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

[Hopey]

That link has serious issues

.

Are you able to explain why it has serious issues for you?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I honestly don’t see any problem with a youth minister using the terms “gay” and “lesbian” anyway. They’re vernacular now. Any denial of the term is going to come off as snobbery/holier-than-thou to youth. Like “I’m too good to use those words.”

That may be. But teens respect people having principles, and anyone who can combine principles with with-it-ness and good sense will be a good youth minister.

Personally, I would have no problem using the words, but I understand that other people have different takes on the subject.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The Bishops have spoken about this and I was under the impression they are getting the advice from Courage although one did allude to using terms the person was comfortable with (this was in reference to parents but not in general)

When did the bishops speak on this? Was it spoken of in the context of discussing youth ministry? How recent was the teaching?

I know that the Church has encouraged people not to consider homosexuality as their sexual identity. But the Magesterium itself has used the term “homosexual person”, which makes it hard for me to believe that they discourage the use of that particular term.

If it were seen, the none use of it to describe someone, as corrective and helping the person avoid areas that could be potentially harmful, would that change your attitude as to why some do not use it?

I don’t understand the question.

I do believe that the none use of the term is in their life in general, what Courage is asking them to do, not just in a setting with a pastor, etc. because that would be odd to just not use it there ? !

No, I meant that the individual person should work with a spiritual advisor to decide what terms to use. That was the sense I got from the Courage blurb, and that Courage itself would not use the words pastorally.

“This is why Courage considers it pastorally prudent to avoid terms that may be stumbling blocks to others; accordingly, we gently encourage our membership to think beyond the labels ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’.”

I think it’s the worry of causing a stumbling block that’s really motivating their position.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Are you able to explain why it has serious issues for you?

Using numbers, that deliberately exclude monogamous couples, from the 1980s to show that homosexual males were having four partners per month. The median now is about two per year which is 96% less. That’s just I.A.

 

[Hopey]

When did the bishops speak on this? Was it spoken of in the context of discussing youth ministry? How recent was the teaching?

They discussed this in one of their general meetings and the decision was made in a sub committee. I was listening to it - probably when they were deciding on the Liturgy and our new translation? They also back Courage. And you are right, they use homosexual person/inclination.

I haven’t seen any transcripts of their meetings. How they address this in future will be the key - what was decided. Also, in the document Always Our Children, there isn’t direct reference to it not to use it, but alluding to when a child calls themselves that - terminology.

 

[Hopey]

Using numbers, that deliberately exclude monogamous couples, from the 1980s to show that homosexual males were having four partners per month. The median now is about two per year which is 96% less. That’s just I.A.

What were the stats for couples in 1980’s and when you use monogamous, what do you mean?

Where are you getting your stats from, source?

 

[manualman]

Side commentary here, but is anybody REALLY surprised that in general society heterosexual men are often as promiscuous as gay men? We live in a society that totally buys into the contraceptive mentality in which sex has nothing to do with babies unless one WILLS for it to.

Personally, it’s no surprise at all to me. The reason contraception is immoral is essentially the same reason that gay sexual contact is immoral. Why would it be surprising that similar sins lead to similar negative effects?

Those attempting to argue that there is nothing in the nature of a gay relationship that makes it more prone to infidelity than a genuine marriage, do however, need to explain why AIDS is so overwhelmingly a disease of gay people. According to the CDC, table 1A cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/surveillance/2011/surveillance_Report_vol_23.html
about 86% of the new cases of HIV infection in the USA in 2001 for which risk factors were identified involved men who have sex with men. (the data does make it impossible to separate infection from blood transfusion from “undisclosed sources” but I’ve been assured many times that modern blood banks effectively screen for HIV these days). Can any of the gay culture apologists explain that phenomenon?

Here’s the math for those who doubt me. Sample size is 33,221 actual new cases - 7,648 = 25,573 sample size. I exclude the undisclosed because it’s not possible to tell how many of them had gay sex, had hetero sex or injected drugs. Of that remaining 25,573 the gay/bi population is 21,005 + 916 = 21,921. Percentage = 21,921 / 25,573 *100 = 86%. That’s a staggering number when you consider that less than 5% of the population has ever had gay sex.

Look at that in perspective. There are about 300,000,000 people in America. Somewhere around 25% are under 10 or over 70, leaving 225M. If half are men, that leaves 112.5M. Now we’ll generously assume 5% have had gay sex, making that total population 5.6M. Of that population 21,921 got AIDS in 2011 alone. That’s 0.39% of the entire gay population catching HIV every year. If you assume a gay man becomes sexually active at 18 and continues through age 60, that’s 42 years at 0.39% per year. Over a lifetime, that amounts to a 15% chance of contracting HIV. That’s some odds!

It gets even worse for black gay men. Those CDC numbers are hard to even believe. A massive percentage of the gay black male population must have HIV to produce those results.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Those attempting to argue that there is nothing in the nature of a gay relationship that makes it more prone to infidelity than a genuine marriage, do however, need to explain why AIDS is so overwhelmingly a disease of gay people. According to the CDC, table 1A cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/surveillance/2011/surveillance_Report_vol_23.html
about 86% of the new cases of AIDS in the USA in 2001 for which risk factors were identified involved men who have sex with men. (the data does make it impossible to separate infection from blood transfusion from “undisclosed sources” but I’ve been assured many times that modern blood banks effectively screen for AIDS these days). Can any of the gay culture apologists explain that phenomenon?

Here’s the math for those who doubt me. Sample size is 33,221 actual new cases - 7,648 = 25,573 sample size. I exclude the undisclosed because it’s not possible to tell how many of them had gay sex, had hetero sex or injected drugs. Of that remaining 25,573 the gay/bi population is 21,005 + 916 = 21,921. Percentage = 21,921 / 25,573 *100 = 86%. That’s a staggering number when you consider that less than 5% of the population has ever had gay sex.

Manualman, you’re confusing sexual acts with attractions. As I’ve written before on this very thread, while there is a definite overlap between the gay/bi and MSM populations, the MSM population also includes heterosexual men (such as straight sex workers who engage in gay sex or men “on the down low” who identify as straight, but have gay sex for fun). That’s why the CDC uses the terminology of Men Who Have Sex With Men (MSM). Because they’re studying a particular behavior. They’re not interested in the drift of the affections of the people who, for whatever reason, are engaging in that behavior. It’s the behavior that’s risky, in terms of HIV/AIDS, not the attractions/affections. So not all the folks in that 22k number you arrive at are homosexual. And it’s not the case that all of the estimated 5% of homosexuals are sexually active, nor is it the case that only homosexuals engage in homosexual sexual activity.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I’m afraid it only flies in the face of people’s lacking ability to correctly interpret statistics.

So, do you have a corner on the correct interpretation of statistics?

No, you are misreading me. I never spoke of “the disorder” (disordered desire != disorder), but of “disordered relationships”, which pretty much implies a gay partner. Which again is exactly what you say many Catholics in this forum “realize”, contrary to facts

Too much slicing and dicing. You said: …Catholics on this forum seem to make the opposite, fallacious conclusion; that the disorderly nature of a relationship causes infidelity and polygamy. I simply corrected the erroneous conclusion you reached, leaving the polygamy part.

Wishful thinking. Heterosexual men are notoriously prone to infidelity, and recent studies have indicated they’re even more so than previously believed. Yes, mostly any woman would (for the lack of a better word) freak out if she found out that her husband had cheated on her. But so would most gay men. And in most cases, it seems the affair is not found out; something that surprises me, but the statistics seem to imply it. I think we should realize that heterosexual marriages (even Catholic ones) aren’t as rosy as we tend to portray them; it doesn’t really help our credibility, since people in general know how fragile marriage is.

Except for the first sentence, I do not disagree with what you stated above.

I do not portray that heterosexual marriages (including Catholic ones) are all rosy. I look at the marriage of my own parents, better than most, I would say, but my father was no saint, or immune to temptation. As a young girl, our housekeeper told me, and I do not know why she did, of my father’s infidelity. When I got older, I found out more about the liaison. To my parents’ credit, they did not let Dad’s wrongdoing destroy their marriage. My mother was hurt and angry but dealt with Dad’s betrayal in her classy stiff upper lip way, not in front of us kids. I imagine she put her foot down, which put an end to Dad’s adventure. She forgave him, they weathered the storm, theirs a beautiful love story on the whole until the end when he passed on. Mom held the flame of love for him in her heart years after. We adult children just buried her nearly two months ago, their ashes in urns side by side, as they wished. My aunt’s marriage went more or less the same way as did the marriages of the mothers of several friends. Their husbands strayed, but they managed to work on whatever was wrong with the marriages and kept the family together. Their marriages probably would not work if their husbands did not stop the philandering. Not to say, too, that all women never betray(ed) their husbands. But it was not common. (I don’t know about the reliability of the 30% statistics you and Joie are citing about children in traditional families in the 19th century not being genetically connected to their known fathers.) It was also not common for wives to leave their marriages. Perhaps due to society being less forgiving to faithless wives and mothers not wanting to leave their children. It may be more common these days given the current culture, but the usual story still revolves around the theme that males have problems with being faithful.

Now two men playing “married” and house is a like forcing a pairing that is doomed in the likelihood that both at different times perhaps would stray one way or another. It is not even possible for two men to unite as one flesh. The sex drive is wired into us, to unite with the opposite sex, for procreation, even if the end purpose of procreation is not consciously made. A marriage needs differentiation of sexes, not only for potential children, but for different gifts and inherent qualities to masculinity and femininity to sustain a relationship.

And she’ll get bashed for it.
…

Bashed is too strong, don’t you think, unless your point is to add antagonism to someone’s ongoing disagreement with another. The appropriate word is criticized. Challenges to pronouncements based on weak basis are to be expected in this forum.
,

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

What were the stats for couples in 1980’s and when you use monogamous, what do you mean?

Where are you getting your stats from, source?

Almost certainly less than 4 per month.

By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984.6

That’s the link you provided.

I can’t remember which federal study thing it was from.

Side commentary here, but is anybody REALLY surprised that in general society heterosexual men are often as promiscuous as gay men? We live in a society that totally buys into the contraceptive mentality in which sex has nothing to do with babies unless one WILLS for it to.

Personally, it’s no surprise at all to me. The reason contraception is immoral is essentially the same reason that gay sexual contact is immoral. Why would it be surprising that similar sins lead to similar negative effects?

Those attempting to argue that there is nothing in the nature of a gay relationship that makes it more prone to infidelity than a genuine marriage, do however, need to explain why AIDS is so overwhelmingly a disease of gay people. According to the CDC, table 1A cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/surveillance/2011/surveillance_Report_vol_23.html
about 86% of the new cases of HIV infection in the USA in 2001 for which risk factors were identified involved men who have sex with men. (the data does make it impossible to separate infection from blood transfusion from “undisclosed sources” but I’ve been assured many times that modern blood banks effectively screen for HIV these days). Can any of the gay culture apologists explain that phenomenon?

Here’s the math for those who doubt me. Sample size is 33,221 actual new cases - 7,648 = 25,573 sample size. I exclude the undisclosed because it’s not possible to tell how many of them had gay sex, had hetero sex or injected drugs. Of that remaining 25,573 the gay/bi population is 21,005 + 916 = 21,921. Percentage = 21,921 / 25,573 *100 = 86%. That’s a staggering number when you consider that less than 5% of the population has ever had gay sex.

Look at that in perspective. There are about 300,000,000 people in America. Somewhere around 25% are under 10 or over 70, leaving 225M. If half are men, that leaves 112.5M. Now we’ll generously assume 5% have had gay sex, making that total population 5.6M. Of that population 21,921 got AIDS in 2011 alone. That’s 0.39% of the entire gay population catching HIV every year. If you assume a gay man becomes sexually active at 18 and continues through age 60, that’s 42 years at 0.39% per year. Over a lifetime, that amounts to a 15% chance of contracting HIV. That’s some odds!

It gets even worse for black gay men. Those CDC numbers are hard to even believe. A massive percentage of the gay black male population must have HIV to produce those results.

MSM≠Gay

Some of that infection is due to heterosexuals in prison, especially the black portion.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

MSM≠Gay

Some of that infection is due to heterosexuals in prison, especially the black portion.

It should be noted that as far as the CDC is concerned, the term MSM (men who have sex with men) is used for assessing HIV disease risk, referring to a risk behavior rather than an identity that may or may not be tied to a behavior. Necessarily, those who only identify as gay but do not engage in gay sex are not included in the risk group known as MSM.

There may be some heterosexual men who engage or are forced to engage in gay sex in certain situations and places such as in correctional settings. And there may be homosexuals who deny or just do not identify or are not yet out as homosexuals. Whatever the reason is, their sexual conduct with other men is the index used by the CDC.

In the data provided by the CDC of men with HIV in the U.S., it is rather doubtful that the overlap of MSM and gays and bisexuals is a small one. There is a big overlap of MSM with the gay / bisexual group. In other words, a lot of men who have sex with men ARE gay or bisexual.

Following is the CDC 2010 HIV in the U.S.:

CDC estimates that 1,144,500 persons aged 13 years and older are living with HIV infection, including 180,900 (15.8%) who are unaware of their infection.

**Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV. ** [Note that gay and bisexual are mentioned before MSM.]

In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections among MSM was 29,800, a significant 12% increase from the 26,700 new infections among MSM in 2008.

Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections. MSM accounted for 52% of all people living with HIV infection in 2009, the most recent year these data are available.

In 2010, white MSM continued to account for the largest number of new HIV infections (11,200), by transmission category, followed closely by black MSM (10,600).

The estimated number of new HIV infections was greatest among MSM in the youngest age group. In 2010, the greatest number of new HIV infections (4,800) among MSM occurred in young black/African American MSM aged 13–24. Young black MSM accounted for 45% of new HIV infections among black MSM and 55% of new HIV infections among young MSM overall.

According to the CDC 2010 data on HIV in Correctional settings, about 2.3 million are incarcerated. Each year, an estimated 1 in 7 persons living with HIV pass through a correctional facility. [This translates to 322,000 inmates with HIV.]. Most of them acquired HIV in the community, not while they were incarcerated.

Therefore, out of an estimated 1,145,000 men with HIV, gay, bisexual and other MSM, about 823,000 or 72% gay, bisexual and other MSM with HIV are not in prison.

The mere fact that CDC lists gay first, then bisexual, then MSM (to include other men who identify as heterosexuals or are closeted homosexuals but engage in gay sex) should tell any reader that mostly gays and bisexuals remain as the risk group hardest hit with HIV because of their risky sex practices. HIV spread by heterosexual sex (women infected by their bisexual partners) and injection drug use are also risk groups, part of the statistic to a much lesser extent, the numbers and percentage not nearly as great as HIV infection in gays and bisexuals.
,

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Yaoi, need I say more?

I wish more people would, particularly on the popular idea that its fanbase comprises heavily of straight women. (On that same line, it makes me wonder why nobody on CAF ever talks about the straight male’s attraction to lesbians.) The answer for why seems obvious but nobody dares explore it further to suggest that even perverts of one orientation can be strongly opposed to their homosexual counterparts.

I also noticed that nobody really answered my question on the Sister’s definition of masculinity. What does she mean when she says that porn reduces it? It’s claimed that it doesn’t mean porn makes you gay but what else should it mean then?

When I see all this talk about promiscuity for both straight and gay, it only blurs distinctions between both.

Sure, straight guys who watch porn are pervs but what makes you think they’re as friendly to the gay agenda as Catholics? The only difference I see is that one peeps and the other prays.

 

[Rin]

(…)is anybody REALLY surprised(…)We live in a society that totally buys into the contraceptive mentality(…)

While I absolutely agree contraceptive mentality makes things worse, it has been proved that men were notoriously promiscuous even before the birth of modern contraception. So it can’t be pinned only on that.

Can any of the gay culture apologists explain that phenomenon?

1. I have yet to see any gay culture apologists in this thread. Some of us, do, however, want to avoid false claims when talking to gay people, since that will generally just make us look like fools. We have a collective image problem - not because of what the Church teaches, but because of things Catholics say, online and elsewhere.
2. These phenomena have been explained, over and over and over again, but people seem to become temporarily deaf and ignore those posts.

So, do you have a corner on the correct interpretation of statistics?

See point 2) above. But to give a short few points:

1. MSM != gay. In statistics on MSM, also prostitutes and other men who sleep with men without necessarily even being attracted to men are included. Now if I were to speak about the instability of traditional marriage, and used statistics that included prostitutes to defend such a position, would you not agree the inclusion of said group kind of skews the image?
2. As has been repeated ad nauseam (and ignored), yes, gay men do have more partners when single, and this increases the statistic. However, when they enter a long-term relationship, they tend to become monogamous.

Too much slicing and dicing. You said: (…)I simply corrected the erroneous conclusion you reached(…)

No, you corrected a straw man.

I said: “However, many Catholics on this forum seem to make the opposite, fallacious conclusion; that the disorderly nature of a relationship causes infidelity and polygamy.”

You said: “Many Catholics in this forum DO realize infidelity is associated with gay partners, not that the disorder causes infidelity.”

Now, since you seem to not see the difference here, I never claimed Catholics say “the disorder” (and by that I presume you mean gay attraction, which, if so, is grounded in poor understanding of how the word “disordered” is used in theology) causes infidelity.

What I said, is that many Catholics mistakenly believe the disorderly nature of a relationship (namely, that the partner is of the same sex) causes infidelity (and polygamy). You said Catholics in this forum DO “realize” that infidelity is associated with a gay partner, which is exactly what I was referring to.

So not only did you misread me - you confirmed exactly what I said.

Except for the first sentence, I do not disagree with what you stated above.

I do not portray that heterosexual marriages (including Catholic ones) are all rosy. I look at the marriage of my own parents (…) Their marriages probably would not work if their husbands did not stop the philandering.

Obviously, in older times (including more recent times in Catholic families), people worked harder to save their marriages, simply because of the shame associated with divorce. This was in most cases a good thing (except like in the cases of abuse, incest and so on).

And yes, in some cases, the affair was a one-time event. They worked through it, the man managed to revert to monogamy, and they learned from it. In other cases, the wife simply tolerated (though suffered under) her husband’s “adventures”. Both happened, and in both cases, the public never heard of it, at least not the specific cases. But given the amount of mentions of infidelity and illegitimate children in literature, I suspect people must have been aware of it being common.

Not to say, too, that all women never betray(ed) their husbands. But it was not common.

It was (and is) indeed less common - it does, however, seem, that wives who have affairs have more of them, while more men have them, but with fewer women. In addition, some men of course visited prostitutes or had affairs with unmarried women. Which also is part of the explanation why more men than women are unfaithful.

(I don’t know about the reliability of the 30% statistics(…)Perhaps due to society being less forgiving to faithless wives(…)

Blood type profiling is rather reliable, and I see no reason to distrust the study. Women are better at hiding their tracks, so it does not surprise me that 30% of children grew up believing their father to be someone other than their biological one. It also does not surprise me that their legal fathers were unaware.

It was not common for either gender to leave their marriages, actually. But yes, society was less forgiving to faithless wives, and when they were discovered, the consequences weren’t good. But then they were discovered less often.

Now two men playing “married” and house is a like forcing a pairing that is doomed(…)The sex drive is wired into us, to unite(…)A marriage needs differentiation of sexes(…)

See, now you’re doing it again - you’re making the conclusion that because a relationship is disordered theologically, it is doomed to fail humanly. This is a non sequitur.

Not only does experience (statistics, anecdotes) tell us many gay relationships last (and monogamously so), there is no reason they shouldn’t. In trying to make a reason, you say the sex drive is wired into us - do you really think a homosexual person’s sex drive is oriented to the opposite sex and procreation? If so you are not just wrong scientifically, but also theologically; the reason theology calls homosexual orientation “disordered”, is that it is not oriented towards procreation.

And yes, marriage needs differentiation of sexes. I never stated otherwise.

 

[Hopey]

What is reported, observed, etc, in the researches in not JUST promiscuity - comparable to behavior of heterosexual men- but something more.
The way they respond, including sex partners, make me wonder if they suffer from a higher incidence of sexual addiction. If some sexual addictions stem from emotional problems, some would make sense why it continues.
When George Michael who was caught in the bathrooms having sex and said it was a “gay” thing, I am wondering if that is a mistake, on everyone’s part, and is more a sexual addiction?

 

[Hopey]

Further thinking out loud, I wonder if Courage unwittingly knew the incidence was higher (even though I haven’t seen it in literature) and why they worked in the 12 Steps to help those in the program?
One reason for sexual addiction is a response to emotional problems/past abuse. Those are just some of the reasons.
Compared to other groups, their incidences of sexual addiction does seem higher esp attitudes to commitment for some who responded.
I think it would behoove everyone to explore it and rename it; no longer a “gay” thing but sexual addiction with underlying problems that need to be dealt with.

 

[manualman]

So not all the folks in that 22k number you arrive at are homosexual.

Good points by you and others that I didn’t think of: hetero male prostitutes with male “Johns” and prison rapists and their victims. And it does suggest a plausible explanation for the appallingly high number of black male HIV cases since black men are such a disproportionately high percentage of inmates.

Not sure I’m terribly convinced by claims of straight men willingly engaging in male-male sex not counting as gay though. Seems like twisted semantics to me.

At the root of all these controversies is anger at the assertion that sin causes damage to the human soul and that damage manifests itself in visible ways. People can quibble all they want about statistical methods, exceptions, biased samples, and faulty definitions, but reality doesn’t really care. Sin hurts people and the evidence isn’t really all that hard to find.

 

[manualman]

While I absolutely agree contraceptive mentality makes things worse, it has been proved that men were notoriously promiscuous even before the birth of modern contraception. So it can’t be pinned only on that.

The contraceptive mentality isn’t new. Onan was an OLD testament figure, you realize. One does not need latex or hormones to develop an attitude in which sex has nothing to do with procreation (or self-giving love for that matter). Men have been sinful since Adam himself.

So we shouldn’t be surprised if gay men cheat on their partners in a similar rate as hetero men in a culture where contracepted sex is the cultural norm. It would be surprising indeed if gay men didn’t cheat more than heterosexual men who have conscience convictions against the use of contraception.

 

[TCEL]

At the root of all these controversies is anger at the assertion that sin causes damage to the human soul and that damage manifests itself in visible ways. People can quibble all they want about statistical methods, exceptions, biased samples, and faulty definitions, but reality doesn’t really care. Sin hurts people and the evidence isn’t really all that hard to find.

Those are my thoughts. Certainly, the truth is always important when evangelizing, but what people are really scandalized by is that we need to be saved from something. That, I believe, is the root of the anger surrounding this situation, not alleged mistruths. I certainly don’t mean that in a self-righteous way, because of course, I find myself in that boat too.

“The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it emotionally. A higher paradox confounds emotion as well as reason and there are long periods in the lives of all of us, and of the saints, when the truth as revealed by faith is hideous, emotionally disturbing, downright repulsive. Witness the dark night of the soul in individual saints. Right now the whole world seems to be going through a dark night of the soul.” - Flannery O’Connor
…
A world indifferent to its need for redemption is not indifferent to the possibility of redemption; it’s a world hostile to that possibility. Down the centuries, the mockery endured by Christ on the cross may stand as the paradigmatic expression of that hostility.
Easter with Flannery O’Connor

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Not sure I’m terribly convinced by claims of straight men willingly engaging in male-male sex not counting as gay though. Seems like twisted semantics to me.

If they’re sex workers, that’s their job: lots of people don’t like their jobs, or are temperamentally unsuited to some of the tasks their jobs require, but they adapt and they do the work before them because they need to eat and, consequently, want to get paid. If they’re sex addicts, chances are they’re more interested in the orgasm than in the sex of their partner. Moreover, no one “counts as gay” unless they self-identify as such. People do a lot of odd things: it’s part of what makes us both beautiful and pitiable.

At the root of all these controversies is anger at the assertion that sin causes damage to the human soul and that damage manifests itself in visible ways. People can quibble all they want about statistical methods, exceptions, biased samples, and faulty definitions, but reality doesn’t really care. Sin hurts people and the evidence isn’t really all that hard to find.

That’s not quite what’s at the root of all this. It’s to be expected that sin causes damage. What causes friction is when assumptions are made about who’s doing what sin, the assumption that because you’re x (attracted to members of the same sex) you necessarily do sinful behavior y (homosexual sex), therefore sinful behavior is constitutive of what it means to be x. This leads to a lot of errors and misunderstanding.

Moreover, it sounds like you’re making this argument: it doesn’t matter what anyone actually says about anything, nor does it matter what anyone actually thinks is true, we ultimately all know what’s what. Because what you’re saying is basically: “It doesn’t matter whether or not gay folks think they’re sexual sinners, of course they don’t–but we all know the damage sin can do; we all know sin hurts, so…you do the math.” Which is as meaningless and mealy-mouthed as saying, “It doesn’t matter if a Catholic believes they’re an idolater–of course they don’t believe they’re an idolater–but everyone knows what idolatry actually looks like, so…you know. Feelings are bound to get hurt.”

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

It should be noted that as far as the CDC is concerned, the term MSM (men who have sex with men) is used for assessing HIV disease risk, referring to a risk behavior rather than an identity that may or may not be tied to a behavior. Necessarily, those who only identify as gay but do not engage in gay sex are not included in the risk group known as MSM.

There may be some heterosexual men who engage or are forced to engage in gay sex in certain situations and places such as in correctional settings. And there may be homosexuals who deny or just do not identify or are not yet out as homosexuals. Whatever the reason is, their sexual conduct with other men is the index used by the CDC.

In the data provided by the CDC of men with HIV in the U.S., it is rather doubtful that the overlap of MSM and gays and bisexuals is a small one. There is a big overlap of MSM with the gay / bisexual group. In other words, a lot of men who have sex with men ARE gay or bisexual.

Following is the CDC 2010 HIV in the U.S.:

CDC estimates that 1,144,500 persons aged 13 years and older are living with HIV infection, including 180,900 (15.8%) who are unaware of their infection.

**Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV. ** [Note that gay and bisexual are mentioned before MSM.]

In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections among MSM was 29,800, a significant 12% increase from the 26,700 new infections among MSM in 2008.

Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections. MSM accounted for 52% of all people living with HIV infection in 2009, the most recent year these data are available.

In 2010, white MSM continued to account for the largest number of new HIV infections (11,200), by transmission category, followed closely by black MSM (10,600).

The estimated number of new HIV infections was greatest among MSM in the youngest age group. In 2010, the greatest number of new HIV infections (4,800) among MSM occurred in young black/African American MSM aged 13–24. Young black MSM accounted for 45% of new HIV infections among black MSM and 55% of new HIV infections among young MSM overall.

According to the CDC 2010 data on HIV in Correctional settings, about 2.3 million are incarcerated. Each year, an estimated 1 in 7 persons living with HIV pass through a correctional facility. [This translates to 322,000 inmates with HIV.]. Most of them acquired HIV in the community, not while they were incarcerated.

Therefore, out of an estimated 1,145,000 men with HIV, gay, bisexual and other MSM, about 823,000 or 72% gay, bisexual and other MSM with HIV are not in prison.

The mere fact that CDC lists gay first, then bisexual, then MSM (to include other men who identify as heterosexuals or are closeted homosexuals but engage in gay sex) should tell any reader that mostly gays and bisexuals remain as the risk group hardest hit with HIV because of their risky sex practices. HIV spread by heterosexual sex (women infected by their bisexual partners) and injection drug use are also risk groups, part of the statistic to a much lesser extent, the numbers and percentage not nearly as great as HIV infection in gays and bisexuals.
,

1. That disproves nothing I said
2. 72% is 5/7th not 6/7th
3. 1/7th of 1,144,500 is 163,500 not 322,000
4. It’s phrased “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)” because “and other men who have sex with men” wouldn’t make grammatical sense anywhere other than last in the list for the same reason et al. is always last. When talking about MSM the obvious way to list it is a group that is (almost) exclusively that, then the group that is partially that and finally the others which are even more marginally attached.

I wish more people would, particularly on the popular idea that its fanbase comprises heavily of straight women. (On that same line, it makes me wonder why nobody on CAF ever talks about the straight male’s attraction to lesbians.) The answer for why seems obvious but nobody dares explore it further to suggest that even perverts of one orientation can be strongly opposed to their homosexual counterparts.

I also noticed that nobody really answered my question on the Sister’s definition of masculinity. What does she mean when she says that porn reduces it? It’s claimed that it doesn’t mean porn makes you gay but what else should it mean then?

When I see all this talk about promiscuity for both straight and gay, it only blurs distinctions between both.

Sure, straight guys who watch porn are pervs but what makes you think they’re as friendly to the gay agenda as Catholics? The only difference I see is that one peeps and the other prays.

Y’know what I find even weirder than straight men’s attraction to lesbians? Straight men’s attraction to futanari and shemale/tranny porn, that’s actually one of the most popular genres of porn for straight men (gay men have no interest in that stuff), on the flip side Buck Angel who is a transman who still has a vagina is exclusively popular amongst gay men (niche stuff). Note, for those who don’t know, shemale/tranny refers to a porn genre and should never be used to refer to an actual transgender person because it is extremely offensive (largely because it is connected to porn and reduces them to sexual objects to be used by others).