Christian Ethics - Lesson 18

Dr. Ronald Nash

Christian Ethics

et501-18

Homosexuality and AIDS

Lesson Transcript

[00:00:01] The issue of homosexuality and AIDS. And in my opinion, the complexities and the ambiguities that we have encountered should not exist in this case. How do I begin this business of this homosexual business? Well, I guess we're going to begin by looking at what the Bible says on this. And there are. Five major passages of Scripture that relate to the issue of homosexuality. And I include as a sub branch of that, the whole issue of lesbianism. I'm going to I'm going to summarize these. I'm going to identify these biblical passages. I'm going to summarize them. And then we're going to seek the clear meaning, the clear sense of scripture on these issues, on these texts. All right. But then I'm going to tell you what some Christians are doing with these texts. First text Genesis Chapter 19, The Notorious Story of Sodom and Gomorrah, where the men of Sodom came knocking on Lot's door, apparently with the intention of doing homosexual violence to lots to visitors who we know were actually Angel. Now, based on centuries of exposition of this text, what seems clear is that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexuality. However, you must realize that the religious left has not only endorsed certain bizarre positions with regard to the unborn and with regard to Marxism and other issues, as the religious left gains a toehold in some hitherto evangelical institutions like seminaries and colleges. A tolerance towards or a or an implicit support for homosexual practice has also become a part of the religious left's agenda. Some people find it absolutely mind boggling what some representatives of the Christian Left are saying about homosexuality on the campuses of some Christian or evangelical institutions.

[00:03:23] Let me give you the religious left interpretation of Genesis Chapter 19. It was not the homosexuality of the man of Sodom that was the sin for which the Sodomites became were condemned. It was the fact that they wanted to rape these visitors. Had there been consensual homosexual activity between the Sodomites and the angels, then there would have been no sin committed. It was the fact that rape was involved that made that made this entire event reprehensible. Now, I want to suggest to you that if you can twist the Bible in the way in which in the ways in which we're going to see, you can make the Bible teach absolutely anything. All right. Now, as that story progresses, let's let's put the lie to this phony interpretation of Genesis 19, What Locke did as a way of dissuading these men from their horrible evil was offer his daughter as a way for these men to satisfy their particular appetites. It is clear. Oh. Oh, I guess I should add this as well. There's still another interpretation. That's still another interpretation of Genesis 19 that says these men of Sodom were simply being rude. All right. They were. I mean, they were very unkind. There was no sexual activity in their minds at all, You see, of any kind now? No, I'm sorry. The gang rape scenario is unavoidable. The sexual aspect of their intention is unavoidable. Witness Lotte's offering of his own daughters. And listen, that is certainly not recommended behavior. All right? Scripture does not endorse. What stupidity, for obvious by this time lot is is absolutely out to lunch. Morally and mentally. What seems unavoidably. Clear is that the sin of the sodomites, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexual activity, and not just the gang rape aspect of it.

[00:06:02] But let's move on. There's the Genesis 19 passage. Now we come to Leviticus 1822 and Leviticus 2013. I'm lumping these. Let me write these on the board. I'm lumping them together. Now we're going to get into some X-rated matters here eventually. But you can't talk about this stuff without at some point or other getting fairly blunt. Leviticus 1822 says you shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. This text clearly prohibits male homosexual intercourse in Leviticus 20 versus ten through 16. The same act is listed as one of a series of sexual offenses that are punishable by death. It is worth noting that the act of lying with a male as with a woman is categorically proscribed. That is, there is nothing in the act in Leviticus 18 or or Chapter 20 that allows for mitigating circumstances or mitigating motives. Even if even if the Genesis 19 passage is turned, is made problematic on the grounds that this was a gang rape scenario, there is nothing in the Leviticus 18 or 20 passage that would mitigate the circumstances because of good motives. The clear implication of Leviticus is whatever the motive, this kind of activity is abhorrent to God. And the proof of its immorality is seen in in the punishment for the act, which is which is it's a capital crime for Israel. Now, of course, what one can say here is if you're part of the religious left, just quoting a law from Leviticus doesn't settle this Michu issue for New Testament Christians. Have you heard that before? Just because the Old Testament condemns an activity, even makes it a capital crime does not necessarily mean that those of us who are living under New Testament Grace must necessarily agree with that.

[00:08:35] Leviticus text. After all, the argument might be made. There are lots of rules and prohibitions in the Old Testament that no longer apply. And so some left wing ethicists have argued that the prohibition of homosexuality is similarly superseded. For Christians, it is merely a part of the old testament's ritual purity rules and is therefore morally irrelevant today. I don't think we should let people get away with that. However, it is clear that this kind of behavior is linked with other other kinds of offenses for which the church cannot be tolerant. For example, in the same Leviticus text, Leviticus 18 incest is prohibited. Is that a purity law or is that a moral law? It seems to me that the presence of such an act is incest in the same context makes it clear that we're dealing with, well, what the animals would call a standing law, a law that that describes a punishable act in the Old Testament, an act that is is still proscribed for believers today. But now let's let's turn to the New Testament texts. There are three New Testament texts. The first of them is first Corinthians six nine. What Paul does on this chapter is this He's obviously exasperated with the immorality of the Corinthians, some of whom apparently believe that they've entered into a spiritually exalted state in which the moral rules of their own old existence no longer apply to them. So Paul says to them, Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? And he then provides a list of the sorts of wrongdoers that He has in mind. These are actions that are reprehensible to God. Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers. Now, I'm going to skip two Greek words here. Thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revelers and robbers.

[00:11:03] Now, I've skipped two Greek words here because there's a tremendous dispute over what these two Greek words referred to. The first Greek word in first Corinthians six nine is the Greek word Malachi. Anybody have a new international version? How is this translated into male prostitute? Now, let me tell you the background for this word. This is not a technical term. That means homosexual. It is a word that is used in Hellenistic Greek as a slang term to refer to the passive partners, often young boys in homosexual activity. This would be well, as you know, there are lots of slang words that people use to refer to homosexuals today, but this particular term would refer to the passive partner in homosexual activity. There's no question from this word's usage in Hellenistic Greek. What Paul is talking about now here is how the religious left tries to get around this problem, and their ingenuity is absolutely mind boggling. They would say, well, Paul is talking about homosexual prostitution, but the emphasis of the emphasis of Paul in pointing out this evil is not upon the homosexuality part of it. It's on the arts. It's on the prostitution part of it. So, in other words, again, the religious left wants you to think if you're dealing with consensual homosexual acts on enforced people, that is not condemned in the Bible. What is condemned is the doing of this for money, prostitution, and, of course, female male prostitution. That's evil, that's condemned in scripture. Male male prostitution would be equally condemned. But what is not in view here is the homosexual aspect of it. Well, I'm sorry that really what that really won't wash the prostitution part of it is not a part of the slang. And this word Malachi clearly refers to homosexual activity, in this case, the passive partner.

[00:13:45] You cannot you cannot eliminate the clear homosexual reference here by simply chalking this off to prostitution. Now, the next Greek word, how is it translated in the Navy? Homosexual offenders. So the first word, Malachi is translated as male prostitutes, which is a legitimate. It's a translation we can accept as long as we don't allow the homosexual advocate to place the emphasis upon the prostitution part. The second word is our sent a coy tie, which is a word that does not appear in Greek prior to this usage. And first, that's what I understand. This is the first time in any extant Greek text that this word appears. Now, some people have done some research on the background for this new term. And here's what they find that it is. It is a Greek translation of the Hebrew that is used in Leviticus 1822. Remember, Leviticus 1822 refers to a man lying with a male having intercourse with a male. And Robin Scruggs, in his book The New Testament on Homosexuality, has shown how that this is a Greek translation of the Hebrew language there. In fact, if you go back to the Septuagint and read the Greek translation of the Hebrew in Leviticus 1822, that's where you find the words from which this Greek term is derived. So there can be no mistake that this is this is an idea derived from the rabbinic texts to refer to homosexual intercourse. All right. Now, given the unmistakable nature of what Paul is talking about here, there can be no question but that the Lord is condemning this kind of activity. The next text is first Timothy 110, and Paul uses the same term that is translated homosexual. Paul uses the hour Seneca coy tie term in a list of the lawless and this be.

[00:16:20] At whose behavior is specified in a list that includes everything from lying and to murdering one's parents. Under the rubric of actions and so on. Now, that leaves one remaining text, and that's the famous text in Romans chapter one versus 18 through 32, where Paul uses this language and it has no doubt but that he's condemning homosexual behavior in an explicitly theological text. He says, therefore, God, these are versus 24 through 27. Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchange the truth about God for a lie and worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator. Their women exchange natural intercourse for unnatural intercourse, and in the same way also the men giving up natural intercourse with women were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their own error. Now, unless one has a pro homosexual agenda, there is no mistaking what Paul is talking about here. And incidentally, this text is the only text in the whole Bible that condemns lesbian activity as well as homosexual activity. Now, let me tell you what the religious left does with this text. And again, you know, you have to give them an A for ingenuity. The pro homosexual faction in among the religious left wants to say here that all Paul is doing is condemning those naturally straight, those people with a naturally straight or heterosexual orientation who abandon their heterosexual nature for homosexual activity. Those are the people that Paul is condemning in Romans one, people who are homosexuals by inclination, are not in view in Romans chapter one. Now, hold dear. So if by inclination you are heterosexual, I don't mean to personalize this with you as my audience.

[00:18:43] Of course, if my inclination you are heterosexual and you engage in homosexual activity, you're in real trouble with God. All right. You clearly sinned and violated Paul's words in Romans chapter one. But if you're one of these people who was born a homosexual, if it is your nature to be homosexual, if you're homosexual, conduct is consensual. And if we're dealing with consenting adults, then God bless you. I hope nobody at no, I hope nobody turns in this tape in the middle of that last sentence. Listen, people, if you're listening by tape and you just caught the last of this last sentence, please flick back for a few sentences. Okay. We are paraphrasing the argument of the pro homosexual lobby among the religious left. Now, I want to be careful in how I word this. It was once my great misfortune. It was once my great misfortune to have to sit and listen to a set of lectures on the New Testament by a New Testament professor who had become persuaded by these pro homosexual arguments. And the purpose. What was one of the major purposes of that New Testament semester was to persuade students that God wasn't wasn't upset with homosexual activity, that this was a viable lifestyle for people. The New Testament was silent on the morality or the morality of homosexual behavior. And if that was your inclination, go to it. And may God bless your union, however many of them there may be. All right. Because one of the characteristics of this kind of activity is a kind of promiscuous approach to liaisons, which often leads to multiple partners. Does the the religious left here make an appeal to the distinction we made earlier between principles and rules and argue that Paul was dealing only with a set of circumstances that obtained in the first century, for example, temple prostitutes, male homosexual prostitutes or whatever.

[00:21:16] And thus, if we dig below the surface, we will find that. That's the the applicable principle for us today turns out not to be informative with regard to the homosexual issue. I, I cannot see for the life of me how that will how that will help. If if you handle scripture in a responsible way. There is no other conclusion to draw than that this kind of behavior is is a sin. But now, let me also say this, all right? Because it is easily it is easy to be misunderstood here. Paul does not single these sins out as worse necessarily than many other sin. All right. When Paul provides a list of wickedness, wicked deeds, this is included in the list. But Paul doesn't say that this is an unforgivable sin or this is more heinous or more wicked than some of these other things. There are Christians who do, I think, ignore that context and treat this kind of sin as somehow more reprehensible than the other things that Paul talks about. Paul lumps it in with thievery and robbery so that it is a sin and it is a sin that will come under the judgment of God. But it is not necessarily something that is more reprehensible than murder or male female rape, for example. It is a sin. God will deal with it. It is something that Christians will not ignore, but neither will they. Neither will they grant this some kind of exalted position in their category, in their list of sinful deeds. Let me say this about the nature issue, the genetic issue. Homosexuals don't know quite what to do about this genetic issue. All right? They are really they're really caught in a bind over this because on the one hand, they want to be proud of the fact that they have made a choice.

[00:23:38] See, this is their sexual choice. If if it really were the case that their sexual orientation were something over which they had no control. This would this would this would be bad news for many homosexuals that would say, I'm a homosexual and I can't help it. They want to stress the fact that this is something over which they have power. They could they could live a different lifestyle if it were their if it were their choice. On the other hand, see it. Remember, about six months ago, there was there was a claim made. And maybe this was in the issue of Newsweek that you referred to where there was a picture of a baby on the cover. And the cover text said, is this baby a homosexual, that there was something different perceived in the in some part of the brain of homosexuals who had had autopsies performed. And there was something. I'm really reaching here. There was something missing. It's increased. It was a decreased size of certain chromosomes. Yeah. Now, the debate over that issue is very inconclusive because, you see, all of these people were people who died of AIDS. These were autopsies performed on their brains after death. So the question is, was this condition present before or is this a consequence of certain diseases that these people suffered as a result of their lifestyle? I would make this suggestion if if you think that you're going to be up against an individual where you've got to be in touch with the facts on this matter, you want to do some research and you want to have accurate control, some pretty responsible information that you want to feed back. I think you are certainly safe in generalizing and saying that the evidence is inconclusive.

