The Health Hazards of Political Correctness
A new data analysis from the Centers for Disease Control shows, once again, that homosexual intercourse is hazardous to the health:
The Centers for Disease Control recently released information from a data analysis regarding the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. Presented at the CDC’s National STD Prevention Conference, the data indicated that the rate of new HIV cases among men who have sex with men (referred to in shorthand as MSM) is over 44 times that of other men.
Has this resulted in loud warnings from the media?
In an effort to look at these figures from a purely scientific and public health perspective, let’s substitute smoking and cancer for homosexual sex and HIV. If the CDC released information which made a direct correlation between smoking and extremely high rates of getting cancer, people would take notice. The media would write about it. Public health organizations would make sure the news was spread. Campaigns would be launched to save lives by discouraging smoking. Public funds would be spent to deter people from engaging in such dangerous behavior. Schools would teach children about the dangers of smoking.
Of course, as we all know, that scenario is real…. But political correctness and fear of being accused of bias seem to have stopped everyone from stating the simple truth: that [homosexual intercourse] carries serious health risks.
There is a good column by Marcia Segelstein about the CDC report and the way it is being handled by the media. Because it is informational, it leads with the following warning:
Caution: This column contains descriptions that some may find offensive.
Loading ...
Two basic problems with this post’s reasoning:
1) It jumps from statistics about male-male activity to homosexuality as a whole. But “homosexuality” includes lesbian activity as well. Even if these health problems are more prevalent among “men who have sex with men,” what does this say about lesbians and bisexual women? Nothing.
When you make the rash generalization “homosexuality is hazardous to your health,” then that will be used against gay and bisexual women, when in fact your statistics only concern gays and male bisexuals. So why not change your lede to “male homosexual intercourse is hazardous to the health”?
2) The spread of sexually transmitted diseases is not due to male homosexuality as such, but to promiscuity. Yes, there are higher rates of promiscuity among “men who have sex with men,” but not all gays and male bisexuals are promiscuous. Why not promote and strengthen monogamy among gays and same-sex couples through institutions such as marriage?
You might reply by alleging that there’s a connection between promiscuity and male homosexuality. Whether or not that’s true (and this is a scientifically unclear subject), it seems it would be much more difficult to ask a gay man to be monogamous, then to ask the he be celibate and never experience physical intimacy.
Jason, if the prospect of getting infected and DYING hasn’t been enough of an inducement for a gay man to remain faithful to one sexual partner, then why do you think that changing marriage will make any difference in that regard?