Bigger issue than marriage and equality.

Got an email about this from an alert i set up the other day. I was talking with some friends and the issue of HIV came up, in the discussion I brought up that gays have a higher infection rate of HIV at which point I was accused of forwarding a stereotype. Perfectly willing to admit when i am wrong i went to look it up and signed up for e mail alerts on HIV which is why i got this.

www.usnews.com...

In December 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released startling new data that showed HIV was still plaguing the gay community. While new HIV infections had remained steady in the general public between 2008 and 2010, infections had risen by an incredible 22 percent in young gay men. Gay men represented two-thirds of new infections. And nearly 6,000 gay men were dying of AIDS every year.

The Kaiser Health Foundation recently described the problem of HIV in the city of Washington, where the HRC and many other big LGBT groups are headquartered, as "as epidemic on par with some developing nations."

I was somewhat shocked because this problem continues to persist, even with all the education and protection available. While we hear about marriage (which they should be able to marry IMO) and other less important issues like bullying (hate to break it to you dam near everyone gets bullied in school- that IS equality). The problem of HIV seems somewhat ignored by the public and the gay community. In the past when i have mentioned that gays are at a higher risk than straight people I have been accused of being a "homophobe" or a bigot. Im sure I will get a fair share of that here for this as many polarizing topics tend to bring out near ore-written responses that ignore post and context. So what is the deal here? Is HIV just not a big issue or have people been so brainwashed by all the PC BS that they have actually convinced themselves that gays are not at a higher risk for infection so they tailor their behavior to that idea and fuel the problem?

reply to post by Superhans


It's my understanding that the higher risk demographics vary throughout the world.

That said.

The ultimate issue isn't that STIs spread through sex, it's that they exist to begin with. We should focus on cures and treatments and not demonize said demographics (whoever they may be) for being at higher risk.

Of course, we all should continue to spread (excuse pun) education on safe sex practices. Anal sex when unprotected is more effective at transferring the infections. If gay men are higher risk in places is due to that. That doesn't mean they are having more unprotected sex than other groups though!

Originally posted by Superhans
I was somewhat shocked because this problem continues to persist, even with all the education and protection available.

Actually, research shows that with higher access to condoms, HIV infections do not decrease. People think they are safe when they are not. Viruses like HIV are very very thin and latex/plastic will always be semipermeable to it. Not to mention -- condoms break.

While we hear about marriage (which they should be able to marry IMO)

The fact that we still have a discussion about "allowing" two consenting adults to do something with eachother is just plain embarassing in 2013.

and other less important issues like bullying (hate to break it to you dam near everyone gets bullied in school- that IS equality).

I don't see how that's less important. Gay teens have a rather heartbreaking suicide rate compared to heterosexual teens. The school do nothing but harm it, too. This "Zero tolerance" crap you hear about has a lot to do with it, actually. If you're a d***head and punch a gay kid in your high school for kissing his boyfriend or whatever in the hall, both you and the gay kid will get suspended. "Zero tolerance". Funny, because after the suspension, you probably won't do it again, but someone else might. In which case, d***head #2 gets suspended
and the same gay kid gets suspended again for being punched in the head. That's how our high schools REALLY work.

The problem of HIV seems somewhat ignored by the public

Yup

and the gay community.

You can't be serious. I can't think of any other group of people who donate a fraction of HIV research funding than those in gay events and organisations in the U.S.. I just got back from Gay Pride celebration this weekend in Toronto and I can definitley tell you that more than 1/4 of everything in the parade was some sort of educational section or fundraiser for HIV/AIDS.

In the past when i have mentioned that gays are at a higher risk than straight people I have been accused of being a "homophobe" or a bigot. Im sure I will get a fair share of that here for this as many polarizing topics tend to bring out near ore-written responses that ignore post and context. So what is the deal here? Is HIV just not a big issue or have people been so brainwashed by all the PC BS that they have actually convinced themselves that gays are not at a higher risk for infection so they tailor their behavior to that idea and fuel the problem?

