Asking about homosexuality…why it did not happen in the sixties, in the fifties, is pointless, because if it had happened in the sixties you would have asked the same question then too: Why did it not happen in the forties? It is irrelevant. Whenever it has happened, that means that now it has touched the evaporating point.
And do you feel that homosexuals were the first to suffer because their unnatural way would leave them most susceptible? Is that something that might naturally or logically follow?
It will follow logically, because what they are doing is absolutely perverted. And the consequence is going to be something that is not a disease – because I don’t call AIDS a disease – it is just a slow death. A disease is curable. Death is the only phenomenon which is incurable.
And now the scientists all over the world have accepted the fact that there is no cure for AIDS. So AIDS is no longer a disease; it is death, just slow death.
Let me ask a question that I have regarding that, that’s a statement you made the other day in discourse. I think it would be fitting if I were to ask that now. You said in discourse a few days ago that AIDS is not a disease, it is death; that the scientists say there will never be a cure. Don’t you feel this is quite a negative statement or assessment, just as I’m sure a hundred years ago people said that man would never fly, let alone set foot on the moon?
No, it is not so. That was simply ignorance, and the people who said it simply said it because it had not happened before.
But couldn’t you say the same thing about a cure for AIDS?
No, because if you understand the situation of AIDS…the situation is that it is not a disease that needs any medicine, any operation; it is really the death of the will to live. Deep down the person has lost his will to live, and there is no medicine which can create the will to live.