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

[Joie_de_Vivre]

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?

Or maybe they are men with easy access to partners and no chance of impregnating the other person hence the more sex whereas a straight man has a much more confined pool of partners that’s harder to access and has to worry about the possibility of impregnating the other person.

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.

They can still experience pleasure even if they aren’t attracted to men, especially if they are on top.

 

[Path_Finder]

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.

I think your posts are spot on, since we are speaking about a small subset of the population to begin with, I must believe that the subset of the subset can’t account for that many people as well, thus the percentage being somewhat negligible.

I believe the number of those with same-sex attraction in the population is around 2-3%. This subset they are speaking of of MSM can’t be too high at that. So, I see inserting this number that while useful for the purposes of the CDC, in the overall picture, I don’t think it has that great of an effect on the equation really.

 

[Rin]

I think your posts are spot on, since we are speaking about a small subset of the population to begin with, I must believe that the subset of the subset can’t account for that many people as well, thus the percentage being somewhat negligible.

I believe the number of those with same-sex attraction in the population is around 2-3%. This subset they are speaking of of MSM can’t be too high at that. So, I see inserting this number that while useful for the purposes of the CDC, in the overall picture, I don’t think it has that great of an effect on the equation really.

While your assumption regarding the size of the subset is correct, your conclusion (if I understand it right) is wrong. That very small subset affects the equation greatly, since many of them are sex workers. And sex workers tend to have a lot of sex, with a lot of partners. In studies on heterosexual relationships, sex workers are obviously left out. When people here try to say something about homosexual relationship from studies of STDs among men who have sex with men, they forget that sex workers are part of the equation.

Hence, those studies are pretty much worthless when it comes to say anything about long-term gay relationships. They do, however, say something about the dangers of random, male homosexual encounters. Which again indicates that celibacy or a long-term, monogamous relationship are vastly preferable over random encounters.

As a Catholic, I of course recommend celibacy. But if the person sees that as unbearable, I actually do recommend sticking to one partner in a monogamous relationship, while remaining clear about what my Faith says. Yes, I am fully aware of how terribly problematic this is, given the fact that this might be seen as persistent sin. However, at least a monogamous relationship will decrease the chances of infection greatly until or if that person decides they are able to live in celibacy. Sometimes, pragmatism is at least a temporary solution, while sticking to principles to the degree of going from faith to ideology might cause the person to permanently reject Catholicism. I would rather be accused of pragmatism than of the latter, come the final judgement.

 

[mjwise]

I think your posts are spot on, since we are speaking about a small subset of the population to begin with, I must believe that the subset of the subset can’t account for that many people as well, thus the percentage being somewhat negligible.

I believe the number of those with same-sex attraction in the population is around 2-3%. This subset they are speaking of of MSM can’t be too high at that. So, I see inserting this number that while useful for the purposes of the CDC, in the overall picture, I don’t think it has that great of an effect on the equation really.

This 2012 article puts the point estimate of prevalence of “MSM-ever” in the general male population in the US at 6.9%. That’s a lot higher than 2 or 3%.

I think you underestimate the number of men who have had sex with men but would never publicly identify as gay or bi or anything like that. There’s a reason the CDC uses the term.

 

[Path_Finder]

While your assumption regarding the size of the subset is correct, your conclusion (if I understand it right) is wrong. That very small subset affects the equation greatly, since many of them are sex workers. And sex workers tend to have a lot of sex, with a lot of partners. In studies on heterosexual relationships, sex workers are obviously left out. When people here try to say something about homosexual relationship from studies of STDs among men who have sex with men, they forget that sex workers are part of the equation.

Hence, those studies are pretty much worthless when it comes to say anything about long-term gay relationships. They do, however, say something about the dangers of random, male homosexual encounters. Which again indicates that celibacy or a long-term, monogamous relationship are vastly preferable over random encounters.

