It seems odd to focus any debate on the social consequences of private behaviour on homosexuality. It makes more sense to look at high-risk sexual behaviour as a whole: when you consider unwanted pregnancies, the social costs of high-risk heterosexual sex probably exceed those of any homosexual behaviour.
I agree completely that the debate should not be limited to gays. You are probably correct that high risk heterosexual behavior is more costly. Moreover, the costs go beyond dollars. They lead to the the whole debate on the moral "costs" to our society of "convenience" abortions, as well as what it does to our society to have widespread sexual promiscuity among our sons and daughters.
I agree with you also that behaviors including alcohol, tobacco, obesity, and sedentary life styles are threatening to or national health (every time I see a really fat mother with really fat children, I cringe). It is an obligation of our government to educate, harangue, nag, or whatever else it takes to make the citizenry aware of the risks of these behaviors. I think the Surgeon General's Office tries hard to do this. And sometimes legal steps are necessary, as with stiff drunk driving penalties.
So, in the general thrusts of your posts, we don't seem to have much disagreement.
The exception appears to be that you think I am singling out gay behavior. And I do to an extent. One reason is that there is a disease specifically linked to that behavior. AIDS started out as "Gay-Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome." In the present, homosexual men are very disproportionately its victims. The most prevalent way the disease is spread is through male-male rectal sex, unprotected. After years of attempting to educate gays to this risk, the disease threatens once again to become epidemic. There are many diseases that we do not know how to prevent, including cancer, Alzheimer's, and Lou Gehrig disease. But we do know how AIDS could be prevented. If gay men ceased to infect one another through unprotected rectal sex, the disease would soon be contained. Eventually it would be eliminated. But the disease has been highly politicized. Medical research has been pressured into seeking vaccines and cures, as opposed to a focus on prevention. People who speak out against the behavior that is the root cause of this disease, are accused on being "homophobes." The result is that AIDS persists, and costs society huge monetary amounts. Beyond dollars, scarce medical resources and research are diverted from other diseases that we cannot prevent, creating an unnecessary added toll in human lives. Thus, this becomes a problem that affects all of society. More efforts at education would be desirable, but they do not seem to have been effective in the past. In effect, a segment of the gay community is thumbing its nose, contemptuously, at the problem it is causing for the rest of society. I don't see a practical way that this problem can be addressed through laws. At the very least, I think "social opprobrium" directed at the segment most responsible, young gay males, is certainly called for.
So, if I seem to be focusing on this particular form of behavior -- that is the reason why. |