Here is a good little writeup that outlines some of the social stigma surrounding HIV/AIDS in the gay community. Most gay men know exactly what the risks are. Talking about it like it's a "gay disease" though is simply ridiculous. More than 90% of HIV positive people are heterosexual, after all. And really the risks aren't much higher than a heterosexual who engages in anal sexual activity regularly.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Superhans

 

Of course, we all should continue to spread (excuse pun) education on safe sex. Anal sex when unprotected is more effective at transferring the infection. If gay men are higher risk in places is due to that. That doesn't mean they are having more unprotected sex than other groups tho!

edit on 4-7-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

Funny, though... When groups push for education about HIV/AIDS among homosexuals in schools, certain partisan political affiliations try to shoot them down in the name of "the children" and "values" and other parrotted rhetoric from the 1940s.

Well i was hoping it would not turn into this but...

reply to post by LightOrange

Actually, research shows that with higher access to condoms, HIV infections do not decrease. People think they are safe when they are not. Viruses like HIV are very very thin and latex/plastic will always be semipermeable to it. Not to mention -- condoms break.

Really? I would love to see this research because it sounds like something that you made up. In places where protection is not as easy to obtain due to restrictions and poverty you see the infection rate much higher. Africa?

I don't see how that's less important. Gay teens have a rather heartbreaking suicide rate compared to heterosexual teens. The school do nothing but harm it, too. This "Zero tolerance" crap you hear about has a lot to do with it, actually. If you're a d***head and punch a gay kid in your high school for kissing his boyfriend or whatever in the hall, both you and the gay kid will get suspended. "Zero tolerance". Funny, because after the suspension, you probably won't do it again, but someone else might. In which case, d***head #2 gets suspended
and the same gay kid gets suspended again for being punched in the head. That's how our high schools REALLY work.

The suicide issue has a little more to it than bullying like accaptance from the family and self loathing. With that said kids bully kids, its a fact that everyone needs to get over that we need to decide if we are equal or not. Its not fair that kids who pick on gay kids are seen as the worst thing in the world yet picking on the fat kid/kid with acne/short kid is seen as kids being kids. Nobody is exempt from the attitudes of other kids

You can't be serious.

Dead seropis

I can't think of any other group of people who donate a fraction of HIV research funding than those in gay events and organisations in the U.S..

Did you even read the article i posted?

www.usnews.com...
It's not just the HRC. HIV/AIDS isn't a top priority for any of the three major LGBT groups in the U.S.: not the HRC, or the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), or the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) – who together are somewhat pejoratively known as "Gay Inc."

"'Gay Inc.' is interested in military, marriage, and money," says Michael Petrelis, a gay and AIDS activist, in reference to the campaigns against the military policy of "don't ask, don't tell," which was overturned in 2010, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which was ruled unconstitutional last week. "But for the millions of gay people who don't want to be soldiers, who don't want to get married, where's the advocacy?" he says.

The Global fund (not gay) billions of dollars
The world bank (not gay) billions of dollars
Bill and Malinda Gates foundation (1.4 billion)
And others... So there 3 groups that give enough to make what is raised at gay pride events look like a fraction. So yes. compared to the other issues the one of HIV is more or less being ignored.

Here is a good little writeup that outlines some of the social stigma surrounding HIV/AIDS in the gay community. Most gay men know exactly what the risks are. Talking about it like it's a "gay disease" though is simply ridiculous. More than 90% of HIV positive people are heterosexual, after all. And really the risks aren't much higher than a heterosexual who engages in anal sexual activity regularly.

A bit of a strawman, i never mentioned anything about it being a "gay disease" if you want to have that argument you will have to look elsewhere. Yes more than 90% of HIV positive people are straight but you are choosing to ignore the fact that the population is not 1:1 with gay and straight men. HIV is higher in homosexual men.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Superhans

 

It's my understanding that the higher risk demographics vary throughout the world.

That said.

The ultimate issue isn't that STIs spread through sex, it's that they exist to begin with. We should focus on cures and treatments and not demonize said demographics (whoever they may be) for being at higher risk.

Who is being "demonized"???

Of course, we all should continue to spread (excuse pun) education on safe sex practices. Anal sex when unprotected is more effective at transferring the infections. If gay men are higher risk in places is due to that. That doesn't mean they are having more unprotected sex than other groups though!

edit on 4-7-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

Yes...gay men are more at risk of getting AIDS from having gay sex...don't see what you are trying to say here.

reply to post by Superhans

HIV is higher in homosexual men.

I'ts higher transfer rate with unprotected anal sex, Only reason that amounts to homosexual men is due to a higher percent of people within that demographic that partake in anal sex. Heterosexuals also partake in this unprotected. So again the solution isn't to target any one group, since they all contribute to the issue via the same way, but to do our best everyone knows the risks involved in not testing and not wearing protection.

