AIDS and responsibility

Several HUNDRED???

These comments by Larry Kramer sort of blow me away. While he is to be admired, I suppose, for his willingness to acknowledge his responsibility in spreading the AIDS virus, he seems completely oblivious to the crude, callous attitude toward sex and relationships that his remarks reflect. He has no problem with the fact that he's slept with "several hundred men," or that he's used many of these men to feed his own ego, provoke jealousy, etc. Sure, he harbors guilt over the fact that he didn't use a condom, and therefore may have "murdered" a few of these fellows, but doesn't seem to recognize that anything else is amiss.

I don't get how it can even approach a comparison. When girls carelessly take chances or allow themselves to become pregnant they are actually, if unconsciously, honoring a good and pure instinct inside themselves that would NOT so unnaturally dissociate procreation from sexuality. When gay men carelessly take chances and allow themselves to contract deadly communicative diseases, that is something else entirely. I can think of several possible disordered reasons why they might continue doing this to themselves and to each other, but their practices have nothing whatsoever in common with naturally ordered, potentially fruitful, biological drives and desires.

In per capita terms gay men are at greater risk Tony. Yes the main group is heterosexuals in Africa, but do we have any evidence homosexuals in Africa have a lower rate than heterosexuals there? There will be more heterosexuals infected by anything because there are more heterosexuals.

And it doesn't have to be "having a go at them." Even many gay men seem to agree that there are higher rates of promiscuity amongst them, but that this is cultural. For the sake of their health and happiness I think it makes sense for them to try for some cultural change. It also makes sense for African cultures to reconsider prostitution and high risk behaviors they engage in. (For example there are parts of Africa where heterosexual sodomy is not deemed "pre-marital sex" and therefore they engage in it as less "guilt-inducing." Also women have less right to say no in some African nations)

At risk of offending those on both sides of the discussion, I believe the increase in HIV infection in the USA is disproportionate among gay men of African descent. While it's possible there's a cultural factor, my cursory reading of the serious literature on the subject suggests that persons of African descent simply have a greater genetic susceptibility to acquiring the infection.

Moreover, all sexual acts do not carry the same risk of transmission. They range from nearly zero to nearly certain--the "nearly certain" applying to a common style of heterosexual intercourse in Africa, a kind of bloody deflowering, that would offend delicate sensibilities to describe too explicitly here. And drug use affects immune status.

So for "Has it never, ever occurred to you that not using a condom is tantamount to murder?" it very truly should. But did it ever occur to Larry Kramer that speaking up against methamphetamines and poppers (or snatching them out of the hands of their users, if necessary) might do just as much good?

quote: "The route to endemic AIDS is heterosexual transmission."

Not in the Western world in general and the United States specifically. And let's not forget the post wasn't about Africa, where things are a bit more complicated. The culture, education/awareness, and medical care is also vastly different in Africa. In the United States, for the most part is spread by homosexual men, drug users, and prostitutes.
I think Rod brings up a valid point here on both. In America today, how can any person, especially sexual active gay males be ignorant of how AIDS is spread? Kramer makes a good point "that not using a condom is tantamount to murder," or perhaps suicide. And it's not as if condoms are expensive or difficult to find. Seven bucks will get you a 12 pack at Wal-Mart or your local drug store.
As Rod mentioned, the same thing of course goes for teen pregnancy. The vast majority of teens aren't ignorant about where babies come from or sex in general, especially in our sex saturated culture. Nor is contraception, especially condoms, particularly difficult to obtain.
Yet teens continue to get pregnant and gay men continue to get AIDS. Where is the personal responsibility in all this, especially in this day and age? Liberals like to decry "abstinence only" sex education and propose more money towards birth control education and contraception. Call me crazy, but if people continue to act irresponsible, I fail to see how the liberal approach to all this will do much good.

rr

I think we continue to see articles like this because the authors are quite frustrated at the higher incidence of AIDS among gay men. It's like the virus itself is homophobic. They would be much happier if men and women, gay and straight were all equally affected by AIDS. But because they are not, it's not fair. And there MUST be some type of discrimination that is causing this inequity. The answer cannot simply be that unprotected anal sex with many partners (an action more common in the gay community) is the best way to transmit the virus.

AIDS in the US will always be predominantly relegated to the gay community. Waiting for the virus itself to suddenly become an equal opportunity offender is a dead-end cause.

quote: "Because acting responsibly involves using protections and safeguards available if one is going to have sex. The conservative approach of abstain and stigmitize is wholly ineffective as a public health approach."

