With FUSION, numerous discussion panels and an ally program in the dorms, homosexuality is always a hot topic at OSU.
Sometimes people ask me how I feel about homosexuals. I tell them that they are human beings, just like me. Someone should not get walloped just because he’s homosexual. I’m not scared, threatened, or uncomfortable around them. In fact, my roommate my freshman year was a homosexual, and we got along just fine.
I treat a homosexual as an individual. While some are unpleasant people, the ones I’ve known have been some of the nicest, talented and thoughtful people I’ve known. I respect them as individuals.
However, when it comes to the behavior itself, although I am not threatened or repulsed by it, I disapprove, as I do many heterosexual practices.
One of the main reasons for that disapproval is due to the physical and mental dangers of it. That is something that is rarely discussed, yet it needs to be dealt with honestly.
In his book “Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate” Dr. Thomas Schmidt catalogues the findings of nearly 200 studies on homosexuality. The picture the findings paint is a pretty negative one.
For instance, the STD rate in the homosexual community is very high. It appears that at least 75 percent of homosexual men are currently carrying at least one pathogen, although each one isn’t necessarily sick or infecting others.
Seventy-five percent also have a history of at least one STD, and it appears that at least 40 percent get sick in a given year.
That’s just a quick summary. The problems are much deeper than that.
This STD rate is remarkable when compared with even the most promiscuous segment of the general population. Among those in the general population who had more than 21 partners in their lifetime, 40 percent report any infection in their life.
Overall, the general population has a 17 percent lifetime STD rate.
Why the difference? That’s due in large part to the nature of homosexual intercourse itself, a practice that can’t be made healthy by it’s very nature.
The key distinctive feature lies in the difference between the vagina and the rectum. While the first is designed to repel fluids, the anal wall is designed to absorb them, along with whatever microorganisms come along. The rectal wall is also torn much, much easier.
To borrow Schmidt’s analogy, one is like a thick leather glove while the other is like a thin silk glove. If you put one hand in each and dip them in a bucket of ink, a little ink would leak onto the first hand, but the second would be a mess.
All this can cause dysfunction of the sphincter muscle, which can lead to rather nasty bowel problems, and it opens the door to numerous STD’s as well.
Most of the authors of the research he cites are neutral or affirming in their moral assessment of homosexuality. The studies are also very diverse; both random and nonrandom, covering wide geographic areas, and many have bias controls, so a charge of bias misses its target.
Even if you cut all the disease rates in half, you still have a very significant health crisis present.
While some of these things are present in the heterosexual population to some degree, the degree to which these are present in the homosexual community is significantly larger in a way that warrants distinction.
Many will argue, “but I have a natural inclination to homosexuality.”
Many gay bashers, pedophiles, and alcoholics say that for their behaviors, but it’s not an appropriate rationalization for them, so why is it appropriate here? Just because someone has a natural impulse to do something doesn’t mean that behavior is okay.
Animals just do what comes naturally; part of what it means to be human is having the ability to evaluate our natural impulses and say no to them.
Now some yell, “homophobe!”
Scorn is not an argument. I don’t call you a fag or fruit, so why do you call me a name?
A homophobe is someone who is scared of homosexuals. I’m not afraid, I simply disapprove.
Now let me put things in perspective by addressing heterosexuals: Folks, we’ve got our own dirt to deal with.
I have done sexual wrongs before, and I disapprove of my own acts just as much as I disapprove of homosexual acts.
Much of the derogatory language referring to homosexuals is sad. I find it particularly sickening that some of my heterosexual friends who shack up with their girlfriends every Friday night were the first ones to “cheer me on” when they found out I was writing a column on homosexuality.
For those who displayed that attitude, and you know who you are, I, like Schmidt say, “look in the mirror before looking out the window.”
So why do I write this? I write this to those who are struggling with homosexuality, not to those who are political activists on either side. You have good reason to restrain. Being a martyr to your desire is not a wise decision.
Rich Bordner can be reached at rdb268@hotmail.com.
