"Consenting adults"

[Thorolfr]

Worldwide, the majority of HIV infections are transmitted through sex between men and women, and half of all adults living with HIV are women.

Certain groups have been particularly affected, hmmm…

Drug users… Sin
Sex workers… Sin
Men that have sex with men… Sin

The approximately 13.74 million women in Sub-Saharan Africa who have HIV are not all sex workers and even for those who are, this is due to socio-cultural and economic factors that make it difficult for many women to support themselves in any other way. Also, many women with HIV were infected by their husbands:

There is increasing concern that Sub-Saharan Africa is the region where more women are infected by HIV than men. 60 per cent of people living with HIV infections in Africa are women. On average about eight out of every 100 Ugandan women are infected with HIV compared to five out of 100 Ugandan men. Among young men and women aged 15 to 24 years, for every one man, four women are infected with HIV. And moreover, women are more subjected to HIV stigma and discrimination. Vulnerability of women and girls to HIV infections cannot be explained by biological factors alone but gender inequalities that exist in African society.

During vaginal sex, which is commonly practiced in Africa,** the chance of HIV transmission from a man to a woman is two to three times greater than transmission from a woman to a man**. This is due to the biological make up of the female genital tract.

There is a multitude of socio-cultural factors that increase vulnerability of women to HIV and Aids. The subordination of African women creates vulnerability to HIV infection through economic dependency, lack of assets, and lack of protection against abuse and exploitation. Most women in African societies are subjected to discrimination right from their youth and denied access to education and gainful employment. Women end up being engaged in subsistence farming or low paying jobs. Economic pressures lead women to engage in vices like sex work and transactional sex. In urban settings, cohabitation and temporary sexual relationships are common because women need support for items like house rent and feeding.

Also, social construction of masculinity and femininity renders women powerless to demand for their rights, including not questioning infidelity of their husbands. The patriarchal system in Africa affects women directly by legitimisation of male dominance.

rnanews.com/health/4206-why-african-women-are-more-vulnerable-to-hivaids

 

[Thorolfr]

That those diseases effect Homosexual men and other immoral people more then other population groups because God is punishing that sin.

The notion that disease is a punishment from God is reprehensible. What about the approximately 2.5 million children worldwide infected with HIV, many by their own mothers? What was their sin?

 

[meltzerboy]

Just because you personally, don’t see the effect, doesn’t make it any less there. Sin is serious and comparing it to cooties show just how much you are blind to the truth. Like I’ve said before, the sin committed in private effects everyone. Especially sense homosexuals and people that engage in sex outside of marriage don’t keep it in private. That’s what coming out of the closet is all about. The glorification of sin. Which is accompanied by disease for one. This is from avert.org

Worldwide, the majority of HIV infections are transmitted through sex between men and women, and half of all adults living with HIV are women. Certain groups of people have been particularly affected and these include people who inject drugs, sex workers and men who have sex with men. - See more at: avert.org/hiv-aids-vulnerable-groups.htm#sthash.e7UtYecI.dpuf

Certain groups have been particularly affected, hmmm…

Drug users… Sin
Sex workers… Sin
Men that have sex with men… Sin

We spend billions to fight this epidemic spread by sin committed in the privacy of people’s own homes. So your argument that this sin effects no one just doesn’t take into account FACTS.

The diseases you mention have much less effect on homosexual women. Why is G-d punishing gay men but not lesbians? Your view appears to me reminiscent of Evangelicals such as Pat Robertson (whom I like anyway).

 

[meltzerboy]

The notion that disease is a punishment from God is reprehensible. What about the approximately 2.5 million children worldwide infected with HIV, many by their own mothers? What was their sin?

Not to mention other infectious diseases that afflict particularly third-world countries, as well as starvation and the effects of war. And in our own country, high rates of cancer, heart disease, stroke, and diabetes: who is G-d punishing in these cases?

 

[nodito]

In regard to affect or harm, I’m assuming that people are trying to avoid harm. And it’s difficult to get agreement on whether any given affect is harmful. So let’s stick with harm, shall we?

You want to stick with the parameter that will be harder to reach a consensus on? I agree that it is more difficult to to prove harm, but since harm relies on something having an effect on someone else, “effect” is the lowest common denominator. So let’s just stick with effect, shall we?