Daniel,

My point was that the vast majority of people know how STDs are spread and how pregnancy occurs. Contraception, especially condoms, are also readily available. Again, seven bucks will get you a 12 pack at Wal-Mart or the drug store. Yet a fair number of people (both gay and straight) continue to NOT use protection and thus act irresponsibly.
With the above in mind, please tell me how the typical liberal solution to this of "more funding for education and contraception" will do any good. Liberals like to ridicule abstinence-only programs as ineffective and impractical. But are their ideas any better? I don't see how they are. The fact is that no program will work if people aren't responsible and don't follow it by either really being abstinate before marriage (and no, this isn't impossible, both me and my wife did this) or getting serious about using protection. Lack of personal responsibility is the real issue.

rr

rr

quote: "Because acting responsibly involves using protections and safeguards available if one is going to have sex. The conservative approach of abstain and stigmitize is wholly ineffective as a public health approach."

Daniel,

My point was that the vast majority of people know how STDs are spread and how pregnancy occurs. Contraception, especially condoms, are also readily available. Again, seven bucks will get you a 12 pack at Wal-Mart or the drug store. Yet a fair number of people (both gay and straight) continue to NOT use protection and thus act irresponsibly.
With the above in mind, please tell me how the typical liberal solution to this of "more funding for education and contraception" will do any good. Liberals like to ridicule abstinence-only programs as ineffective and impractical. But are their ideas any better? I don't see how they are. The fact is that no program will work if people aren't responsible and don't follow it by either really being abstinate before marriage (and no, this isn't impossible, both me and my wife did this) or getting serious about using protection. Lack of personal responsibility is the real issue.

rr

"...and the BA-A-A-ND PLA-A-A-yed on!"

Oh, it gets much worse. There is a tendency in some parts of the gay community to celebrate being infected with HIV, a sort of badge of honor in some weird way. It is a small part of that community to be sure, but things have a way of spreading in spite of everyone's best efforts to contain it.

Look what happened when Christianity got let out of the bottle!

"It's called the human condition."

I don't disagree. But when you take on the human condition and add on the way our society treats gays and lesbians, you have a whole new reality. Imagine living with the everyday problems of being a person, and then deal with fear your parents will toss you out of the house for being gay. You go to church and told that homosexuality is worse than any other sin, especially when viewed in emphasis and attention. The mere fact that you want to marry someone you love and are committed to is seen as "dangerous" and "a threat" and "unnatural."

Talk to gay Christians and listen to their stories of being rejected by the church, by their families, and fearing that even Christ rejects them. Very few people--regardless of the human condition--face that kind of unrelenting treatment in the U.S. No one is routinely called "broken" for committing other sins, even racism.

Oops, hit the "send" button by mistake before I finished my post. Sorry.

I was going to close by saying that those of us who restrain ourselves (who have sex only with our spouses, who in turn restrain themselves in the same way) are not at risk and therefore have absolutely no reason to "know our HIV status". Its disingenous to put the onus on people who are already (by exercising restraint) avoiding the problem.

And for those who say "abstinence is impossible," I can only say that it is indeed possible. I'm a red-blooded American male (age 52) and certainly no saint, but I have limited my attentions to my wife (and she has followed the same approach). Restraint is do-able, although certainly not always easy. But then again, nothing worthwhile in life is easy.

Daniel, every time I step into a church, I confess that I am broken. It's part and parcel of who I am and always will be - gay, straight, criminal, law-abiding whatever. I know that Christians and churches can be and often have been awful to gay people. Certainly they should tone it down (homosexual behavior is labeled as sin just like a whole lotta other behaviors, nothing special about that), and rejecting someone who is homosexual is an obvious violation of the greatest commandment. However, I can't help but think that perhaps there's a bit of fantasy work at play here: if only I weren't seen as broken and fundamentally flawed (we all are), if only people didn't reject me for being who I am (we all get rejected in this way), if only my relationship were affirmed (no one really gives a crap about most of our relationships - or even our children), if only the church wouldn't tell me that what I want is dangerous, wrong, unnatural (the church has told me the same thing about things I really want/feel I need to do), then . . .

I don't think it's OK for churches to go bonkers over homosexual behavior as a particular class of sin or that it's OK for people to refuse to live in love with others. Yet at the end of the day, homosexuals aren't dealing with things that are so far outside of the norm in terms of being labeled broken, being rejected, being treated with indifference and hostility than most of us live with through our whole lives. Sure, it is all directed towards one particular aspect of their lives which must be particularly disconcerting and trying. However, it's far healthier to accept that the human condition is one of being flawed and broken in ways we can never change, being at odds with people around us and having our desires, felt needs and behaviors running afoul of the perfect standards of religion. It seems to me that trying to fight and lament this very normal circumstance of life and then using it as some sort of excuse or justification for not finding healthy ways to "do life" is as much of a problem as anything others can try to put on us.

