Bryan Fischer
I'm with the gay porn actor: fine gays for unprotected sex
By Bryan Fischer
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
A gay porn actor is way ahead of me, but I'm all caught up now. He wants to fine people who don't use a condom when they have gay sex.
Now he wants to restrict the fine to people in the porn industry, but why stop there? If contracting HIV/AIDS is the threat to human health he says it is, why shouldn't we try to protect everybody?
Derek Burts is an actor in both straight and gay porn films, and shut down the porn industry late last fall when he tested positive for HIV, which he says he almost certainly contracted while filming gay sex scenes.
Now, according to the Los Angeles Times, another sex performer has been diagnosed with HIV, and once again the porn industry has been temporarily shuttered.
Burts and others are now collecting signatures for a ballot initiative sponsored by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation which, if passed by voters in 2012, will require all performers in adult films shot in L.A. to wear condoms during filming, whether the sex is gay or straight. The only standards in place right now are strictly voluntary, and ask performers to be tested every 30 days.
The president of the foundation, one Michael Weinstein, says that not requiring gay porn actors to wear condoms shows "outrageous disregard for the health and safety of performers and the community at large." So he too admits that gay sex is an enormous threat to public health, and that the threat is community-wide. In other words, he's saying that homosexual sex, indeed random sex in general, is not a victimless crime. I couldn't agree more. I feel like I'm listening to myself here.
Adds Weinstein, in words that could have come from one of my columns, "How many performers must become infected with HIV and other serious STDs before the industry will clean up its act and government will do the right thing?" How many, indeed?
I've repeatedly stressed that our best argument against the normalization of homosexuality is the enormous danger it poses to human health. It is so risky to public health that the FDA will not let a male donate blood if he's had sex with another male even one single solitary time since 1977.
And lo and behold, Derek Burts agrees with me on the dangers of gay sex. "It's very dangerous," he says, speaking of filming gay sex scenes in particular. On top of contracting HIV, by the way, he also contracted chlamydia, gonorrhea and herpes while working in the porn industry.
He knows he contracted all these diseases while having sex on camera because the only sex he has outside of work is with his girlfriend. She must feel so special.
He's a walking one-man billboard for abstinence before marriage and fidelity after.
Because of the enormous health risks involved in gay sex, he says, "It should be required that you wear a condom on the set."
According to a spokesman for the Free Speech Coalition, a porn industry trade group, performers who had sex with this most recently infected HIV individual will be notified so they too can get tested. The Coalition will attempt to identify what she called "first- and second- generation partners," by which she means all those who had sex with the person and all those who had sex with anyone who had sex with the infected person. Given that many homosexuals have between 500 and 1000 sexual partners in a lifetime, good luck with that.
It's a reminder that when you have sex with someone, you're not just having sex with them — you're having sex with everyone they've had sex with.
Now if condoms are going to be required in filming gay sex scenes, then there must be some penalty for failing to do so. I was unable to find out exactly what the proposed penalty is, but I'm assuming it's in the nature of a fine.
What I'm suggesting is that we enact ordinances in city after city and laws in state after state that mandate that same exact penalty — whatever penalty gay activists think is appropriate — for unprotected homosexual sex. Hey, if it's good enough for porn stars, it should be good enough for the average gay man on the street.
And if someone wants to extend that same penalty to unmarried straights who have sex, who am I to complain?
Why should we only care about the health of those who get paid $1000 to $2000 for filming a sex scene and not care about the little people who have gay sex in public bathrooms for free?
Of course, this is just the place to begin, but it is a first step in de-normalizing and de-legitimizing homosexual sex. And the beauty here is that we would be following the lead of homosexual activists. We ought to take their advice in the simple interest of human health and out of concern for future possible HIV victims.
So oddly, I find myself in the same corner on this issue as gay porn stars. I'm willing to take their suggestion and apply it not just in L.A. but nationwide and not just for people who get paid to have sex but for every gay sex partner in the land. It's not all we can do, but it's the least we can do.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
August 30, 2011
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
A gay porn actor is way ahead of me, but I'm all caught up now. He wants to fine people who don't use a condom when they have gay sex.
