that our public policy toward homosexual conduct should be the same as our public policy toward intravenous drug abuse.
My position is that homosexual behavior represents a severe threat to public health, and is even more dangerous to human health than intravenous drug abuse. Because of the health risks involved, curtailing homosexual behavior should be as much a public policy concern as curtailing intravenous drug abuse.
FDA: "Men who have sex with other men ... are currently deferred as blood donors"
The Food and Drug Administration is hardly a part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, and is not the research arm of the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, or Focus on the Family. Yet the FDA will not allow a male to donate blood if he has had sex with another male even one single solitary time since 1977.
Why? For the simple reason that the FDA cannot afford to adopt political correct postures with regard to homosexual behavior because it is entrusted with protecting the purity of the nation's blood supply. They understand that to allow homosexuals to donate blood is to put the nation's health at risk.
The FDA states quite explicitly that "male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS."
In fact, the FDA goes on to state a staggering fact: men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an "HIV prevalence" that is "60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors."
And further cementing my argument, the FDA will not allow "intravenous drug abusers" to donate blood either, for exactly the same reason: "Intravenous drug abusers are excluded from giving blood because they have prevalence rates of HIV, HBV, HCV and HTLV that are much higher than the general population."
The FDA flatly declares that this policy is not discriminatory, since it "is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor's sexual orientation."
I argue that my position, since it is identical with the FDA's, is no more "discriminatory" than theirs.
CDC: At least 60% of HIV/AIDS victims are men who have sex with men
The Centers for Disease Control is likewise not a part of the vast right wing conspiracy, nor is it the research arm of the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, or Focus on the Family.
On its website, you will find a page devoted to "Basic Statistics," and one set of statistics has to do with the total number of persons who have received an AIDS diagnosis from the beginning of the epidemic through 2007, the last year for which information is available.
The CDC's own statistics indicate (see table below) that, among males, over 60% of the victims of AIDS over the entire course of the epidemic acquired the disease through "male-to-male sexual contact."
The next highest risk category was "injection drug use," through which just under 22% acquired AIDS.
The third category consists of those who engaged both in male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use, meaning the CDC could not assign transmission definitely to either category, and this category represents just under 9% of all AIDS cases.
A miniscule 8% acquired the disease through "high risk heterosexual contact."
The bottom line here is that "male-to-male sexual contact" is far and away the riskiest kind of behavior for contracting AIDS, and IV drug abuse is a distant second. When you add these two categories together, a staggering 91% — 91%! — of all AIDS sufferers acquired the disease either through homosexual behavior or shooting up with drugs.
The neutral observer must conclude that homosexual behavior is extremely risky, dangerous and unhealthy, and represents an even greater risk to public health than intravenous drug abuse. This is highlighted by the fact that male homosexuals comprise perhaps 2-4% of the American population.
It is obvious, then, from the information gained from the FDA and the CDC that homosexual behavior represents and enormous threat to public health. Quite simply, if intravenous drug use is against the law, homosexual behavior should be too. It's a simple matter of common sense, sound public policy, and a concern for public health.
Now once we have agreed that we have a serious health problem on our hands here, the best public policy will contain the same kind of sanctions toward homosexual behavior that we have established toward intravenous drug abuse. Whatever we think we should do to curtail injection drug use are the same sorts of things we should pursue to curtail homosexual conduct. And that's the place for the discussion to begin.
TRANSMISSION CATEGORY CHART FROM THE CDC:
*Includes persons with a diagnosis of AIDS from the beginning of the epidemic through 2007.
**Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection.
*** Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal exposure, and risk not reported or not identified.
Below the excerpts you will find the link to the FDA website. Here are relevant excerpts from the FDA website:
What is FDA's policy on blood donations from men who have sex with other men (MSM)?
Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors. This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.
Why doesn't FDA allow men who have had sex with men to donate blood?
A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. FDA's policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products.
The deferral for men who have had sex with men is based on the following considerations regarding risk of HIV:
questionsaboutblood/ucm108186.htm
CDC website on HIV statistics by mode of transmission:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm
Bryan Fischer
Director of Issues Analysis and host of "Focal Point"
American Family Association
© Bryan Fischer
February 3, 2010
I received a phone call this morning from a reporter for NBC Action News in Kansas City by the name of Josh Luch. He contacted me in response to my blog entry of last Friday, in which I suggested that it is proper for our culture to impose legal sanctions on homosexual behavior for health reasons alone.
The leftwing blogosphere has virtually lost its mind in response to my Friday post. Many of them falsely accused me of saying that I wanted all homosexuals to be locked up, and the response of many of these voices of tolerance was to declare that they wanted me locked up instead and locked away from civil society so my voice would be silenced.
Josh asked for some more information from me, regarding my position, including links to relevant FDA and CDC websites, and below is the email I wrote to Josh this morning.
Josh,
Thanks for contacting me for clarification, and demonstrating journalistic integrity by reading my blog entry for yourself rather than forming your judgment based on what the left wing blogs have claimed I said.
I nowhere in my blog said we should lock homosexuals up in prison. What I said is that our public policy toward homosexual conduct should be the same as our public policy toward intravenous drug abuse.
My position is that homosexual behavior represents a severe threat to public health, and is even more dangerous to human health than intravenous drug abuse. Because of the health risks involved, curtailing homosexual behavior should be as much a public policy concern as curtailing intravenous drug abuse.
FDA: "Men who have sex with other men ... are currently deferred as blood donors"
The Food and Drug Administration is hardly a part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, and is not the research arm of the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, or Focus on the Family. Yet the FDA will not allow a male to donate blood if he has had sex with another male even one single solitary time since 1977.
Why? For the simple reason that the FDA cannot afford to adopt political correct postures with regard to homosexual behavior because it is entrusted with protecting the purity of the nation's blood supply. They understand that to allow homosexuals to donate blood is to put the nation's health at risk.
The FDA states quite explicitly that "male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS."
In fact, the FDA goes on to state a staggering fact: men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an "HIV prevalence" that is "60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors."
And further cementing my argument, the FDA will not allow "intravenous drug abusers" to donate blood either, for exactly the same reason: "Intravenous drug abusers are excluded from giving blood because they have prevalence rates of HIV, HBV, HCV and HTLV that are much higher than the general population."
The FDA flatly declares that this policy is not discriminatory, since it "is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor's sexual orientation."
I argue that my position, since it is identical with the FDA's, is no more "discriminatory" than theirs.
CDC: At least 60% of HIV/AIDS victims are men who have sex with men
The Centers for Disease Control is likewise not a part of the vast right wing conspiracy, nor is it the research arm of the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, or Focus on the Family.
On its website, you will find a page devoted to "Basic Statistics," and one set of statistics has to do with the total number of persons who have received an AIDS diagnosis from the beginning of the epidemic through 2007, the last year for which information is available.
The CDC's own statistics indicate (see table below) that, among males, over 60% of the victims of AIDS over the entire course of the epidemic acquired the disease through "male-to-male sexual contact."
The next highest risk category was "injection drug use," through which just under 22% acquired AIDS.
The third category consists of those who engaged both in male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use, meaning the CDC could not assign transmission definitely to either category, and this category represents just under 9% of all AIDS cases.
A miniscule 8% acquired the disease through "high risk heterosexual contact."
The bottom line here is that "male-to-male sexual contact" is far and away the riskiest kind of behavior for contracting AIDS, and IV drug abuse is a distant second. When you add these two categories together, a staggering 91% — 91%! — of all AIDS sufferers acquired the disease either through homosexual behavior or shooting up with drugs.
The neutral observer must conclude that homosexual behavior is extremely risky, dangerous and unhealthy, and represents an even greater risk to public health than intravenous drug abuse. This is highlighted by the fact that male homosexuals comprise perhaps 2-4% of the American population.
It is obvious, then, from the information gained from the FDA and the CDC that homosexual behavior represents and enormous threat to public health. Quite simply, if intravenous drug use is against the law, homosexual behavior should be too. It's a simple matter of common sense, sound public policy, and a concern for public health.
Now once we have agreed that we have a serious health problem on our hands here, the best public policy will contain the same kind of sanctions toward homosexual behavior that we have established toward intravenous drug abuse. Whatever we think we should do to curtail injection drug use are the same sorts of things we should pursue to curtail homosexual conduct. And that's the place for the discussion to begin.
TRANSMISSION CATEGORY CHART FROM THE CDC:
*Includes persons with a diagnosis of AIDS from the beginning of the epidemic through 2007.
**Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection.
*** Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal exposure, and risk not reported or not identified.
Below the excerpts you will find the link to the FDA website. Here are relevant excerpts from the FDA website:
What is FDA's policy on blood donations from men who have sex with other men (MSM)?
Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors. This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.
Why doesn't FDA allow men who have had sex with men to donate blood?
A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. FDA's policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products.
The deferral for men who have had sex with men is based on the following considerations regarding risk of HIV:
- Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors.
- Men who have had sex with men account for the largest single group of blood donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing.
- Intravenous drug abusers are excluded from giving blood because they have prevalence rates of HIV, HBV, HCV and HTLV that are much higher than the general population.
CDC website on HIV statistics by mode of transmission:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm
Bryan Fischer
Director of Issues Analysis and host of "Focal Point"
American Family Association
© Bryan Fischer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