As a Catholic, I of course recommend celibacy. But if the person sees that as unbearable, I actually do recommend sticking to one partner in a monogamous relationship, while remaining clear about what my Faith says. Yes, I am fully aware of how terribly problematic this is, given the fact that this might be seen as persistent sin. However, at least a monogamous relationship will decrease the chances of infection greatly until or if that person decides they are able to live in celibacy. Sometimes, pragmatism is at least a temporary solution, while sticking to principles to the degree of going from faith to ideology might cause the person to permanently reject Catholicism. I would rather be accused of pragmatism than of the latter, come the final judgement.

I’m still not convinced the sex workers part has that much effect on the total populace, sex workers of both sexes and for the record, the CDC does seem to track sharing hyperdermic needles and all of that.

Prostitutes? Yes, I’d think they are a high risk group, period.

 

[Rin]

(Sorry about double posting, i saw this post after I wrote the previous one)

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.

This is true. Yet it has increased a lot, but I can see your point about men who cheat having a contraceptive mentality even back then.

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.

I would obviously not be surprised if they cheated on their partners in a similar rate as hetero men; they are, after all, still men. We could hypothesize as to whether this actually causes a bit less cheating because they are both more aware of the other’s “nature” (biological, not theological) and hence more vigilant, or a bit more, since there are two men in the picture, but we wouldn’t have data to support either conclusion.

What I am opposed to, is the tendency some people here have to wanting to paint gay relationships as notoriously unstable. This is simply wrong.

I do agree with what you wrote in another post, that some anger around this may stem from the unwillingness to accept that sin has temporal consequences. However, there is the opposite mechanism at work here, too: “Homosexual acts are sinful, therefore they need to have temporal consequences, therefore I have to dig up any and all perceived or real negative consequence or even construct them, and I will uncritically accept any claimed such consequence.”

Okay, I’m exaggerating a bit now - I mean no offense. However, this is a tendency of some Christians, and it is a tendency LGB (and T, but that is an entirely different debate) shake their heads at. It not only lowers our credibility - it straight out kills it. It stinks of ideology, of confirmation bias, and of prejudice (in the proper sense of the word - judging before taking in evidence). This is why I fight these tendencies; we really need to work on our image. Not through changing our teachings, but through changing the methods of the more vocal among the faithful.

 

[Rin]

I’m still not convinced the sex workers part has that much effect on the total populace, sex workers of both sexes and for the record, the CDC does seem to track sharing hyperdermic needles and all of that.

Prostitutes? Yes, I’d think they are a high risk group, period.

So you don’t think sex workers affect the number of lifetime partners among a group? Wow.

With regards to infection rates, also remember that sex workers affect their customers (at least those who are irresponsible enough to not use any kind of protection; I hope most here agree that using a condom doesn’t really worsen the situation if you’re already buying sex from a same-sex prostitute…), who again affect the statistics. Now of course those customers could be in a relationship, but if so, these studies tell us nothing about those relationships. They could just as well be heterosexual marriages as gay unions. Actually, I’d think they’re more often heterosexually married, since a gay man in a straight marriage generally will feel the need for discretion, and most sex workers are generally good at that. But I could be wrong; I have at least not seen a study on same-sex prostitute customers.

 

[TCEL]

Okay, I’m exaggerating a bit now - I mean no offense. However, this is a tendency of some Christians, and it is a tendency LGB (and T, but that is an entirely different debate) shake their heads at. It not only lowers our credibility - it straight out kills it. It stinks of ideology, of confirmation bias, and of prejudice (in the proper sense of the word - judging before taking in evidence). This is why I fight these tendencies; we really need to work on our image. Not through changing our teachings, but through changing the methods of the more vocal among the faithful.

You’re right that people shouldn’t rig studies or stats to say what they want. What stats would you suggest using? (Not attacking, but genuine curiosity. For example, I may cite studies or physicians stating that hormonal contraception can be abortifacient, but then people turn around and use their own data. It’s either true, or not. Or we can talk about the increased chance of STDs with sexual promiscuity. It’s either true, or not. It can sound just as bad to say we should be taken at our word and not avail ourselves of the data that is present. That too isn’t being bound to truth.)