Now he wants to restrict the fine to people in the porn industry, but why stop there? If contracting HIV/AIDS is the threat to human health he says it is, why shouldn't we try to protect everybody?
Derek Burts is an actor in both straight and gay porn films, and shut down the porn industry late last fall when he tested positive for HIV, which he says he almost certainly contracted while filming gay sex scenes.
Now, according to the Los Angeles Times, another sex performer has been diagnosed with HIV, and once again the porn industry has been temporarily shuttered.
Burts and others are now collecting signatures for a ballot initiative sponsored by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation which, if passed by voters in 2012, will require all performers in adult films shot in L.A. to wear condoms during filming, whether the sex is gay or straight. The only standards in place right now are strictly voluntary, and ask performers to be tested every 30 days.
The president of the foundation, one Michael Weinstein, says that not requiring gay porn actors to wear condoms shows "outrageous disregard for the health and safety of performers and the community at large." So he too admits that gay sex is an enormous threat to public health, and that the threat is community-wide. In other words, he's saying that homosexual sex, indeed random sex in general, is not a victimless crime. I couldn't agree more. I feel like I'm listening to myself here.
Adds Weinstein, in words that could have come from one of my columns, "How many performers must become infected with HIV and other serious STDs before the industry will clean up its act and government will do the right thing?" How many, indeed?
I've repeatedly stressed that our best argument against the normalization of homosexuality is the enormous danger it poses to human health. It is so risky to public health that the FDA will not let a male donate blood if he's had sex with another male even one single solitary time since 1977.
And lo and behold, Derek Burts agrees with me on the dangers of gay sex. "It's very dangerous," he says, speaking of filming gay sex scenes in particular. On top of contracting HIV, by the way, he also contracted chlamydia, gonorrhea and herpes while working in the porn industry.
He knows he contracted all these diseases while having sex on camera because the only sex he has outside of work is with his girlfriend. She must feel so special.
He's a walking one-man billboard for abstinence before marriage and fidelity after.
Because of the enormous health risks involved in gay sex, he says, "It should be required that you wear a condom on the set."
According to a spokesman for the Free Speech Coalition, a porn industry trade group, performers who had sex with this most recently infected HIV individual will be notified so they too can get tested. The Coalition will attempt to identify what she called "first- and second- generation partners," by which she means all those who had sex with the person and all those who had sex with anyone who had sex with the infected person. Given that many homosexuals have between 500 and 1000 sexual partners in a lifetime, good luck with that.
It's a reminder that when you have sex with someone, you're not just having sex with them — you're having sex with everyone they've had sex with.
Now if condoms are going to be required in filming gay sex scenes, then there must be some penalty for failing to do so. I was unable to find out exactly what the proposed penalty is, but I'm assuming it's in the nature of a fine.
What I'm suggesting is that we enact ordinances in city after city and laws in state after state that mandate that same exact penalty — whatever penalty gay activists think is appropriate — for unprotected homosexual sex. Hey, if it's good enough for porn stars, it should be good enough for the average gay man on the street.
And if someone wants to extend that same penalty to unmarried straights who have sex, who am I to complain?
Why should we only care about the health of those who get paid $1000 to $2000 for filming a sex scene and not care about the little people who have gay sex in public bathrooms for free?
Of course, this is just the place to begin, but it is a first step in de-normalizing and de-legitimizing homosexual sex. And the beauty here is that we would be following the lead of homosexual activists. We ought to take their advice in the simple interest of human health and out of concern for future possible HIV victims.
So oddly, I find myself in the same corner on this issue as gay porn stars. I'm willing to take their suggestion and apply it not just in L.A. but nationwide and not just for people who get paid to have sex but for every gay sex partner in the land. It's not all we can do, but it's the least we can do.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
