More specifically, did the emergence of HIV/AIDS have a net effect of hastening or delaying the onset of greater legal and cultural acceptance of homosexuality?
I’ve heard arguments supporting either view. On one hand, the disease killed off many prominent LGBT intellectuals, political figures, and activists, along with a hefty percentage of an already small population. It’s impossible to tell how many future leaders and other would-be MLKs died in the process. On the other, HIV forced widespread media and federal acknowledgment of the existence of the LGBT community and its plight; and had the effect of rallying the community and sympathizers into increased unity and political action to fight the disease.
This, so much so that the “benefits” are infinitesimal. I knew many of them, and the most tragic were the ones who died before making their mark in the world. People who, if they had lived would be household names . . . but instead, died anonymously.
I read that HIV fears among the general public have taken some toll on lesbian interests even though there’s no association between HIV and lesbianism.
One major drawback is that “gay” and “HIV” are so closely linked in people’s minds. A gay guy dies and people ask if it was aids. Virtually every movie with a gay theme seems to revolve around aids. Yes, it’s a pretty big problem but there really is a lot more to gay life, culture, whatever than HIV.
I doubt there is a factual answer to this, and I have reported this thread for a forum change to GD, where I think a fruitful discussion could better take place.
I don’t think there’s a factual answer for this because if someone hadn’t eaten that stupid monkey’s brain, who knows what would have happened. Perhaps it would have achieved success sooner because so many GBTs (Ls being less susceptible to infection) died so early before they could form their philosophies and schools of thought. On the other hand, without the specter of the disease perhaps there would have been less of a push to recognize the validity of differing orientations since they wouldn’t have the campaigns to receive the right medical care for an illness that was extremely specific in its early days. Interesting to think about, though.
But it is statistically true that a much, much higher percentage of gay men died of AIDS compared to straight men.
"Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM):
By risk group, gay, bisexual, and other MSM of all races remain the population most severely affected by HIV.
•MSM accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections in the U.S. in 2009, as well as nearly half (49%) of people living with HIV in 2008 (the most recent year national prevalence data is available).
•CDC estimates that MSM account for just 2% of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, but accounted for more than 50% of all new HIV infections annually from 2006 to 2009. In 2010, MSM accounted for 61% of HIV diagnoses.
•In 2009, white MSM accounted for the largest number of annual new HIV infections of any group in the U.S. (11,400), followed closely by black MSM (10,800).
•Young, black MSM were the only risk group in the U.S. to experience statistically significant increases in new HIV infections from 2006–2009—from 4,400 new HIV infections in 2006 to 6,500 infections in 2009."
Damn. Tough question, and I’m very surprised that that the early postings here have come down on the “hurt” side.
Yes, there was a gay movement before AIDS, and yes, Harvey Milk and others had touted coming out as the most effective way to fight anti-gay ballot initiatives in the decade before the epidemic. However, before AIDS, homosexuality was still by and large invisible in most American social circles,* and the disease–and the rights of LGBTQ folks in general–could be given short shrift by national leaders without real fear of widespread repercussions. AIDS forced the hand of the LGBTQ community to make its presence known everywhere, not just in the elite circles of major cities. The ACT-UP slogan, “Silence = Death,” was quite literally true. As long as the population as a whole could dismiss homosexuality as a rare abberation, the epidemic could be ignored. The only way to fight AIDS was for a lot of people to come out of the closet and for Jane Taxpayer to realize that she had many LGBTQ friends and coworkers whose lives were worth fighting for. With an epidemic raging, staying in the closet simply was not tenable as a survival strategy for gay men, and lesbians followed suit.
It’s a tough thing for me to say, but I cannot fathom having an openly homosexual US Senator in 2013 without the huge visibility given to the gay community during the AIDS crisis.
*My mother claims to have never known a gay person prior to the 1980s. She is something of a sheltered soul, but she got a degree in theater in the 1960s at a state university. The closet was a pretty big place back then.
AIDS is a disease. A disease that anyone could get.
I would image that when idiots like Jerry Falwell said that AIDS was “God’s punishment” for gay people made a few people realize how ridiculous religion’s view of homosexuality could be.
I think one of the harms HIV did to the gay rights movement is that it led people to say things like this.
They pushed this line pretty hard back in the day. The trouble is that it’s not true. AIDS does discriminate. AIDS is not a disease of everybody.
In America, the groups who are at risk for HIV are:
[ul][li]Men who have sex with men[/li][li]IV drug abusers[/li][li]The sex partners of either of the above[/li][li]Children who acquire the infection before birth[/li][/ul]And, with a very few exceptions, that’s it.
It is extremely rare for a male to acquire HIV thru heterosexual intercourse. Thus the chain of infection from person to person breaks nearly at once.
AIDS in America is now, has always been, and probably will remain, a disease primarily of gay men and IV drug abusers. It does no good (in my opinion) for anyone’s rights to pretend.
<i>It is extremely rare for a male to acquire HIV thru heterosexual intercourse. Thus the chain of infection from person to person breaks nearly at once. </i> Okay, explain AIDS in Africa, please.
I think you’re arguing a point that Annie-Xmas didn’t make. She didn’t say that “AIDS doesn’t discriminate” or “everyone has an equal risk”. She said that anyone can get it, and that is absolutely true. And your saying that “it is not a disease of everybody” is false - it may be lower in women or men who get it from heterosexual contact, but they still can get it.
[quote=Shodan]
In America, the groups who are at risk for HIV are:
[ul][li]Men who have sex with men[/li][li]IV drug abusers[/li][li]The sex partners of either of the above[/li][li]Children who acquire the infection before birth[/ul][/li][/quote]
It’s true that gay and bisexual men make up the majority of new HIV case (61% of new cases in 2009). But heterosexual contact makes up a not insigificant number of new cases. Even you put “sex partners of either of the above” on your list.
Currently there are more people who get HIV from heterosexual contact than from injection drug use. Your statement that it’s “primarily gay men and IV drug abusers”, is only true if you lump those separate groups together. Looking up actual statistics from the CDC, the types of transmission (from highest to lowest) are MSM, followed by heterosexual contact, then injection drug use, then (*much *less frequently) perinatal transmission to children.
Based this CDC site under the section Diagnoses of HIV Infection, by Transmission Category", the number of new HIV cases in the US in 2010 was 47,129 (including adults and children) I’ve totalled the data according to the categories of your list above.
[ul][li]Men who have sex with men - 28,782 (61%)[/li][li]IV drug abusers - 5,209 (11%) (I aggregated the category for injection drug use together with MSM who also inject drugs)[/li][li]The sex partners of either of the above - 12,875 (27%) (I used the numbers for heterosexual contact)[/li][li]Children who acquire the infection before birth - 162 (0.34%)[/li][/ul]So there are approximately 2.5 times more people who acquire HIV from heterosexual contact than from injection drug use. And perinatal infection is quite a small number of new cases (if the mother receives proper treatment during pregnancy, the risk of transmission is actually quite low).
Even if you break the number of “heterosexual contact” cases down into men and women and assume all the men are lying and are secretly gay/bi, there were 8,459 cases of heterosexual transmission to women (17.9% of total cases), which is higher than the number of injection drug users (11%).
