Medical Aspects of Homosexuality Page: 2 of 3
This pamphlet is part of the collection entitled: LGBT Collections and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Special Collections.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The medical problems associated with homosexuality
impact upon all. Since the diseases of one segment of
society are often transmitted to others, it is in the collective
interest to inhabit as disease-free a society as is possible.
Further, since the collectivity ends up paying for all
disease in additional taxes and/or increased insurance
premiums, any practices or life-styles that promote disease
are reasonably discouraged.
Currently our society discriminates against tobacco
smoking and smokers. Limited public areas may be used
by smokers to practice their habit and they have to pay
higher life, health, and auto insurance premiums. Smokers
are not permitted to work at certain jobs, are denied
some public accommodations, are segregated from others
on many public transit systems unless they refrain, are
excluded from renting in particular locations, and cannot
use the airways to advertise for new recruits. Such
discrimination annoys many smokers and certainly limits
their freedoms of expression, assembly, privacy, and
right to work--but the social pressure exerted against
them is accepted as reasonable and necessary in the
interests of public health. Smokers have a bad habit that,
over the long haul and on average, shortens life by years.
We show our displeasure with the habit by actively
discouraging youth from emulating smokers. Our society
operates by the principle that "public health is an overriding
concern". We reason that "there are no rights if society
is dead or dying" so all rights hinge upon the responsibility
to not endanger the health and lives of others by one's
actions.
Homosexual habits pose a much greater threat to
public health than smoking. Because homosexuality
endangers not only its practitioners but the very existence
of society it is reasonable and just to apply even more
stringent discrimination against those practicing homo-
sexuality than against those who smoke.
Medically Significant Differences
Between Heterosexual and Homosexual
Activities
Homosexual sexual activity differs in a number of
significant respects from heterosexual sexual activity.
Over 90%of gays1 participate in the insertion of the penis
into the rectum of sex partners. This practice carries
some risk for the possessor of the penis as fecal material
can enter his body through the urethra, but appears
extremely dangerous for the recipient. Sperm possess
unique biological properties that enable them to com-
promise the integrity of the egg and promote genetic
mingling. The vagina is composed of multilayered
squamous epithelium, essentially impervious to sperm.
But when deposited in the rectum, sperm breaks through
the single layer of columnar epithelium and causes massive
immunological disruptions in the blood system (includingboth T-cell and B-cell abnormalities2). A person im-
munologically compromised by this mechanism is at
much greater risk for a host of insidious infections.
About 90% of gays and 65% of lesbians report3 1011
having engaged in oral/anal sexual activity (inserting the
tongue into or licking the anus). About 70% of gays2 3 4 10 11
and 25% of lesbians3 (vs. 7% of heterosexuals3) report
some regularity of this practice. There is simply NO
WAY to 'safely' engage in such practices-small, but
medically significant, amounts of fecal material will, of
necessity, be consumed. Much of the better public health
of today's populace is a direct result of removing fecal
material from the food chain, food preparation, and
general living areas". Ingestion of fecal material under
ANY circumstances is medically unsound. Ingestion of
such material from numerous strangers is particularly
dangerous (gays average about 30 different sexual partners
per year'). When one considers that homosexuals also
disproportionately engage in: a) urinating or defecating
on their 'lovers' (practiced by 1% of heterosexuals vs.
19% of gays and 4% of lesbians3); b) sadomasochism,
where the 'lover' is hurt, scratched, bruised and/or bloodied
(admitted to by 6% of heterosexuals vs. 20% of homo-
sexuals3); and c) the newest 'sex craze', handballing
(inserting the hand and arm into the anus and up the
rectum of one's 'lover') (less than 2% of heterosexuals vs.
41% of gays and 8% of lesbians3), the amount and variety
of disease-promoting contact with excretory products in
homosexual activity is enormous. With gays in particular,
because so many of their sexual experiences (about a
third) occur in restrooms, orgyrooms, bathhouses and
the like, many penises that have intromissed anuses also
intromiss mouths without the intervention of soap or
attempts at cleanliness. Many of the participants to these
homosexual 'events' are drugged or drunk so it is little
wonder that disease of almost every variety flourishes in
their bodies and environs.
Diseases Disproportionately Experienced
by Homosexuals
Not surprisingly for those whose sexual habits involve
such extensive unsanitary contacts with excrement,
homosexuals suffer a much higher proportion of minor-
to-deadly diseases. Gays compared to heterosexual males
appear to be about:
14 times more apt to have ever had syphilis
3 times more apt to have ever had gonorrhea
3 times more apt to have ever had genital warts
8 times more apt to have ever had hepatitis
3 times more apt to have ever had lice
5 times more apt to have ever had scabies
30 times more apt to have ever had an infection
from penile contactHundreds of times more apt to have had oral infection
from penile contact.
Over 5000 times more apt to have AIDS, the deadliest
sexually transmitted disease of all.1 3
Lesbians compared to heterosexual women are about:
19 times more apt to have ever had syphilis
2 times more apt to have ever had genital warts
4 times more apt to have ever had scabies
7 times more apt to have ever had an infection
from vaginal contact
29 times more apt to have ever had an oral infection
from vaginal contact
12 times more apt to have ever had an oral infection
from penile contact3
(A substantial proportion of homosexuals give up the
homosexual habit for heterosexuality and some of the
'peculiar' results above [e.g., some male heterosexuals
reporting 'oral infection from penile contact'] are a result.)
How You and Yours Are Threatened by
Homosexuals' Diseases
Three major modes of transmission of disease from
homosexuals to those innocent of their practices are of
note:
1) The most obvious, direct sexual contact. About
40% of homosexuals (a third of the gays, almost half of
lesbians) are or were married- (apparently few of the
spouses knew what was going on). Further, most homo-
sexuals engage in heterosexual sex either regularly or
episodically (in the largest random study on this issue ,
66% of male and 87% of female practitioners reported
one or more life-time heterosexual partners I a median of
4 for gays, 6 for lesbians]. Studies of homosexual
volunteers0 11 12 have reported similar findings. So any
sexual contact (including kissing) with someone you
don't know VERY well may be putting you at hazard of
infection by a homosexual. Since homosexuals admit to
more than triple the rate of deliberately infecting 'lovers'
with a sexually transmitted disease3, considerable caution
would be prudent.
2) Direct transmission via contacting bodily secretions,
excretions, or mucosa. Kissing a friend or family member
who practices homosexuality or shaking hands and then
happening to touch your eye, nose or mouth or any
break in your skin could result in your infection with any
of the host of homosexual diseases. While adults may
have developed a habit of washing their hands after such
encounters, small children are notorious for putting their
hands into their mouths, noses or eyes without warning
(even tiny breaks in the oral mucosa have been implicated
in some cases of hepatitis B (HBV) infections). If your
nurse, physician or dentist practices homosexuality, a
needle stick while they are operating on or administeringmedications to you could result in the mingling of your
blood and result in your infection'. Dentists, oral surgeons
and other physicians have infected their patients with
HBV in just this fashion.
3) Indirect transmission. A number of diseases that
homosexuals carry can be transmitted in relatively subtle
ways. Toilet seats and washbasins, either moist or dry,
have some capacity to infect through minor skin abrasions
or breaks. Hepatitis A (and even typhoid fever') can be
transmitted via food handling (especially cold food or
drinks). Toweling and general living around a homosexual
with AIDS appears to have infected some.' And there
are many modes of transmission that science is just
beginning to understand. Every flush of a toilet discharges
small amounts of fecal material and E. coli into the air
with unknown medical consequences.8 Theoretically,
even hepatitis B is transmittable as an air-borne aerosol89
so that hairdressers, fellow-workers, or food servers might
infect you. Because HBV is quite stable, transmission by
contaminated surfaces which contact mucous membranes
or skin breaks through toothbrushes, razors, or eating
utensils5 is possible. Since many surfaces in common use
get contaminated by sneezes or coughs (much less by
spitting), the danger to adults and especially to small
children is large indeed. There is probably appreciable
medical risk associated with living in group quarters
with homosexuals because of such contacts.
