Partner reduction and the prevention of HIV/AIDS
BMJ 2004; 328 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7444.848 (Published 08 April 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;328:848All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Having heard it before, I find the attitude of this pastor
unsurprising, but the consequences of his using HIV to grind this
particular axe need to be spelled out and challenged. It is to the shame
of many in the Christian churches that their disregard for gay men
continues to stoke the HIV epidemic. Make no doubt about it, Christians'
condemnation of homosexuality is driving HIV infections, both among gay
men and among the women they have sex with to avoid the wrath of people
such as this pastor and his congregation.
Many Christians they have expressly championed policies which
encourage multiple sexual partnerships among gay men (eg. chanting
'abomination' and other insults, exclusion from marriage, practising and
encouraging employment discrimination, denial of pastoral care, etc.
etc.).
On one hand members of the Christian churches recognise and laud the
benefits of marriage to health and well-being, and with the other hand
deny those benfits to gay men. They then condemn gay men for being
promiscous. It is a self-fullfilling prophecy.
Many Christians encourage: parents to throw their gay sons out of the
family home; siblings and other relatives to shun and withdraw support
from their gay family members; churches to deny gay men spirtual succor
and to deny and belittle their relationships; governments to deny gay men
their civil rights; courts to take away gay men's children; employers to
turn gay men out of their jobs; and last but not least, many gay men to
hate themselves and some to kill themselves.
Given that (due to many Christians) gay men are excluded from and
denied most of the significant relationsips heterosexuals take for
granted, is it any surprise that gay men invest so much in their sexual
relationships with one another.
There remains many questions to answer but perhaps this is the most
pressing: given that Christian sexism has created most of the social
exclusion that leaves people vulnerable to HIV, how much longer can some
Christians continue to place their sexism above people's lives? Has there
been a study to prove or disprove this proposition?
Competing interests:
I am a Senior Research Fellow (Sexual Health), with 20 years experience of gay men. I am opposed to bigotry and religous malpractice.
Competing interests: No competing interests
I find the result of this study quite remarkable in view of the
arguments some of us in the Christian church have been making for many
years, but been made to feel inadequate intellectual pygmies by the medico
-scientific world for making. It is to the shame of political parties in
this country that they have encouraged sexual education in ways that does
nothing to discourage multi-partnerships in realtionships.
However, there remains one question to answer that is politically an
enormous hot potatoe, and it is this: given that it has been multi-partner
practice that has contributed most to the spread of HIV/AIDS, what has
been the contribution to this by homosexual practice given that multi-
partnerships between homosexuals are more common than between those of
heterosexuals? Has there been a study to prove or disprove this
proposition?
Competing interests:
I am a Christian pastor, with 28 years experience of pastoral care. I am opposed to homosexual practice, and to heterosexual malpractice.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Beware the moral universe
Although Ford Hickson vividly and passionately articulates some very
valid points about the socially marginalised status of gay men in modern
society, however, it is hard to believe his core sentiment that this
unenviable situation is an effect that somehow flows [even in part] from
the specific cause he wishes to nail: “Christians' condemnation of
homosexuality,” [1] “denial of pastoral care,” and that some “churches
deny gay men spiritual succour.” [1] He also uses exaggerated arguments
which are unlikely to be true or only tangential to his main point.
Hickson further claims that Churches use “HIV to grind this
particular axe,” [1] that “many Christians encourage: parents to throw
their gay sons out of the family home,” [1] and that “the Christian
churches…disregard for gay men continues to stoke the HIV epidemic."[1]
Why pick on Christians? Christianity cannot any longer be seriously
regarded as the main shaper of social mores; certainly not in most parts
of Europe. Nowadays, these flow from secular causes.
The problem therefore with Hickson's viewpoint is that the social
exclusion of gays—very real and painful though it is—does not flow from
the 'cause' he has identified and which he repudiates with such passion;
it flows from the social repulsion accorded by the human herd to any
individual who deviates from the core social norms—slowly evolving in any
case though those norms are.
