By Bryan Fischer
Follow me on Twitter:@BryanJFischer, on Facebook at “Focal Point”
Who‘d have thought that the first group to propose re-criminalizing gay sex would be a homosexual activist group?
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which advocates for marriage based on the infamous crime against nature, has collected enough signatures to place an initiative on the Los Angeles County ballot in November that will provide civil and even criminal penalties for any acts of unprotected gay sex that occur in filming pornographic movies. The penalties, by the way, would apply to heterosexual productions as well.
The president of the AHF, Michael Weinstein, says, “The lives of these performers are not disposable.” He is optimistic that the measure will pass, after releasing a poll that indicates that the measure has the support of 63% of likely voters.
Do not miss the significance of this. A homosexual activist group is leading the charge to re-criminalize gay sex.
Gay sex should be contrary to public policy, and it looks like the first steps in that direction are being taken by gay activists themselves. Who could have seen that coming? Perhaps the best thing the pro-family community can do is just get out their way.
The petition (which you can read for yourself here) provides for a $500 fine for every violation of the ordinance, that is, for every act of unprotected gay sex, and anyone who “refuses or neglects to conform to a lawful order or directive of a county health officer pertaining to conduct regulated by this chapter” is “guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by (sic) fine of $1,000, imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed six months, or both.”
In other words, a producer who allows one act of unprotected gay sex during a film shoot is subject to a fine of $500. If he refuses an order to stop and lets it happen again, he can go to jail for six months and get stuck with a $1000 fine. Wow. Just, wow.
A critical element of this effort is that these gay activists clearly recognize that HIV/AIDS is primarily a behaviorally-induced problem. The stated purpose of the initiative is “to minimize the spread of sexually transmitted infections” by requiring “use of condoms for all acts of anal or vaginal sex” in order to “protect its (the adult film industry) performers, and the general public, from the spread of disease.”
Man, they’re starting to sound like us!
We have been saying for years that homosexual behavior ought to be contrary to public policy because it is a menace to public health. We ought to care too much for our citizens to promote behavior that we know is linked to a disease which can destroy human health and shorten life spans. It is callous and indifferent to endorse behavior that we know can be lethal to people we are supposed to love and care for.
It’s almost surreal to have gay activists echoing our message, and going beyond our message to propose financial and criminal penalties for this health-destroying conduct.
This brings us to the final point. Gay activists want to punish producers who allow film workers to engage in behavior which threatens their health and the health of their sexual partners. So they want to protect the health of people who get paid to have sex.
But what about people who engage in this kind of dangerous and risky behavior without getting a paycheck for it? Should we just seek to enact public policies that protect professional sex workers, or should we seek to protect the health of all of our citizens? An HIV/AIDS victim is a victim whether the partner who infected him got paid to do it or did it for free.
So the next logical step is obvious: for the AIDS Healthcare Foundation to propose an ordinance that proposes a fine for any act of unprotected gay sex, whether money changes hands or not, and proposes criminal penalties for repeat offenders. If they care about the health of all homosexuals, not just the ones who do it for money, they can do no less.
It’s not the place to end, but it just might be the place to begin. Mr. Weinstein, the next move is up to you.
(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.)