Molly Hamilton

Dorothea Hackett

AP Language & Composition

5 May 2021
The Oppressive Cycle of Homophobia and AIDS

Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is a chronic disease transmitted through the

exchange of some bodily fluids such as semen, vaginal fluid, and infected blood, but not spit,

urine, or sweat. The pathogen attacks the body’s immune system and eventually develops into

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) once cell counts dip beneath a certain level.

Sources tend to vary on the origin of the disease pathogen, but American health professionals

began to recognize an epidemic sometime between the late 1970s and early 1980s. Homophobia,

which was typical of the ‘80s and ‘90s and allowed for the marginalization of Black American

communities, brought about the poor initial response to the American AIDS epidemic. More

recent trends and policy changes, however, indicate an improved response.

Recent trends also indicate increasing support for homosexuality, but the beginning of the

HIV epidemic saw a rise in anti-homosexuality sentiments—homophobia. Homophobia, rather

than being the fear of sameness as the roots of the word suggest, is a hatred of individuals who

identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. Homophobia can be expressed both at a

personal and at a state level, the latter often occurring through the passage of criminalization and

punitive laws. The Supreme Court case Bowers v. Hardwick of 1986 allowed for the

criminalization of private and consensual sodomy between two adults after two homosexual

adult men were arrested on sodomy charges. These laws targeted homosexuals by defining

sodomy as felonious as sodomy is the act of anal or oral sex, leaving only heterosexual sex legal.

The argument in favor of Georgia was, “Georgia’s statute…further[s] individual mental health or

1
the public health” (Supreme Court of the United States). For a time, homosexuality was

“...defined…as a mental illness, a neurosis, a sign of arrested or warped development…” by

more than one American psychiatric establishment, which has little to no scientific backing,

making Georgia’s argument null (Wickberg). The ruling illustrates the homophobia, both federal

and state-wide, of the mid-1980s, during the peak of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

The peak of homophobia and the HIV/AIDS epidemic are closely linked. Much of the

epidemic was blamed on men who have sex with men (MSM) due to the disproportionate

amount of infections and transmissions of the pathogen among the community. Reportedly,

“Nearly half of all people living with HIV…were men who have sex with men…” (Moore).

Considering the sheer number of transmissions and the rates among homosexual men, the

epidemic was associated with this community specifically. Because of the pre-existing stigma

surrounding the gay community as well as the governmental silence concerning the epidemic, the

general public and media sources sensationalized the epidemic itself and placed blame and

responsibility upon the community. Newspapers ran “headlines such as ‘Alert Over Gay

Plague’…[which] demonized the LGBT community” (“Homophobia and HIV”). On television,

the general public saw the “…conventional wisdom: AIDS was a sexually-transmitted viral

disease primarily afflicting gay men…other outlets went to town with ‘gay plague’…and

conspiracy stories focusing on the spread of the virus by…rogue gays, and sneaky bisexuals”

(Treichler). In light of the governmental silence, official education about the virus was little to

none among the average population, which allowed for the spread of this flaming propaganda.

With the spread of such propaganda, the title ‘gay plague’ placed the blame wholly on gay men

and prevented many advancements in medical technology to combat the epidemic—“While

infectious disease experts generally believed that most STDs behave in similar ways, other

2
scientists gravitated toward the notion that this was a uniquely weird gay-men-only disease”

(Treichler). Considering that there is no scientific backing to this belief that a disease might

affect only one demographic based on sexuality, this conclusion was drawn in order to blame

men how have sex with men for the deaths, sickness, and panic despite the evidence that other

demographisc were also impacted. The finger-pointing by even the scientific and medical circles,

in light of the lack of education coming from official sources, increased homophobic attitudes

and prevented other groups from potentially receiving diagnoses and treatments.

Among these groups not receiving treatment or diagnoses were the Black American

communities. While the response to even white gay men was subpar at best, which will be

discussed in depth later, little or nothing was being done to curb the infection rates in Black

communities despite the fact that these communities are among those with the highest infection

rates during the initial epidemic. Some sources even recognize that this fact was well-known: “A

simple inventory of those first afflicted with the unnamed syndrome [AIDS] yielded the so-called

4-H Club of risk groups in the U.S.—homosexuals, hemophiliacs, heroin users, and Haitians”

(Treichler). Still, despite being seen as a risk group, Black Americans were more likely to suffer

from undiagnosed infections when compared to White Americans, as mentioned in Moore’s

Epidemiology of HIV Infection in the United States Implications for Linkage to Care. “[White

people] had the lowest percentage of undiagnosed infections (18.8%),” Moore notes, “compared

with…[Black people] (22.2%)…” The above assertion that this was a “gay-men-only” disease

allowed for the ignorance of these Black Americans due to the focus on White men who have

sex with men. The boom of cases among this demographic focused the blame and attention there

rather than on other minority groups despite the fact that “…some researchers had identified

cases of HIV among groups of predominantly Black…intravenous drug users in New York as

3
early as the mid-1970s” (Airhihenbuwa). Even early in the epidemic and as cases peaked in the

1980s and ‘90s, more attention went toward White MSM than any other group because of the

sensationalization of the epidemic and the association of the disease with gay men.

With the association of gay men with HIV/AIDS came also the internalized homophobia

within the Black American community. Studies have noted that, “Black churches have played a

pivotal and unique role within Black culture…(CDC) statistics, four out of five [Black people]

belong to a faith tradition and survey results revealed 97% of Black people claim a religious

affiliation…” (Durell). Much of homophobia is based on religion and religious scriptures. In the

Bible alone, there are a number of passages in which the meanings are debated between relating

to anti-homosexual sentiments and various other possible messages. Studies conducted within

Durell’s piece Race, Gender Expectations, and Homophobia: A Quantitative Exploration

provided evidence that Black communities tend toward higher mean scores of homophobia, most

likely due to the connection and importance of religion within Black culture. In fact, the authors

note that there is an “…implicit agreement that gay or bisexual Black men [do] not disclose or

display his sexual orientation…” (Durell). Considering the fact that miseducation and

misinformation led the general population to believe that HIV/AIDS was a disease affecting only

gay men, even heterosexual Black men, let alone homosexual and bisexual Black men, were not

apt to be tested for HIV/AIDS. Other sources also note, “…many believe that this infection is a

punishment…”—punishment as in a punishment for homosexuality and its supposed and debated

condemnation by numerous religious scriptures (Watkins-Hayes). Due to the importance and

dependence on religion within the Black community and the association of the disease with gay

men, a positive HIV or AIDS diagnosis would have caused rejection and ostracization from the

Black community. Therefore, many Black men, despite not avoiding risky sexual behaviors such

4
as unprotected sexual intercourse with numerous partners, did not get tested, which explains the

earlier statistic about late diagnosis rates between Black and White men. Because of the lack of

initial diagnoses caused by homophobia within Black populations, the afflicted communities

lacked education and treatment as well as funding for the AIDS response when the government

did begin to output funding.

Years into the epidemic, Congress finally did begin to output funding, focusing mainly on

the gay community due to its vocalness on the issue. Still, this output started only after nearly

half a decade of governmental silence and the response was reluctant even then. The epidemic is

officially dated as beginning on June 5, 1981. On this day, the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality

Weekly Reports (MMWR) published an issue containing a report from Los Angeles, California in

which a death considered to be HIV/AIDS-related occurred. At this point, the Reagan

Administration had control of the Executive Branch of government while the Republican party

held the majority in the Senate. Historically, the conservative party tends toward

anti-homosexual sentiments, and the response to AIDS, governmentally, demonstrates this.

Reportedly, “…Ronald Reagan had cut budgets at the NIH [National Institutes of Health] and

CDC [Centers for Disease Control]…the administration blocked congressional appropriations for

AIDS-related programmes and impeded the CDC’s attempts to mount prevention campaigns”

(Padamsee). The hinderance upon CDC prevention campaigns allowed for the spread of

misinformation that heightened homophobic attitudes, as discussed earlier, and only served to

prolong the epidemic. With the intertwining beliefs that AIDS was a punishment and that it

impacted only gay men, the government turned a blind eye and allowed for thousands of people

to die or become infected before education became more mainstream.

5
 Even as education became more mainstream, much of it was censored or not reaching the

target audiences due to this censorship. Toward the end of 1985, almost five years after the initial

outbreak of the epidemic, President Ronald Reagan publicly acknowledged the existence of

HIV/AIDS following the death of actor Rock Hudson due to complications caused by AIDS.

Despite this acknowledgement, his administration

continued to push for more budget cuts and impede

education and preventative measures. In the late

1980s, these same social conservatives that elected

and supported Reagan during his presidency

demanded and won the passage of the 1987 Helms

Amendment. The Helms Amendment “…required

federally-funded programmes to emphasize

abstinence and barred them from materials thought to

‘promote or encourage, directly or indirectly,

homosexual activities’” (Padamsee). This meant that most education targeted groups that were

not at risk: heterosexual people, those who did not engage in risky sexual behavior, and children.

The above poster is an example of an advertisement against AIDS under the Helms Amendment

as the poster was released in 1987 by the AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts (Seidman).

The poster advocates for action against AIDS but does not picture men who have sex with men

despite the previous association of the epidemic with this demographic. Men who have sex with

men were often seen as dirty for engaging in consensual sexual activity, hence the

aforementioned belief of AIDS being a punishment, which led to them not being pictured in such

advertisements as that which is pictured and discussed above.

6
 The exclusion of homosexual men persisted through the remainder of Reagan’s

presidency and changed into a more proactive approach in the mid-1990s. One might argue that

prior to this point, the government lacked the resources to respond more effectively than it had

during the Reagan administration, but even in George H.W. Bush’s presidency, still notably not

vocal in the fight against AIDS but less obstructive in the response than the previous

administration had been, Congress passed the Ryan White CARE Act. The CARE Act aimed to

better insure those with AIDS due to the high costs of treatment and care, covering the gaps left

by Medicaid and private insurance made previously to its passage. Similar acts had been

proposed to Congress and failed during the mid-1980s, at a time when the Senate was

Republican-leaning. During the tail-end of the 80s and through to the mid-90s, however, both

houses of Congress were of a Democrat majority, and the CARE Act was approved and passed

into law. This was the AIDS response legacy of the H.W. Bush administration; quiet but more

involved than the previous presidency had been. Still, during the Clinton administration, the

federal AIDS response finally picked up speed: “…from 1995 to 2001 Clinton oversaw yearly

increases of between 9.7 and 15.5 per cent in federal spending on HIV/AIDS, for a total increase

of 73 per cent, or $4.87 billion…” (Padamsee). He also revised the CARE Act in order to now

include pregnant women in testing guidelines, thus disassociating the epidemic with gay men,

and Clinton approved numerous measures to prevent HIV-positive individuals from going

without treatment or insurance, including “The Early Treatment of HIV Act (ETHA)…[which]

would have extended Medicare categorically to all people living with HIV. The Clinton

Administration…backed ETHA…but Republican control of Congress made it impossible to

pass” (Padamsee). The legislation, developed and proposed in the late 90s, would have aided

7
those with HIV in maintaining expensive treatments of various drugs which had previously

proven to decrease death rates even in those close to death prior to the beginning of treatment.

Even as death rates declined during Clinton’s administration, following his funding for

HIV/AIDS and individuals diagnosed with such, George W. Bush’s presidency proved to be a

major backslide in policy. Bush reinstated the previously defunded abstinence-only programs

“…in direct opposition to recommendations by the Surgeon General and despite objections that

the strategy had never been proven effective…” due to the precedents that outlined conservative

thinking on AIDS such as condemnatory attitudes toward homosexuality (Padamsee). Once

again, numerous federally-funded organizations were being audited and accused of sexual

provocativity and evilness by many conservatives within the federal government and once again

enforced the Helms Amendment, forcing the CDC to once again tighten preventative education

guidelines. Once again on the other side of this conservative method of responding to the

epidemic, Barack Obama’s presidency marked another upswing in policy and trends relating to

the epidemic. In the beginning of his presidency, to combat the limited education offered during

the Helms Amendment and Bush’s administration, “…[President Obama] and Congress

increased overall expenditures on sex education by nearly $190 million but slashed funding for

abstinence-only programmes by two-thirds…” (Padamsee). The reinstatement of education

concerning safe sex practices including condoms aligns with “the latest data [that] indicate

declines in…the number of annual new diagnoses…” and prove that such prevention measures

put into place during the early 2000s of Obama’s presidency do work in preventing transmission

and decreasing infection rates (“Black Americans and HIV/AIDS: The Basics”). The fact that

these measures were put into a push-and-pull during the four executive administrations between