Who is being "demonized"???

I didn't mean to suggest you or your OP was doing this. I was speaking generally. This (higher risk for HIV) gets brought up quite a bit in threads as a means of demonizing gay men. Apologies for confusion.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Superhans

 

HIV is higher in homosexual men.

I'ts higher transfer rate with unprotected anal sex, Only reason that amounts to homosexual men is due to a higher percent of people within that demographic that partake in anal sex. Heterosexuals also partake in this unprotected. So again the solution isn't to target any one group, since they all contribute to the issue via the same way, but to do our best everyone knows the risks involved in not testing and not wearing protection.

I don't know what to tell you, its higher...get over it. What do you want to hear? YES its ONLY higher because gay men have gay sex with each other... happy now?

reply to post by Superhans


Calm down friend.

Don't know why you are getting so worked up.

Originally posted by Superhans
So what is the deal here?

I'm not sure.

Your friends were wrong?

Is HIV just not a big issue or have people been so brainwashed by all the PC BS that they have actually convinced themselves that gays are not at a higher risk for infection so they tailor their behavior to that idea and fuel the problem?

Am not sure your friends are a large enough sample group for you to say that.

Regarding the funding issue, can't speak for individual rights groups, but I do know many countries don't receive aid from LGBT organizations because they punish homosexuality with the death penalty; is a bit of putting. Many LGBT organizations actually donate to or encourage donation to specific funds, so the numbers wouldn't be on their books in many cases.

Even then, its not like LGBT orgs are as big as the world bank.

I think it's a modern issue that people think HIV never happens in Western nations, I don't think it's just a gay issue.

reply to post by Pinke

I think it's a modern issue that people think HIV never happens in Western nations

'It can't happen to me' mentality? I can see that. This is why being aggressive about safe sex education to all orientations is paramount.

I don't think it's just a gay issue.

Yeah neither do I. That's what I was attempting to get at. It's a people issue. Just because one group is higher risk doesn't negate the higher risk act itself is shared among the orientations.

Thanks for the thread.

It's a pity HIV or AIDS is not in the title, because I don't believe in stigma, or that HIV-positive people are bad people or somehow deserved it, whatever demographic they may come from.

There may be something else wrong, like some policies that are not proper, or some particular group within other groups that are overlooked in campaigns.

To number crunch a bit: the US has a population of over 300 000 000, and it has an estimated 1.1 million HIV positive people.

South Africa has a population of about 52 000 000, and it has 5.5-6 million HIV positive people (of which I am one, although it's mainly a heterosexual pandemic).

This may sound like the US doesn't have a big problem, but compared to Western Europe or Australia and New Zealand it is actually shocking for a country with Western resources.

Although the gay group in the US is not broken down by race, all sources seem to point to African American gay and bisexual men as being most at risk.
www.cdc.gov...
In the heterosexual group black women seem to be at the same high at risk as women in sub-Saharan Africa.
Although less than 15 percent of the population, African Americans account for 44 percent of the infected.

Despite the high incarceration of African American men in the so-called war on we all know what, the US conservatives from not so high affected communities still often block clean needles and condoms in prisons.

All this moralizing and expecting people to become monk-like (when even Buddhist monasteries in Thailand are rolling out condoms) is just beyond ridiculous, and it's a shame for a Western country.

But yes the gay community should do more, men who have sex with men should do more, everyone should do more and embrace proven public health.
Nevertheless, there are some interesting studies on why specific communities have higher rates geographically, and it's usually where a number of high risk communities and behaviors intersect.

I think people also become over-confident that ARVs can save them, and that HIV is no longer a big deal.
Such therapies can manage the virus, but they have side-effects, and there are no guarantees.
Yes, there is hope for the infected.
But it's better to avoid HIV at all costs.

Macho attitudes and conspiracy theories also don't help, and it's best that people just become pro-active and stop believing it cannot happen to them or their group.
Everything counts in large amounts, but people hit smaller odds in all kinds of ways every single day.

Originally posted by Superhans
Well i was hoping it would not turn into this but...

Turn into what?

Really? I would love to see this research because it sounds like something that you made up. In places where protection is not as easy to obtain due to restrictions and poverty you see the infection rate much higher. Africa?