 

[Path_Finder]

So you don’t think sex workers affect the number of lifetime partners among a group? Wow.

With regards to infection rates, also remember that sex workers affect their customers (at least those who are irresponsible enough to not use any kind of protection; I hope most here agree that using a condom doesn’t really worsen the situation if you’re already buying sex from a same-sex prostitute…), who again affect the statistics. Now of course those customers could be in a relationship, but if so, these studies tell us nothing about those relationships. They could just as well be heterosexual marriages as gay unions. Actually, I’d think they’re more often heterosexually married, since a gay man in a straight marriage generally will feel the need for discretion, and most sex workers are generally good at that. But I could be wrong; I have at least not seen a study on same-sex prostitute customers.

You have good posts.

For some reason it occurred to me, what happens in prison. And I apologize for all if this is off-topic. Obviously, we hear about “things” going on in prison yet, I don’t know if most inmates who participate in these “things” in prison would have same-sex attraction outside of a prison. Still, then to the bigger picture, I’m not sure of the effect.

This seems to be what people are talking about.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

This 2012 article puts the point estimate of prevalence of “MSM-ever” in the general male population in the US at 6.9%. That’s a lot higher than 2 or 3%.

I think you underestimate the number of men who have had sex with men but would never publicly identify as gay or bi or anything like that. There’s a reason the CDC uses the term.

Indeed, between gay and bisexual men the percent is maybe 5%

I’m still not convinced the sex workers part has that much effect on the total populace, sex workers of both sexes and for the record, the CDC does seem to track sharing hyperdermic needles and all of that.

Prostitutes? Yes, I’d think they are a high risk group, period.

It has a massive effect on averages especially when dealing with a group as small as the gay population.

So you don’t think sex workers affect the number of lifetime partners among a group? Wow.

With regards to infection rates, also remember that sex workers affect their customers (at least those who are irresponsible enough to not use any kind of protection; I hope most here agree that using a condom doesn’t really worsen the situation if you’re already buying sex from a same-sex prostitute…), who again affect the statistics. Now of course those customers could be in a relationship, but if so, these studies tell us nothing about those relationships. They could just as well be heterosexual marriages as gay unions. Actually, I’d think they’re more often heterosexually married, since a gay man in a straight marriage generally will feel the need for discretion, and most sex workers are generally good at that. But I could be wrong; I have at least not seen a study on same-sex prostitute customers.

There are not many studies on prostitution except for female sex workers with male clients as women aren’t inclined towards engaging in just sex, especially when they are the ones footing the bill and the LGBT population is too small.

I honestly think that MSM are much likely to engage in prostitution over a lifetime than heterosexual men because they are much more likely to be put in situations where sex work is one of the few viable options (AKA survival sex) and as we know money don’t grown trees, they’ve got bills to pay and they’ve got mouths to feed, ain’t nothing in this world for free. Also of course closeted MSM are probably far more likely to pay for sex.

Then there are transwomen sometimes lumped in as MSM who often struggle to get legal remunerative pay due to incongruence between appearance and legal identification forcing many into prostitution. This is becoming less frequent as it becomes possible to changed that legal identification, but is still a very serious issue. Although I’m sure you are acutely aware of the situation many places put transgender people in.

 

[manualman]

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.”

First off, kudos for being perhaps the most even tempered and thick skinned human being on the internet. An excellent virtue to cultivate!