Blood sucking insects are yet another vector through
which homosexuals may infect others. Mosquitoes have
been shown to carry hepatitis Bs as well as other viral
diseases. Dr. McLeod, MD, Director of the Center for
Tropical Disease and Travel in Miami has done epide-
miological studies in Haiti and Florida and believes that
AIDS is transmitted by mosquitoes." Recently Dr. Blattner,
MD, of the National Cancer Institute contracted with
the Gorgas Memorial Laboratory in Panama to test
whether mosquito transmission of AIDS might be
mechanical (e.g., the infected residue remaining on the
'stinger') and/or biological (e.g., the AIDS virus replicates
within the bodily processes of the mosquito).17 Dr. McLeod
believes, and most researchers dealing with AIDS would
probably agree with her, that mosquito-transmitted AIDS
virus would probably only cause the disease in immuno-
logically weak or weakened individuals. Thus, while a
pregnant woman might suffer no harm, her fetus would.
Likewise the very young, those taking immune-disturbing
medication (such as those undergoing chemotherapy),
and individuals weakened by other disease would be at
hazard of dying of AIDS. As the number of gays with
AIDS increases, the number of mosquitos that might
disseminate AIDS throughout the population increases
apace. The long incubation time for AIDS to develop
(perhaps as much as three years) makes control of this
possible mode of transmission exceedingly difficult even
if all homosexual practitioners were confined to theirresidences during prime insect season. How cooperative
would homosexual practitioners be knowing that com-
pliance with such a public health order would deprive
them of The Hunt? One cannot be very optimistic knowing
that some gay leaders, aware that AIDS could contaminate
and destroy the nation's blood supply, have seriously
discussed whether to employ "blood terrorism"' (i.e.,
threaten to have masses of gays with AIDS 'donate'
blood unless their demands are met). Optimism about
any 'community responsibility' cools even further in light
of the recent statement of gay spokesmen that 'in 1981
we drew back and became more sexually conservative
because of fear of the AIDS epidemic. Now we have
decided that certain death is preferable to dull sex lives."8
Should Dr. McLeod's theory of AIDS-limitation be correct
are we to be heartened in that only the children of the
world need die because of homosexual practices?
The Public Health Service (PHS) has adopted the twin
policies of: 1) requesting "sexually active homosexual
and bisexual men with multiple sex partners" to forgo
selling or donating blood AND 2) attempting to convince
the public that the "fact that a group is considered at
high risk for AIDS should not be an excuse for discrimi-
nation."'4 This emphasis upon "protecting gays' feelings"
has led the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to suspend
normal tracking systems for individuals infected with
communicable disease. (Earlier, Dr. Allen of the AIDS
Task Force said, "We hope this [tracking] will allow us to
keep tabs on individual cases. Because many of these
patients are highly mobile, the CDC needs identifying
information on cases so as to avoid duplicate reporting
. [and to track] down mortality and the sequences of
infections." By compromising normal tracking at the
demand of the National Gay Task Force ("studies of this
type will definitely be held up," stated Dr. Allen'5),our
lives are being endangered to placate gay feelings. By
using the phrase "with multiple sex partners" the PHS is
giving the impression that only the "wild ones" are to
blame for AIDS. VERY few gays are monogamous for a
lifetime (we could not find ONE in the literature)
"monogamy" among gays means serial monogamy at
best (in 2 the "monogamy" lasted for between 9 to 60
months), further, the evidence presented in 2 indicates
that "monogamous" gays are about as apt to develop
AIDS as "wild ones" since penile/rectal contact is
particularly implicated.
The PHS has apparently decided it is better that a few
innocents die of AIDS than gays be embarrassed by
forbidding them to sell or donate blood. This peculiar
policy is implicated in the recent banning of U.S. blood
products from a number of European countries. Since
over three million Americans utilize blood every year
while "most donations are channeled into component
production; hence, more than one recipient is exposed
to each donation"''6 the nation's health is being jeopardized
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This pamphlet can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Pamphlet.
Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality. Medical Aspects of Homosexuality, pamphlet, 1985; Lincoln, Nebraska. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc276227/m1/2/: accessed June 2, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Special Collections.