Something I made up? I actually remember the little factoid from an old Hitchens debate. Either way here's a source:

In 2003, Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen of the University of California conducted a condom effectiveness study for the United Nations' AIDS program and found no evidence of condoms working as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa. UNAIDS quietly disowned the study. (The authors eventually managed to publish their findings in the quarterly Studies in Family Planning.) Since then, major articles in other peer-reviewed journals such as the Lancet, Science and BMJ have confirmed that condoms have not worked as a primary intervention in the population-wide epidemics of Africa. In a 2008 article in Science called "Reassessing HIV Prevention" 10 AIDS experts concluded that "consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics

While consistent condom use (i.e. using condoms correctly 100% of the time during sexual intercourse) has shown to decrease the the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission, 15% of those people who use condoms 100% of the time will still become infected with HIV/AIDS.

Source

The suicide issue has a little more to it than bullying like accaptance from the family and self loathing. With that said kids bully kids, its a fact that everyone needs to get over that we need to decide if we are equal or not. Its not fair that kids who pick on gay kids are seen as the worst thing in the world yet picking on the fat kid/kid with acne/short kid is seen as kids being kids. Nobody is exempt from the attitudes of other kids

Well obviously there's a lot more to it, but how does that change the reality of how the school treats it? With ANY of them, really. You think gay kids get extra protection from it you are absolutely out of your mind. I know gay kids who were in high school a few years ago and were suspended for 25% of any given term simply because of all of the "fights" they "got themselves into". I'm sure kids with acne, weight problems, greasy hair, wearing different clothes, having different hairstyles, or whatever else -- all of them probably have similar problems. These shy little kids with confidence issues and thin frames sure do "get themselves into" a lot of "fights", I tell ya.

The Global fund (not gay) billions of dollars
The world bank (not gay) billions of dollars
Bill and Malinda Gates foundation (1.4 billion)
And others... So there 3 groups that give enough to make what is raised at gay pride events look like a fraction. So yes. compared to the other issues the one of HIV is more or less being ignored.

Where do you suppose the money that is donated to these organisations comes from? Jerry Falwell?

In LGBT events -- coin collections at gay bars, Pride donations, charity sticker sales, charity entry sales, charity booth sales, charity kissing booths, charity stripping, charity best butt/chest/dick contests -- all of this stuff is most likely donated to one of these organisations?

It's not like The Global Fund just rains money down from the heavens all over Africa.

Yes more than 90% of HIV positive people are straight but you are choosing to ignore the fact that the population is not 1:1 with gay and straight men. HIV is higher in homosexual men.

I never said it wasn't. Of course they are at higher risk because the rectum is more susceptable to STDs than the vagina. What you're suggesting, though, is that all of these groups who are focused on socio-political changes (NOT health & science funding) should pick up the tab for a disease that is 90%+ straight people. Why? Why would political organisations who vouch for social changes take their donated money and put it into AIDS research when people who donate to these organisations are donating for political changes? If the people wanted their money to go to AIDS research, they would give it to an HIV/AIDS charity--not a political group. Why the hell would you expect the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against DEFAMATION to make health & science donations?

reply to post by LightOrange

Condoms do have a slight failure rate (mainly through breakage), but both gay and straight people can protect themselves with condoms for penetrative sex, especially with lubricants.

There have been rumors of sub-standard condoms, and other enormous stuff-ups in South Africa, such as a campaign in which condoms were stapled through the middle onto HIV-prevention leaflets.

In 2011-2012 condom distribution in South Africa missed the set target by 60 percent.
www.moneyweb.co.za...
In fact, nobody I spoke to, and also myself, received any condoms whatsoever for years.
It's all sporadic, just as condom use itself.
It seems that neither the political or personal will is apparent, even now.
And while official AIDS denialism may be over, the belief that condoms are a conspiracy to stop African people from having children is still fairly widespread, and some religions implicitly seem to support that.

Condoms do work if used 100 percent of the time (as Thailand's sex industry has indeed shown).

In fact, the second half of your link spells out many of the reasons why condoms are not consistently used.
The main one being concurrent relationships in sub-Saharan Africa.
The irony is that most Africans will have less sexual partners over a lifetime than most Westerners, it's just that they're having them almost at the same time, especially when people are hyper-infectious just after being infected themselves:

These ongoing multiple concurrent sex partnerships resemble a giant, invisible web of relationships through which HIV/AIDS spreads. A study in Malawi showed that even though the average number of sexual partners was only slightly over two, fully two-thirds of this population was interconnected through such networks of overlapping, ongoing relationships.

articles.washingtonpost.com...