And no, we won’t move it away from me to a hypothetical couple. I’m using myself precisely because you know nothing about me. And I obviously know my personal situation so I can answer questions that I think are relevant quite specifically.

I’m not claiming that I am personally affected by whatever you do, only that someone might be. And if we use your situation as an example, I can predict exactly how the conversation is going to go. Whatever I ask to discern whether any of your family or friends know about your situation will be met with “None of your business.”

But since “none of your business” is really just another way of saying “it doesn’t affect you” then this really* is* begging the question. We’re trying to decide if what two individuals do privately affects anyone else and when we ask questions to discern if this is the case, it’s met with “it doesn’t affect you” and I’m supposed to just take your word on it?

It would be akin to to trying to answer the generalized question “How does what I do in the privacy of my own car affect anyone but me?” And if a person asks: Well, was the car moving? Were you speeding? Where there any other cars on the street? Were there any other people in the car with you? You answer: None of your business. I may not know what someone is doing in the privacy of their car, but that doesn’t mean that a) No one else does or b) It doesn’t affect or harm anyone else. See my point?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Just because you personally, don’t see the effect, doesn’t make it any less there. Sin is serious and comparing it to cooties show just how much you are blind to the truth. Like I’ve said before, the sin committed in private effects everyone. Especially sense homosexuals and people that engage in sex outside of marriage don’t keep it in private.

The immorality you describe are dishonesty and endangering one’s partner. Homosexual sex, sex outside of marriage, and sex that can’t result in the possibility of pregnancy aren’t immoral.

That’s what coming out of the closet is all about. The glorification of sin.

I thought lying was sin, but you’re saying people should stay in the closet.

Which is accompanied by disease for one. This is from avert.org

Worldwide, the majority of HIV infections are transmitted through sex between men and women, and half of all adults living with HIV are women. Certain groups of people have been particularly affected and these include people who inject drugs, sex workers and men who have sex with men. - See more at: avert.org/hiv-aids-vulnerable-groups.htm#sthash.e7UtYecI.dpuf

I haven’t heard people seriously claim HIV is a curse from God since the late eighties/early nineties. One interesting point is that transmission between homosexual women is extremely rare. Is it that God is all for lesbianism, or is it more likely that the way HIV is transmitted has everything to do with physiology and nothing to do with “sin”?

And let’s be careful about taking a disease and trying to draw moral conclusions by who is and isn’t most affected. Sickle-cell anemia affects predominantly Africans and those with African ancestry. Is this God’s curse against Black people? Skin cancer affects those who are more likely to perform outdoor activities. Is that a sign from God too? Maybe God hates people who use their leisure time on the beach.

I think it’s safe to say that a pre-med student can tell us far more about disease than someone who knows all there is to know about religion.

 

[meltzerboy]

The immorality you describe are dishonesty and endangering one’s partner. Homosexual sex, sex outside of marriage, and sex that can’t result in the possibility of pregnancy aren’t immoral.

I thought lying was sin, but you’re saying people should stay in the closet.

I haven’t heard people seriously claim HIV is a curse from God since the late eighties/early nineties. One interesting point is that transmission between homosexual women is extremely rare. Is it that God is all for lesbianism, or is it more likely that the way HIV is transmitted has everything to do with physiology and nothing to do with “sin”?

And let’s be careful about taking a disease and trying to draw moral conclusions by who is and isn’t most affected. Sickle-cell anemia affects predominantly Africans and those with African ancestry. Is this God’s curse against Black people? Skin cancer affects those who are more likely to perform outdoor activities. Is that a sign from God too? Maybe God hates people who use their leisure time on the beach.

I think it’s safe to say that a pre-med student can tell us far more about disease than someone who knows all there is to know about religion.

I never cared for beach bums.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

If it’s a sin, God says its harmful, no matter who or where it’s done.

How nice it would be, if God actually communicated his rules and requirements to us in a DIRECT fashion. Because all those apologists who claim to speak for God are only self-proclaimed “mouth-pieces” for God.

