Gay men and condom use

  • Thread starter Thread starter dcana
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thorolfr said:
What you’re saying about HIV is not correct and is outdated. For example, if the person who is infected is taking antiretroviral drugs and has an undetectable viral load, the chance of transmitting the disease is extremely small. If their uninfected partner or spouse is taking these drugs prophylactically, there is almost no chance of passing the infection. That’s why some heterosexual couples where one is infected with HIV are now able to have unprotected sex for the purpose of having a child and this is no longer uncommon.

It’s true that condoms are not 100% effective or safe, but neither is driving a car. So does that mean that people should never drive any place because they are not 100% safe from being killed in a car accident? Almost everything we do in life carries some small risk. If used correctly, condoms are still very effective.
Click to expand...
Oh you and your analogies! Actually a closer analogy would be if you drove through a red light on a regular basis… statiscally speaking it would not be a matter of “IF” but “WHEN” you got into an accident. In life marriage life Sex is a normal activity, In the life of a person who drives, driving is a normal activity. Condom use does not protect against disease and neither does the car protect you from being hurt in an accident.

If you are unfamiliar with how statistical percentages work I will explain it for you. A car running a read light has a “X%” chance of being hit. Doing this same thing over and over again does not mean that the same “X%” number exsists. the X% factor of being hit actually increases. The same with condom use against an STD. The chances of contracting the disease goes up everytime you have sex with this partner.

:thumbsup:Peace!
 
ProdigalSun said:
Oh you and your analogies! Actually a closer analogy would be if you drove through a red light on a regular basis… statiscally speaking it would not be a matter of “IF” but “WHEN” you got into an accident. In life marriage life Sex is a normal activity, In the life of a person who drives, driving is a normal activity. Condom use does not protect against disease and neither does the car protect you from being hurt in an accident.

If you are unfamiliar with how statistical percentages work I will explain it for you. A car running a read light has a “X%” chance of being hit. Doing this same thing over and over again does not mean that the same “X%” number exsists. the X% factor of being hit actually increases. The same with condom use against an STD. The chances of contracting the disease goes up everytime you have sex with this partner.

:thumbsup:Peace!
Click to expand...
Actually, the more you drive your car, the greater your chance of getting into an accident. That’s why insurance companies often want to charge more for their insurance the more miles you drive every year. So the more you drive your car, the more likely you are to get into an accident. So does that mean that people shouldn’t drive cars because it’s not “IF” but “WHEN” you will eventually get into an accident in your life? If you drive without a seat belt, your chances of getting injured in an accident also goes up. But even seat belts are not 100% effective at preventing serious injury or even death in a car accident, so is that a reason not to use them?

As for condom use, using a condom properly definitely does reduce the chances of getting an STD but not 100%. But there are always risks in life and few things are 100% effective. Of course you don’t have to believe the CDC if you don’t want to:
Consistent and correct use of the male latex condom reduces the risk of sexually transmitted disease (STD) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission. However, condom use cannot provide absolute protection against any STD. The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of STDs are to abstain from sexual activity, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner. However, many infected persons may be unaware of their infection because STDs often are asymptomatic and unrecognized.
Click to expand...
Condom effectiveness for STD and HIV prevention has been demonstrated by both laboratory and epidemiologic studies. Evidence of condom effectiveness is also based on theoretical and empirical data regarding the transmission of different STDs, the physical properties of condoms, and the anatomic coverage or protection provided by condoms.
Click to expand...
cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/brief.html
 
Thorolfr said:
Actually, the more you drive your car, the greater your chance of getting into an accident. That’s why insurance companies often want to charge more for their insurance the more miles you drive every year. So the more you drive your car, the more likely you are to get into an accident. So does that mean that people shouldn’t drive cars because it’s not “IF” but “WHEN” you will eventually get into an accident in your life? If you drive without a seat belt, your chances of getting injured in an accident also goes up. But even seat belts are not 100% effective at preventing serious injury or even death in a car accident, so is that a reason not to use them?

As for condom use, using a condom properly definitely does reduce the chances of getting an STD but not 100%. But there are always risks in life and few things are 100% effective. Of course you don’t have to believe the CDC if you don’t want to:

cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/brief.html
Click to expand...
So you think driving your car brings with it the same risk as having sex with some one with STD’s Good for you.

I think however I will keep driving but I will refuse to have sex with someone that has STD’s even with a condom. Why because eventually I would get an STD. so good luck with you and your condom use!👍
 
ProdigalSun said:
So you think driving your car brings with it the same risk as having sex with some one with STD’s Good for you.

I think however I will keep driving but I will refuse to have sex with someone that has STD’s even with a condom. Why because eventually I would get an STD. so good luck with you and your condom use!👍
Click to expand...
Sometimes you might not actually know if the person you’re having sex with has an STD including your spouse. That’s why the CDC has issued the following recommendation surrounding the Zika epidemic:
Men with a pregnant sex partner who reside in or have traveled to an area of active Zika virus transmission and their pregnant sex partners should consistently and correctly use condoms during sex (vaginal, anal, or oral) or abstain from sexual activity for the duration of the pregnancy. Consistent and correct use of latex condoms reduces the risk of sexual transmission of many infections, including those caused by other viruses.
Click to expand...
cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/s0205-zika-interim-guidelines.html

In this case, if the husband has unknowingly been infected with the Zika virus, he could infect his pregnant wife. So it is possible as the recommendation says for such spouses to abstain from all sex during the pregnancy. But if they don’t think they can manage 9 months of abstinence, it would certainly be safer to use a condom. A condom in this case might not be 100% effective, but it would be safer than not using a condom.
 
Rau said:
I am not clear on how you connect this post to the thread. You say “The major complaint seems to be anal sex”. Where did you see this point?

But to answer your question - the Catholic faith holds that one’s sexual capacities are to be used in a limited manner. Within marriage, and with their procreative and unitive attributes “undivided” as nature provides them. This can only be achieved by a man and a woman engaging in natural sexual relations.
Click to expand...
You do know that the natural world has instances of homosexual relationships. It isn’t “against nature”.
 
Thorolfr said:
What you’re saying about HIV is not correct and is outdated. For example, if the person who is infected is taking antiretroviral drugs and has an undetectable viral load, the chance of transmitting the disease is extremely small. If their uninfected partner or spouse is taking these drugs prophylactically, there is almost no chance of passing the infection. That’s why some heterosexual couples where one is infected with HIV are now able to have unprotected sex for the purpose of having a child and this is no longer uncommon.

It’s true that condoms are not 100% effective or safe, but neither is driving a car. So does that mean that people should never drive any place because they are not 100% safe from being killed in a car accident? Almost everything we do in life carries some small risk. If used correctly, condoms are still very effective.
Click to expand...
This. Nicely put Thor
 
NM505StKate said:
You do know that the natural world has instances of homosexual relationships. It isn’t “against nature”.
Click to expand...
I did not reference “against nature”, which is a meaningless expression, and nor was I speaking of homosexual relationships “in nature”.

The nature of amoeba? The nature of man? Not the same.
 
NM505StKate said:
You do know that the natural world has instances of homosexual relationships. It isn’t “against nature”.
Click to expand...
The natural world has rampant rape and violent mating, sexual relations with immature young, incest, murder, devouring of spouse and young, rampant polygamy, and battering of a mate. Ever seen two horses mate? One of the most violent acts I’ve seen.

Now maybe Charlie sheen would agree with you but this “occurs in nature” argument is silly and illogical.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
The natural world has rampant rape and violent mating, sexual relations with immature young, incest, murder, devouring of spouse and young, rampant polygamy, and battering of a mate. Ever seen two horses mate? One of the most violent acts I’ve seen.