These relationships loosely copy traditional polygamy, but arose during apartheid's migrant labor system, when men who went to work on the mines had to leave their rural families behind in the reserves, and they founded secondary families in the townships close to where they worked.
The wives often knew of each other, and there was no jealousy, but when HIV came around in the 1990s with the opening of the borders, and an influx of exiles and immigrants from across Africa, it became certain that if one person in that once functional set-up strayed (or was raped, or a widow was inherited by her husband's brother Old Testament style), then they would infect everybody else in a network of infection.

Gender activists argue that as long as HIV prevention remains a male choice to use a condom, women who have little social or economic power will never be able to consistently protect themselves.
As such they will bear a sixty percent burden of infection through heterosexual men who are the vectors.
This is not only true for sub-Saharan Africa, but everywhere where there is heterosexual transmission.

Until now the female condom was a haphazard disaster, and anti-viral vaginal gels did not work.

While women may also view condoms as a sign of infidelity that limits their usage, so far there is nothing that women can specifically do to protect themselves in highly patriarchal regions of Africa.

reply to post by LightOrange

Something I made up? I actually remember the little factoid from an old Hitchens debate. Either way here's a source:

lol, did you even read it? The article specifically mentions numerous times that this is only the case in africa and only africa. Did you get those straws you were grasping for?
you source: www.huffingtonpost.com...

...for the United Nations' AIDS program and found no evidence of condoms working as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa...
...condoms have not worked as a primary intervention in the population-wide epidemics of Africa...
...to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa...
...Let me quickly add that condom promotion has worked in countries such as Thailand and Cambodia,...
...And intuitively, some condom use ought to be better than no use. But that's not what the research in Africa shows....

I think you get the point...

Well obviously there's a lot more to it, but how does that change the reality of how the school treats it? With ANY of them, really. You think gay kids get extra protection from it you are absolutely out of your mind.

I know first hand they do, but that is another story for another thread.

Where do you suppose the money that is donated to these organisations comes from? Jerry Falwell?

In LGBT events -- coin collections at gay bars, Pride donations, charity sticker sales, charity entry sales, charity booth sales, charity kissing booths, charity stripping, charity best butt/chest/dick contests -- all of this stuff is most likely donated to one of these organisations?

lol yes... the world bank and bill gates both run kissing booths to generate money, are you really that desperate to argue with someone for pointing out facts?

What you're suggesting, though, is that all of these groups who are focused on socio-political changes (NOT health & science funding) should pick up the tab for a disease that is 90%+ straight people.

That is not at all what im saying, im saying these groups should focus on what is killing them disproportionately when compared to the rest of the population. Yes straight numbers wise is effects more straight people but once again you are forgetting per captia. I think your attitude right here reflects exactly what the problem is, its like you want to ignore the fact that it effects more gay people than straight and that it is on the rise.

If the people wanted their money to go to AIDS research, they would give it to an HIV/AIDS charity--not a political group. Why the hell would you expect the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against DEFAMATION to make health & science donations?

Im not saying the political groups should start donating to AIDS research, I just think the community as a whole should focus on a rising trend that is killing people within it. Im getting the sense that the fact that AIDS is so prevalent in the gay community some how offends you are something.

reply to post by Superhans


I'm reading the title and I admit to some confusion... I'm trying to discern WHAT is a "bigger issue than marriage and equality"...

It's almost like you're trying to make a point that because there's a lot of HIV and AIDS in homosexuals, that's a good reason to deny them marriage and equality... As if, granting them rights to marry and other equal treatment under the laws, will somehow make the HIV situation worse and if we continue to deny them equality, maybe AIDS will go away? What am I missing?

In reality, marriage and equality have nothing to do with AIDS. Even if AIDS is growing among young homosexuals, how does that associate with equal treatment under the law?

reply to post by Superhans

A thought popped into my head, only as a wild possibility. I don't have any evidence for it, nor have I thought it out deeply. I'm offering it so more thoughtful people can consider it.

AIDS is a scientifically measurable, adverse health condition. So are constantly high blood alcohol levels, lung cancer, high cholesterol, obesity, and being tossed around the inside of a car after a crash.

