Some Inconvenient (and Uncomfortable) Truths on Homosexuality

AnalSexby Trevor Thomas   8/1/14
Earlier this year, as Ezra Klein’s was launched, when describing why another news and politics site was necessary, Klein remarked that Vox would be “as good at explaining the world as it is at reporting on it.” It seems that is not the case when it comes to homosexuality.

Recently Vox reported on a new study from the Centers for Disease Control which revealed that from 2001 to 2011, annual diagnoses of HIV among men who have sex with men (MSM)—in the 13 to 24 age group—increased 132.5%. This is a much larger increase than the one among older homosexuals, and enormous compared to the nearly 33% drop in HIV diagnoses among the general population.

Even more striking, and left out of the Vox report, is the fact that, though male homosexuals are only about 2% of the U.S.population, they account for over half (56%) of all HIV infections in the U.S. In 2011, homosexual men accounted for 79% of new HIV infections among men. Male homosexuals are 60 times more likely to contract HIV than other men. A 2008 study showed that 1 in 5 gay men in the U.S. has HIV.

The World Health Organization, which Vox also “conveniently” ignored, is so concerned about the “exploding epidemic” of HIV that it recently recommended that all homosexual men consider antiretroviral medications “to help prevent HIV infection.” However, even more likely to contract HIV than gay men are “transgender women” (who are, of course, biologically male). They are 50 times more likely to be infected than the general population and are among the most at-risk groups to contract HIV.

And it’s not just HIV. In May of this year WebMD reported that, “Syphilis has returned with a vengeance to the gay community.” According to the CDC, among homosexual men, cases of syphilis have more than doubled since the year 2000. The CDC also revealed that, in 2008 “men who have sex with men” accounted for 63% of all new syphilis cases.

Additionally, the CDC reports that homosexuals are 15 times more likely than the general population to get Hepatitis B and 17 times more likely to get anal cancer.

Speaking of the anal region, homosexual men who are on the “receiving end” of a penis (using their anus like a vagina), are over 17 times more likely to contract HIV than women who engage in sexual activity as it was meant to be. Although Vox referenced this, even including a graphic, they left out other important information. Such as the fact that the vast majority of gay men, 75% according to author Steven Gregory Underwood, engage in anal sex.  One researcher referred to it as the “sine qua non of sex for many gay men.”

Yet, as the previous link points out, and as Vox again leaves out, “human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an ‘exit-only’ passage.”

Anal intercourse, as Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, author of Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, points out, traumatizes the soft tissues of the rectal lining. “These tissues are meant to accommodate the relatively soft fecal mass…and are nowhere near as sturdy as vaginal tissues. As a consequence, the lining of the rectum is almost always traumatized to some degree by any act of anal intercourse. Even in the absence of major trauma, minor or microscopic tears in the rectal lining allow for immediate contamination and the entry of germs into the bloodstream.”

Vox also reports that “compared to young men who have sex with women, those who have sex with men are nearly 10 times as likely to have ever injected illegal drugs.” In 2007 the Los Angeles Times reported the frequency of methamphetamine use is 20 times greater among MSM than in the general population.

Such information, though graphic and uncomfortable even to read, is very necessary and should be widely discussed given where we are in this nation when it comes to homosexuality. With same-sex marriage, homosexuality, and transgenderism being hailed as normal— even the American Psychological Association deceptively declares that “Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality”— and is now welcomed and celebrated by politicians and pundits, courts and corporations, Hollywood and high schools alike, more than ever the American public is in dire need of “the whole truth” on these matters.

The truth is that homosexual behavior, especially male homosexual behavior, is very dangerous and unhealthy. And it is certainly not something that governments or organizations of any type should promote. Those dealing with homosexual desires deserve understanding and compassion, but they also deserve the truth.

However, as Vox again demonstrates, the liberal media will never present the whole truth on homosexuality. (Sadly, we can’t even trust many churches on homosexuality!) If you do happen to report the facts on this matter, you are at least accused of perpetuating “false stereotypes” of homosexuals, or, at worst, labeled a bigot and a homophobe in need of being “stamped out…ruthlessly.” For the sake of our nation, more people better start telling the truth.

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason. • email:
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World • Blog: Whose Slave Are You?

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Some Inconvenient (and Uncomfortable) Truths on Homosexuality

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Of course, it goes without saying that any “explanation” by an explicitly liberal site such as Vox would be nothing more than expanding on the party line. I’ve seen a number of reports about Klein and his scurvy lot making fools of themselves.

    As for the rates of sexually-transmitted disease among homosexuals, none of this is at all new, which makes it especially sad. I gather than Randy Shilts’s And the Band Played On was a criticism of the promiscuous bathhouse culture that helped spread AIDS to begin with — and he was a homosexual activist himself. In any case, both the problem of rampant promiscuity and the dangers of anal intercourse were acknowledged decades ago. But because reality gets in the way of the sex-without-consequence that is the heart of modern liberalism (which controls modern culture), it tends to be ignored. So even when a liberal sort of acknowledges reality, he will try his best to minimize it and to downplay the implications.

  2. Glenn Fairman says:

    The hard facts are undisputed. The increased susceptibility of the rectum to HIV infection and the truth that Gay men in general are more significantly represented in STD statistics are themselves fertile grounds for a class action law suit. Therefore, the Creator should be indicted for discrimination (you can’t get any financial traction with evolution these days) for the inequalities inherent in His biological engineering of orifices. The excretory canal should have been mandated as a co-equally efficient zone of pleasure with the vagina and all risks therein should have been leveled. Moreover, the loss of elasticity and function in the sphincter, due to incessant penile penetration, is clearly either a design flaw or manufacturing error. How many units of clothing have been ruined as the anus soon achieves the diameter of a coffee can and one can eventually excrete waste without even knowing it? Unacceptable in an egalitarian society!

    Indeed, there is an organic inequality between the vagina and the anus that must be addressed monetarily. The sad fact that children cannot be incubated and expelled through the anus, with the strange exception of Barry Soetero, is a flagrant and hurtful manufacturing decision on the part of the Creator and its effects go well beyond oversight and extend into the litigationally profitable zone of malicious intent. At this very moment, teams of lawyers are hard at work crafting legislation that will seek to equalize the vicissitudes of Nature and place God on the Dock for his callous disregard of His children’s pursuit of unbounded pleasure.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I think I read once about someone who talked about suing the Catholic Church for some such “failing” of God. In the US legal system, anything is possible — and I suspect that is literally true.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      LOL. You have quite a way with words.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      This whole spiel of Glenn’s reminds me of the Red Dwarf episode, “DNA.” In it the android, Kryten, is temporarily turned into a human. (You can see a short clip of some of his funny first reactions to the reality of being human here.)

      The more extended conversation goes thusly:

      Lister: Any problems?
      Kryten: Well, just one or two. In fact I’ve compiled a little list if you’ll indulge me. Now then, uh, my optical system doesn’t appear to have a zoom function.
      Lister: No, human eyes don’t have a zoom.
      Kryten: Well then, how do you bring a small object into sharp focus?
      Lister: Well, you just move your head closer to the object.
      Kryten: I see. Move your head … closer, hmm, to the object. All right, okay. Well, what about other optical effects, like split screen, slow motion?
      Lister: No. We don’t have them.
      Kryten: You don’t have them – just the zoom? Hmm. Well, no, that’s fine, that’s great, no, no, that’s really great, that’s great. Now then, my nipples don’t work.
      Lister: Er, in what way `don’t work’?
      Kryten: Well, uh, when I was a mechanoid, the right nipple-nut was used to, uh, regulate body temperature, while the left nipple-nut was used mainly to, uh, pick up shortwave radio transmissions. Now, what I’m saying is, no matter how hard I twiddle it, I can’t seem to pick up Jazz FM.
      Lister: Human nipples don’t do that, Kryte.
      Kryten: I see. Fine. Ah: recharging. Now, I presume that, uh, when a human wants to recharge they do it much the same way mechanoids do. Indeed, I have located what I presume to be the recharging socket, but for some strange reason it doesn’t appear to have the standard three-pin adaption. Now, do I have to use some kind of special adaptor? because, no matter what do, the lead just keeps falling out.
      Lister: Kryten, we eat and sleep: that’s our way of recharging.
      Kryten: Hmm. Ah yes, now, I wanted to talk to you about something. Something about, um, well, something I know we humans get a little embarrassed about. It’s a bit of a taboo subject – not the sort of thing we like to sit around and chat about in polite conversation.
      Lister: Kryten, I’m an enlightened twenty-third century guy. Spit it out, man.
      Kryten: Well, I want to talk to you about my penis. I knew it, you’ve gone straight into smirk mode. Aren’t we both two human adults? Can’t we discuss our reproductive system without adolecent sniggering?
      Lister: Yeah, of course we can.
      Kryten: Thank you. (hands Lister polaroid) Well?
      Lister: `Well’ what?
      Kryten: Well, what do you think?
      Lister: I’m not quite with you here, Kryten. What am I supposed to say?
      Kryten: I want to know, is that normal?
      Lister: What? Taking photographs of it and showing it to your mates? No, it’s not!
      Kryten: Well, but is it supposed to look like that?
      Lister: Well, yeah.
      Kryten: It’s hideous! That’s the best design they could come up with? Are you seriously telling me there were choices, and someone said “Ah, there, that’s it. That’s the shape we’re looking for, the last-chicken-in-the-shop look”? Shakespeare had one? Einstein? Perry Como sang `Memories are Made of This’ with one of those stashed in his slacks?
      Lister: Well, yeah.
      Kryten: No wonder humans don’t have a zoom mode! Ugh. Now, take a look at this (hands Lister polaroid. Lister rotates it several times, confused) and this. (hands Lister second polaroid. Lister holds them side-by-side, then top to bottom. Sudden shock) Now why do you suppose that happened?
      Lister: Wwwwwhat were you thinking of at the time?
      Kryten: Well, nothing in particular, sir. I was just idly flicking through an electrical-appliance catalogue. I came across the section on super-deluxe vacuum cleaners and suddenly my underpants elastic was catapulted across the medical bay.
      Lister: You see, man, you’re neither one thing or the other. You shouldn’t be getting erotic thoughts about electrical appliances.
      Kryten: It /was/ a triple-bag easy-glide vac with turbo-suction and a self-emptying dustbag.
      Lister: Kryten, I don’t care what model it was. No vacuum cleaner should give a human being a double polaroid. Do yourself a favour, man, change back.

      By the way, I’m pretty sure you can stream all of the Red Dwarf episodes on Netflix.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Well, I hope no homosexuals saw that episode. It might give them some strange ideas. Oh, wait, I’m sure I’ve already heard of some stranger ones somewhere. (At the “Weird Science” event at the recent InConJunction, speaker Rob Pyatt discussed the issue of what were the most popular requests from each state on Internet porn sites. Naturally, he asked the audience what they thought would have been the most popular words from Indiana. Being in a humorous mood — and there’s always a certain amount of friendly rivalry between Kentucky and Indiana — I offered “coprophagy”. Later it occurred to me that I should have suggested “animal husbandry”.)

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      This occasioned my belly laugh for the day.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    My favorite part of this was the link to this article stating that 1/4 of homosexuals don’t engage in anal sex — ever. One of the four bullet-pointed reasons given for this by Steven Gregory is:

    Feelings. Anal penetration is one of our closest physical connections. Many prefer there be feelings associated with that level of closeness. So, some men abstain from anal unless they have an emotional connection with their partner.