Even atheists will have to answer to God someday, whether they believe it or not. To deny God, does NOT make him non existent. God Bless, Memaw

Oh, I can hardly wait that! God will have to answer ME about those examples of the “problem of evil”, and how he demanded to be “loved”, or else… (typical mafia-tactics, red Luke 10:27) Now there are several possible outcomes of that question-and-answer session:

1. God will roll on the floor laughing when he hears all the things that the apologists say ABOUT him.
2. God explains in a rational fashion why all those seemingly inexplicable events are only seemingly evil. In this case I will accept his explanation.
3. God has no explanation, but will rise in self-righteous fury and sends me into hell for eternal punishment - like any “self-respecting” tyrant would, especially those who do not deserve any “praise”.

Oh, what a hoot it will be. But, if I would have to make a wager, I would bet on outcome #1.

 

[Godconvertedme]

And with that, ladies and gentlemen, I’m out of here. :tiphat:

It’s to bad there are so many bad Catholics

 

[Godconvertedme]

How nice it would be, if God actually communicated his rules and requirements to us in a DIRECT fashion. Because all those apologists who claim to speak for God are only self-proclaimed “mouth-pieces” for God.

He does communicate His rules and requirements in a very direct fashion, it’s called the Holy Spirit. The Spirit will guide you into all Truth. It’s kind of like onboard GPS. God will send the Holy Spirit to you, if you ask Him too. I’m only giving you what Gods given me, with much prayer, study and fasting. Self-proclaimed lol, if you don’t want to believe me, don’t. I really don’t care, except for the fact I love you deeply and only want what’s best for you and I know immoral behavior only causes harm and will end you up in hell. Honestly, who am I but a simple man following the will of his God. So ask God, tell God you want the Truth from His mouth. I actually dare you to do it. I triple dog dare you to it. Tell God, if He exists, you want to believe and will follow all His laws, if He reveals Himself to you. Just remember it’s only possible to follow all His laws with His help, so ask for that too, ok?

Gods laws are for your good and mine. They protect us from harm and suffering. Sometimes though, disobedient children need to be burned by the stove before they realize it hurts.

 

[edwest2]

Funny a fellow Catholic would ask that question. If someone stole your new car would you say that should be legal. or do you want the “LAW” to step in. Some laws are necessary and should be for the protection and the freedom of the common good. They are for all people, not just those of a certain religion. as long as we keep pushing GOD out of our society, things will continue to get worse. God Bless, Memaw

That’s right. Thanks.

Ed

 

[Pallas_Athene]

So ask God, tell God you want the Truth from His mouth. I actually dare you to do it. I triple dog dare you to it. Tell God, if He exists, you want to believe and will follow all His laws, if He reveals Himself to you. Just remember it’s only possible to follow all His laws with His help, so ask for that too, ok?

Why do you think I did not, along with other millions? I was a believer for a long time, until I realized how self-contradictory the whole Christian worldview is. Losing that faith is not a painless road, to realize that one’s whole life was built of quicksand can be quite traumatic.

Of course there is the objection: “why God does not reveal his existence and his demands without asking for it”? The parents of a child do not hide behind some cloud, they are there to help, and they explicitly enumerate the rules of conduct.

One of the strongest argument against God’s existence is the “Silentium Dei”. When millions of people constantly pray for guidance and help and NOTHING happens, the only rational conclusion is that 1) there is nobody there, or 2) there is someone there, but he does not care. Please, don’t bother to enumerate the usual nonsense about the “free will” or the mystery of good coming out of bad. If you have some new argument, I will be happy to hear it. But the old ones are so irrational, that I am not interested to hear them again… and again… and again.

 

[Thorolfr]

If someone stole your new car would you say that should be legal. or do you want the “LAW” to step in. Some laws are necessary and should be for the protection and the freedom of the common good. They are for all people, not just those of a certain religion. as long as we keep pushing GOD out of our society, things will continue to get worse. God Bless, Memaw

So what laws to protect the common good do you think are necessary that we don’t now have? Can you give some examples?

 

[Bradski]

You want to stick with the parameter that will be harder to reach a consensus on? I agree that it is more difficult to to prove harm, but since harm relies on something having an effect on someone else, “effect” is the lowest common denominator. So let’s just stick with effect, shall we?

OK, that’s reasonable. Effect it is.

