July 20th, 2007

A recent issue of The American Journal of Public Health (June 2003, Vol. 93, No. 6) focused on the risks associated with homosexual practices. The magazine's cover contained numerous public health posters, including the caption; "I gave my lover everything including HIV. I didn't mean to. We made a mistake. Maybe deep down we felt it would be better if we both had it. Now I know that's bullshit. HIV is not a gift." [emphasis in original] The journal contents read like a litany of bad news, one article following another. Consider the following: Mary F. Northbridge, (2003) writes,

Having struggled to come to terms with the catastrophic HIV epidemic among MSM [MSM is the new politically correct term for homosexual men i.e., Men who have Sex with Men] in the 1980's by addressing the pointed issues of sexuality and heterosexism, are we set to backslide a mere 20 years later as HIV incidence rates move steadily upward, especially among MSM? (p. 8600

In the same issue, Gross's editorial (2003) focused on the resurgence of HIV/AIDS among homosexual men in the United States. The highest rates of HIV transmission are among African-American and Hispanic men who self-identify as gay. Gross noted, "To prevent HIV transmission, we have little more today than we had [two] decades ago, when it became clear that the virus causing AIDS is sexually transmitted: behavioral interventions" (p. 861).

Malebranche (2003) addressed risk assessment and risk reduction. Malebranche referenced a recent six-site. U.S. metropolitan area study that concluded 93% of African-American men who were HIV infected felt that they were at low risk for HIV and did not know they had contracted the virus. Malebranche's study contradicts the view that coming out of the closet, or disclosing one's homosexuality, is associated with improved mental health, responsible behavior and lower rates of HIV infection. To the contrary, African-American men who disclose their homosexuality had a higher rate of HIV prevalence than those who do not choose to do so (24% versus 14%). They also engaged in more unprotected anal sex (41% versus 32%) than those who do not disclose.

A second article by Gross (2003) contained the ominous warning: "The Second Wave Will Drown Us." Gross cited the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) statistic of a 14% increase of HIV/AIDS among homosexual men in the United States between 1999 and 2001. He noted unprecedented outbreaks of syphilis and alarming rates of rectal gonorrhea. He also noted an emerging visible subculture of "barebacking" (men who have anal sex without condoms). Gross concluded that "behavioral interventions to promote condom use--the only strategy currently available to stem the MSM epidemic--are failing" (p. 874).

Gross offered an interesting comparison:

On the same day that seven astronauts and fragments of the vehicle that failed them plummeted to the fields and woods of East Texas, six times that many U.S. MSM became infected. Maybe the number was higher, since it occurred on a weekend; perhaps lower if the news of the catastrophe interrupted libidinous pursuits . . . on the basis of CDC estimates of the lifetime expenditures for treating a single case of HIV infection, MSM infections acquired that single day will cost $6.5 million. The cost in human potential need not enter the calculus even for a voodoo economist, unless so muddled by moral outrage that he thinks sex between men is indeed something to die for. (p. 879)

Ciccarone (2003) authors noted that "risky sex without disclosure of serostatus is not uncommon among people with HIV" (p. 949). From their study, they conclude:

The results of this study indicate that sex without disclosure of HTV status is relatively common among persons living with HIV. The rates of sex without disclosure found in our sample of HIV-positive individuals translate into 45,300 gay or bisexual men, 8,000 heterosexual men and 7,500 women -- all HIV infected -- engaging in sex without disclosure in our reference population of individuals who were in care for HIV. . . these numbers, suggest the authors. "should be considered a lower-bound estimate." (p. 952)

Perhaps the most alarming study was that reported by Koblin, et al. (2003). The authors described the prevalence of risk behaviors among MSM who participated in a randomized behavioral intervention study conducted in six U.S. cities: Boston, Chicago, Denver, New York, San Francisco and Seattle. The data involved homosexual men who were HIV-negative and who reported engaging in anal sex with one or more partners during the previous year. The results were staggering:

among 4295 men, 48.0 percent and 54.9 percent respectively, reported unprotected[,] receptive and insertive anal sex in the previous [six] months. Unprotected sex was significantly more likely with [one] primary partner or multiple partners than with [one] non-primary partner. Drug and alcohol use were significantly associated with unprotected anal sex. (p. 926)

The proper response is to read the Bible with a full understanding of hermaneutics (understanding of how to read and interpret historical documents) and to take what it says at face value, without imposing our own belief system or implied views. If one were to read the Bible it would prompt a completely different response. The issue here is that people are imposing their own views and agendas. That's where the churches are coming from now that are focused on entertaining or bringing people in, not on worshiping God or teaching the word accurately. They have sermons on how to fix your finances or how to have a better sex life. If someone were to have the Bible properly, these issues may not have even come up.