fischer“No, I didn’t mean imprison gays, I just meant make it illegal to be gay!”

Before getting to his clarification, let’s back up to his original statement:

If you believe that what drug abusers need is to go into an effective detox program, then we should likewise put active homosexuals through an effective reparative therapy program.

Aside from the fact that a “effective reparative therapy” is on the same level as faked moon landings and unicorns as regards its connection to reality, forced reparative therapy can reasonably be interpreted as imprisonment.

But here’s his weird clarification, along with my response:

I nowhere in my blog said we should lock homosexuals up in prison. What I said is that our public policy toward homosexual conduct should be the same as our public policy toward intravenous drug abuse.

My position is that homosexual behavior represents a severe threat to public health, and is even more dangerous to human health than intravenous drug abuse. Because of the health risks involved, curtailing homosexual behavior should be as much a public policy concern as curtailing intravenous drug abuse.

Well, you’re wrong about “homosexual behavior represent[ing] a severe threat to public health,” Bryan. Unprotected sex with multiple partners is a threat to public health. Your opinion is not valid, as it is not backed by adults with facts. That said, lesbians’ incidence of sexually transmitted disease are far lower than heterosexuals, so I guess Bryan’s not talking about lesbians. (They never are, because straight Christian men’s neurosis about homosexuality usually stems from their own masculinity issues.)

The Food and Drug Administration is hardly a part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, and is not the research arm of the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, or Focus on the Family. Yet the FDA will not allow a male to donate blood if he has had sex with another male even one single solitary time since 1977.

That is true. It is also an antiquated, misguided policy.

The FDA states quite explicitly that “male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.”

“Associated with” is not the same thing as “the cause of.” The FDA is merely stating that HIV has been particularly hard on the gay community. They are not saying that gay male sex causes AIDS. Words are hard, I know.

And further cementing my argument, the FDA will not allow “intravenous drug abusers” to donate blood either, for exactly the same reason: “Intravenous drug abusers are excluded from giving blood because they have prevalence rates of HIV, HBV, HCV and HTLV that are much higher than the general population.”

Yes, and again, you’re not making an argument against all gays. You’re making an argument against gay men, Bryan, who have promiscuous unprotected sex.

I argue that my position, since it is identical with the FDA’, is no more “discriminatory” than theirs.

Yeah, but the FDA isn’t calling for gays to be put into forced reparative therapy (because they’re adults), and you are, so you’re a biased bigot, Bryan.

Bryan Fischer spends several more wordy paragraphs quoting CDC and FDA statistics in order to deflect attention from his original words and in order to obscure the facts further, because let’s face it, his audience isn’t smart. Then he “sums it up” with these words:

The neutral observer must conclude that homosexual behavior is extremely risky, dangerous and unhealthy, and represents an even greater risk to public health than intravenous drug abuse. This is highlighted by the fact that male homosexuals comprise perhaps 2-4% of the American population.

No, Bryan. A neutral observer who also happens to be a bigot might conclude that, but not a neutral observer with the ability to read and more than a passing familiarity with reality.

It is obvious, then, from the information gained from the FDA and the CDC that homosexual behavior represents and enormous threat to public health. Quite simply, if intravenous drug use is against the law, homosexual behavior should be too. It’ a simple matter of common sense, sound public policy, and a concern for public health.

Again, no. See above.

Now once we have agreed that we have a serious health problem on our hands here, the best public policy will contain the same kind of sanctions toward homosexual behavior that we have established toward intravenous drug abuse. Whatever we think we should do to curtail injection drug use are the same sorts of things we should pursue to curtail homosexual conduct. And that’s the place for the discussion to begin.

Shhhhh, Bryan. There’s no place at the table for intellectually challenged liars. The grown-ups will continue to handle this.

The place for the discussion to continue, as it’s already been happening for years, is at the baseline that any kind of unprotected sex with a partner you don’t know well can be risky, heterosexual or homosexual, and that the best way to handle this is by making sure people have adequate access to affordable healthcare, adequate access to information on how to prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, and adequate access to condoms, so that when people make their sexual choices, they will be armed to the hilt, so to speak, in the fight against STDS.

There is no place in the discussion for moralistic, bigoted scolds who think they have a right to set up camp in our pants and read Bible verses.

So what kind of cute clarification are we going to get from Peter Sprigg?

(h/t Kyle at Right Wing Watch)