I’m not claiming that I am personally affected by whatever you do, only that someone might be. And if we use your situation as an example, I can predict exactly how the conversation is going to go. Whatever I ask to discern whether any of your family or friends know about your situation will be met with “None of your business.”

That’s not the point of the OP. Which was: “what consenting adults do with each other is none of my business”. It wasn’t asking if what they did affected anyone. It’s asking if what they do in private is any of your business. Now some people are saying that it is because it has an effect on them. And that’s an extremely important point. But this, as we have seen, apart from people just saying it is so, is problematic. As I’ll explain below.

But since “none of your business” is really just another way of saying “it doesn’t affect you” then this really* is* begging the question. We’re trying to decide if what two individuals do privately affects anyone else and when we ask questions to discern if this is the case, it’s met with “it doesn’t affect you” and I’m supposed to just take your word on it?

The two phrases are not the same and I’m not using them as being the same. Something I do with my partner in private may well have an effect on people. But what I am saying, and this stands on its own, is that what I do IS private, by definition. And unless I decide to tell you, you are not going to know. At least at this stage.

So you immediately have this major road block when it comes to deciding if the OP is valid. Because for you to say that it is your business, you have to show that what I do has an effect on you, and to do that you have to know what that something is.

For example, because I am using myself as an example, you cannot claim that what I was doing last night affected you in any way. The only claim you could make is that what I was doing MIGHT have an effect on you at some point, so therefore it is your business. But that would mean that everything that everyone does is everybody’s business. I can’t see anyone wanting to go down that road.

So unless you can tell me why what I was doing last night has had or will have an effect on you, it is, at this stage, none of your business. And yes, at this point, if you ask me, which is the only way you are going to find out, I will tell you in no uncertain terms that it is none of your damn business. It is private (unless I wish to disclose it) and by that definition, no-one will know about it apart from myself and my partner (unless, of course, you’re godconvertedme, in which case he ‘ll allow you to ask his wife. Hey, still no heads up on when I can do that gcm!).

Now if you can agree to that, we can then look at situations where what occurs is known and then decide on what effect that has and possible harm.

Some laws are necessary and should be for the protection and the freedom of the common good. They are for all people, not just those of a certain religion. as long as we keep pushing GOD out of our society, things will continue to get worse. God Bless, Memaw

C’mon Memaw. Be specific. Do you want laws prohibiting masturbation, premarital sex, contraception etc?

 

[Godconvertedme]

The immorality you describe are dishonesty and endangering one’s partner. Homosexual sex, sex outside of marriage, and sex that can’t result in the possibility of pregnancy aren’t immoral.

Your wrong, homosexual sex and sex outside of marriage are immoral. Sorry, YOUR WRONG yes, you have to commit your life to another person, of the opposite sex, before participating in an activity that is designed to result in procreation.

I thought lying was sin, but you’re saying people should stay in the closet.

Immoral behavior is not to be glorified, doing so only makes the fact your sinning that much worse. It also encourages others to sin, which then is your sin also. I know, your thinking, what! if I cause someone else to sin it’s counted against me too!

I haven’t heard people seriously claim HIV is a curse from God since the late eighties/early nineties. One interesting point is that transmission between homosexual women is extremely rare. Is it that God is all for lesbianism, or is it more likely that the way HIV is transmitted has everything to do with physiology and nothing to do with “sin”?

The physiology that happens to be involved between homosexual male sex partners hmm coincidence I think not. The fact the rectal lining is damaged, because this isn’t what an anus is for people and often bleeds while having homosexual “intercourse” increasing the chances of the disease being transmitted from one person to the other. Just coincidence. God said no homosexual sex and there’s one reason.

Just because God chose not deal with the matter of female homosexual sex in the same way as he deals with male homosexual sex doesn’t in anyway make God ok with it.

And let’s be careful about taking a disease and trying to draw moral conclusions by who is and isn’t most affected. Sickle-cell anemia affects predominantly Africans and those with African ancestry. Is this God’s curse against Black people? Skin cancer affects those who are more likely to perform outdoor activities. Is that a sign from God too? Maybe God hates people who use their leisure time on the beach.

sickle-cell anemia is genetic, it’s due to the degradation of our genetic code due to death being introduced into the world, due to the fall of man, the sin of Adam and Eve. Death of man, death of beast, and the death of divinely designed systems, that should have been perpetual. The fact that sickle-cell anemia affects mainly African people isn’t God targeting Africans since every race group has their own genetic issues.

Skin cancer is a result of ozone depletion, resulting from the sin of not properly maintaining the earths systems due to greed and harm done to our little “garden” called earth. Unfortunately the ozone depletion does effect everyone, not just those responsible, just like sin does. Also this disease targets people of fair complexion more then say, Africans.

Aids and hiv are a bit more specific, but unfortunately, like sin, the disease affects more then just those that are involved directly in that sin, although not to the same extent.

I think it’s safe to say that a pre-med student can tell us far more about disease than someone who knows all there is to know about religion.

Except the pre-med student only knows the physical nature of the disease and not the spiritual nature of it. Your comparing apples to oranges. The medical student and theologian are approaching a disease from different angles and with different reasons for approaching at all. A medical student says what can we do to cure this disease or reduce its effects. The theologian asks why does this disease exist.

Jesus cured disease, which would also make him a doctor I guess. Oddly, He cured disease and forgave sin, many times, at the same time. Why, because disease and sin go hand in hand. It’s been that way since the beginning. Some diseases are just more directly linked to a specific sin then others. Consequently, Christians and especially Catholics work diligently to help elevate the suffering of people, do to disease, which is because of sin.

What we are talking about here is the harm of personal sin on the individual and on society as a whole. Fact, homosexual sex doesn’t take place, the spread of aids and hiv diminish greatly. Sex outside of marriage doesn’t take place, the spread of aids and hiv diminish greatly. Intraveinous drug use stops and the spread of aids and hiv diminish greatly. This is a disease that targets, in high numbers, people involved in immoral activities. Then those people, cause people, outside of those groups to be infected, thus causing harm to the rest of the world, as result of doing what God said not to do and for good reason. The fact the harm that sin causes can be diminished due to monogamy (the adoption of a simulated marriage) or the use of some barrier, doesn’t change its destructive nature or the fact it’s sin, but does show God is not without mercy, as in the fact Jesus cured disease and disease is often curable, by men. Also Jesus forgave sins and gave the power to forgive sins to men.

Sin can be repented of, disease can be cured. Sin is spiritual, disease is physical, both are linked. One being the result of the other.

 

[Thorolfr]

The physiology that happens to be involved between homosexual male sex partners hmm coincidence I think not. The fact the rectal lining is damaged, because this isn’t what an anus is for people and often bleeds while having homosexual “intercourse” increasing the chances of the disease being transmitted from one person to the other. Just coincidence. God said no homosexual sex and there’s one reason.

If you want to make these kinds of argument, I guess that you would also have to conclude that God disapproves of heterosexual sex as well since the makeup of the female genital tract increases the chances of women becoming infected with HIV during vaginal sex:

During vaginal sex, which is commonly practiced in Africa, the chance of HIV transmission from a man to a woman is two to three times greater than transmission from a woman to a man. This is due to the biological make up of the female genital tract.

The female genital tract is made up of a larger exposed area. Semen has higher viral load than vaginal fluids and the semen stays longer in the female genital tract after acts of sex which increases the chances of HIV transmission.

rnanews.com/health/4206-why-african-women-are-more-vulnerable-to-hivaids

 

[Godconvertedme]

Why do you think I did not, along with other millions? I was a believer for a long time, until I realized how self-contradictory the whole Christian worldview is. Losing that faith is not a painless road, to realize that one’s whole life was built of quicksand can be quite traumatic.

You didn’t get that belief from asking God what He thought, that’s is a man made illusion. Saying you held a Christian World view is broad. I was a Protestant for many years after being an atheist/agnostic for many more. I found Protestantism to be untenable and that is why I’m greatful I didn’t give up and followed God through those Protestant years into Catholicism. It sounds like you gave up on God to me.

Of course there is the objection: “why God does not reveal his existence and his demands without asking for it”? The parents of a child do not hide behind some cloud, they are there to help, and they explicitly enumerate the rules of conduct.

The reason He hides, is so man can choose to disbelieve in God. The reason He wants you to ask is because He wants you to want it, just like He wants you to want to believe in Him. You can trust yourself and believe what you want to believe by “default” or come to the conclusion you could be wrong and the only way to get the Truth is to want it and to ask for God for it.

