Skip to content

The Cost of Obama’s Global Initiative Fund

February 6, 2012

The Obama administration is setting up a Global Initiative Fund is to put pressure on religious groups and developing countries to change their views on homosexuality. The teachings of the great religions on homosexual acts are not based on fear or ignorance, but on a clear understanding of the truth about the human person, human development, health, and marriage. These teachings cannot be changed and the Obama administration surely knows this. So what is their goal? Simple: to marginalize people of faith.

If opposition to the GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered] agenda is considered the equivalent of racism and a manifestation of ‘homophobia,’ bigotry and hatred, then even if members of religions which reject the GLBT agenda are allowed to continue to hold such beliefs, they would become second class citizens in their own country, unable to participate as equals in political debate or public action. This is the true goal of Obama’s Global Initiative Fund.

In her Dec. 6 speech on human rights announcing the Fund, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton argued that “as long as LGBT people are kept in the shadows, there cannot be an effective public health program to tackle HIV and AIDS.” The facts do not support this statement. In the U.S., LGBT people are no longer in the shadows, but thirty years into the AIDS epidemic, there is still no effective public health program in place to prevent new infections. When the Obama administration pushes developing countries to embrace total tolerance of GLBT behavior, they do not mention the cost of tolerance of the ‘gay’ behavior, a cost that a rich country may be able to pay, but one developing countries may not want to shoulder. Each year in the U.S.approximately 30,000 men who have sex with men (MSM) are infected with HIV by other MSM, and 6,000 die. Currently, it is estimated that in the U.S. 500,000 MSM are HIV positive. Drug therapy can prolong the life of those infected for an average of 24 extra years at an estimated total cost of $618,900 per person.[1]

In the court of public opinion it is important that developing countries be equipped to defend their public policy regarding certain types of behavior with scientific evidence. The following information may help in this effort.

Understanding the Behavior of MSM

In order to formulate effective public policy and just laws, it is necessary to understand the behavior in question, even though for many, discussion of such behavior is distasteful. Over the centuries, MSM have engaged in four different kinds of behavior.

MM -Manual Masturbation, which can be either one man doing it to another or it is mutual.

IC – Intercrural that is intercourse between the thighs

G/O – genital/oral

G/A – genital/anal

It should be noted that the ancient Greeks, who are often referred to as a model for gay culture, restricted “their sexual activity to a single mode of copulation: ‘intercrural’ or intercourse between the thighs.”[2]

Before WWII, the most common male to male genital activity was G/O, not between two men who self-identified as gay, fairies or queer, but between such men and men who were straight (had no same sex attraction). George Chauncy, author of Gay New York and a self-identified gay man, writes about the situation during this period:

“Many fairies and queers socialized into prewar homosexual culture considered the ideal sexual partner to be ‘trade,’ a ‘real man,’ that is, ideally a sailor, or soldier, or some other embodiment of the aggressive masculine ideal, who was neither homosexually interested nor effeminately gendered himself but who would accept sexual advances of a queer. The centrality of effeminacy to the definition of the fairy in the dominant cultural enabled trade to have sex with both the queers and fairies without risking being labeled queer themselves as so long as they maintained a masculine demeanor and sexual role.” [3]

”For many ‘fairies and ‘queers of this era, having sex with (ideally) straight partners was so much what being queer was about that they were turned off at the very thought of having sex with each other.”[4]

“… among young, working-class straights there appears to have been little or no stigma attached to such activity, as long as you remained sexually disinterested in your ‘fairy’ partner and were never penetrated.”[5]

The risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease by participating in MM or IC is virtually nil and while G/O does pose a risk for certain STDs, the rate of infection among the participants in the straight/fairy encounters was low.

However, after WWII, there was a major change from the division of men into ‘fairies’ and ‘normal men’ to a division of men into ‘homosexuals’ and ’heterosexuals,’ based on the sex of their sexual partners. This represented a sea change in the public perception of homosexuality.[6] According to Foucault, author of The History of Sexuality who died of AIDS in 1984, “The sodomite has been a temporary aberration: the homosexual was now a species.”[7]

Gabriel Rotello, a self-identified gay men, who traced the history of this change in his book Sexual Ecology, writes that today, it is commonly believed that “any man who desires sex with another man is inherently ‘homosexual’ no matter what role he plays during sex and regardless of his gender identity or outward mannerism.”[8] Thus starting in the 1950’s MSM restricted their sexual activity almost entirely to other MSM. They also switched their preferred activity from G/O to G/A. Although some STDs, such as gonorrhea, can be spread by G/O, it is a relatively inefficient way to spread HIV. G/A on the other hand is an open door for scores of STDs, including HIV.

In the 1970s in major cities like New York City and San Francisco a gay subculture was established, centered around bathhouses where men could have G/A with a number of different men during the same visit. Promiscuity – that is multiple concurrent parents – became the norm among this population. Because an individual man often was both an inserter and recipient, infections spread rapidly, Once the Human Immunodeficiency Virus entered a bathhouse, a massive epidemic was inevitable.

While MM and IC may be frowned upon and prohibited by religious or cultural norms whether these activities are engaged in by men who self-identify as ‘straight’ or ‘gay,’ G/O and to an even greater extent G/A are a proven threat to health. Developed countries have the resources to deal with the health care needs of MSM who have contracted one or often more than one STDs, developing countries have limited healthcare resources and therefore have every reason to stigmatize and even outlaw behaviors proven to spread chronic and incurable diseases.

Those who argue that the epidemic of STDs, including HIV/AIDS, among MSM has been exacerbated by intolerance and the lack of acceptance are ignoring the massive evidence to the contrary. In major urban areas such asSan FranciscoCAandNew York City, where tolerance and acceptance are highest, where education is pervasive and condoms easily available, the epidemic continues unabated.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, a MSM is 44 to 86 times more likely to become HIV positive than a man who does not.

Rotello tried unsuccessful to warn his community about the risks involved in their promiscuous behavior. He encouraged gay men to enter faithful relationships and to switch from G/A to G/O, but his advice was summarily rejected. If anything in the thirty years since the beginning of the epidemic, the gay activists have become even more strident in the defense of their high risk behavior.

In 1997 Rotello looked to the future and wrote:

“Who wants to encourage their kids to engage in a life that exposes them to a 50 percent chance of HIV infection? Who even wants to be neutral about such a possibility? If the rationale behind the social tolerance of homosexuality is that it allows gay kids an equal shot at the pursuit of happiness, that rationale is hopelessly undermined by an endless epidemic that negates happiness.”[9]

Unfortunately, the current US administration not only wants to encourage their own children to engage in such a life, but insists on pressuring other countries to do the same.

 The history of the HIV epidemic and failure of current prevention strategies is carefully documented in a paper entitled The Syndemic of STDs among MSM, which is available on request. The paper recommends prevention and treatment of same-sex attraction in men as the best way to deal with the problem. Developing countries need to consider the cost in lives and treasure of ‘tolerating’ disease spreading-behaviors before succumbing to pressure to change long-established laws and customs.

[1] ____ “Got HIV? Lifetime Cost $618,900”

[2] Gabriel Rotello, Sexual Ecology, (Dutton: NY, 1997) p. 224.

[3] George Chauncy, Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture and the Making of the Gay Male World 1890 -1940 (Basic Books: :NY, 1994) p. 16

[4] Chauncy, p. 21-22.

[5] Rotello, p.41.

[6] Rotello, p.51.

[7] Michel Foucault History of sexuality Vol. 1 An Introduction, (Vintage 1990, p’ 43.

[8] Rotello, p. 51.

[9] Rotello, p. 286.

5 Comments leave one →
  1. Voo permalink
    February 6, 2012 7:04 pm

    Excellent exposure of the superficiality of the pro-gay lobby.

    Tolerance does not bring happiness, but misery, disease and death!

  2. Kris permalink
    February 8, 2012 12:19 am

    Glad you’re back!

  3. February 8, 2012 3:09 pm

    Dear Dale, I have a paper copy of your “Shaking off the Bonds of Stuff … for Lent” which i think appeared in Canticle magazine in 2007. I wanted to write about your wonderful article on my blog, and wondered if you would give me permission to post it on my blog and send me a pdf copy of it or a link to it, in case other readers wish to join me in your 40 day plan suugested in your article. Thank you. my email address is –Gardenia

  4. March 12, 2012 12:29 am

    Dale, I feel there is not only something wrong with homosexuals way of thinking when it come to logic a reality. It is a form of denial. I also think this applies to libertarians in general who are not homosexual but because of the obsession with their ideology there are strong advocates of the homosexual agenda.

    I think particularly of one blogger and political commentator, David Farrar.

    He is extremely intelligent and a great debater. However, I find it strange that he and other libertarians can argue strongly that racial minorities like Maori in New Zealand are overrepresented in child abuse but ignore the over representation of homosexuals in the sexual abuse of underage adolescent boys.

    There seems to be a mental block. When one raises this inconsistency logic goes out the window and the debate reverts to name calling – homophobe being the main term.



  1. Anglican Mainstream South Africa » Blog Archive » The Cost of Obama’s Global Initiative Fund

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: