FAMILY RESEARCH REPORT	Journal of the Family Research Institute Founded 1982
Christianity in Crosshairs of CDC?			Vol. 15 No. 2 March 2000

Summary: In its January 14, 2000 issue of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) decried the influence of "homophobia" and its interference with the CDC's attempts to control AIDS through education.

This appears to be the first time the CDC has officially used "homophobia" in a context suggesting that for public health reasons homophobia must be reduced or eliminated. "Homophobia" is a propaganda term of the gay movement, employed derogatorily by gay activists to imply that those who oppose homosexuality or gay rights are irrational and/or disturbed. Indeed, the "phobia" part of the word implies that those with "it" are somehow sick.

By using the propaganda term "homophobia," the CDC is both legitimizing the concept and signalling "homophobia" as a valid public health concern, one that might have to be dealt with by the state. "Big tobacco" bled when public health officials "went after it." Since the largest institution currently promoting the notion that homosexuality is not only wrong, but also a personal and social threat, is the Christian church, the specter of the same thing happening to the traditional church looms.

Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status when it ran afoul of the civil rights movement by forbidding interracial dating. By its use of "homophobia," the CDC may be in the process of targeting the church for running afoul of "public health goals" at the same time the church is being criticized for denying homosexuals their "civil rights." Given the power of the CDC, this is no small matter.

What the CDC Wrote

In an article concerning trends in HIV infection among minority men who have sex with other men [MSM] that is, who engage in homosexuality the CDC said: "Race/ethnicity itself is not a risk factor for HIV infection; however, among racial/ethnic minority MSM, social and economic factors, such as homophobia, high rates of poverty and unemployment, and lack of access to health care, are associated with high rates of HIV risk behavior. These factors also may be barriers to receiving HIV prevention information or accessing HIV testing, diagnosis, and treatment...."

"Within racial/ethnic minority communities, the stigma attached to acknowledging homosexual and bisexual activity may inhibit racial/ethnic minority MSM from identifying themselves as homosexual or bisexual, and they may be more likely to identify with their racial/ethnic minority community than with the MSM community. In a CDC-sponsored study of 8780 MSM with HIV infection or AIDS, 24% of non-Hispanic black MSM, 15% of Hispanic MSM... identified themselves as heterosexual compared with... 6% of non-Hispanic white MSM."¹

You almost have to "educated" to understand such politically correct gobbly-gook. What the first part boils down to is this: HIV-infected black and Hispanic men who engage in homosexuality are 3-4 times more apt to call themselves "heterosexual" than HIV-infected white men are. The CDC sees this as a "problem," and suggests that "Racial/ethnic minority community leaders should promote dialogue about issues of sexual orientation to overcome social barriers to HIV prevention for racial/ethnic minority MSM..."

What are the "villains" of this problem? "...homophobia, high rates of poverty and unemployment, and lack of access to health care" all bad things, all things that a "just society" would seek to 'overcome and eliminate.' The CDC asserts that black and Hispanic gays have more poverty, a bad thing. And more unemployment. And greater lack of access to health care. These bad things, in combination with homophobia another bad thing are disproportionately "causing" black and Hispanic gays to get infected with HIV at higher rates than 'they should if all things were equal.'

Somehow, "homophobia" is a "barrier" to getting "educated." Gays get HIV and die of AIDS because of you guessed it evil forces in society! When these evil forces conspire to make certain kinds of gays poorer or to erect "homophobic" "barriers" to their getting the "CDC truth about AIDS," they get infected with HIV.

The CDC also seems to be concerned that MSM are more apt to "identify" with their ethnic group than with the MSM "community" e.g. "the stigma attached to acknowledging homosexual and bisexual activity may inhibit racial/ethnic minority MSM from identifying themselves as homosexual or bisexual, and they may be more likely to identify with their racial/ethnic minority community than with the MSM community."

How, pray tell, is this a "problem?" Why would the CDC want to get these MSM to consider themselves gay rather than black or Hispanic? How is this a "problem" unless the CDC believes that when it puts out pamphlets or posters about AIDS, gays but not blacks or Hispanics will "read and heed."

The evidence is very limited that the CDC's educational program is having an effect on the spread of HIV. Indeed, just as it appears that more adolescents are smoking lately in spite of all the "education" and warnings, some evidence from CDC reports suggests that AIDS education is not working either [see Family Research Report August/September, 1998].

If you were gay, would it not be heartening to know that believing homosexuality was "wrong," "wicked," "dangerous," "disgusting" or "dysfunctional" was a disease? Of course, it would not be "nice" for traditional Christians. But it sure would be "nice" for gay rights. How wonderful for the advancement of homosexuality if non-accepting attitudes were judged a pathology something that needed to be cured. And if you could get the CDC and the government's public health machinery on your side it could be HUGE.

By definition, a phobia is an "irrational fear of presumably harmless objects or situations." People with phobias are classified as "sick" they have a pathologic condition which needs to be cured, since they are in no real danger and yet are still afraid. If homosexuality is "normal" then people who are afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality are obviously "sick." But if homosexuality is not "normal" or homosexuals are unusually aggressive, it might be reasonable for people to shy away from or even to be afraid of some homosexuals.

Consider for a moment other phobias. Agoraphobia is the fear of open places. Social phobia occurs when a person is presented with a social situation that he perceives as embarrassing or awkward. People with these psychiatric phobias have been known to become terribly anxious, frozen in their tracks, or even to faint in the threatening situation.

How does "homophobia" fit this "phobic" model? Not well at all. People may be repelled by the knowledge that someone is a homosexual. They may not want to be around such a person (e.g., "that's disgusting, and I don't want to hear about it or be approached to do it"), and may even go to great lengths to avoid encountering a homosexual.

But who is actually "homosexual-phobic?" People are generally not afraid of homosexuals (or pedophiles, or thieves) in the phobic sense, although they may regard them as annoying and/or dangerous. FRI has never heard of someone fainting when seeing or meeting a homosexual or while passing a gay bar.

But if being opposed to societal acceptance of homosexuality is a "phobia," then "treatment" or "sensitivity training" is just around the corner for those "infected" with this disease (a la John Rocker). And, can censure of or sanctions against organizations promoting homophobia be far behind?

What Is Homophobia?

The term "homophobia" was coined by gay activists around 1970. Kenneth Smith appears to have published the first minor study on it in the scientific journal Psychological Reports in 1971.² George Weinberg further popularized "homophobia" in his 1972 book Society and the Healthy Homosexual.³

The 9 questions that make up Smith's "homophobia" scale to "measure negative or fearful responding to homosexuality" are numbered 1 to 9 (the so-called "healthy" answer is in parentheses). In addition, the four basic concepts that Weinberg decried as "homophobic" are lettered "A" to "D."

What is evident when these elements are combined is an outline of the society that the gay movement desires to create. That society is almost diametrically opposed to the traditional concept of the "good society."

Smith's Homophobia Scale

1. Homosexuals should be locked up to protect society (no).

2. If laws against homosexuality were eliminated, the proportion of homosexuals in the population would probably remain about the same (yes)

3. Homosexuals should be allowed to hold government positions (yes)

4. A homosexual could be a good president of the United States (yes)

5. It would be upsetting for me to find out I was alone with a homosexual (no)

6. If a homosexual sat next to me on a bus I would get nervous (no)

7. I would not want to be a member of an organization which had any homosexuals in its membership (no)

8. I find the thought of homosexual acts disgusting (no)

9. I would be afraid for a child of mine to have a teacher who was a homosexual (no)

Weinberg's Homophobic Concepts

A) Dangerousness: believing that homosexuals are dangerous and that society should repress them.

B) Being uncomfortable around homosexuals.

C) Immorality: believing that homosexuals are sinful or immoral.

D) Cross-sex mannerisms: believing that gays tend toward effeminacy and lesbians toward hypermasculinity.

What It All Means

As indexed by such questions and opinions, homophobia clearly refers not to a pathological "phobic" state but rather a mixture of opinions, beliefs, personal feelings and strategies that are non-accepting of or hostile to the advancement of homosexuality. The first dimension, "dangerousness" (including questions 1 through 4 in Smith and concept A in Weinberg) refers to beliefs about the harmfulness of and the conditions of growth of homosexuality. Gays want a society that holds them as "harmless."

The second dimension, "personal acceptance" (including questions 5, 6, and 7 in Smith and concept B in Weinberg) refer to feelings about being around homosexuals in close circumstances or being a member of a group that admitted homosexuals. Gays want a society in which people have no problem being around them.

Question 8 (e.g., homosexuality is disgusting) has to do with the aesthetics of homosexuality. Gays want a society that celebrates the "beauty" of their sexual acts (e.g., Robert Maplethorpe's exhibit of photographs includes a picture of him with the end of a whip inserted in his rectum). Question 9, about whether homosexual teachers might negatively influence one's child, is an opinion, as are Weinberg's concepts C and D on immorality and cross-sex mannerisms.

Certainly many people have very reasonable fears about their children being schooled by homosexuals. FRI's own empirical research has found that homosexual teachers are a threat to their students, both because they are more apt to sexually molest them and also because they are apt to promote homosexuality in their classes.

Traditional Jewish-Christian thought has long been clear about the immorality of homosexuality. So now believing homosexuality to be sinful is a sign of homophobia? And while not every gay is effeminate nor every lesbian masculine, a disproportionate number are. Apparently "good mental health" requires the inability to see reality!

Both descriptions/definitions of homophobia make it clear that anyone who does not 1) wholeheartedly accept homosexuals and 2) regard homosexuality as the equal of heterosexuality should be labelled as "diseased" or at least wrong.

However, many, if not most, of the beliefs and opinions referred to by Smith and Weinberg have much to commend them. Indeed, throughout most of Western history, homosexuality has been considered a crime. Even when it wasn't, homosexuals were typically shunned. Were most of our ancestors mentally distressed?

The assertion that homosexuality is "normal" has been made by homosexuals since early in the 20th century. Gay rights champions finally got their way when the American Psychiatric Association delisted homosexuality from its classification of diseases in 1973. What a reversal, if somehow, those who considered homosexuality a disease before 1973 would be themselves considered diseased for holding such a belief three decades later!

Homophobia = Antihomosexuality

Mostly, homophobia is used to mean "antihomosexuality." Even the Kinsey Institute a close ally of the gay movement acknowledged this in 1989 when it noted that the meaning of homophobia would translate literally into "fear of same," which is obviously not what the term is about. The Kinsey Institute authors noted that the "phobia" part of homophobia "does not address the assumption that antihomosexuality is a phobic response, a conclusion that lacks convincing support."

Consequently, the Kinsey Institute uses "antihomosexuality" instead of homophobia because the term antihomosexuality does not imply that someone who holds the attitude is disturbed.⁴ But the CDC just used the term homophobia as though it were "legitimate" and that homophobia was a bad possibly even pathological condition!

Public health is a very big stick. The "public health" trumps every right. One can be imprisoned (e.g., quarantined) for public health reasons; so can one's right to publicize and sell what one has be denied (e.g., possessing and selling heroin, or promoting a new treatment for cancer). In short, personal constitutional guarantees are null and void in the face of a "public health" need. Given the political climate, when the CDC speaks, everyone who opposes homosexuality had better "listen up."

Homosexuals have fueled not only AIDS, various forms of hepatitis and other sexually transmitted diseases, but are largely responsible for the expansion of the CDC's budget. Gays have flocked to work at the CDC even as their importance has grown within the agency's expansion. Gays rightly figure that the CDC "owes us." No longer content with "co-managing" the AIDS epidemic, the gay leadership is apparently demanding that even as the CDC is the gay movement's friend, so the movement's enemies must be the CDC's enemies.

And there's the rub.

Who or what is the enemy of the gay movement? The media certainly isn't the media are promoting homosexuality and its normalcy at every possible turn. Academia isn't the enemy it too is falling all over itself to be gay friendly and gay movement supportive. Ditto government at almost every level. Yet social hostility to homosexuality and the normality of homosexuality persists.

Why? What keeps the majority of Americans from embracing what their "betters" in the media and academia want them to? After all the propaganda, most Americans still regard homosexuality as inferior to heterosexuality. Indeed, a large minority regard homosexuality as a threat to civilization. Whence comes this "anti-gay, anti-gay rights" attitude?

The answer, of course, is traditional Christianity. Currently, about two-thirds of the organizations that call themselves Christian (and perhaps 1-5% of Jewish organizations), regard homosexuality as a personal sin and a social problem. Every relevant survey (including those done by FRI and the Kinsey Institute) finds Christianity at the heart of resistance to acceptance of homosexuality.

The federal government has been using the term homophobia for some time in relatively obscure publications. In 1989, the National Research Council, a quasi-federal institution, used homophobia in a footnote in AIDS, Sexual Behavior and IV Drug Use,⁵ discussing "reactions to AIDS, which have revived homophobia." But to FRI's knowledge, this is the first time the CDC has used it in a major publication, and used it in such an ominous way.

Traditionalists have every reason to be concerned and good reason to jump on the CDC about its rhetoric. If this propaganda is allowed to "pass" unchallenged, the CDC will only grow bolder and the lives of those opposed to homosexuality ever more threatened. Never underestimate the sheer meanness of a federal bureaucracy.

References:

1. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 1/14/00, p. 10.

2. Smith, K. Homophobia: a tentative personality profile. Psychological Reports, 1971, 29:1091-1094.

3. Weinberg, G. Society and the healthy homosexual. St. Martin's Press, 1972.

4. Klassen AD, Williams CJ, Levitt EE. Sex and morality in the U.S. Wesleyan:Middletown, CT, 1989, p. 204.

5. Turner CF, Miller HG, & Moses LE. AIDS, sexual behavior and IV drug use, National Research Council, 1989, p. 162.

Runaway adolescents are a mess. They prostitute themselves, they do drugs, they commit minor and major crimes. And they look so pitiful. What's to be done with them? How are they to be "protected" against AIDS?

Currently, the government estimates that a quarter of all new HIV infections in the U.S. occur in those aged 13-21, and half of all new infections in those aged less than age 25. Just about every study indicates that runaway kids are perhaps 15 times more apt to get infected with HIV. So runaways are a significant part of the HIV problem.

Investigators in Denver attempted to use theories about peer counselors and peer teachers that have been promoted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The idea goes something like this: "kids trust kids, particularly kids who have had some of the same problems as those they are teaching/counseling. So use kids as the educators, and a good deal of success is likely."

Sounds almost plausible. If "peer pressure" works to get kids into sex or drugs, perhaps the same strategy could act in reverse.

244 runaways were recruited into a paid program where they would function as "peer teacher/counselors." To be eligible they had to be 12 to 19 years of age, on the streets for at least 3 months without more than 2 weeks in the homes of immediate family, and from families who themselves were not homeless. After 3 months, 147 participants (60% of the original sample) were re-contacted for follow up.

82% of the kids said that had left home because they wanted to; the rest claimed that they were "kicked out." All said that they were non-virgins and 97% admitted to drug/alcohol use. About half were boys and 73% were white. Half claimed that they had been sexually abused, about half that they had been physically abused, and just under half claimed that they had attempted suicide.

60% of the females had been pregnant and 20% had given birth, while a third of the males knew someone they had gotten pregnant. Only 5% of the kids in this sample reported homosexual activity. The kids who were lost to follow-up were somewhat more apt to be heavy drug users.

Training consisted of 8 hours of workshops over two days. In these sessions, the kids learned how HIV is transmitted, the usual drill about safe sex (e.g., why condoms should be used, how to don condoms, how to demand condoms for sex), and how to do drugs safely (e.g., use clean needles, do not share needle works). After their training, they had a "graduation ceremony."

Did the kids who got the training know more about AIDS? The good news was that they did! While the control group got only about 80% of the questions about AIDS right, the kids who were trained to be trainers got about 90% of the questions right! Education worked!!!

But that's just knowledge about AIDS. Did education work to reduce reported risk? This, after all, was the whole point of this rather expensive study. Well, did it?

NO.

In fact, the more kids knew about AIDS the more risky sex they engaged in! The more they knew the more they did! In addition, those who claimed that they had a greater chance of getting HIV infection via drug use "were more than three times as likely to use heroin/cocaine as those with a lower perceived chance for infection"!

The authors of the study reported three major findings. First, "runaways with greater knowledge [about AIDS] were more likely to have engaged in high-risk sex" after the training. The authors noted that "since one of the objectives of the project was to increase knowledge about AIDS, and thereby reduce risk behaviors, this finding is troubling."

Indeed!

"Second, contrary to many previous studies, perceived likelihood of infection was not associated with lower risk behaviors. In fact, runaways in our study who felt they had a greater chance of infection were more likely to have used heroin/cocaine and reported significantly more sex partners in the previous 3 months than those who felt they had a lower chance.... Combined with the finding reported on the association between greater HIV knowledge and higher risk behavior, the challenge to develop appropriate and effective interventions with runaways is enormous."

Indeed!

"Third, although others have reported success using peer educators as behavior changers, albeit with populations other than runaways, the peer intervention... was not effective in changing risk behaviors, especially sex behaviors. In fact,... only runaways in the control group [who did not receive the same safe-sex drill] reduced their sex risks over time." Gosh, the control group did better than the experiemental group!

FRI agrees with these investigators that runaways are at the very highest risk of HIV infection. We can find no fault in the investigators' attempts to implement CDC guidelines with the kids they recruited.

Unfortunately, not only did the educational program fail, it appeared to fail with a vengeance. The kids would apparently have been better off if they had been left alone!

FRI sympathizes with these investigators. By doing "what was supposed to work" in order to 'help homeless kids on the street,' they ended up apparently making things worse. FRI believes that there is much more "excitement" about AIDS education than is warranted. Mostly it is a waste of time.

But there does not seem to be a good solution. Some of the kids were undoubtedly incorrigible who knows how to help them? Some of the kids might be helped if they could be persuaded to live in a family-type setting yet that might not work either. Even a 12 year old who puts his foot down can do almost anything he wants. And an 18 year old who wants to "go hang out" with the old crowd is almost beyond stopping.

Certainly, the vaunted "sex/AIDS education" that the CDC is ambitious to provide to every child didn't work in this situation. FRI is skeptical that it works anyplace. In our view, the world would be better served if the CDC budget were cut by at least two-thirds and the agency was barred from further "educational programs."

Reference: Booth RC, Zhang Y, Kwiatkowski CF. The challenge of changing drug and sex risk behaviors of runaway and homeless adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect 1999;23:1295-1306

Corner

THe Marriage Tax Penalty

Family Research Council (FRC) released its "Vision 2000: FRC's Congressional Priorities" in February. First up was "Pro-Family Tax Relief" concentrating on the "marriage tax penalty. Rather than punishing marriage, public policy should recognize and appreciate marriage for its vital contribution to the betterment of society and the economy."

FRI agrees, marriage should be strengthened and encouraged in every way. But the actual goal of FRC leaves us stunned: "Congress should ensure that any legislative proposal treats all married couples equally whether a young dual-income married couple starting out or a married couple making sacrifices for their family so one parent can stay home with the children."

Is "radical egalitarianism" and "economic prosperity" corrupting everyone back in DC? The current tax-code does not treat all married couples equally it currently gives a tax advantage to the "married, stay at home mom." All research shows that children do better, both psychically and physically, when a parent "stays home." The tax-bias in favor of stay-at-home-moms should remain in fact, any "pro-family" organization should be pressing for increasing the tax bias in favor of such married couples not eliminating it!

Of course, couples who are "shacking-up" and who both work should not get better tax breaks than married couples who both work. FRI believes that married couples who both work should get a better tax break than shack-ups. But many married couples who both work are doing it not to "get by" but to "have more stuff" or to provide adult stimulation/"fulfillment" for "mom."

Couples with kids in this situation, who are unwilling to make the kinds of sacrifices in time and attention that their children need, just so that the family can "have more stuff" or "mom can feel good about herself," can do as they please. But society should not reward their decision.

Equality is not a "pro-family virtue."

Family Research Report critically examines empirical data on families, sexual social policy, AIDS, drug addiction, and homosexuality, digging behind the 'headlines' and breaking new scientific ground.

FRR is published 8 times/year by the Family Research Institute.

Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher

Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor

Subscriptions: $25/yr ($40 foreign)

©2000

Family Research Institute

P.O. Box 62640

Colorado Springs, CO 80962-2640

(303) 681-3113

Return to top

Return to the FAMILY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Web site