    Silly me. I thought hand-holding in the park was one of the closest physical connections. Imagine a man telling his wife, “Honey….but I want to put it there because I want to feel closer to you.”

    Granted, what anyone does with their wife in the privacy of their own abode is none of my business and up to them. There’s nothing wrong with “dirty” sex. But is sticking a penis up some guy’s ass really about “an emotional connection”? Who can write this stuff with a straight face?

    • Glenn Fairman says:

      In my salad days I tried that one on my girlfriend……you know, the “closeness” thing, albeit it was the orifice around the corner. Apparently that emotional closeness was not shared…….

      as for “dirty sex,” some say that it is only dirty if it is done right.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Who can write that sort of thing with a straight face? A liberal, of course. But you already knew that; the question was undoubtedly rhetorical.

  4. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    My first thought at seeing the photo at the top was “too much information!”

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Well, Mr. Kung, Mr. Thomas did say in the headline that some of those truths were uncomfortable. And it shows.

  5. Rosalys says:

    Oh yes! This is indeed graphic, but never-the-less necessary information that the people living their nice, little fairy princess land existence need to bring them (if possible) back to reality. I noticed that the comments are thus far guys only territory; and with abundance of reference to certain body parts and bodily functions, rightly so! But here go I, a fool, rushing in where angels fear to tread!

    It is because of yesterday’s sermon at chapel. The topic was love. The preacher began with the many greek words for love (five- I had thought there were three) and the various definitions. Beginning with eros, the so-called lowest form of love, is not the lowest form at all. Within the proper context of marriage (real marriage – not the disgusting faux marriage going on today) it is God ordained and beautiful and necessary in order for mankind to, “Be fruitful and multiply.” And naturally, what God has called good, Satan – and the left – must subvert and destroy. So we have mistresses, adultery, divorce, unwed parenthood, open marriage, women going from man to man, rabbit-like men copulating all over the place, prostitution, homo-sexuality, bestiality, faux-marrige, child abuse, and I’m sure there are other things unmentioned that I have never heard of – the forces of darkness are very inventive.

    Lest ye think that the congregation spent the next 45 minutes in rapt attention, being titillated from the pulpit, I must tell you that 98% of the sermon was spent on agape. Eros, philetos, and the other two only took up about five minutes.

    But what is important is that all love is good. Agape, truly being the highest form, does not diminish the others; they are all good in their proper place. Maybe agape is highest because, by definition, it is seeking another’s highest good and is the love with which God loves, it cannot be corrupted. The other kinds – sexual intimacy, brotherly love, love for family, love of country, ideas, and things, etc. – these are all subject to corruption. When they become corrupt they cease to be love. This faux love then becomes selfishness, pride, sensuality, homosexuality, and can even devolve into hatred.

    I’m not sure I stayed on topic. In order to stay on topic I would have had to climb into the toilet a bit and it is too early in the morning for that. Perhaps I just should have stayed away, but I had too good a time at chapel yesterday not to expound a little.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Homosexuality is as old as time. The modern incarnation is particularly interesting and is why this article matters.

      The modern view of homosexuality has been sanitized. It’s not about the randy bath houses that are frequented by homosexuals. The image is one of two clean-cut guys who are both productive members of the community. Heck, you might even mistake them for Ward and June Cleaver.

      “Political Correctness” is founded on the idea that if you make something un-sayable, you will make it unthinkable. And it’s been truly interesting to watch friends and other acquaintances automatically swallow down the pro-homosexuality narrative. The reality of homosexuality has been made unthinkable. It’s been replaced not with “tolerance” (which is the proper attitude) but a celebratory one. The personal pay-off for such a view is that that one gets to think of oneself as the most enlightened and compassionate person, for only bigots or the un-progressive don’t “tolerate.” Only religious prudes divide things between right and wrong.

