14 November 1997

WARNING: This column contains graphically explicit language to describe exactly how the AIDS virus is (and isn’t) transmitted.

Ever see news reports of a gay rights parade? You’ll see little snippets of the Hollywood celebrities and the odd (pun intended) local politician marching right up there in the front row. But you pretty much have to watch Christian broadcasting programs to see the back of the parade, where men wearing little more than a smile dance lewdly, make obscene gestures toward the cameras, and basically show what they are really all about. I guess the national media wants to protect you from that sort of thing. You have to understand that the homosexual activist agenda is to force you to accept their "alternative lifestyle" as normal. Society has traditionally rejected any such absurd notion. And government, which must be responsive to the collective will of society, has a right and an obligation to draw the line on what is acceptable behavior and what is not.

And because that is true, the gay community has engaged in a campaign of politically correct language manipulation.

Take their chosen name, for instance. "Gay" has such a nicer connotation than "queer" or even the gramatically correct "homosexual". Certainly we should avoid offending any person or group by the application of hateful language, but acceptance of a sexually deviant (sorry, that should have read "alternate") lifestyle will never be a responsibility of the larger society.

Pedophilia – the act of having sex with very young children – is also an "alternative lifestyle" if you apply the homosexual reasoning method. Shouldn’t we then have a new law to protect the civil rights of tender, loving pedophiles? Of course not! Only the sickest among us would agree to that. OK, so having demonstrated that not all "alternate lifestyles" are acceptable, where do you draw the line? And what does that say about us as a society?

"Homophobic" is another buzz word of the homosexual activists. Webster defines it as "an unreasonable fear of homosexuals or homosexuality." Since when does natural revulsion constitute an unreasonable fear? I am repulsed by maggots, but I certainly have no fear of them – much less an unreasonable fear. Which brings us to the concept that if you are repulsed by homosexual acts you must, by extension, be repulsed by homosexuals, right?

Wrong! We Christians are taught to hate the sin, but love the sinner. I have known a number of homosexuals in my half-century of walking around on this earth. The only ones that repulsed me were the band director I had in high school who joined my church choir so he could try to hold my hand under the flowing robes, or the foreman at a Baltimore newspaper who tried to rape me after offering to drive me home. Neither incident, however, caused me to hate homosexuals as people. I’ve known many homosexuals and they are, by and large, a decent, talented, and generous lot. I’m certainly not afraid of them, much less "unreasonably" afraid.

Now that we’ve defined the vitriol, let’s talk about the only politically correct killer disease known to man – AIDS. It also happens to be the only disease that is primarily self-induced. According to the 1997 mid-year report from the Centers for Disease Control, at least 82% of AIDS victims are admitted homosexuals, intravenous drug users, or both. And their tainted, donated (usually for money) blood has killed thousands of innocent hemophiliacs and others requiring blood infusion or transfusion.

During the early years of this terrible epidemic, the homosexual community’s political clout was such that blood banks couldn’t even ask if the donor had HIV, nor were they allowed to test for it. As we speak, only 26 states are even required to report AIDS cases to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta. Can you even imagine that being said of tuberculosis? Or plague? Or anthrax? Like lemmings to the sea, so march legions of homosexuals and IV drug users in an orgy of self-induced genocide.

But AIDS is everyone’s problem, right? The homosexuals and their pals in Hollywood and the media want you to believe that we must pour even still more money and resources into the search for a cure – because, we’re told, there’s a looming epidemic of AIDS among heterosexuals. But it isn’t happening. Only nine percent of AIDS cases are classified as being transmitted from heterosexual intercourse – and most of them are probably being less than honest. I can imagine that many would be quite reluctant to admit to homosexual behavior, anal intercourse between heterosexuals, or IV drug use.

Okay, so why is there no epidemic among heterosexuals? Why isn’t it happening? After all, isn’t AIDS an STD (sexually transmitted disease)?

The answer is biological. (This is where it gets graphic, so tell your kids to stop reading.) The anus is basically a sponge. The body is more than 90% water, and the anus is designed to extract the liquid content of the waste material and put it back into the bloodstream. Don’t believe me? Ever have diarrhea? When the anus ceases to function properly the liquid is not absorbed. When the anus functions properly, all liquid materials – including AIDS tainted semen – will be absorbed and placed into the bloodstream. When homosexual intercourse occurs, the receiver will get AIDS from an infected transmitter almost 100% of the time.

The womb, however, is designed not to absorb but to expel. Which explains why it’s virtually impossible to for a female to "get" AIDS during normal, heterosexual intercourse. Except during ovulation, the womb will not absorb anything. That might help explain why only 15% of AIDS victims are women – and many of them got the disease from IV drug use or from anal intercourse, since only 9% of all reported cases are attributed to normal, heterosexual intercourse (and I’d bet my next paycheck that the majority of them aren’t telling the whole truth).

For a man to get AIDS from heterosexual intercourse he must have a cut on his penis – and the act must occur while the woman is menstruating.

So while transmission of AIDS among heterosexuals does happen, it is – and will remain – extremely rare.

Homosexuals, on the other hand, have every reason to fear this disease. But their hysterical insistence that heterosexuals should be concerned about getting it is nothing short of ludicrous. I won’t try to assert that AIDS is God’s punishment for homosexuals. I won’t presume – as some in the Christian community do – to know the mind of the Almighty. But it is simply a fact that if you don’t do drugs, if you abstain from abnormal sexual relations, if you are faithful to your spouse, and if you abide by time-honored norms of moral behavior – then you have nothing to fear from AIDS.

One of former President Bush’s finest hours was while vacationing at his home in Kennebunkport, Maine. AIDS activists peppered his beautiful home with condoms (real class act, guys . . . er, gays), then arranged a press conference to demand that the president do more to eradicate this dread disease.

Standing up to the plate, President Bush knocked one out of the park.

"What more would you have me do?" he inquired, then went on to explain that the federal government was already spending more on AIDS research than on the three leading causes of death (heart disease, cancer, and stroke) combined. This statement in front of the assembled press, reported across the nation, was an act of political courage rarely seen from any politician.

In fact, AIDS ranked eighth as a leading cause of death last year, barely edging out suicide (32,655 to 30,862) while heart disease, cancer, and stroke claimed 1,438,543 victims. The CDC estimates there may be as many as 900,000 AIDS cases nationwide, but just over 600,000 have been reported. Even using the larger figure, AIDS victims make up barely one-third of one percent of the U.S. population – yet it remains the leading cause of death among males aged 25-44.

It is a tragic disease, made even more so by the fact that (once again) it is self-induced. The behavior for which homosexuals so desperately demand acceptance and legal protection is precisely what is killing them off in droves. Actions have consequences – and this one can’t be legislated away.

AUTHOR’S NOTE: The information contained in this article came from two sources:

1. The information on disease transmission methodology came from a professor of clinical biology at Austin Peay State University in Tennessee

2. All statistical data comes from the HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, Midyear Edition, Vol. 9, No.1. The 37-page report is available from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333. Adobe Acrobat users can download it online at http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/hiv_aids/stats/hasrlink.htm