Understanding the “Gay Agenda”: Part 1 – In the Beginning

By design, Ryan White was made the face of AIDS in the 1980s.

By design, Ryan White was made the face of HIV/AIDS in the 1980s.

The following is part 1 of a multi-part series covering some of the history and tactics of the “gay rights” movement.

By the fall of 1987, AIDS was devastating the homosexual community throughout America. The well-documented promiscuity among homosexuals was a breeding ground for what became known as the “gay disease.” Homosexual males at the time comprised more than 95 percent of known cases of AIDS. Deaths of both out and closeted celebrities of HIV-related symptoms were trending in the news. Cover stories about how “Patient Zero,” the infamous and highly promiscuous male flight attendant Gaëtan Dugas, accused of spreading HIV unconscionably, seemed to be the only news at the time. Predictions of a pandemic were voiced through the Center for Disease Control and the World Health Organization.

The truth turned about to be somewhat different. Yes, Africa has been slammed by HIV (not surprising, even within a traditional heterosexual African culture, where anal sex is viewed as a legitimate form of birth control). But America was saved, relatively speaking, from the predicted pandemic. Why? Because HIV always has been primarily a “gay disease” – and there just aren’t that many practicing homosexuals in America (a statement, by the way, known as “The Big Lie” among many homosexual advocates). Yes, needle-using drug addicts have added to those numbers, as have cases of contaminated blood among hemophiliacs. But, by and large, HIV-related illnesses occurred most frequently among homosexuals.

So it was curious in October 1987 that sponsors of the first federal funding bill in the U.S. House of Representatives related to AIDS was titled “The Ryan White Act,” named after a hemophiliac boy who contracted the virus from contaminated blood. Ryan White became the poster child for AIDS in 1987 – not promiscuous homosexual Gaëtan Dugas, but an innocent little boy born with hemophilia. That story played better in Peoria.

The self-deception and public deception surrounding homosexuality in America had begun.

In 1987, the cult of sexual orientation had not yet grabbed hold of the American psyche. Most Americans saw homosexuality as sexual behavior – not “gay,” not sexual feelings or attractions.

At that time and until 1993, I worked for Congressman William E. Dannemeyer, from Orange County, California, who was then the ranking minority member of the Health and Environment Subcommittee of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. That subcommittee’s chairman was Democrat Henry Waxman from Hollywood, California. These two icons of the right and left, respectively, represented two entirely opposite paradigms regarding AIDS, homosexuality and the sexual revolution generally. Waxman viewed homosexuality as natural, normal and healthy and AIDS as simply a tragic aberration of that “healthy” lifestyle that unfortunately affected his constituents more than other Americans. Dannemeyer, on the other hand, viewed homosexuality as immoral, even sinful, but mostly as a chosen behavior which, in the age of AIDS, proved to be a very unfortunate choice for many homosexual males. The former saw AIDS as a political issue, while the latter saw AIDS as a public health issue.

In making his case to his congressional colleagues and to the American people, Dannemeyer was frustrated by a very real conundrum: Homosexuality is aberrant sexual behavior, not “gay” in any way, shape or form, but how do you make that point to otherwise uneducated (even uncaring) colleagues without exposing them to the disturbing reality of that behavior? Massachusetts Congressman Gerry Studds had recently been reprimanded by his House colleagues for having sexual relations with a male page – but that incident was essentially the only exposure that congressmen had had to homosexuality (Barney Frank’s peccadilloes weren’t an issue yet), and even that was unwanted attention.

In the spirit of Justice Potter Stewart’s famous comment about pornography (“I know it when I see it”), Dannemeyer rolled the dice.

On June 29, 1989, Dannemeyer entered into the Congressional Record a lengthy explanation of the deceitful politics of AIDS at the time, including a graphic recounting of clinical and medical research on the homosexual lifestyle and behavior (in a sub-heading titled “What Homosexuals Do”).

I know this firsthand – I wrote the entire piece.