      But if homosexuality has a large cultural component (that is, it’s a behavior or identity and not exclusively an in-born trait), then such excessively pro-homosexuality views are dooming countless youths to AIDS and a lifestyle that is ultimate shallow and unproductive.

      And that’s why I mean that “tolerance” is the proper attitude. I do think it’s obvious that some people are born as queer as a three-dollar bill. We could make some allowances for that. But we also must frankly realize that homosexuality (as surely the Greeks and others have shown us) is no more than a choice. It’s a chosen way to live. It might even be a psychological malady. In fact, surely it is not the same thing regarding any one person.

      To “tolerate” homosexuality means that we’re not going to throw anyone in prison because of it. But there is absolutely no need to “celebrate” it and every reason to believe that there should be a fair amount of healthy stigma attached to it.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I imagine that even today there are few parents who would cheer if they learned that their child would be a homosexual (which would be possible if this were indeed purely determined by genes). It’s a different matter when a partly-grown child comes out, since by then they’ve had to love the child regardless of sexuality, but even there I suspect most would prefer a heterosexual child (though they might feel nervous today about saying so).

  6. Corbin Irving says:

    This is hardly news, the original carrier of the AID’s epidemic, a male stewart Gaëtan Dugas ( ) continued to have unprotected sex, even after becoming aware of his infection.
    The justification? It was his “right”. Note that he didn’t even bother with condoms, nope he willfully infected many others consciously, with intentional malice.
    This is one area Cuba has the right idea: quarantine. We did this with Lepers, TB patients,etc..Why not AID’s patients? Straight or gay, especially those who present a public health hazard.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      We didn’t because in certain communities the homosexual bathhouse culture was already too political influential to discommode in any way. Better to let them go on spreading the disease.

  7. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    the original carrier of the AID’s epidemic, a male stewart Gaëtan Dugas ( ) continued to have unprotected sex, even after becoming aware of his infection

    Thanks for this guy’s name. I couldn’t recall it. I read about this (Air Canada French Canadian, I believe) anal orifice sometime back in the 1980’s. Clearly he was a liberal as he wished to spread his pain and misery to the rest of society. Perhaps he was a self-loathing homosexual who wished to get even with the type who infected him.

    In any case, he was another case of the old misery loves company philosophy mentioned by Brad earlier. This philosophy is practiced by an inordinately large section of the population.

  8. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    More and more I’m coming to believe that homosexuality and various “gender-bending” behaviors are a mental illness and the tip of the spear of fascism. The movement itself is full of totalitarians bullies no matter how many times they try to disguise this by saying the word, “tolerance.”

    George Neumayr: Sermonizing Pols:

    It is telling that the Left will resort to the extreme measure of examining the sermons of pastors for a trivial cause like upholding a transgender bathrooms bill while refusing to examine the sermons of jihadist imams for the weighty cause of protecting national security. One can’t imagine a progressive mayor like Parker tweeting out that “If imams use their pulpits to preach jihad, their sermons are fair game.” . . .

    Secularists only leave Christians alone if they remain irrelevant to public affairs. That’s the only scenario of peaceful coexistence the Parkers can abide. But the moment Christians thwart the accomplishment of a secularist goal—such as universal free contraception or the spread of gay marriage—secularists, provided the political climate is right, will seek to restrict their liberty.

    The Founding Fathers valued religious freedom because they valued religion. They acknowledged the existence of God and the existence of an objective morality based upon his creation. But atheistic and morally relativistic politicians have no reason to respect religious freedom. For them, it is simply an obstacle to the construction of what they consider the perfect society. Other than political considerations, nothing motivates them to grant public space to religion, except the most feckless and privatized ones.

    Will the useful-idiot libertarians understand what George his saying here?

    Where gay marriage exists, religious freedom gradually disappears. Obama has said that he will not meddle with the sacraments of churches. But even that weak assurance can’t be taken seriously, since the Left will surely use indirect pressure on such churches over time, denying them public benefits and ostracizing them until they perform gay weddings.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Liberals are — so far — willing to tolerate disagreement as long as it doesn’t mean actual effective opposition. But get in their way somehow, and they seek to destroy you. And libertarians only care (sometimes) if their means of destruction involves government action; quasi-private intimidation and harassment are merely the market working.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Ditto. And I’m all for queers having the right to campaign for what they want. I would not use the power of government to shut them down. Nor would I use intimidation tactics and get groups of conservatives together to try to shut down one of their businesses. Only Nazis and other bullies use such tactics. But I would assert the need for society, via law, to recognize the higher and necessary status of traditional marriage.

        Apologies to any homo out there who was born as queer as a three dollar bill. I do not believe that all homosexuality is the result of choice or mental illness. But even so, that is no reason to try to make something that is inherently broken into something we all consider normal. As much as I feel for children with Down syndrome, it would be ridiculous to simply say that having Down syndrome is the desirable state.

  9. I would really like to request prayer from whomever is willing. My spouse and I are on a very rocky direction right now. His self-control is boiling over and I am bearing the brunt of it. He starts with just getting really loud, quickly over an discussion or disagreement then turns into him getting in my experience, once he’s in my experience anything can take place. He doesn’t straight hit me, but he shoves me into walls, backs me into corners, pokes me in the chest, throws factors at me. I don’t know who he believes he is. I really don’t. He is a believer but doesn’t have a God centered lifestyle. my connection with God is in a different place. Someone said my bible most mornings with my java and encounter his everyday presence. I am beginning to question however that this is where God would have me stay…. in this marriage. My absolution seems dried up. I am trying to progress and absolve but the shouting and booming – I just can not cope with it any more time. I have two little guys and it’s my lifes objective for them to NOT be frustrated men. I don’t want divorce, but i am worrying myself – I have noticed myself going times without wearing my ring or day dreaming more and more about what would it actually be like – how would i succeed if I had to get a brief time consuming task ect….. like my program is planning that i’m not sure my spirit is in accordance with. Please wish for me – ANY motivating conditions I am available to hearing

    • Rosalys says:

      Your husband is a bully and an abuser. The fact that he doesn’t straight out hit you – yet – doesn’t mean that the situation won’t escalate into him turning you into his own personal punching bag at some point. Get out! Get out, NOW! And take your two little guys with you! When he comes crying to you, saying he’s sorry, and he won’t do it again, DON’T believe him. He WILL revert back to his old self. Your boys will learn this behavior and probably grow up to be just like him. If there is to be any hope for your marriage, he will have to seek help and be willing to work on changing his behavior. Don’t go back to him until you see results. He won’t change unless he experiences some real consequences, like the possibility of losing his family.

      You will probably need some help. Your pastor or someone at your church should know of a place of safe refuge. There are many shelters for abused women and children in this country. Maybe a family member or friend can take you in for a while.

      Don’t, don’t, DON’T! fall into the trap of wanting to keep it quiet for fear of shame. Your husband NEEDS to feel shame, and you have nothing to be ashamed of. You are NOT the problem. This is NOT your fault – other than letting him get away with it. His behavior is not honoring to God and in direct violation of His commandment to husbands to love their wives and families; that is to provide for and protect them.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        That’s was probably a spam post, but good answer.

        • Rosalys says:

          I wondered if it were, but decided to put in my two cents worth anyway.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            It’s the internet. You just never know. It’s very hard to tell sometimes.

            I really don’t understand how this spam game works, what people are getting out of it. They may track somehow people who click on the link in the poster’s name. Again, I don’t know what this accomplishes. Anyone out there know?

            • Rosalys says:

              It’s weird. The comment was made on an almost two year old post and had absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                For the reasons you state, that’s why I figured it was spam. I haven’t researched the question. There must be a reason people do this. I just don’t know what advantage they gain or hope to gain. Anyway, you’re hired anytime you want to do a “Dear Rosie” column. You’re good at it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *