By Bryan Fischer
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at “Focal Point”
Homosexual sex ought to be against public policy, simply as a matter of public health. It is behavior which is immoral, unnatural and unhealthy.
You don’t have to take my word for it - just check with the Centers for Disease Control, which tell us that in the history of the AIDS epidemic, 90% of all male victims contracted the disease through having sex with other men (60%), injection drug use (22%) or both (8%). Unrestrained gay sex is a public health menace, just as much a danger to human health as shooting up.
So let’s say we do the sensible thing and make homosexual behavior contrary to public policy, as it was in every state in the union until 1962 and in 49 states until 1972. What should the penalty be?
Thomas Jefferson, the leftist icon whom secular fundamentalists practically worship, wrote a law for the Virginia legislature calling for castration as the penalty, which would certainly take care of the recidivism problem.
Now let us agree that homosexual behavior is a public health menace, and let us also agree that Jefferson’s penalty, although sanctioned by the Founding Fathers, is too extreme for such a delicate and hip society as ours.
What should the sanction for gay sex be? That’s easy - whatever gay activists want it to be.
I suggest we willingly follow their lead, since they are out in force in Los Angeles demanding that certain forms of homosexual sex be punished with the force of the law.
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which you will note is not the activist arm of the American Family Association, the Family Research Council or Focus on the Family, wants unprotected gay sex punished in the making of gay porn films.
Its activists have managed to collect 71,000 signatures, 30,000 more than needed, to get a June 1 vote on an initiative that will establish as a matter of law that gay porn producers must certify that their homosexual performers will wear condoms in order to get a permit. Unprotected gay sex will be against the law if it’s being filmed.
Why? Because the porn industry, as you might guess, is riddled with STDs. Homosexual activists themselves are trumpeting loudly and clearly that gay sex is such a public health menace that gay porn actors are unacceptably exposed to potentially life-threatening diseases every time they film a scene without protection.
"There are thousands of STDs in this industry," said Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, adding that jurisdictions pass the issue around like a hot potato.
"It's the ick factor. They don't want to deal with this because it's sex, and because it's porn," he said.
Wow. There is a homosexual activist talking about the “ick” factor of gay sex like he was Mike Huckabee or something.
The government-imposed sanction, if this initiative passes into law after the June 1 vote takes place, will be a fine of some sort. Porn producers have already been slapped with $125,000 in fines over the last five years by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health for various and sundry violations, so this will be nothing new for LA’s purveyors of perversion.
Weinstein compares his measure to other public health laws that Los Angeles that regulate massage parlors and smoking in public.
Diane Duke, executive director of Free Speech Coalition, the trade association for the adult entertainment industry, said the “proposed regulation would likely...force adult companies out of the city [and] out of the state,” to which the proper response is, “And the problem with that is what, exactly?”
Bottom line, this is where we ought to start: let’s impose fines on any homosexual who has unprotected sex with another homosexual, because that’s the sanction homosexual activists want to impose. Let’s support homosexual activists in their crusade to protect public health.
You will sputter, but this is only for the gay porn industry! To which I reply, what, you want gay porn actors to have health protections that ordinary gays don’t get? That is clearly callous, cruel and discriminatory on top of everything else. Why should the only people whose health gets public protection be people who get paid to have sex? Aren’t ordinary people who do it out of lust entitled to the same protection, or do you activists not care about the little people?
This is far from a theoretical exercise, since conservative estimates are that more than 20% of active homosexuals are carriers of the AIDS virus.
So there it is. Following the lead of homosexual activists, let’s make unprotected gay sex subject to a fine, out of compassion for homosexuals and out of a desire to do what we can to protect their fragile sexual health. It’s a place to start.
So I say to the AIDS Healthcare Foundation in LA, “Bravo!” You keep leading, and we’ll keep following.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)