1985 and 2016 shows that the federal government was capable of a more effective response but

8
chose to put lives at risk due to conservative attitudes. This extends also to the lack of funding

for Black communities. Between the years of 1999 and 2002, hundreds of millions of dollars

were allocated by the Minority HIV/AIDS Initiative (MAI), and subsequently, trends among

Black communities changed drastically. Unlike before these allocated funds, “…20% of [Black

people] were tested for HIV late…by comparison, 22% of [White people]…were tested late”

(“Black Americans and HIV/AIDS: The Basics”). Earlier statistics marked Black people as more

likely to be tested late, but in 2014, about 76% of Black adults reported having ever been tested

for HIV, meaning that testing and diagnoses are more available within Black communities

following the increased funding and rising acceptance of the homosexual community.

Despite the acceptance of these communities as of late, the homosexual and Black

communities were once oppressed and ignored. During the 1980s and ‘90s, homophobic

sentiments were on the rise in light of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and such sentiments both

marginalized the Black community and prolonged the epidemic. The association of the disease

with gay men made other demographics both hesitant to get tested and unable to get a diagnosis,

which allowed for the incredibly high transmission rates and stigma against gay men at the same

time, thus creating an oppressive cycle of infection and ignorance. Over the course of the initial

outbreak, many people died due to this cycle of oppression created by governmental silence on

the issue, but recent budgets have proven that those deaths could have been prevented or delayed

had these demographics not been so hated.

9
 Works Cited

Airhihenbuwa, Collins O., et al. “HIV/AIDS and the African-American Community: Disparities

of Policy and Identity.” Phylon, vol. 50, no. 1/2, 2002, pp. 23–46. JSTOR,

[Link]/10.2307/4150000.

“Black Americans and HIV/AIDS: The Basics.” KFF, 28 July 2020,

[Link]/hivaids/fact-sheet/black-americans-and-hivaids-the-basics/.

Durell, Megan, et al. “Race, Gender Expectations, and Homophobia: A Quantitative

Exploration.” Race, Gender & Class, vol. 14, no. 1/2, 2007, pp. 299–317. JSTOR,

[Link]/stable/41675211.

“HIV and STD Criminalization Laws.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention, 21 Dec. 2020,

[Link]/hiv/policies/law/states/[Link].

“Homophobia and HIV.” Avert, 10 Oct. 2019,

[Link]/professionals/hiv-social-issues/homophobia.

Moore, Richard D. “Epidemiology of HIV Infection in the United States: Implications for

Linkage to Care.” Clinical Infectious Diseases, vol. 52, no. suppl_2, 15 Jan. 2011,

doi:10.1093/cid/ciq044.

Padamsee, Tasleem J. “Fighting an Epidemic in Political Context: Thirty-Five Years of

HIV/AIDS Policy Making in the United States.” Social History of Medicine, vol. 33, no.

3, 28 Dec. 2018, pp. 1001–1028., doi:10.1093/shm/hky108.

Seidman, Bianca. “1/2 Posters Released in 1987 by the AIDS Action Committee of

Massachusetts.” PBS, 9 June 2011,

10
 [Link]/wnet/need-to-know/health/30th-anniversary-of-aids-marks-progress-and-in

creased-awareness/9716/.

Supreme Court of the United States. Bowers v. Hardwick. vol. 85-140,

[Link]/about/offices/ogc/amicus/[Link].

Treichler, Paula A. “Collectivity in Trouble: Writing on HIV/AIDS by Susan Sontag and Sarah

Schulman.” Amerikastudien / American Studies, vol. 57, no. 2, 2012, pp. 245–270.

JSTOR, [Link]/stable/23509447.

Watkins-Hayes, Celeste. “Intersectionality and the Sociology of HIV/AIDS: Past, Present, and

Future Research Directions.” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 40, no. 1, 2014, pp.

431–457., doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145621.

Wickberg, Daniel. “Homophobia: On the Cultural History of an Idea.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 27,

no. 1, 2000, pp. 42–57. JSTOR, [Link]/stable/1344226.

11