[00:26:03] And I think this is the position that Davis reaches. There is no hard, fast evidence of a genetic cause for homosexual orientation. There is no hard, fast evidence. In fact, it is possible. And Davis gives you the quotations and the sources you would need. It is possible to cite reliable authorities that this is an environmental thing, a conditional thing. It is a response to certain conditions, either in one's childhood. You know, people talk about a domineering mother and a milquetoast father figure, for example. I don't. You want to look at that evidence and you want to be you want to have that stuff at your fingertips for whatever day you might need it. When you when you are dealing with someone who is a homosexual, who says, look, I have no control over it. There is something about my genetic makeup that gives me these temptations. It gives me these tendencies. You're absolutely right. What we need to point out is that all of us are subject to corrupt temptations of one kind or another. It is one thing to have an orientation, whether that orientation is genetic or acquired, and the evidence for that is inconclusive. Which of us can be sure that our own temptations to sin in different ways may not be genetic or may not be acquired, whatever is the case. The the case is what the issue is, what we do with those temptations, what we do with those desires. Do we yield to a desire just because it is there? If all of us did that with whatever desires we are prone to. We'd all be in equally serious trouble with God. The point is not doing something because it's the natural thing to do. The thing is making a conscious moral decision about the morality of this desire and resisting it with the grace of God.

[00:28:20] If it is evil or getting the help that one needs to overcome it. All right. You're quoting a segment on 20, 20, 2020 in which you Downes asks the question at the end of a section on homosexuality. Where do people get the idea that homosexual behavior is wrong? Davis gives you some ammunition. That's that's a question that we should be prepared to answer. And listen it. There is there is no harm in being able to address that question without reference to scripture. All right. There is no harm in being equipped with a totally set of with a set of totally secular answers to that question. And here are here are some here are some of the pieces of ammunition that you should be able to use there that wholly apart from Christian civilizations and Christian cultures. And I don't know whether Davis gives you the data here or whether it's in the in the normal press book. But they're there. One can find an almost universal, a kind of uniform horror and objection to homosexual behavior throughout human culture and throughout human society. Let's take an example of of a culture where the opposition to homosexuality is often thought to be nonexistent. And I mean, here the ancient Greek culture that was inhabited by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Now, if you read Plato carefully, there's no question but that many of the people in Socrates circle were homosexuals. Plato wrote a dialog called the Symposium, in which a group of Socrates friends conduct a stag party. And the reason it's a stag party is because they're going to get they're going to get a fall down drunk and they're going. The homosexual conduct is on the minds of some of the people at that party.

[00:30:38] That particular writing by Plato is sometimes it sometimes appears in bookstores in the dirty book section. Now, I think it's Davis who points out that even though there is a subtle endorsement of homosexuality, or at least what is perceived to be a subtle endorsement of homosexuality, Greek and even though homosexuality was approved in Sparta largely because of its the over the effect that it had upon the militaristic lifestyle of the Spartans. Homosexuality was not an approved lifestyle in ancient Athens. It was regarded as a as a perversion even there. One can also note and here you can get you can get a great deal of help from the Multnomah Press book that is on reserve here, that it's only been until recently that physicians and psychiatrists have begun to tone down their negative portrayal of the homosexual lifestyle. Homosexuality has traditionally been portrayed as a perversion or as a sickness, and it has only been in the last two decades where the medical profession has taken a public stand that has that has, first of all, portrayed homosexual acts as normal, as non sinful. He documents the fact that the the official meetings of the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association, which went on public which went public with a benign attitude towards homosexuality, that the the the the atmosphere in which these decisions were made was a highly politicized atmosphere. There were homosexual groups that were threatening to picket the society. There were homosexual activists who were placed in at the at the lead at the headship of major committees that were making these decisions. So this was hardly a scientific a medically sound ground on which these decisions were made. Rather, decisions like that reflects what I call the public relations issue, which is an issue which I think homosexual homosexual community has largely won while we've been sitting around twiddling their thumbs.

[00:33:25] Homosexual activists have gone out and they have turned their perversion into a civil right, and they have convinced of huge numbers of naive people that their acts are morally benign, that there are there's no difference between a homosexual fixing his lust upon another man. There's no difference between that and someone selecting a blond rather than a brunet. You must be very inattentive to some important differences in order to in order to agree with that opinion. I sometimes speak to faculty. Groups, Christian faculty groups who teach on secular university campuses. And one of the questions that they raise repeatedly is the question how can we as Christians, say what we believe we have to say about homosexuality without opening ourselves up to this homophobic charge, without without being portrayed as people who are insensitive to the civil rights of other people. Now, if you're in that kind of a climate, an academic climate, that's a tough, tough issue. You want to speak out, you feel obliged to speak out. And yet if you do. Not only not only your character will be called in question, but your religious convictions will be you will be made to appear the bigot. You know, when opposition to sin can be viewed as bigotry, we have lost an important battle. And I'm embarrassed to say I don't know what to tell these Christian professors. Once we lost that public relations battle, I don't know how we can recover the high ground, if any of you have any if any of you have encountered arguments or strategies there, please share them with me. All right. We need to be able to deal with sin as sin. And we've reached a point here where we no longer can do it. And hence, let's put this back on the table.

[00:35:50] Hence, it may be important that we carry with us arguments that do not require an introduction of religious principles into the debate. Instead of saying this is sin, maybe we should focus on the unnatural nature of this and how this kind of behavior contributes to the spread of disease and what this kind of behavior does to people psychologically and morally less recognize that there are people who are homosexuals who want deliverance, who know what's wrong, who want to be freed from this, from this chain, who are looking for understanding and help. It is people like this that we do not want to appear insensitive to. It is people like this that we want to show compassion towards. But that kind of person is. And you don't need me to tell you this, that that kind of person is drastically different from the fanatical homosexual or lesbian whom we often see on the evening news cavorting in all kinds of shameless ways in some kind of public parade. I suppose we might distinguish these two kinds of people by calling one the the seeking homosexual and the other one the militant homosexual. Now, a proper attitude towards one must never assume that even the most militant of homosexuals is is lost, is hopeless to the gospel is beyond help. Everyone says to us, we must demonstrate the same kind of love and compassion and concern for that person as we do for the seeking homosexual, as we would for the seeking heterosexual. But it is it is an obvious fact of human nature that it is awfully hard to be very tolerant and compassionate to people who do act like that in a public forum. Now, let's turn from that to the to the AIDS issue.

[00:38:22] First of all, what do these what do these words mean? AIDS and HIV AIDS refers to is a shorthand way of referring to acquired immune Deficiency syndrome. The HIV virus, which is deemed to be the cause of AIDS, is a shorthand way of referring to human immunodeficiency virus immune deficiency. The first case of AIDS was described in June of 1981. Obviously, the AIDS disease and the virus, which presumably causes it, existed before 1981, although it is still disconcerting that we cannot really provide a map, a chronology, a history of the origin of this horrible disease. The reason why it took so long to discover the existence of this disease was because certain things were lacking prior to 1981. Here are some of the conditions that helped complicate the diagnosis of this disease. For one thing, it has a long incubation period that made it difficult to recognize the different people dying from this disease could be connected in some way. It take it can take anywhere between 5 to 10 years for the virus to develop into the full blown disease. And in 5 to 10 years, people who may have been involved in transmitting the disease from one person to another may have moved, may have died of other factors. It's difficult. It was difficult to link them. A second factor that explained how difficult, why it was difficult to identify the disease prior to 1981 was the fact that it manifested itself in different symptoms. There are several dozen different secondary infections and cancers that are a product of the debilitated immune system that AIDS victims possess. And so you could have in the same hospital ward somebody dying from a peculiar kind of pneumonia or capos, these cancer and people, people weren't able yet to link those different infections and those different cancers to the same basic cause.

[00:41:19] A third reason why it was difficult to diagnose AIDS prior to 1981 was the fact that our research capabilities in this regard were so much weaker. We weren't looking for it. We didn't know what to look for. We didn't even know that there was something to look for. And then fourthly, you really weren't going to look for a similar cause until you had many cases with similar symptoms. And you see, prior to 1980, the disease occurred much less frequently across the. You didn't have a concentration of patients in a particular geographic area, all of whom had similar symptoms, so that you were looking for the same cause. Anyway, lots of reasons why the disease existed long before anybody recognized what it was. Now the catch what seem to have turned the tables on our recognition of the disease were early reports that there were a disproportionate number of people in a small number of areas who had two symptoms, two diseases in particular. One of them Kaposi's sarcoma. It's this is that. This is that's a form of cancer that you often see on AIDS victims who appear on television where they have these black spots, these black tumors over their body. Now, Kaposi sarcoma has been around for a long time, but prior to 1980, it was primarily a cancer of older people. Seldom did that disease lead to early death when that particular kind of cancer became apparent. Usually among older patients, doctors recognized that there was nothing they could do, but neither was there any great urgency because these people would live for years, even though they had that kind of cancer. What became different in the late in the early 1980s was younger men were showing up with this cancer and it was killing them.

[00:43:49] It was leading to many more early deaths. The other identifiable infection that helped lead to a diagnosis of the AIDS virus was a distinct form of pneumonia, which again was very rare and which again suddenly began to show up in large concentrations at a particular point in this whole business. Somebody recognized the fact that these patients, the people who had this distinct and previously rare kind of fatal pneumonia and the patients who had this new kind or who were evidencing this, this particular kind of cancer all had certain characteristics in common. They were all homosexual men. And these diseases were were were concentrated in New York City, in Los Angeles, and in San Francisco, for the most part. Once that pattern became clear, it was not hard for somebody to start talking about this as the gay disease. I don't like to use the word gay, incidentally, and I. I use it there only is as a quotation. It was a disease of homosexual males. Now, when this disease first became diagnosed, people who had no social or political ax to grind recognized that the homosexual lifestyle, even though they did not yet know how, they didn't know what this thing was. They gave it a name acquired Immune deficiency syndrome. That was not hard because here were a large group of homosexual males and you could trace their you could trace their connections, their activities, their patterns. In every case, this was a failure of the immune system. This was a failure of the immune system. People in places of responsibility began to look at a particular condition that they felt was contributing to the spread of this disease. And that particular condition included homosexual bathhouses. I don't know why they call them bathhouses, because they really existed for other reasons.

[00:46:37] These were gathering places for homosexuals where they could enter into furtive relationships with strangers and then and and then pass on to other people. What happened. And let me also say this. There was another there was another condition that was existing at the time. The homosexual homosexual practice lends itself to the two other diseases that weaken the immune system. Homosexual practice leads to the easy transmission of other forms of venereal disease and other forms of disease not usually thought of as venereal sexual, but that have the effect of weakening the immune system to begin with. So when you have people whose conduct has weakened their immune system in the first place, and then they contract this particular virus which eventually attacks the immune system, you end up with too many infected people in a closed community and an explosion takes place. And this is what diagnoses of the history of this thing indicate a concentration of disease. People transmitting this disease in one of the few ways in which it apparently can be transmitted easily, all located together. And bang, things explode. What is interesting and what is an interesting piece of information here, and it serves as an obvious indictment of the people who were involved. There was resistance on the part of homosexual communities towards any public disclosure about this disease. From at the very beginning, there was resistance from the homosexual community against any public revelation that this was a disease that was somehow connected with the homosexual lifestyle and in particular to homosexual bathhouses in San Francisco and Los Angeles and New York City. The homosexual communities resisted efforts to close down the bathhouses. Resisted efforts. In fact, there was also an obvious resistance in the early 1980s. And you have to look at the literature to see how truly appalling the behavior of homosexuals was in this regard.

[00:49:23] Any resistance to altering their lifestyle in those early months when it became clear how this disease was transmitted. These people did not modify their behavior. They denied they denied reports. They refused to alter their behavior. They refused to close down the bathhouses until finally they were closed down as a result of public health policy. A result of public health policy. Now, of course, the disease has spread beyond the homosexual population, but as you know, it is still largely a disease of homosexuals, intravenous drug users and transfusion victims. Those are those are the major victim of the AIDS of the AIDS plague. Now, it is interesting, I think, to notice what I regard as the irrational behavior of many people related to transfusion victims. What was the name of this young boy in Indiana? Ryan White, who, of course, did become, in fact, a victim of discrimination. His schoolmates wanted nothing to do with him and became kind of a hero to a lot of people. Ryan White, of course, is dead now, but I find it utterly bizarre that his mother would regard herself as a supporter of homosexual rights when the simple truth of the matter is that her son contracted this disease innocently through blood that had been taken from a contaminated blood supplier. Her son was, in fact, killed through the thoughtless conduct of someone who sold his blood and who who put contaminated blood into the into the bloodstream. Many victims are not innocent victims. They are people who are the victims of people who today knowingly have been involved in activities, including. The transmission of blood that may have led to the death of other people. I in the normal press book, the statistic is given that 90% of severe hemophiliacs today are infected with the HIV virus.