A few responses:

1. Quite so. I intentionally addressed male prostitutes before this later category somebody suggested of other heterosexual men who sometimes have consensual sex with men. If you’re consensually having unpaid sex with men but deny you have a same sex attraction, you’re just self-delusional. That’s the point I was objecting to. Apologies for the confusion.
2. No, I really do think it is the root of it. Society, even nominal catholics, are wanting to claim that gay sex is NOT inherently harmful. Thus they get upset when Christians point out the fact that, A. God has clearly declared it to be sinful, B. Sin by definition is that which harms our ability to give and receive love (both human and divine). Said nominal catholics like those doing the protesting that prompted this thread are fundamentally angry when someone in the church leadership stands up and claims that church teaching is NOT just an arbitrary and curious moral assertion divorced from reality, but is in harmony with what can be observed in the world. You, of course, are spot on in reminding all that not all people with a gay inclination actually go out and have gay sex. Actions are sins, not temptations or inclinations. And thank God for that!
3. I’m honestly not following you here. What I objected to was the way in which people try to find endless loopholes around the fact that sin begets more sin. They want to believe that Christian doctrine about gay sex is anachronistic and arbitrary like JW doctrine against blood transfusions. It’s not. Sin is like cancer in that it grows and does widespread damage in the long run. People try to construct elaborate escape clauses to deny it, much like the assertion (not by you specifically) that some men engage in consensual, unpaid male-male sex but aren’t really gay or bisexual, so they don’t count in the statistics. That’s semantic silliness.
   I’m sure the above is offensive to many who see catholic teaching as disconnected from the “real world” but time will bear it out. As general society embraces gay sexual intimacy as identical in value to married heterosexual behavior it will become increasingly difficult to blame all the OTHER self destructive outcomes in the sexually active gay community on the disapproval of those mean Christians.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

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.

1. Talking about MSM as defined by the CDC?

I brought up in post # 605 about MSM in CDC 2010 report of HIV in the U.S. I do not believe that those who do not identify as gay but engage in gay sex (to include male sex workers, if you like, in addition to situational gay sex that happens in prison – the CDC also reported on HIV in Correctional Settings) being counted in the study changes the fact that MSM are largely gay and bisexual. Your perspective it seems as with Joie and Deo Volente is to minimize the fact that gay and bisexual men comprise the group under the umbrella of MSM as the most significant risk group affected by HIV. LGBs (actively and not actively sexual) do not like to read or hear the uncomfortable truth that many in their group have a problem with unhealthy sex practices and promiscuity. Even transgenders, according to the CDC 2010 HIV Among Transgender People study cdc.gov/hiv/risk/transgender/ is a high risk group.

1. There are only anecdotal stories which gets trumpeted by LGBs pushing for societal acceptance of same sex “marriage”, that when gay men enter long term relationships, they tend to become monogamous. Sure, there are gay male couplings where the partners remain monogamous for decades, to the end, as attested by supporters of gay relationships. However, as studies by gay researchers portray, non-monogamy characterizes many given a few years into these relationships. In fact, non-monogamy is increasingly a sort of pre-nup agreement with gay couples - it just becomes a matter of working out the rules of non-monogamy in their “married” life.

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.

I was not questioning the reliability of blood typing to establish or rule out genetic connection. I was curious about the supposed 30% finding of children being sired by fathers other than the ones they knew to be their biological fathers. Can you provide a link to the study?

… 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.

You skipped the rest of my sentence, which in full was:

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.

 

[Rin]

You’re right that people shouldn’t rig studies or stats to say what they want. What stats would you suggest using?

I think the main problem here is that there are very few, up to date, relevant studies at all to the specific subject of stability in homosexual relationships. I have seen references to studies which indicate they are similar to heterosexual ones, but they are neither in my bookmarks nor in English. And in any case, they would not be conclusive due to small sample size.

So my conclusion is simply that there isn’t much relevant raw data to go on. In such situations, anecdotes are better than nothing - and what I hear from people who know the American LGB culture well (mainly on this forum), in addition to what I know from people in my own country, monogamy and fidelity seem to be heavily emphasised in gay relationships. I see no reason to distrust this until I see relevant studies made on “normal” LGB populations in long-term relationships.

(Not attacking, but genuine curiosity. For example, I may cite studies or physicians stating that hormonal contraception can be abortifacient, but then people turn around and use their own data. It’s either true, or not. Or we can talk about the increased chance of STDs with sexual promiscuity. It’s either true, or not. It can sound just as bad to say we should be taken at our word and not avail ourselves of the data that is present. That too isn’t being bound to truth.)

I guess the difference is that in the case of hormonal contraception, it is rather easy to prove or disprove that they can be abortifacient (or rather, it is established truth). The same goes for the increased chance of STDs with sexual promiscuity. It should be a no-brainer since they are transferred through sexual intercourse, and in addition, statistics clearly prove the connection.

However, using studies on epidemiology or total number of partners in a lifetime to say something about gay long-term relationships, is misapplication of data. The studies aren’t relevant. At best, if one doesn’t want to accept anecdotes, it is possible to conclude that we don’t know anything about gay relationships in general. But pretending to know that they’re less stable, is simply unfounded.

You have good posts.

Thank you; I hope I don’t come across as too confrontational. It is not my intention, but rather a bad habit from having my debating habits formed in Philosophy class…

For some reason it occurred to me, what happens in prison. And I apologize for all if this is off-topic. Obviously, we hear about “things” going on in prison yet, I don’t know if most inmates who participate in these “things” in prison would have same-sex attraction outside of a prison. Still, then to the bigger picture, I’m not sure of the effect.

This seems to be what people are talking about.

I think many of them will not have same-sex attraction outside prison; sometimes, being “starved” (and unwillingly so - very different from willingly choosing celibacy) can alter someones attractions. There are records of this happening in concentration camps during the War, at least. It would not surprise me if the same was true in prison today.

I’m not sure about the effect of this specific phenomenon either, I was primarily thinking of prostitutes when I spoke of MSM who may not be gay (and definitely not in a relationship!), while still affecting the statistics a lot.

There are not many studies on prostitution except for female sex workers with male clients as women aren’t inclined towards engaging in just sex, especially when they are the ones footing the bill and the LGBT population is too small.

I know there aren’t a lot of studies on male, same-sex prostitutes as such, but they are generally included in statistics on disease spread in MSM. As they should be, of course.

I honestly think that MSM are much likely to engage in prostitution over a lifetime than heterosexual men because they are much more likely to be put in situations where sex work is one of the few viable options (AKA survival sex) and as we know money don’t grown trees, they’ve got bills to pay and they’ve got mouths to feed, ain’t nothing in this world for free. Also of course closeted MSM are probably far more likely to pay for sex.

This is of course true; being disowned by parents, refused education and/or work, and so on, generally leads to having to be “creative” in earning money. This scene seems to be a lot smaller in countries where LGB people are less likely to end up homeless.

And yes, closeted gays are obviously more likely to pay for sex than heterosexuals - but as I mentioned, I suspect this might mostly affect the stability of heterosexual marriage…

Then there are transwomen sometimes lumped in as MSM who often struggle to get legal remunerative pay due to incongruence between appearance and legal identification forcing many into prostitution. This is becoming less frequent as it becomes possible to changed that legal identification, but is still a very serious issue. Although I’m sure you are acutely aware of the situation many places put transgender people in.

Yeah, this is a huge issue. In addition to the problem with getting a job in the first place, there is also the part about needing a lot of money for medical treatment which is not covered by insurance or welfare. It is often amplified by the fact that many countries still require SRS to recognize a legal gender change, which makes it difficult to get a job (unless there are anti-discrimination clauses in place) before SRS, but then SRS is expensive unless covered, and so on. It can quickly spiral out of control. Thankfully it is my impression that situations like these are rarer nowadays, but they’re still too common nevertheless.

 

[Rin]

(…)

We’re running in circles here, and you still seem to misread (or ignore, but I’ll presume that I simply don’t express myself clearly enough instead) half of my points. So I’ll end this here.

As for the study, no, I can not provide a link, since I’m horrible at bookmarking them. But they have been all over media lately, I’m sure it is easily googlable. Unless Joie has it bookmarked?

 

[TCEL]

I think the main problem here is that there are very few, up to date, relevant studies at all to the specific subject of stability in homosexual relationships. I have seen references to studies which indicate they are similar to heterosexual ones, but they are neither in my bookmarks nor in English. And in any case, they would not be conclusive due to small sample size.

So my conclusion is simply that there isn’t much relevant raw data to go on. In such situations, anecdotes are better than nothing - and what I hear from people who know the American LGB culture well (mainly on this forum), in addition to what I know from people in my own country, monogamy and fidelity seem to be heavily emphasised in gay relationships. I see no reason to distrust this until I see relevant studies made on “normal” LGB populations in long-term relationships.

Thank you. The whole topic is quite confusing to me. I have to admit I can sometimes be a bit skeptical from all angles. So, all you folks are saying is simply that the issue of monogamy isn’t an area to wade into. But that seems a bit funny to me, because I guess from my perspective, monogamy and fidelity really aren’t as important in our culture as they used to be, regardless of who we are attracted to. Is that too cynical on my part? If so, perhaps I can see the good in this in that some people are still trying to uphold the goodness of monogamy and fidelity.

 

[Rin]

Thank you. The whole topic is quite confusing to me. I have to admit I can sometimes be a bit skeptical from all angles. So, all you folks are saying is simply that the issue of monogamy isn’t an area to wade into. But that seems a bit funny to me, because I guess from my perspective, monogamy and fidelity really aren’t as important in our culture as they used to be, regardless of who we are attracted to. Is that too cynical on my part? If so, perhaps I can see the good in this in that some people are still trying to uphold the goodness of monogamy and fidelity.

Believe me, it is confusing to me too.

I guess what I (I’ll try not to speak for others) am saying is that while my impression is that (especially) lesbian and (most) gay couples place weight on monogamy to the same (if not bigger) extent as heterosexual couples, and what little data there is together with anecdotes seems to support this, there are no large-scale studies neither to confirm nor reject this. So in the lack of such a study, it is a bad idea trying to paint gay couples as notoriously unstable (which is what started this now very long sub-debate ), since the people in question will know it not to be true. Of course their image of their own community could be wrong, but to prove that, one would need more than vague interpretations of epidemiology studies. So yes, it’s basically best to stay away from that subject.

As to the second part, I used to think fidelity is no longer important in Western culture. But I’ve come to change my mind on this; yes, people sleep around more, they (probably) cheat more, and so on. But look at what cheating leads to, in the majority of cases: Generally, the betrayed part ends the relationship. Look at how cheaters are portrayed in TV shows and movies. Look at articles of the “how to know if your boyfriend/husband is cheating on you” kind. Simply from looking at popular culture, I think we can conclude that fidelity in a relationship still plays a big role in society. It has just become more visible how bad we are at sticking to it.

And to the last sentence (if I understand you correctly): Yes, I think it is good that people try to uphold values of monogamy and fidelity, even if their relationship is same-sex (though note that I also find it problematic… as I said, this is confusing to me). Isolated, they are traditional values. And hence a step closer to accepting the whole truth. In addition, there is the whole thing with health consequences and so on - obviously, having one partner is a lot less risky than having one-night stands.

 

[manualman]

… I guess from my perspective, monogamy and fidelity really aren’t as important in our culture as they used to be, regardless of who we are attracted to. Is that too cynical on my part? …

I think that nails it, actually. Legal status of marriage for gay relationships is not itself causing damage to the institution of marriage. It’s a symptom of the fact that the culture has** already **lost the comprehension of what marriage really is that people can conceive of “gay marriage” without perceiving the sort of cognitive dissonance that people hear when you say “round square.”

If people see no oxymoron in the term, then that shows that their perception of marriage is one that is primarily about romantic feelings, not about living out the vocation in which humanity most closely reflects the likeness of God.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

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.

LOL. Go right ahead. Whatever agenda you are pushing seems to be affecting your reading and math.