Obviously, this category of 'deviants’ from the social norms
variously includes the disabled, blacks, Hispanics, Arabs, Asians, the
malformed, the elderly, the poor, the obese, anorexics, prostitutes, and
even the sick—as well as gays and lesbians. Therefore, by venting his
spleen so specifically on Christians, he spoils his own argument by
directing his verbal missiles at the wrong target and resting his argument
upon a single [false] premise.
In any case, as the influence of religion declines even further and
with an increasing familiarity, which breeds acceptance, the 'good news'
is that progressive societies are becoming increasingly tolerant of gays
and lesbians. This is seemingly a natural process parallel to the
increased acceptability of black people in white societies, women having
careers as well as babies, the disabled, etc, etc. There are even laws
discouraging discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual
orientation. As the future years pass, doubtless exclusion will turn into
inclusion, as folks realise that ultimately we are all human and part of
the same big family, regardless of how diverse we are.
However, somewhat tangentially, Hickson also raises another glaring
issue, that of the moral universe that religious people all subscribe to
and which, seemingly, some gay men would like also to believe in. That at
least is the implication of his claim that the “churches deny gay men
spiritual succour.” [1] Why do they want spiritual succour?
The moral universe of course might prove to be rather thin ice for
certain people to go a-skating on. It always contains dos and don'ts and
rights and wrongs. How does that impact upon gay people? Well, some years
ago the then England Football coach, Glenn Hoddle [b. 1957], stirred up
great public consternation by claiming that disabled people were paying
the price of their bad karma: In February 1999, “he was sacked from the
England job following controversial remarks about disabled people…'you and
I have been physically given two hands and two legs and half-decent
brains. Some people have not been born like that for a reason. The karma
is working from another lifetime. I have nothing to hide about that. It is
not only people with disabilities. What you sow you reap.” [2] Pretty
heavy stuff.
In a recent interview [3], the Dalai Lama [b. 1935] defended an
essentially similar view, when he “suggested that Tibetans are being
punished for their "bad karma." Can this be true, Your Holiness? "Yes. Of
course. We are punished for feudalism. Every event is due to one's karma."
So, are disabled children being punished for sins in a past life? "Oh yes.
Of course." Suddenly, one of his entourage—dormant until now—leaps up and
speaks quickly to the Dalai Lama in Tibetan. This is for Buddhists! Only
for Buddhists!” [3] Well, Buddhists, and Glenn Hoddle.
These are modern examples of belief in a moral universe. In the case
of Christians, some believe that sin is wrong and leads to negative
effects in one’s life; that HIV+ gay men are picking up the price tag for
their 'immoral' lifestyle. In distant ages Leprosy, Plague and Syphilis
were all ascribed to God’s wrathful punishment for immorality, most
especially sexual promiscuity. Such is still the view today from certain
quarters.
Even though I am sure that the vast majority of Christians are just
good, decent people who want to lead decent lives and to see the best for
their families, yet they also believe there is more to life than what we
see around us—matter and molecules. The same applies to Buddhists, Hindus,
Jews, Sikhs, Jains and Moslems; even pantheists and New Agers believe in
some form of 'spirit.' All religious people want to believe in more than a
material universe—rightly or wrongly—and should not be condemned per se
for that.
However, people who also want to buy into a spiritual slant on life
should be cautioned about the somewhat judgmental stuff that comes with
that territory, that belief in a moral universe and practising religion
brings duties as well as privileges. Gays might find their interest in
religion soon backfire when they find that certain things are regarded as
bad and others as good in the moral universe of which they wish to become
a part. Perhaps Ford Hickson might feel tempted to comment further on the
points I have tried to make.
Sources
[1] Ford C I Hickson, Re: Re: Mentioning the Unmentionable! 15 July
2004
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7444/848#67248
[2] Andrew Anthony, Blind Faith, Observer, Sunday October 5, 2003
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/story/0,6903,1053332,00.html
[3] Johann Hari, The Dalai Lama: A life less Ordinary, The
Independent, 7 June 2004
http://www.independent-
media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=7628&fcategory_desc=Philosophy
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests