Dominican Sister of St. Cecilia under fire by students for talk on homosexuality

[SMGS127]

In Rare Case, Woman with H.I.V. Infects Female Sex Partner
nytimes.com/2014/03/15/health/in-rare-case-woman-with-hiv-infects-female-sex-partner-cdc-says.html?_r=0

I think there is a time and a place for the stats. But I do believe that the Good News should be the focus.

I didn’t say it was impossible. Notice the usage of the word “rare.” Straight people transmit HIV at significantly higher rates than lesbians.

There is a time and place for RELEVANT and FACTUAL statistics. Saying gay people are polyamorous or in unstable relationships or drug/alcohol abusers is completely false. Discussing the relative promiscuity found in the LGBT community ignores mitigating factors, such as no risk of pregnancy, and is irrelevant.

Ultimately, it is better to stick to what we know is relevant and factual, which is to say natural law and the promotion of a nuclear family/elimination of contraception. This, by definition, excludes gay couples, and we as a Church need to stop searching desperately for some nonexistent statistic that would make gay couples look like terrible people. We speak the truth at all costs, no matter what. We are not one of those religions that condones lying about groups of people in order to turn others against them. The ends do not justify the means.

 

[Hopey]

I didn’t say it was impossible. Notice the usage of the word “rare.” Straight people transmit HIV at significantly higher rates than lesbians.

There is a time and place for RELEVANT and FACTUAL statistics. Saying gay people are polyamorous or in unstable relationships or drug/alcohol abusers is completely false. Discussing the relative promiscuity found in the LGBT community ignores mitigating factors, such as no risk of pregnancy, and is irrelevant.

Ultimately, it is better to stick to what we know is relevant and factual, which is to say natural law and the promotion of a nuclear family/elimination of contraception. This, by definition, excludes gay couples, and we as a Church need to stop searching desperately for some nonexistent statistic that would make gay couples look like terrible people. We speak the truth at all costs, no matter what. We are not one of those religions that condones lying about groups of people in order to turn others against them. The ends do not justify the means.

I didn’t search for this but it caught my attention as it has been in the head lines.
That is what those who decide to have these speakers face. These children (and adults) are talking about these things - not searching for some of them - and giving it to them in the TOB. That is the goal.
Stats don’t convert people but it would be relevant to bring these into discussions.

I realize what rare is, but I am not the best person to ask about lesbian sex, and safety. Those that I have known personally (family) have issues (female infections/trauma) that I haven’t dealt with as a married woman. So, something IS different but I will just leave it at that.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I’d like to start by saying that I am most definitely an orthodox Catholic.

But I guess what I don’t understand about this story is why she tried to link homosexuality to a reduction in fathers. The rise in acceptance of homosexuality came at the same time as the rise in abortion, which most certainly has led to a much more significant reduction in fatherhood. And while there are certainly gay men who can enjoy productive marriages with women, if we were suddenly physically prohibited by God from engaging in same-sex relationships, do you particularly think that the gay men who are actively gay now would suddenly marry women in high #s?

I don’t think a speech opposing same-sex physicality is bad. But I don’t like speeches that try to say “oh look at all of our societal problems, and homosexuality is the root cause.” That, in my opinion, is fairly inflammatory and should not be spoken at a Catholic school. Now, I have no idea what her exact words are, so I’d like to see the transcript of her specific speech, but I’d like to think that a speech on the benefits of marriage does not need half of it devoted to attacking same-sex behavior.

I agree that homosexuality is not the root cause. The problem is personal selfishness.

Homosexual attraction cannot even be sin because temptations can never be sin.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Grace & Peace!

The gist of Joie’s critique, though (and it’s one with which I agree), is that people in love couldn’t just do whatever they wanted: marriage was a social institution, bound by social rules regarding class, power, money, etc. A couple didn’t get married because they were in love and wanted to get married–they were married because that’s what was expected, needed or allowed by their families and by their social conditions. If they were in love before their marriage: terrific! If they weren’t, the hope was that love would grow. But whether or not there was romantic love in a marriage, the keynote of marriage was responsibility, not romance: responsibility to society, to family, to children, to spouse. Marriage was an outward-facing institution. It is now completely inward-facing.

[removed due to maximum post length restrictions]

But as class barriers break down, power structures re-arrange themselves, and major social shifts occur in the 17th through 19th centuries (American revolution, French revolution, industrial revolution, the “Enlightenment,” the Age of Reason), romantic love and marriage become more and more entwined and marriage becomes more and more about the couple and not about the society in which the couple is embedded. This modern notion of marriage is pretty new as a practice (only about 250 years old, as Joie states), but you can see traces of it earlier. It wouldn’t be too hard to see it’s real beginnings in the end of the feudal era with the rise of the middle class, the beginnings of the Reformation, and the development of a notion of an individual self (see Pico della Mirandola and Luther) that is conceived of as at least potentially independent of (or even at odds with) the socio-cultural milieu in which it lives.

[removed due to maximum post length restrictions]

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Indeed, you really understood what I meant.

I’d mark the shift as the publication of Julie, or the New Heloise by Rousseau.

I’m wading my way through your response, Mark, but I had to immediately comment on this:

That’s actually exactly what I meant. In enabling the two lovers to undermine the system, he set the system in motion against them. He could have – if he chose – opposed the system in a straightforward manner, but he chose stealth, and Romeo and Juliet died for his stealth.

You couldn’t really oppose that system because it was quite logical and was good for society as a whole especially in a resource constrained environment which is to say pretty much everywhere before the industrial revolution, even more so in an era before people moved much.

I don’t think anyone’s arguing against that sex between two men is more dangerous in general for STD transmission. I also don’t think anyone’s arguing against that gay men are more promiscuous than straight men due to higher combined libidos and no risk of pregnancy, not to mention a feeling of rejection from religion that leads them to feel there’s nothing immoral about premarital sex.

However, the claim people have made is that gay people have less stable relationships and polyamorous relationships, both claims of which are patently untrue. In fact, lesbians are extraordinarily monogamous and stable, at higher rates than straight couples. And if you bring up STD transmission, lesbians will bring up that they have the safest sex of anyone!

I’ll say it before and I’ll say it again. We need to stop focusing on incorrect, irrelevant falsehoods, stereotypes, and pejoratives and start focusing on Catholic teaching on the issue. You will never, ever, ever evangelize properly to a gay person by starting off with information they know is blatantly false.

It seems to me that loving them as human beings would be a far better method of evangelization.

I didn’t say it was impossible. Notice the usage of the word “rare.” Straight people transmit HIV at significantly higher rates than lesbians.

There is a time and place for RELEVANT and FACTUAL statistics. Saying gay people are polyamorous or in unstable relationships or drug/alcohol abusers is completely false. Discussing the relative promiscuity found in the LGBT community ignores mitigating factors, such as no risk of pregnancy, and is irrelevant.

Ultimately, it is better to stick to what we know is relevant and factual, which is to say natural law and the promotion of a nuclear family/elimination of contraception. This, by definition, excludes gay couples, and we as a Church need to stop searching desperately for some nonexistent statistic that would make gay couples look like terrible people. We speak the truth at all costs, no matter what. We are not one of those religions that condones lying about groups of people in order to turn others against them. The ends do not justify the means.

That case was probably the result of failure to sterilize sex toys while sharing them.

I’d like to point out that the nuclear family in itself is a modern concept and an already decayed form of society. The traditional Catholic family structure is multigenerational in nature and features connections between people in more ways such as via baptism (linking the godparents to the child and thus that family) and also friendship (a type of friendship far deeper than the kind found today).

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You couldn’t really oppose that system because it was quite logical and was good for society as a whole especially in a resource constrained environment which is to say pretty much everywhere before the industrial revolution, even more so in an era before people moved much.

Oh, but I could have opposed that system, Joie. I do not think political marriages tend to lead to the flourishing of anyone. Mind you, I don’t think love is the only thing that matters in a marriage, but I do think that a society that confines love to the backseat invites adultery – and indeed, I would not be surprised if adultery was much more frequent in the 15th century than it was in the 19th century and early 20th century, when marriages for love became the norm even among the wealthy.

I’d like to point out that the nuclear family in itself is a modern concept and an already decayed form of society. The traditional Catholic family structure is multigenerational in nature and features connections between people in more ways such as via baptism (linking the godparents to the child and thus that family) and also friendship (a type of friendship far deeper than the kind found today).

Indeed. And this is one of the reasons our society leaves gay people up a creek – that is, if we maintain the true moral norm that non-reproductive sex is wrong. Because then it seems like we are dooming them to live alone and have no family. But if our society didn’t have this bizarre and harmful isolation of the nuclear family from everyone else, there would be a much more warm and inviting place for gay people in it.

And on another note, it is pretty much physically impossible for a mom and dad to raise a largish group of children, unless they have live-in help or nannies (which was the historical norm). Some people do it, but I don’t know how. My wife and I think the nuclear family is a totally stupid concept, as we try to raise five kids, and it feels like we have to pull teeth to get friends and family to help us.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The gist of Joie’s critique, though (and it’s one with which I agree), is that people in love couldn’t just do whatever they wanted: marriage was a social institution, bound by social rules regarding class, power, money, etc. A couple didn’t get married because they were in love and wanted to get married–they were married because that’s what was expected, needed or allowed by their families and by their social conditions. If they were in love before their marriage: terrific! If they weren’t, the hope was that love would grow. But whether or not there was romantic love in a marriage, the keynote of marriage was responsibility, not romance: responsibility to society, to family, to children, to spouse. Marriage was an outward-facing institution. It is now completely inward-facing.

I agree with all of this.

But another real fool is in fact Romeo who, from the beginning of the play, is portrayed as a mere lovesick puppy, flirting with disaster even in his attraction to Rosaline who, like Juliet, is also a Capulet. Romeo and Juliet may have Shakespeare’s sympathy, but it would be difficult to argue that they have his approval.

I agree here, too. Romeo isn’t a man’s man, in Shakespeare’s eyes. But he had potential to be one, if only one of the older men in his life had been showing him how a man acts, as opposed to showing him how children act.

Regardless, there was much in Renaissance drama and literature about love, romantic and otherwise, you’re absolutely right. But even the greatest example of Renaissance love, that between Dante and Beatrice, is not the love of husband and wife, and the many texts related to courtly love have as their ideal a Platonic notion of what being-in-love was supposed to be, and rarely did it involve a wife (or rather, if it did involve a wife, it was a pleasant surprise).

A Platonic notion of being in love in the Renaissance? I’m familiar with that in Shakespeare’s sonnets, but I always thought that was the exception, not the norm. Do you have any other examples?

Also, the upper classes of Shakespeare’s day didn’t thumb their noses at the theater–many acting companies received patronage from a noble, a fact which was often reflected in the company’s name (i.e., The Lord Chamberlain’s Men).

Well yes, some elites loved the theater, but I don’t think that was the norm. The theaters were places for the great unwashed masses, often located next to brothels and the like.

This is all delightfully off-topic, by the way. Let’s continue.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Oh, but I could have opposed that system, Joie. I do not think political marriages tend to lead to the flourishing of anyone. Mind you, I don’t think love is the only thing that matters in a marriage, but I do think that a society that confines love to the backseat invites adultery – and indeed, I would not be surprised if adultery was much more frequent in the 15th century than it was in the 19th century and early 20th century, when marriages for love became the norm even among the wealthy.

Actually adultery has been fairly common historically, in some places researchers found that up to 30% of children had genetic fathers that could not be their de jure fathers.

Here’s the think, it used to be that (non-carnal) love between two people of the same sex surpassed that which was possible between a man and a woman.

Indeed. And this is one of the reasons our society leaves gay people up a creek – that is, if we maintain the true moral norm that non-reproductive sex is wrong. Because then it seems like we are dooming them to live alone and have no family. But if our society didn’t have this bizarre and harmful isolation of the nuclear family from everyone else, there would be a much more warm and inviting place for gay people in it.

And on another note, it is pretty much physically impossible for a mom and dad to raise a largish group of children, unless they have live-in help or nannies (which was the historical norm). Some people do it, but I don’t know how. My wife and I think the nuclear family is a totally stupid concept, as we try to raise five kids, and it feels like we have to pull teeth to get friends and family to help us.

Agreed.

I agree with all of this.

I agree here, too. Romeo isn’t a man’s man, in Shakespeare’s eyes. But he had potential to be one, if only one of the older men in his life had been showing him how a man acts, as opposed to showing him how children act.

A Platonic notion of being in love in the Renaissance? I’m familiar with that in Shakespeare’s sonnets, but I always thought that was the exception, not the norm. Do you have any other examples?

Well yes, some elites loved the theater, but I don’t think that was the norm. The theaters were places for the great unwashed masses, often located next to brothels and the like.

This is all delightfully off-topic, by the way. Let’s continue.

Actually the concept of platonic love was understood amongst the educated and (nonsexual) love of men was praised over that of women

The theater was the place for everyone.

 

[Hopey]

We are not one of those religions that condones lying about groups of people in order to turn others against them

. The ends do not justify the means.
The goal with using these stats is not to turn people against them. I have been listening to her talks online, and what I am finding is very little stats are used. Also, that people need more mercy and compassion.

Have you ever been part of a program to help, support group?

The reason I ask is because there is a lot, what I call, homework. Such as a person in an SANON group would probably know the stats on porn use, including among young people, etc.

You are disputing the stats being used, tho.
I know some have a hard time doing these studies, esp sociological factors, because it seems that some do not want anything exposed that might be unfavorable about the group.
Again, we don’t do it for other groups. At one time, I used to know the stats of a marriage lasting if it was done because the woman was pregnant or they were cohabiting. It doesn’t make me look down on anyone, but it is something to bring to prayer and pass on to my children. Esp in wisdom - you may choose this course but let me tell you the things stacked against you. It doesn’t mean every marriage that begins this way will end in divorce. But these are reason, even in the Church, they will put off marry those who are pregnant till sometimes well after the baby is born. It doesn’t mean they look down on them but they know from experience what is happening/has happened.

The reason those stats, regarding stability of lesbian relationships, are not far out for me is because what I know from personal experience (family), it is 50/50.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Here’s the think, it used to be that (non-carnal) love between two people of the same sex surpassed that which was possible between a man and a woman.

I agree that this was the case in Greece and Rome, but I don’t think it was as much the case in Renaissance England. In Greece and Rome, women were not generally thought of as the type of people one could really have a meaningful relationship with. Christianity elevated the status of women quite dramatically, however, and thus there were two ideals that lived side-by-side: the ideal of romantic love (Petrarch, e.g.) and the ideal of intimate friendship. This was a wonderful fruit of a Christian culture, since these two ideals are exactly what God had in mind when He said that man should not be alone.

But now we have fetishized the one and forgotten the other. God help us!

Good talking with you, Joie!

 

[zz912]

I also don’t think anyone’s arguing against that gay men are more promiscuous than straight men

However, the claim people have made is that gay people have less stable relationships and polyamorous relationships, both claims of which are patently untrue.

Your statements are contradictory.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Your statements are contradictory.

SMGS, if I follow her rightly, is claiming that promiscuous men can be in stable (and non-polyamorous) relationships. For example, a man might live with his partner, and his partner might not have a problem with him having casual sex outside their relationship.

Sorry if I’ve got you wrong on this, SMGS.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I agree that this was the case in Greece and Rome, but I don’t think it was as much the case in Renaissance England. In Greece and Rome, women were not generally thought of as the type of people one could really have a meaningful relationship with. Christianity elevated the status of women quite dramatically, however, and thus there were two ideals that lived side-by-side: the ideal of romantic love (Petrarch, e.g.) and the ideal of intimate friendship. This was a wonderful fruit of a Christian culture, since these two ideals are exactly what God had in mind when He said that man should not be alone.

But now we have fetishized the one and forgotten the other. God help us!

Good talking with you, Joie!

Actually the belief that friendship was the superior love in some ways continued into the 19th century. It’s actually a fairly Catholic belief given the relationship between celibacy and marriage.

 

[SMGS127]

SMGS, if I follow her rightly, is claiming that promiscuous men can be in stable (and non-polyamorous) relationships. For example, a man might live with his partner, and his partner might not have a problem with him having casual sex outside their relationship.

Sorry if I’ve got you wrong on this, SMGS.

That is absolutely not what I meant. Gay men in relationships are just as likely to demand strict monogamy as straight men.

What I meant is that more gay men (by percentage) are single, and of those men, they have more sex than straight men. This leads them to have a higher partner count, driving the whole average up. But this says nothing about the stability of gay relationships, almost all of which are monogamous. The promiscuity of single gay men says nothing about the behavior of taken gay men.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That is absolutely not what I meant. Gay men in relationships are just as likely to demand strict monogamy as straight men.

Eeek. Sorry!

What I meant is that more gay men (by percentage) are single, and of those men, they have more sex than straight men. This leads them to have a higher partner count, driving the whole average up. But this says nothing about the stability of gay relationships, almost all of which are monogamous. The promiscuity of single gay men says nothing about the behavior of taken gay men.

For most people, promiscuity equals “less stable relationships”. I see how you can make a distinction here, but I don’t understand the purpose of the distinction. Although I suppose that idiots who think that gay people **can’t **be faithful to each other might need some educating? Is that it?

 

[SMGS127]

For most people, promiscuity equals “less stable relationships”. I see how you can make a distinction here, but I don’t understand the purpose of the distinction. Although I suppose that idiots who think that gay people **can’t **be faithful to each other might need some educating? Is that it?

From dictionary.com:

“characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, especially having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis.”

Also, I wouldn’t call anyone an idiot. I just think people want to believe that there’s something “bad” that gay people do besides the inherent immorality found within the physicality itself, and so they’re willing to jump onto junk statistics when it suits their biases. Most people are willing to jump on junk statistics when it suits their biases.

But I most definitely define promiscuous as “having more sexual partners.” Promiscuity in no way implies cheating; the two terms have nothing to do with each other. Single gay people have more sex than single straight people, again, for a multitude of reasons that has nothing to do with the immorality of the behavior in and of itself (again, lack of pregnancy risk being the biggest). But when gay people are in relationships, their commitment to the other person is no less than the commitment of a straight person. Their immoral sexual conduct does not imply that the love and commitment they have for that person does not exist. Gay relationships are just as stable and monogamous (in a strict sense, no outside sexual partners) as straight relationships.

 

[GraceSofia]

New article.

NORTH CAROLINA NUN’S HOMOSEXUALITY LECTURE: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

The nun was not the issue. She was never the issue. At most the nun was a vehicle, an instrument of the unhappy dissenters. She was collateral damage in an attack on a priest trying to bring orthodoxy into a dissenting Catholic high school. The story isn’t really about him either, but about the last dying gasp of “liberal” Catholicism in North Carolina.

I spent two days on the ground in Charlotte last week interviewing half a dozen parents, priests, students, faculty, and alums. Uniformly, they did not want their names used. The atmosphere on the campus, at least among some faculty and some parents, can only be described as toxic.

The group I spoke to – those not offended by the nun’s talk – are literally frightened of those leading the charge against her. Those leading the charge would not speak to Breitbart News, even after repeated attempts. . . .

 

[SMGS127]

New article.

NORTH CAROLINA NUN’S HOMOSEXUALITY LECTURE: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

From the article:

“Even so, the few students who were listening were wholly unprepared to hear that gays may have upwards of 1,000 sex partners in their lifetime.”

This is false and one of the complaints on the petition, which completely contradicts his thesis at the beginning of the article, which is fairly typical for Breitbart, who is more interested in making gays and liberals look bad than actual journalism. Breitbart is a horrible source.

Quoting Church teaching, Sister Laurel said homosexuality has a psychological genesis. She explained theories…that physically or emotionally distant fathers can cause homosexuality in their sons.

He appears to not understand what the Church means by “psychological genesis.” It does not remove the possibility of a biological underlying cause for homosexuality. And the father thing has no factual basis whatsoever.

She suggested watching hardcore porn and masturbating could lead to homosexual behavior. She inexplicably brought up the widely reported story of the Australian same-sex couple who adopted a Russian boy and spent years pimping him out to pedophiles.

Breitbart is making the POINT of those who petitioned against this talk! Nowhere in the petition was there a complaint about Church doctrine. But when complete falsehoods (or irrelevant stories) like these are included in a talk about homosexuality, all you’re going to do is push kids AWAY from Catholicism, not towards it. Again, if you tell kids something they know to be false while trying to defend Catholic teaching, they’ll stop listening to your whole talk.

 

[Hopey]

From dictionary.com:

“characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, especially having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis.”

Also, I wouldn’t call anyone an idiot. I just think people want to believe that there’s something “bad” that gay people do besides the inherent immorality found within the physicality itself, and so they’re willing to jump onto junk statistics when it suits their biases. Most people are willing to jump on junk statistics when it suits their biases.

But I most definitely define promiscuous as “having more sexual partners.” Promiscuity in no way implies cheating; the two terms have nothing to do with each other. Single gay people have more sex than single straight people, again, for a multitude of reasons that has nothing to do with the immorality of the behavior in and of itself (again, lack of pregnancy risk being the biggest). But when gay people are in relationships, their commitment to the other person is no less than the commitment of a straight person. Their immoral sexual conduct does not imply that the love and commitment they have for that person does not exist. Gay relationships are just as stable and monogamous (in a strict sense, no outside sexual partners) as straight relationships.

I do believe the study (research) came from a country (Sweden?) that had same sex marriage for awhile.
The question, if I remember correctly, was IF they intended to remain faithful to their spouse when they married, and if they had, and what their attitudes (bothered by a cheating spouse). The self reporting findings were surprising to me. I was, up to then, assuming “if only they were able to marry they wouldn’t act that way” regarding numerous partners. That is how THEY responded in that study and I do believe it was more men than women. But the finding of how the men responding regarded faithfulness was jaw dropping.

Behavior before marriage is indicative of how you will behave after. If a woman marries a man who has been cheating before hand, the chances of him cheating during the marriage are great.

I was reminded of a group who at one time were not granted the right to marry at all times, slaves. Even when they secretly married, infidelity (adultery) wasn’t the issue.

So, if they are self reporting that being faithful even in a marriage is not a big deal, or a good bit from the study, then why is it different than how even promiscuous heterosexual couples view monogamy? Being faithful is a very big part of marriage.

 

[Hopey]

From the article:

This is false and one of the complaints on the petition, which completely contradicts his thesis at the beginning of the article, which is fairly typical for Breitbart, who is more interested in making gays and liberals look bad than actual journalism. Breitbart is a horrible source.

He appears to not understand what the Church means by “psychological genesis.” It does not remove the possibility of a biological underlying cause for homosexuality. And the father thing has no factual basis whatsoever.

Breitbart is making the POINT of those who petitioned against this talk! Nowhere in the petition was there a complaint about Church doctrine. But when complete falsehoods (or irrelevant stories) like these are included in a talk about homosexuality, all you’re going to do is push kids AWAY from Catholicism, not towards it. Again, if you tell kids something they know to be false while trying to defend Catholic teaching, they’ll stop listening to your whole talk.

The reason that I believe the parents, the relationship of the child with the parents, does matter is because of this.
There was a psychologist, who the lesbian later tried to sue, that agreed to go into a house where several lesbians were living (actively sexual) and help with their inter personal relationships.
The psychologists goal was to help them see and become better, healthier, in relating to the other women.
Some of it involved past relationships with parents, etc, coming to terms with some things and healing had occurred with some of the women.
The psychologist’s goal was personal help and did not mention/focus on their sexual orientation.
The head lesbian, as she identified herself, was furious that some of these women not only left the house but want to marry men - identified as heterosexual now.

I do not believe this is the case for all those who experience ssa. But, I can’t rule out those who have been helped with past traumas, healing, who go on to have and want to marry the opposite sex.

The women didn’t identify as bi either beforehand but believed themselves to be lesbians from the beginning.
That is why in some, like Courage, they do not focus change of attraction but will support, if after the person has done the work, someone who feels they want to marry the opposite sex. It is also why they pray the serenity prayer because knowing what you can change and can’t (accepting it) is important.

Now, WHY did those women go on to want to marry men when they previously identified as lesbians?

 

[Hopey]

"Sister Laurel got into even more controversial areas – that the average homosexual may have an inordinate number of sex partners, for instance. This is unremarkable in gay literature which, going back decades, has celebrated a broader understanding of sexual fidelity. Gay author and activist Dan Savage even coined a term for the lack of fidelity in gay relationships, calling it “monogomish.” Even so, the few students who were listening were wholly unprepared to hear that gays may have upwards of 1,000 sex partners in their lifetime. The added problem is that the nun misspoke and said they may have that many in a single year. "

I had forgotten all about Dan Savage and his view of “monogomish”.

I think it is important to remember that some of these studies will remain controversial for several reasons and also because our medical association has stopped researching also, to a degree. And it is because they, American Psy, have removed it from a disorder. Interestingly enough, they are in the process of removing Narcissism from it also - will happen soon.

It is also why some of the studies she used are coming from certain foundations and not other - the Catholic medical foundation would continue studying something independently where the American would not - thus it becomes controversial because it isn’t accept by American Psy or Medical because they no longer recognize it as a problem.

Y’all have a blessed Triduum. Remember, Christ is bigger than anything that is problematic in our lives and He is our hope.
Peace.