Americans see nothing wrong with campaigns against excessive drinking, smoking, overeating, and not wearing seat belts. People are encouraged not to do things which lead to unhealthy outcomes. Bloomberg ordered a stop to the sale of large glasses of soda. But nobody has come up with a viable campaign, nation-wide and government endorsed, against unprotected homosexual sex.

I honestly think that's because of a reluctance to criticize any homosexual activity. I can't imagine a government saying, "Homosexual behavior is risky. It imposes a disproportionate strain on our health care system. It's an unhealthy life style." But the government will say that for overeating, alcoholism, drug abuse, smoking, etc.

Perhaps, and I'm just guessing, the idea is to try to persuade the public that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and that it has equal health results to heterosexuality.

This is a problem with all young adults and teens. And it's not just HIV/AIDs, its all STDs. The rates of STDs among teens and young adults is at epidemic levels.

host.madison.com...

What's even scarier is that the old school STDs are becoming more resistant to treatment. It's possible that gonorrhea could go back to being a really threatening disease.

news.yahoo.com...

And then there's HPV-related cancers. We now know that oral sex could cause throat and mouth cancers.

I have a daughter who will be a teen soon. All this stuff scares the poop out of me. I'll do what I can to educate her, but hormones and peer pressure may takes its toll. If she turns out to be gay, that will be the least of my worries.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Superhans

 

Americans see nothing wrong with campaigns against excessive drinking, smoking, overeating, and not wearing seat belts. People are encouraged not to do things which lead to unhealthy outcomes.

Many Americans will also look for any excuse to talk down to homosexuals. Can you imagine an exclusively homosexual health campaign?
* Why do they need their own health campaign?
* I knew gay people caused HIV
* Don't we have better things to spend money on

etc etc etc

I can't imagine a government saying, "Homosexual behavior is risky. It imposes a disproportionate strain on our health care system. It's an unhealthy life style." But the government will say that for overeating, alcoholism, drug abuse, smoking, etc.

None of the above are on par really.

Also, it's really just what men do. Can you imagine if you could click your fingers and give all heterosexual women the same sex drive as heterosexual men? HIV would go up.

Since lesbians have lower rates of HIV should there be like a lesbian kick back policy or high score table perhaps? Become a lesbian and get a slightly better insurance policy? Perhaps we could also slice it up by race?

Or ... we could just be pointing out that HIV isn't a 'gay' issue, it's just an issue. Targeting any individual group won't help the overall problem. Better education in high school might, but that's a kind of sticking point there too.

Not everything is a big gay conspiracy.

reply to post by charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
But nobody has come up with a viable campaign, nation-wide and government endorsed, against unprotected homosexual sex.

Why single out homosexual sex? Unprotected heterosexual sex can lead to undesirable outcomes as well. Including AIDS. And there ARE campaigns for safe sex. But they're not government-endorsed. Who cares if the government endorses them, anyway?

It's not about being gay. It's about unprotected sex between ANY two people. Millions of people would LOVE to see government endorsement of a "protected sex" campaign, but the conservatives in the government don't want to do that, because they believe it's endorsing casual sex. They just want everyone to abstain until they're married. And then they don't want to let some people marry.

I honestly think that's because of a reluctance to criticize any homosexual activity.

Are you serious? You think the government has a problem criticizing homosexual activity? I honestly don't know how you could be aware of the political issues in this country and make that statement. Who do you think is fighting equal rights for gay people tooth and nail at every opportunity???

Perhaps, and I'm just guessing, the idea is to try to persuade the public that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and that it has equal health results to heterosexuality.

There IS nothing wrong with homosexuality.
There is something wrong with unprotected sex.

Have you not seen "safe sex" campaigns? Planned Parenthood would LOVE to be more involved, but the government is doing everything possible to shut them completely down. And other countries DO have safe sex for gay people campaigns, but the conservatives in the US are far to uptight to even mention it. They think to acknowledge homosexuality is to endorse it, so they ignore it or criticize it.

Safe Gay Sex in Queensland
Gay Safe Sex Ads in Brisbane reinstated after uproar by Christian lobby group

No,the US government is a long way from campaigning for safe gay sex...
I Love My Boo - Gay Safe Sex Campaign This is by the Gay Men's Health Crisis organization.