[00:52:09] 90% of severe hemophiliacs and one can hardly hold the homosexual community guiltless for for that fact. Well, today, of course, since the Magic Johnson episode, we have begun to hear all kinds of things about safe sex that if people, whether they are carriers of the HIV virus or not, that if they only practice safe sex, which means use a condom, they can continue to to practice whatever they wish to practice safely. We have reached the point where it is it is, I think, very important that we communicate to young people that there is no such thing as safe sex. This is a linguistic sedative. The idea that a condom will somehow protect anybody from the transmission of this disease is like playing Russian roulette with one bullet instead of two or three bullets in the chamber. In married couples, where one person has had the HIV virus, 10% of the other partner eventually get HIV, even though condoms have been used. Dr. Lorraine Day is a former head of bone surgery at one of the San Francisco hospitals, and she has recently published a book, AIDS. What what your gut, what the government isn't saying. All right. Now, this is not a hysterical layman. This lady was not simply a practicing surgeon in New York City. She was a professor of surgery at one of the teaching hospitals in San Francisco, rather, I said New York City. This is a lady who was an honored and recognized expert in authority in the medical profession, and she claims that there is a great deal which for political purposes, political reasons, our government isn't telling us about AIDS. Here are some examples. She claims that this disease is far more contagious than we are being taught. Now, if you read the normal book and this this is an issue where I disagree with the authors of that book.

[00:54:45] These are two physicians who who adhere to the party line that says it is very difficult to contract the HIV virus. Very difficult. You can't get it through sneezing. They say you can't get it through casual conduct. They say that is the official party line. But Dr. Lorraine Day is persuaded and she offers her evidence in her book that this is not an extremely difficult, contagious disease to contract, that this disease, this virus, lives far longer outside the body, even on dry surfaces, than anyone has has recognized. This is a disease. This is a virus that is so small that it can pass through condoms. This is a disease through plastic. This is a disease. This is a virus that is so small that it does not even need an open floor to gain access to the blood of a victim. She argues in her book that the HIV virus is small enough that it can enter the you. It can enter the body of someone not infected by the disease through the normal pores, through the normal openings in the skin. The political reason why our government is not telling us the truth about AIDS is because of the threat that the truth about this disease would pose to home to the homosexual community. It is. It is public policy today that we must not only hold homosexuals guiltless for their lifestyle. We must also hold them guiltless when it comes to the rapid transmission and spread of this disease throughout the population. Whenever somebody else who is not a homosexual and who is not an intravenous drug user comes down with AIDS, it is never the fault of anybody who is homosexual. It's become a political agenda. Now, we think of this, and I'm sorry that I'm so bad with names, Kimberly, regardless that I get her name right.

[00:57:15] This poor 21 year old girl from Florida who clearly contracted the AIDS virus from her dentist, from a homosexual dentist. This is a very puzzling case because this dentist who knew he had AIDS, wore a mask, followed proper, wore gloves, and yet still somehow managed to pass that virus to this young girl and to five other patients of his. How did that happen? If this disease is so difficult to contract, if this thing if this virus cannot really live that readily outside the human body. Now, let me just say a thing or two about the course of the disease, and we can trace this in the case of Magic Johnson. Once you get once you're once you're diagnosed as having the HIV virus, you do not have AIDS. Yet many years may pass before the presence of the virus in your blood system results in full blown AIDS. The difference is that there will be periods of weakness. I think that faintness that that that are that are synonymous with the onset of the virus. And after that, the patient can feel very good for years until finally there will be signs of greater weakness, less strength. And then you begin to see the on site onset of one of these other diseases. It isn't the AIDS that kills anybody. It is these other diseases which the immune system can no longer resist that result in the killing. It is often pneumonia. It is seldom this Kaposi's sarcoma that kills. It is. It is the combination of various infections which the immune system simply can no longer resist that finally lead to a growing deterioration of the person. And of course, many of us can still see pictures in our mind of Kimberly Burgle as that horrible end to which she came.

[00:59:41] I think we should also see this, that we as Christians have clearly an obligation to minister to people who are victims of this disease. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the onset of this disease leaves many people open to some message of hope, such that people who would not have otherwise paid much attention to the gospel. These are people who know that they're dying. And if you present the gospel to them in a in an effective and compassionate way, you can be of great help to them.