1 in 7 or 14 % of the incarcerated of 2,300,000 in the U.S. is 322,000. But let’s say we take your erroneous figure of 163,500, which you based on the number of people in the U.S. with HIV, and not in correctional facilities, less inmates figure in the MSM with HIV. What have you proven? That makes the number of questionably gay people, males who do not identify as gay but engage in gay sex, among MSM even less, and that gay males comprise more of MSM with HIV.

You better read the CDC reports directly. I’ll take the reliability of the CDC before yours or anybody’s.

cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html

cdc.gov/hiv/risk/other/correctional.html

To be clear, I am not saying that MSM is almost exclusively made up of gay men. Rather, and I repeat, MSM and gay / bisexual men have a big overlap, that in the MSM larger group in the CDC report, many are gay and bisexual. For what seems to be your affinity with or in sympathy for LGBs you wish to understate the significance of the role of gay and bisexual men in why the HIV infection rate is still high in this country.

The raw data is cold and does not care about feelings, it is not bigoted or homophobic. In the early 80’s, gay men who were not promiscuous or not even sexually active were horrified that that their actively sexual gay brothers, many evidently having indiscriminate gay sex with multiple partners, were dropping like flies. To be technical, in correction of others, you could say the disease killed the young gay men and they were stricken because they had gay sex with an infected partner.

Gay and bisexual men (not those in prison, sex workers, and those who identify as heterosexuals but engage in gay sex) have established their place in mainstream society, the respectability they incorrectly believe they will obtain, within reach with SS"M." But they need to face the truth and the lessons of the AIDS crisis and the continuing epidemiological picture of AIDS/HIV. Homosexual men are mostly affected, with the heterosexual group not in the front runner, even as homosexuals accordingly are only 4% of the population.
,

 

[manualman]

Look at how cheaters are portrayed in TV shows and movies. Look at articles of the “how to know if your boyfriend/husband is cheating on you” kind. Simply from looking at popular culture, I think we can conclude that fidelity in a relationship still plays a big role in society. It has just become more visible how bad we are at sticking to it.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I really doubt infidelity is the same as ever, but just more visible now. Infidelity has increased because people altered the definition of marriage to one that is primarily about romantic feelings, not about self-giving sacrifice. They end up cheating when their dream of perpetual romantic feelings doesn’t come true - and then somebody comes along and flirts. Their ideal of fidelity remains intact, but it is rooted in a faulty and unsustainable vision of what marriage IS, so they fail to live that ideal.

Don’t get me wrong, romance is rather nice. It just isn’t enough for a lifelong marriage.

 

[Rin]

I think that nails it, actually. Legal status of marriage for gay relationships is not itself causing damage to the institution of marriage. It’s a symptom of the fact that the culture has** already **lost the comprehension of what marriage really is that people can conceive of “gay marriage” without perceiving the sort of cognitive dissonance that people hear when you say “round square.”

If people see no oxymoron in the term, then that shows that their perception of marriage is one that is primarily about romantic feelings, not about living out the vocation in which humanity most closely reflects the likeness of God.

Fully agreed.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I really doubt infidelity is the same as ever, but just more visible now. Infidelity has increased because people altered the definition of marriage to one that is primarily about romantic feelings, not about self-giving sacrifice. They end up cheating when their dream of perpetual romantic feelings doesn’t come true - and then somebody comes along and flirts. Their ideal of fidelity remains intact, but it is rooted in a faulty and unsustainable vision of what marriage IS, so they fail to live that ideal.

Hm… Agreed with reservations. I agree with your analysis of modern marriage and romance. I agree that infidelity has increased. But yet, I think people’s view on traditional (as in a few centuries back) marriage is a bit rosy; there was a whole lot of cheating going on then too, as evidenced by the prominence of prostitution in many European cities, by mentions in literature, etc. So I’m not sure it has increased as much as people like to think, but obviously, it has to have increased to some extent, big or small. Sadly, it’s difficult to prove either way.

But we agree on the central points here.

Don’t get me wrong, romance is rather nice. It just isn’t enough for a lifelong marriage.

Again, fully agreed.