One last thought...

There was a popular song a few years ago with a refrain something like this: "Come on, baby, we're just mammals. Let's do it like they do it on the Discovery Channel."

Art imitates life, I guess.

quote: "If you are told be society you aren't valued, that your relationships aren't value, that you are a flawed human, that your church rejects you and your family rejects you--or you fear your church and family will reject you if they know you are gay--then it is more difficult to take personal responsibility."

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Do the gay men such as Kramer who have hundreds of sexual partners and engage in unprotected sex really do so because their sexual behavior has been rejected by society and they are marginalized? Or is it simply because they want to have a lot of casual sex and aren't very responsible? It's also worth noting that this kind of behavior doesn't seem to be nearly as prevalent among lesbians, who are more apt to form relationships and not engage in promiscuous behavior than gay men.
The fact of the matter is that are a number of people who take up lifestyles, religious beliefs, and political positions that society, their churches (if they have one), and their families strongly dislike. Being gay, after all isn't the only thing that many people frown upon. Yet most people who go against the grain of society in one way or the other don't seem to engage in reckless behavior such as having multiple sex partners without protection.
I'd argue that the the main cause of gay men having multiple sex partners isn't society's view of homosexuality, which has after all been trending towards tolerance if not outright acceptance. The real issue is biology. Perhaps the best analogy to this is heterosexual behavior. Imagine for a minute that women didn't have to worry about unwanted pregnancies and they had the same kinds of sexual appetites and attitudes about relationships as men do. If that was the case, there would be a lot more promiscuity among heterosexuals.
I'm not saying all gay men can't have or don't want steady relationships of some sort. Nor do I think civil unions for all (including gays) is a bad idea. But knowing (I am a man BTW) how many men think about sex, it's not hard for me to understand why there is a lot of promiscuous behavior among gay men. Heck, I might well be promiscuous if I were a gay man. Let's not forget as well than men tend to take more health risks and not take care of their health than do women. The real issue, I believe, is that gay men, well, are men.
So will society's acceptance of homosexuality and "gay marriage" change the way gay men behave? For some it might. But something tells me that a lot of gay men simply aren't interested in copying the monogamous relationships of straights. My wife and I have never had sex with anyone else and have never cheated on each other. Is that what gay men want? Something tells me that if that is what marriage is supposed to be, many of them will simply say "no thanks."

rr

P.S. Of course my comments don't address the morality of homosexual behavior. Religious conservatives simply see it as immoral from the get go, so appeals for greater acceptance of homosexuality in the name of cutting back gay promiscuity won't make any sense to them. Moral views on pre-marital sex are also behind their views on sex education. Liberals often seem to miss how the moral views of conservatives make their appeals to change things on these issues sound like nonsense to conservatives.

Thomas,

I agree with you that gay marriage in and of itself is no magic bullet that will change behavior over night. But it sets up a societal alternative to the ghetto of living apart.

And my personal experience is that, yeah, it has made a difference in my well-being. It will be a year this Saturday that my hubby and I had our civil union ceremony, with family, friends and neighbors in attendance. I have talked before about the grace of experiencing love, truly and without the "if you only knew..." baggage I carried for so long. Hearing the words and knowing that people really meant it. This is a healing grace. The ring on my finger, the visits with neighbors, the inquiries from my folks asking about my hubby, maybe many of you take them for granted because you always had every reason to expect them. I did not, and I feel blessed to have them. These knit me in a thousand different ways closer to God, closer to my hubby, and closer to home and neighborhood.

Finally, it gives the youngsters who are just starting to come to grips with themselves, something they can see, whether it be in their neighborhood, the newspapers or what not. It is no coincidence, I think, that a (Catholic) co-worker asked me if I'd be willing to give a bit of my time to a teenager who'd just come out and his parents. This is how change will happen.

And fbc, it is the human condition. I completely agree with you that many kids who are "different" in other ways experience the same growing pains growing up. The only unique thing I would claim for gay kids is that they can't count on family OR churcht to give them support, and they still live in a climate where "gay" is still the Worst Thing You Can Be.

I'm a red-blooded American male (age 52) and certainly no saint, but I have limited my attentions to my wife (and she has followed the same approach). Restraint is do-able, although certainly not always easy. But then again, nothing worthwhile in life is easy.