One of the strongest argument against God’s existence is the “Silentium Dei”. When millions of people constantly pray for guidance and help and NOTHING happens, the only rational conclusion is that 1) there is nobody there, or 2) there is someone there, but he does not care. Please, don’t bother to enumerate the usual nonsense about the “free will” or the mystery of good coming out of bad. If you have some new argument, I will be happy to hear it. But the old ones are so irrational, that I am not interested to hear them again… and again… and again.

Millions pray and do get help and guidance, I am one of those. God is an omnipotent being, He knows what people will do with His guidance, if a person prays for something and God knows the person would ignore it anyway, why would He respond? God responds to those that are willing to be obedient.

 

[Godconvertedme]

If you want to make these kinds of argument, I guess that you would also have to conclude that God disapproves of heterosexual sex as well since the makeup of the female genital tract increases the chances of women becoming infected with HIV during vaginal sex:

I see you ignore the whole sex outside of marriage part. A man and a women in committed relationship are not at risk of infection. Homosexual men, and people that participate in sex outside of marriage. They are at risk. You know immoral sexual behavior, that I already addressed.

Please read my whole post.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It sounds like you gave up on God to me.

How long are you supposed to ask for guidance, which is NEVER forthcoming, before you decide it is a waste of time… because there is no one “out there”? I did not “give up”, I stay open to the possibility.

The reason He hides, is so man can choose to disbelieve in God.

This nonsense just never dies out. We cannot “choose volitionally” what we believe. We evaluate the offered evidence (and that process IS partially volitional) and then we believe the evidence or we don’t. But the evaluation process does not happen in the grey cells area of the brain (the conscious part), it happens in the sub-conscious (the white cells). Actions based upon those beliefs are originated in the conscious part.

The reason He wants you to ask is because He wants you to want it, just like He wants you to want to believe in Him. You can trust yourself and believe what you want to believe by “default” or come to the conclusion you could be wrong and the only way to get the Truth is to want it and to ask for God for it.

So it is always the fault of the skeptic. He did not ask long enough, or did not ask honestly enough, or did not ask for the proper reason… so they will NOT get guidance. What a cheap excuse for the silence from God.

Millions pray and do get help and guidance, I am one of those.

You mean millions CLAIM that they asked and got help - but they cannot offer evidence. Other millions CLAIM that they asked and did not get help. Why should I believe YOUR CLAIM, when I know (not just believe) that I asked and did not get help?

God is an omnipotent being, He knows what people will do with His guidance, if a person prays for something and God knows the person would ignore it anyway, why would He respond? God responds to those that are willing to be obedient.

You confuse “omnipotent” and “omniscient”. But apart from that, it is not an excuse. Give me the data, and I will accept it, IF it is reasonable, and reject it IF it is irrational. Since God gives me no data, he realizes that the data IS irrational and unacceptable. That is why the preference for “blind faith”, instead of a “rational argument”. “Blessed are the ones who have not seen and yet believe”. I could not care less about being “blessed”, I will take reason and logic over “faith” any day of the year.

 

[Thorolfr]

I see you ignore the whole sex outside of marriage part. A man and a women in committed relationship are not at risk of infection. Homosexual men, and people that participate in sex outside of marriage. They are at risk. You know immoral sexual behavior, that I already addressed.

Please read my whole post.

There actually are gay men and lesbians in monogamous and committed relationships, too. Some of them are legally married. So there is no risk of infection in those relationships either. As my own church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) has stated:

Within the last decades, this church has begun to understand and experience
in new ways the need of same-gender-oriented individuals to seek
relationships of lifelong companionship and commitment as well as public
accountability and legal support for those commitments.

On the basis of conscience-bound belief, some [in the ELCA] are convinced
that the scriptural witness does not address the context of
sexual orientation and committed relationships that we experience
today. They believe that the neighbor and community are
best served when same-gender relationships are lived out with
lifelong and monogamous commitments that are held to the
same rigorous standards, sexual ethics, and status as heterosexual
marriage.

elca.org/Faith/Faith-and-Society/Social-Statements/Human-Sexuality