It caused a firestorm of controversy and even motivated one congressman, a Democrat, to file a complaint with the House Ethics Committee against Dannemeyer charging that the remarks should be expunged from the pages of the Congressional Record (and Dannemeyer reprimanded) because the remarks were obscene. Dannemeyer was told by House staff that that day’s edition of the Record was the most requested issue in congressional memory at the time – it was “sold out.”

But rather than seeing this as educational, as Dannemeyer had hoped, his colleagues quietly shunned the approach. Sharing even clinical and medical details about homosexual behavior became taboo. The door was left wide open for Waxman and homosexual advocates to cloak the truth about homosexuality and create public relations images about something called “gay” – and a deadly virus became the new public messenger of changing attitudes about sexual health and morality.

(Next: The “Gay Agenda”: Part 2 – the game plan for all the world to read)

This entry was posted in Culture, Family, Gay Rights. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Bill Keshlear

    Paul, I am sure your readers would appreciate it if you’d post or link to Rep. Dannemeyer’s “medical and clinical” entry into the Congressional Record. For educational and historical reasons, of course.

  • Name

    Excerpt from “What Homosexuals Do”:

    “Activities peculiar to homosexuality include: Rimming, or one man using his tongue to lick the rectum of another man; golden showers, having one man or men urinate on another man or men; fisting or handballing, which has one man insert his hand and/or part of his arm into another man’s rectum; and using what are euphemistically termed ‘toys’ such as one man inserting dildoes, certain vegetables, or lightbulbs up another man’s rectum.”

    • Name

      I guess teabagging hadn’t been invented yet when this was read into the congressional record.

      • Paul Mero

        Given their sexual histories, I’m sure the practice existed extensively. It took modern voices to give it a name.

    • GrandeurInThisView

      These activities are not inherent to homosexuality, nor are they exclusive to it. Plenty of homosexual people do not engage in these sexual practices. And plenty of heterosexuals engage in these and other activities that you might find extremely unappealing. How on earth is this relevant to anything regarding marriage and civil rights?

  • Adison

    Below is a picture of a Buddhist Monk Burning himself to death in protest and it can be disturbing. Do not click the see more button if you are not comfortable with this image. Monks did not make up the entire population of Buddhism in South Vietnam at the time but this act was photographed and the photo helped significantly to change attitudes in that nation and abroad. Helping to eventually bring political change. The Ryan White Act asked for funding to improve availability of care for low-income, uninsured and under-insured victims of AIDS and their families .http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-104/pdf/STATUTE-104-Pg576.pdf Ryan White, like a Buddhist monk is not a typical Buddhist, might not have been the typical AIDS patient but he did become the face of giving support to victims of AIDS. These are people who were not intent on contracting HIV and just like any STD it is sad that some did. The very fact that he is the face of AIDS research proves that it was and is necessary for someone to be righteous to deserve our help. It is true that some aspects of sex especially some kinds of gay sex can much more easily transmit HIV. Education on the subject and about protection would probably have been appreciated by many of those who contracted it. Interestingly the focus of Congressman Dannemeyer was somewhat on education as he was trying to promote legislation that would cut off federal funding to art that portrays acts of homosexuality. At times education has been focused solely on the “immoral” aspects of homosexuality. The Congressman pointed to some of the acts of sex that would make someone uncomfortable who may not know a lot about sex. He hoped to show the legislature what things could end up in art. As if to say Homosexuality is based entirely in these things and seeing them will cause our children to do these things. Now I do not view the things listed in the comments and in the actual presentation to be offensive to me but if you do please consider this, If God were to judge humanity as a whole for the actions of some we would all be condemned. If God were to judge Christianity as a whole for the actions of some believers, Christians would be condemned. Understand that “you know it when you see it” can be very personal and art also should be examined at that level not at a legislative level for its value.

    • Paul Mero

      That’s a very interesting revisionist construct.

  • Sky Harrison

    Compared to what our heterosexual couple neighbors do in the bedroom, my sex life seems rather vanilla.

  • Pingback: cash loans

  • Pingback: direct payday loans alberta lender

  • Pingback: drugrehabcentershotline.com addiction treatment services