So imagine for a moment being 52 years old and being committed to another man. Imagine being told for most of those 52 years that you are broken and sick and immoral. Imagine being told for most of those 52 years that your relationships are dangerous and a threat and that you just need to change. Imagine not being able to marry your wife and have a committed relationship and have society recognized that marriage.

That's what's it like being gay in America. How easy would it be to show restraint and have a worthwhile life living with that kind of treatment. Imagine being with someone you love and that you are committed to and having that relationship diminished by your church, your family, and your community.

I, like the last poster, had also read Jim and Daniel's comments and wondered where this fire-and-brimstone judgmental rhetoric was being proclaimed, or whether we have simply heard about it from the media and from Hollywood. As a lifelong Catholic, I have never heard it at church. Mentioned elsewhere, it was expressed mainly "more in sorrow than in anger" and "we are all sinners".

Perhaps it does happen in other churches, but I don't go there.

But a side thought: It is also possible that the topic is avoided by priests, since to mention it is only to draw attention to "The Scandal". The media, although reveling in the opportunity to "expose" the Church, is also complicit in misdirection by calling it the "pedophilia scandal" when in fact it was an outgrowth of the culture of homosexuality which prevailed in the seminaries and was expressed, not in abuse of children, but in exploitation of vulnerable teenagers, who were 95% boys.

Daniel, what you describe pales in comparison to my family's reaction to my marriage. My mother has described my husband to family and friends as "every mother's worst nightmare". One of my best friends spent the first 6 years of our marriage telling me "I cried for a week straight when I found out you were marrying him." I actually contacted my extended family before our wedding to say, "if you don't feel like you can support us, we totally understand and we won't hold it against you. However we'd ask that you stay home." I wasn't sure until he showed up if my father was going to come to the wedding. When my husband got sick within a year of our marriage and almost died, my dad handed me the number for the Union Gospel Mission in case we wound up homeless because my husband couldn't work and I had a newborn. The counselor I saw when he was sick told me to leave immediately. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Sometimes life sucks. Sometimes the people who are supposed to love you behave evilly. Get over it. There's nothing new under the sun. There's no suffering which is unique to man. It's happened before it will happen again. I'm sorry, but it just seems to me that the only really unique thing about the experience of gay people in this regard is that they seem to think that if anti-homosexual teachings went away, so would their suffering. Just not true.

Gosh, "Me," your situation sounds strikingly like what thousands of gay partners went through in the 80s and 90s when our partners died and our families and religious institutions refused to help us grieve, wouldn't open their doors for the funerals, wouldn't even acknowledge that we had been in committed relationships, let alone lost someone we loved. I truly feel for you and hope your family has come around. I can't imagine what would make your husband anyone's "worst nightmare," but who knows?

This is a fascinating discussion, and I can't add much except to say that practically everything said here on all sides is being echoed by discussions among gay men and we are in fact asking ourselves (perhaps too slowly) these very questions on why we act the way we do, why are we still doing all this when we know what it leads to.

A couple of reasons that come to my mind are that 1) we are dealing with an awful lot of PTSD, having lost so many people in such a short period of time. Personally, my entire social circle from the 80s and early 90s was decimated, only a handful of those men I knew are still alive. My father-in-law, in his 80s, just lost a good friend and said to us that we can't know what it's like to lose all your friends. My partner and I just stared at each other, speechless. We certainly do know what that's like, and both of us are only in our late 40's. Dad is right in that this is not a circumstance we SHOULD be familiar with, but we are. Unresolved grief does make people act out, so multiply it by 100 and then imagine how that would make you feel. 2)Early in the epidemic when we drastically changed our behavior, we knew it was an emergency. One can debate whether it is still the same kind of emergency or whether new treatments have fundamentally changed the situation, but regardless, people won't continue to act as if something is an emergency after 20 years. You just stop, even if you know better. Add this to my first point and you have despair, hopelessness, nihilism, survivor's guilt.

This is not to say to that I disagree with those on this thread who say that bad things happen to everybody and we should "get over it." I actually do think that all of the above notwithstanding, we are no longer victims but actors and need to answer the fundamental question at the heart of this; do we want to live? And, do we want our brothers to live?

On HIV rates in Africa.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080716121355.htm

A quote. "A genetic variation which evolved to protect people of African descent against malaria has now been shown to increase their susceptibility to HIV infection by up to 40 per cent, according to new research. Conversely, the same variation also appears to prolong survival of those infected with HIV by approximately two years".

Lest you jump to the conclusion the study was done by some "liberal" institution.

"
The authors of this paper are from: South Texas Veterans Health Care System, Texas, US; The University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, US; UCL; Uniformed Services University, Maryland, US; Wilford Hall United States Air Force Medical Center, US and the San Antonio Military Medical Center."

Steve

Well I might be on the wrong side here, but I agree it is different for gays.

If a gay man is celibate until 25, and only has sex with the same man from then on, they're still going to be alienated from many of their family in much of the country. Even if that man was exactly the kind of man the family would want for their daughter. (Well except for being gay) So as there isn't much difference in treatment by family or church they might feel they might as well play the field more.

Now a slight issue is that I think temperament probably plays a role here. To an extent the above is based in the idea that monogamy is not naturally very appealing so if a person doesn't get social acceptance for it they have little reason to do it. I think there might be some truth in that for men under 30, but I'm less sure about men over thirty. And indeed there are gay men who live more restrained lives by choice even if this has no advantage socially.

Now from a Catholic perspective I think it actually is still a sin even if it's in a committed relationship. That romantic love needs validation, or must conquer all, is Hollywood mushiness. From the traditional Christian or Catholic perspective "the pursuit of happiness" is at best an Epicurean notion of little consequence. Gays are meant for a different kind of life, but one of celibacy and greater fortitude. By overcoming different temptations they are, ideally, to learn something and perhaps even have the potential to be exceptional people. By embracing love and marriage they're falling into a populist view of what sexual desire must mean thus reducing their chances of being anything other than merely ordinary. Most of the saints, in Orthodoxy too I think, are celibates. Romantic love is nice, but going by the Council of Trent it is a heresy to deem marriage equal to celibacy. (Some of this my interpretation based on writings of the saints about temptation.)

Pedophilia is not merely illicit sex, but emotional and often physical harm. I am in NO way comparing homosexuality to pedophilia. What analogies others make I'm not in control of, but I want to be clear on this matter.

Thomas,

Just out of curiousity, are you married? And would you (or did you) similarly counsel your children to avoid marriage in order to improve their chances of being extraordinary?

I hope you do not feel these questions are impertinent. You come across as being a very thoughtful person, and so I feel confident that you are not simply an armchair theologian for whom this sort of discussion is strictly academic, since the issues would not personally affect you.

Everything I've understood about celibacy and vocation suggests that celibacy is deemed a gift, that as part of vocation, those called willingly embrace it. If gays are called to celibacy, why can't they be called to the priesthood? Do you believe Benedict's instructions to bishops to drum out gay seminarians is misguided and requires reform so that all who are called to priesthood can answer that call, but in a structure that prevents the sort of sick subculture from forming in the priesthood that enabled and covered up so much abuse?

Or is such a structure, given human nature, impossible to accomplish, and so gays will have to be the unfortunate losers for the greater good of the Church. Gays must then see themselves as spiritual lepers of a sort, not trusted to serve as priests or any other ministry, to be off on the side striving mightily and honorably (but silently and invisibly) to develop the fortitude of which you speak. Friendships with each other, of course, will need to be discouraged or only take place in a rather sterile but disciplined, cautious way. In this scheme, at what point are teenagers taught of this life that some of them have been called to, and if you were a teenager, would you feel hopeful about such a life?

"If gays are called to celibacy, why can't they be called to the priesthood? Do you believe Benedict's instructions to bishops to drum out gay seminarians is misguided and requires reform so that all who are called to priesthood can answer that call, but in a structure that prevents the sort of sick subculture from forming in the priesthood that enabled and covered up so much abuse?"

I think it's based on a fear that seminaries have become "too gay" and this is driving out heterosexuals. To be meant for celibacy doesn't necessarily mean priesthood so some gays might be trying for the priesthood when they do not have the proper temperament and are meant for another kind of celibate life.

An outright ban is not something I precisely agree with. If a person considers their sexual orientation defining, even if that orientation is heterosexual, they should probably not be priests. If a heterosexual says "I'll go with celibacy, but I still want to make-out with chicks on occasion" they should of course not be allowed. In fact if they even said "I'll go with celibacy, but I still want to be proudly straight and tell women when I'm hot for them" that's likely also inappropriate. However if the person sees their homosexuality as simply a part of who they are and what they are meant for I don't have a problem with them being priests. Although for reasons of discipline there should perhaps be a "quota" where no more than 5% of a seminary can be homosexual.

I am not entirely happy with how the Church has described homosexuals, which I fear encourages them to leave more than it encourages them for greater spirituality. In this culture though I fear saying "your temptations are crosses to bear that can lead to great spiritual riches" would sound perplexing or downright stupid.