Forcing Morality on Others

[cynic]

This brings me to the second false premise: that our society permits, would permit, the “forcing” of a specifically religious (sectarian-identified, such as Catholic, Mormon, Jewish) morality. Advocating is not forcing. We have freedom of religion in this country, not freedom from religion. It means that religions can express a viewpoint – yes, a moral viewpoint – in the public square, about public issues which affect everyone or merely someones in society.

The vast majority of non-christians would agree - so who is trying to silence anyone?

If anything is being “forced” on society – and has been for at least the last 20 years – it is immorality. (What must be in public school curricula, what explicit sex scenes and vulgarity exists unavoidably in the popular media, etc.)

Where is the element of force? It is mostly avoidable - you can change the channel.

Rather than “forcing” morality on others, the Catholic Church is among a handful of bodies that remains a refuge for those seeking a morally coherent & consistent code. Like other religions, it has a legitimately moral role to play in preserving a healthy direction for society.

Healthy according to subjective judgements, one might argue. The promotion of values isn’t in question but punitive measures against those who choose not the live by them, and how far such hypothetical laws should go. (exception should be abortion - since that inteferes with the rights of another)

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Pope John Paul II made it very clear that the Church proposes but does not impose. That is why your priest won’t be pounding on your door on Monday if you miss Mass on Sunday. God will not force you to love Him.

…
Opinions are fine, but they need to be arrived at by reading and understanding what the Church is saying. If anyone tells me that they are for or against something, they usually tell me why. The Church has arguments that engage human reason and while based on truths revealed to us by God, they work in actual practice as well.

Here a Harvard researcher agrees with the Pope regarding condom use in Africa.

catholicposition.blogspot.com/2010/08/harvard-researcher-agrees-with-pope-on.html

Hope this helps,
Ed

Glad to see you in this thread, Ed, as I do enjoy your posts. I noticed the poster’s reply^^ to yours, providing a link regarding Dr. Green’s comments on his nuanced (?) support of the Pope’s remarks on condom use and HIV rates in Africa.

As you may have already read, the verbatim or transcript of the Q&A between the interviewer and Dr. Green is this:

In your previous interview released to ilsussidiario.net last March, you shared the Pope’s statements on condoms and AIDS during his visit to Africa. Could you explain further ?

Well you could say that the Pope probably doesn’t think condoms are the answer anywhere in the world, whereas I would say that scientifically speaking condoms have worked in a few places like Thailand and Cambodia. The reason I spoke out in agreement with the Pope was because he didn’t say abstinence and he said people must be responsible and elsewhere he talks about faithful marriage and so forth. I was called by two national magazines and they asked me, and I said the Pope is basically right and here are the reasons. I knew that the part that would be most controversial was when the Pope said condoms could even make the problem worse. Well, in fact, for many years we have seen an association between higher condom use and higher HIV rates. And when we look at the people who are getting HIV infected, they tend to be condom users. So the way we explain this phenomenon is if you are reducing your risk with some technology, you take greater risks, so you erase the risk reduction that you ought to have with that technology by taking greater risks.

[bolding added]

It is correct to say that Dr. Green did agree with the Pope’s remarks with regard to condom use in Africa. Dr. Green confirmed an association between higher condom use and higher HIV rates, providing the explanation for the phenomenon. The linked article you provided did not talk about the Thailand and Cambodia data.

At any rate, the Pope is indeed a source of solid and consistent inspiration and guidance to us.
,

 

[cathoichelp]

Glad to see you in this thread, Ed, as I do enjoy your posts. I noticed the poster’s reply^^ to yours, providing a link regarding Dr. Green’s comments on his nuanced (?) support of the Pope’s remarks on condom use and HIV rates in Africa.

As you may have already read, the verbatim or transcript of the Q&A between the interviewer and Dr. Green is this:

In your previous interview released to ilsussidiario.net last March, you shared the Pope’s statements on condoms and AIDS during his visit to Africa. Could you explain further ?

Well you could say that the Pope probably doesn’t think condoms are the answer anywhere in the world, whereas I would say that scientifically speaking condoms have worked in a few places like Thailand and Cambodia. The reason I spoke out in agreement with the Pope was because he didn’t say abstinence and he said people must be responsible and elsewhere he talks about faithful marriage and so forth. I was called by two national magazines and they asked me, and I said the Pope is basically right and here are the reasons. I knew that the part that would be most controversial was when the Pope said condoms could even make the problem worse. Well, in fact, for many years we have seen an association between higher condom use and higher HIV rates. And when we look at the people who are getting HIV infected, they tend to be condom users. So the way we explain this phenomenon is if you are reducing your risk with some technology, you take greater risks, so you erase the risk reduction that you ought to have with that technology by taking greater risks.

[bolding added]

It is correct to say that Dr. Green did agree with the Pope’s remarks with regard to condom use in Africa. Dr. Green confirmed an association between higher condom use and higher HIV rates, providing the explanation for the phenomenon. The linked article you provided did not talk about the Thailand and Cambodia data.

At any rate, the Pope is indeed a source of solid and consistent inspiration and guidance to us.
,

The pope does not believe in the use of condoms anywhere.
The pope went so far as to not agree w condoms should one partner have HIV and the other not -
Dr Green does not think condoms are the sole answer he thinks limiting the number of sex partners is the key.
He does not think that sex outside of marriage should be forbidden but that risky behavior needs to be curbed.
I think green over simplifies to an extend because risky behavior is linked to deeper issues and those issues need to be tackled.

At any rate. Green supports the use of condoms but thinks they are being used as a bandaid in areas where people have entirely too many sex partners.
The pope does in anyway support the use of condoms.
What Green was agreeing with was the Pope saying morality needs to be focused on. Green thinks a healthier approach to sex is the answer. here I agree w him.

The issue in Africa is extremely complicated. This is a social problem. The way sex is used and women are treated is greatly the issue. The lack of education is also greatly the issue.
What Green is saying is handing out condoms is not going to help that.
The pope essentially said this as well.
But the pope takes it a lot farther than Green.

 

[FightingFat]

The pope does not believe in the use of condoms anywhere.

I don’t think this is an accurate representation, given the Pope’s recent comment in the book Light of the World.

 

[cathoichelp]

I don’t think this is an accurate representation, given the Pope’s recent comment in the book Light of the World.

The pope is not actually ok’ing the use of condoms -
“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.”

he is talking about the psychological state of those who use them-

I have read it

 

[cathoichelp]

He is talking about a first step towards being moral … he is saying this person at least has taken a step in the right direction …
He is not saying lets use condoms he is saying lets fix morality -

at least that is how I am reading it …

 

[FightingFat]

He is talking about a first step towards being moral … he is saying this person at least has taken a step in the right direction …
He is not saying lets use condoms he is saying lets fix morality -

at least that is how I am reading it …

Yes I agree. The point being, you have to decide to act morally first don’t you?

 

[cathoichelp]

Yes I agree. The point being, you have to decide to act morally first don’t you?

I agree w Dr Green in this yes. The way to really stop the spread of HIV is to educate people - to give them confidence and understanding and most of all respect for their bodies.
We have seen a huge improvement in HIV here in the US (in the homosexual community) as homosexuals are less and less rejected by their families and communities.
Just in general people who are loved and respected and have a support system are much less likely to act out sexually.
People who are labeled as sexually disordered for basically who they are are much more likely to act out sexually.

The world wide AIDS issues are not all focused on gay communities which is another excellent point that Green makes -
Just because this worked here does not mean it will work in Africa because the root of the problem is much different. We can’t expected that handing out condoms and calling it a day is going to fix the spread of HIV -

There are a lot of other issues in Africa that are not even related to sexuality - like lack of protein and how easy it is to spread anything given the state of where they live …

The difference lays in defining morality.

My big concern with Green is I actually had someone say a Harvard researcher said condoms don’t stop the spread of HIV they don’t work -
and THAT is not at all true … anymore true than the pope said hey every go get some condoms …
So I tend to focus in on these two statements that were basically just media poop storms -

But yes… personally I believe that teaching self respect and positive body imagine is a huge step in curbing a lot of negative sexual behavior.
I taught ex ed to high risk girls and surprisingly I didn’t talk that much about sex itself … we read studies about the difference between men and women … we talked about our goals and our fears and understanding our own bodies …
This has been very effective.
It was more a of my body my rules course then this is how you use a condom course… Because in the end the choice of when to have sex is in their hands. But the reasons they are doing it is very important.
Someone who is confident and strong and knows how to verbalize what they want is much less likely to do something they are not ready for or uncomfortable with.
Not that we didn’t cover birth control and STDs and risks and benefits ect … it just doesn’t really have much to do with when a young girl who has a very weak support system makes the choice to sleep w someone.
The fear of STDs was not stopping anyone - the lack of self esteem and the needing to connect with another person even in a negative way was/is the issue (in those cases)

way off topic - sorry!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

Just in general people who are loved and respected and have a support system are much less likely to act out sexually.
**People who are labeled as sexually disordered for basically who they are are much more likely to act out sexually. **

On what do you base this on? Any independent study or professional opinion?
,

 

[francisca]

True but I still think there should be protection for the homosexuals.

How many people have been beaten up or made fun of fore fornication?

There are many people have been mocked, gossiped, or even fired from the job because of fornication. Clinton for example, he almost got fired once . In villages in many places in the whole world, there are huge number of cases fornicators being beaten up in public. In many places in asia, if your boss know you have a fornication affair with your colleague, you both will be asked to resign because of company morality policy.

Is this the church forcing morality on others?

 

[cathoichelp]

On what do you base this on? Any independent study or professional opinion?
,

Well yes … many professional opinions including my own … I have my masters in social work - so for 8 years I worked in 3 specialties -
Abortion - rape and Trauma - and HIV/AIDS mainly in the gay community.
I currently work as a medic though so I only volunteer in the social work field as I have kids and its a little stressful to do this full time.

 

[cathoichelp]

Check out the Journal of Sexual Diversity Studies.

At present you can find tons of current data that shows gay men are not more promiscuous than straight men I think the difference is 1 percent of less-

At any rate I am working but you can look up Debunking the Myth of Gay Promiscuity- Theo Lyons that’s a quick read …

But if you think about it the reasons any person would act out sexually - its rather clear why homosexuals would do so given our society … and how it has improved a lot in recent years as society has (in places where it has) become more understanding -

This is interesting too-
It shows that about 13 percent of gay men have a high number of partners while the other 87 percent are more or less in line with straight males -
Society tends to focus on that 13 percent … who are not acting out as a result of being gay … but acting out like any person would based on other factors …
timrfisher.tripod.com/dgstats.htm

Although research has repeatedly shown there to be no significant differences in the emotional and mental stability of homosexuals and heterosexuals, scientists continue to report that homosexuals are subject to significant amounts of stress as a direct result of their sexual orientation.65 Homosexuals report extensive stress stemming from both latent and expressed desires to conceal their sexual identity.65, 66, 67, 68 Unrealistic attempts to conceal sexual identity may leave an individual emotionally vulnerable and open to exploitation. For more specific information see Homosexual Vulnerability to Coercion.

The stress experienced by homosexuals should be examined in light of how it is handled by each individual. If stress is acknowledged and dealt with appropriately and does not lead to further emotional or mental problems, it may indicate that the individual is very well adjusted within his or her homosexual lifestyle, and that he or she will be able to adjust well to other stressors and life pressures.

Scientific findings on the origin of gender identity and role transpositions have contributed to significant changes in public perception of homosexuals. Attitudes toward homosexuals are considerably more positive among people who believe that homosexuals are “born that way” than among those who believe homosexuality is a conscious choice of lifestyle or an unnatural act. 69

dhra.mil/perserec/adr/sexualbehav/behaviors1.htm

 

[John21652]

Check out the Journal of Sexual Diversity Studies.

At present you can find tons of current data that shows gay men are not more promiscuous than straight men I think the difference is 1 percent of less-

At any rate I am working but you can look up Debunking the Myth of Gay Promiscuity- Theo Lyons that’s a quick read …

timrfisher.tripod.com/dgstats.htm

%between%

From that link you gave us we can read this -

But I do so in order to illustrate the point that Glesne’s promiscuity statistics do not support his conclusions adequately enough for us to formulate, on their basis, any coherent social or ecclesiastical policy.
2) The truth about so-called “homosexual promiscuity” is that we don’t know the truth.

Your entire post is an exercise in gay apologetics and you are very, very selective about what you want people to read. Your post borders on being very disengenuous. A few pages back I posted links to data which showed that promiscuity has long been a hallmark of homosexual behaviour. No doubt you didn’t read them because you conveniently ignore what doesn’t suit your world view.

Well, here’s some more data -
Statistics on Homosexual Lifestyle which paints a pretty disgusting and hedonistic picture of what gays are like right around the world. Here’s one little sampler about Chicago -

• 42.9% of homosexual men in Shoreland had
  more than 60 sexual partners; 18.4% had between
  31 and 60 partners.
• 61.3% of the area’s homosexual males had more
  than 30 partners.

Or maybe pull your head out of the sand and read this long article written by a well educated gay man - When rubber hits the road. HIV infection on the rise. This time it will take more than condoms to stop it. The writer tells us in his own words -

There have always been gay men who refused to practice safer sex, but between the advent of AIDS and the late 1990s, barebacking–anal sex without a condom–was mostly practiced on the fringes of gay society. Plenty of evidence suggests, however, that over the last few years barebacking has become common, if not de rigueur, among gay men in general…Also driving the increase in barebacking is the peculiarly amoral nature of the dominant gay culture, which springs from a well-articulated ideology that views unfettered sex as the defining feature of gay identity…CDC researchers have also found disturbing increases in the percentage of men under 25 reporting multiple sex partners

You are now pushing the current line that gays are trying on he rest of us, which is that society is at fault because intolerant society is making them unhappy. Well, that first study I linked to says otherwise. It quotes from a 2004 issue of The British Journal of Psychiatry study that shows a high degree of mental health issues amongst gays and lesbians. britain, of course, has relaxed its attitudes to homosexuality so much that there are now court cases against anyone who discriminates against them even on religious grounds!

The study says -

The study surveyed mental health problems faced by gays and bisexuals in England and Wales…It found high rates of planned or actual deliberate self-harm among these groups: 42% of gay males; 43% of lesbians; 49% of bisexual men and women…Gay men and bisexual men were more likely than heterosexual males to be diagnosed with at lest one of five mental health disorders. Lesbian-bisexual
women were more likely than heterosexual women to report mental health-related problems in the year prior to being interviewed. 24% of lesbianbisexual
women were co-morbid for two or more mental disorders in the previous year.

From this web site, which quotes various studies regarding promiscuity, the CDC is quoted -

A 2010 CDC data analysis reveals that the rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM (men who have sex with men) is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women.

One observer quoted on that last web site says this -

Gay author Gabriel Rotello notes the perspective of many gays that “Gay liberation was founded . . . on a ’sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,’ and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a ‘communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.’”

To finish up, I’d like you to read this page, by an ex-gay. Says it all really…

 

[benidict]

Well yes … many professional opinions including my own … I have my masters in social work - so for 8 years I worked in 3 specialties -
Abortion - rape and Trauma - and HIV/AIDS mainly in the gay community.
I currently work as a medic though so I only volunteer in the social work field as I have kids and its a little stressful to do this full time.

:yup:

 

[benidict]

There are many people have been mocked, gossiped, or even fired from the job because of fornication. Clinton for example, he almost got fired once . In villages in many places in the whole world, there are huge number of cases fornicators being beaten up in public. In many places in asia, if your boss know you have a fornication affair with your colleague, you both will be asked to resign because of company morality policy.

Is this the church forcing morality on others?

Clinton did not fornicate. He commited adultery. And he did not almost lose his job because of this. He almost lost it due to Lying under oath in a sexual harrasment lawsuit. Its called purgery. But…I digress.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The argument often used to justify homosexuality among humans is that it is found in other animals, and is therefore natural and justified. But other animals also eat their young. Does that mean humans might also eat their young and be justified because cannibalism of offspring is found in other animals? Shall we have a bill introduced to Congress recommending the civil right of parents to roast and consume an aborted fetus?

How civilized and progressive our thinking has become!

 

[cathoichelp]

From that link you gave us we can read this -

Or maybe pull your head out of the sand and read this long article written by a well educated gay man - When rubber hits the road. HIV infection on the rise. This time it will take more than condoms to stop it. The writer tells us in his own words

To finish up, I’d like you to read this page, by an ex-gay . Says it all really…

There are gay and straight human beings who have risky sexual behaviors… is it your belief that when someone is straight and has these behaviors it is because of other physiological factors but w gay MEN (since you seem to only focus on gay males) it is simply because they are gay?

As a therapist we recognize that anytime someone is participating in risky sexual behaviors there is a reason … and it is not their sexual orientation …
simply having more than one sex partner is NOT a problem (medically speaking) doing drugs and having sex … having sex with random people - especially often or in excess - those are problems -
homosexuals (shocking as it may seem to you) are actually people and the reasons they act out sexually are the same reasons any heterosexual would.

Every recent study is proving those figures wrong … but believe what you want …
humbumbershoot.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/are-gay-men-more-promiscuous-than-straight-men-analyzing-research-results/

, then, is that (according to the GSS data) there is a segment of gay men (roughly 13% of the total of gay men) who are promiscuous to a degree that straight men are not. That is, 87% of gay men display levels of promiscuity that are parallel to those of unmarried straight men.

if you focus your study in THIS (in 13 percent who do have high numbers of sex partners) you can greatly sway your figures to ,make it look like gay men are having sex with more partners than straight men.

That is not to say that unprotected sex is not still a problem … but you also need to look at the area you are talking …

as for all the CDC links - we rarely pay attention to those in field (insearchoflight)
Reliability of the CDC’s classification system
(this si why I provided you a link to the public health department … the CDC is not accurate)
The CDC does not itself report AIDS cases; that is the responsibility of state and local health departments. The CDC states as follows in the information provided with its public data set with respect to the surveillance process:

“Although state and local health departments share AIDS surveillance data with CDC, the responsibility and authority for AIDS surveillance rests with the individual health departments. Like any reportable disease, the completeness of AIDS reporting reflects the aggressiveness with which these health departments solicit case reports. Health departments may depend on health-care providers to know and comply with reporting requirements. Alternatively, health departments may regularly contact and interact with health-care facilities or individual providers to stimulate disease reporting.”
aliveandwell.org/html/risk_realities/actuarial_analysis.html

the risk of HIV is increased by how easily it is spread through anal sex NOT by the number of sex partners (currently) that is not to say that the number of sex partners does not greatly increase the risk
but we see more HIV in gay men because …

1. Unless one has a regular sexual relationship with someone who is HIV-positive, it is virtually impossible to become infected with HIV by heterosexual intercourse.
2. Mutual monogamy provides little protection from AIDS, because most HIV transmissions from heterosexual contact are from someone infected by non-sexual means such as IV drug use or blood transfusions, to his or her regular (and quite possibly monogamous) sexual partner.
3. Multiple sexual partners involve little or no increase in risk of HIV infection, as compared with monogamous relationships.
4. Because the risk of HIV transmission is so extremely remote for this group. urging the use of condoms will do virtually nothing to prevent transmission of HIV. Therefore, because condoms intrude so much on the lovemaking process, there usually is little point in using one, unless it is felt necessary for the prevention of pregnancy or the transmission of other, more easily transmitted, sexually transmitted diseases (“STDs”).
5. AIDS education and prevention efforts for heterosexuals, as presently structured, can be counterproductive, because it may create fear and paranoia which in turn may cause more of an increase in mortality than that from the rare case of HIV transmission that might be prevented. Instead, the focus of AIDS education and prevention for this group should concentrate on three points:
   aliveandwell.org/html/risk_realities/actuarial_analysis.html

I am not telling people what to read or not to read … I provide the links to anything I quote I can not really quote 5-10 pages on the forum but the links are there to go read it for yourself … that is not “hiding” info

 

[cathoichelp]

I did not ignore your post on purpose I actually have been working all day but I will catch up in a few hours -

This is not a difficult concept though.
If people feel rejected and shunned and abandoned it is going to effect them. It will increase depression … self harm … the likelihood of drug use with that comes risky sexual behavior.
That is true for all people.
Do you deny that homosexuals feel that way?

Believing homosexuality is a sin is fine. Believing various other hateful untrue things is not so great…

I think we can all agree that limiting sexual partners - having good self esteem and a support system helps curb these problems.
Whether you believe homosexuals should remain celibate or not.
That in and of itself is not really that much of an issue.
Trying to prove that just being gay turns you into a sex maniac … or deems you without any morels … is a totally different story.
We are all human beings and humans respond to stress and rejection in similar ways.

 

[cathoichelp]

How does a society maintain any kind of morality without somebody forcing their morality on somebody else?

Since you will never get everybody to agree on what is right and what is wrong, shouldn’t the majority decide the matter? Or should there be two sets of morality. One for the majority, one for the minority. Those who believe stealing from the rich is right are free to do so. Those who believe it is wrong (the majority) have no say in the matter. The minority have their way. Why?

There are those who believe marriage between mothers and their sons is immoral (the majority) and ought to be outlawed. Those who disagree are to be allowed to marry. Why?

The majority agree that marriage between members of the same sex ought to be immoral and outlawed. The minority disagree, and demand their right to marry. The law permits this.

At what point do you see a degeneration of morals to the level of jungle politics? At what point will it be viewed that consenting adult men should have the right to slay each other in the arena while barbarians cheer them on? Even if the majority disapprove, the insane minority have their right to kill each other so long as they wish to.

What horrible world lies ahead of us, as it lies behind us with the Roman gladiators?

And there are people that think that African Americans shouldn’t be allowed to vote or Catholics shouldn’t be allowed to have children Or Jewish people should be allowed …

should we be voting on civil rights?
Really?
How has that gone in the past?

 

[cathoichelp]

From that link you gave us we can read this -

Or maybe pull your head out of the sand and read this long article written by a well educated gay man - When rubber hits the road. HIV infection on the rise. This time it will take more than condoms to stop it. The writer tells us in his own words -

You are now pushing the current line that gays are trying on he rest of us, which is that society is at fault because intolerant society is making them unhappy. Well, that first study I linked to says otherwise. It quotes from a 2004 issue of The British Journal of Psychiatry study that shows a high degree of mental health issues amongst gays and lesbians. britain, of course, has relaxed its attitudes to homosexuality so much that there are now court cases against anyone who discriminates against them even on religious grounds!

The study says -

From this web site, which quotes various studies regarding promiscuity, the CDC is quoted -

One observer quoted on that last web site says this -

To finish up, I’d like you to read this page, by an ex-gay . Says it all really…

You are sending me links from Traditional Values Coalition … really?
hahaha
Because that is clearly not biased accurate research …
No agenda there!

AND YES it will take more than condoms to stop it that IS my point!

It is going to take a lot more than condoms to stop the spread of HIV -
Thanks for pointing that out again