Now maybe Charlie sheen would agree with you but this “occurs in nature” argument is silly and illogical.
Click to expand...
But it’s also silly to say that homosexual relations are “unnatural.” It can only be said some people consider them immoral (and some don’t). As for rampant polygamy, that must refer to King Solomon who had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
 
Thorolfr said:
But it’s also silly to say that homosexual relations are “unnatural.” It can only be said some people consider them immoral (and some don’t). As for rampant polygamy, that must refer to King Solomon who had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
Click to expand...
What do you understand “natural” to mean in the context of human behaviour?
 
Thorolfr said:
But it’s also silly to say that homosexual relations are “unnatural.” It can only be said some people consider them immoral (and some don’t). As for rampant polygamy, that must refer to King Solomon who had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
Click to expand...
What is meant by “unnatural” in this context is that the natural principle of human generation is being directly contradicted by acting such as would destroy the possibility of its proper good coming to fruition by a choice out of line with that principle’s proper order.
 
Rau said:
What do you understand “natural” to mean in the context of human behaviour?
Click to expand...
Since I see humans as part of the natural world like the rest of creation, I would pick the following definitions for “natural” from Merriam-Webster:
  1. having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature.
  2. implanted or being as if implanted by nature : seemingly inborn.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural

As for “natural law,” that is, in my opinion, a man-made philosophical construct. “Natural” is what exists in nature and has nothing to do with morality.
 
Thorolfr said:
Since I see humans as part of the natural world like the rest of creation, I would pick the following definitions for “natural” from Merriam-Webster:
  1. having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature.
  2. implanted or being as if implanted by nature : seemingly inborn.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural

As for “natural law,” that is, in my opinion, a man-made philosophical construct. “Natural” is what exists in nature and has nothing to do with morality.
Click to expand...
This admits a vast range of behaviour as natural merely because it occurs! Rape is “natural”. All manner of mental illness and resulting behaviours are “natural”. Certainly, to be merely “natural” is no claim to any merit whatsoever.
 
Rau said:
This admits a vast range of behaviour as natural merely because it occurs! Rape is “natural”. All manner of mental illness and resulting behaviours are “natural”. Certainly, to be merely “natural” is no claim to any merit whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Then use the word “immoral.” What’s wrong with saying “I believe Rape is immoral?” or “Homosexual behavior is immoral according to my religious beliefs?” That puts the concept of morality front and center.
 
Thorolfr said:
Then use the word “immoral.” What’s wrong with saying “I believe Rape is immoral?” or “Homosexual behavior is immoral according to my religious beliefs?” That puts the concept of morality front and center.
Click to expand...
I think I have! ;). It’s not my desire to speak of what is natural behaviour, or unnatural behaviour, in the context of same sex sexual behaviour. Typically, others see justification in these acts and make that point by declaring them “natural”.

But that does not stop me observing - validly - that man and woman are by their natures sexually complementary, and two men are by their natures, not.
 
Thorolfr said:
Then use the word “immoral.” What’s wrong with saying “I believe Rape is immoral?” or “Homosexual behavior is immoral according to my religious beliefs?” That puts the concept of morality front and center.
Click to expand...
Natural behavior means behavior in keeping with the nature of the being. The nature of man is special, of course theologically but even outside of theology. Man is the highest animal.

Now if you wish to keep arguing for the nature of homosexuality the we can argue for the natural order of humans to be attracted to children sexually.

Yes these things exist in nature, they also exist in human nature. That does not make them natural. The nature of man is not to sodomize, that is a disorder and distortion of man.
 
Please define this “nature of man”. Thor hits a lot of great points. Yes a lot of the things you mention are immoral, poly relationships are a bit more grey for me.
 
Thorolfr said:
Sometimes you might not actually know if the person you’re having sex with has an STD including your spouse. That’s why the CDC has issued the following recommendation surrounding the Zika epidemic:

cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/s0205-zika-interim-guidelines.html

In this case, if the husband has unknowingly been infected with the Zika virus, he could infect his pregnant wife. So it is possible as the recommendation says for such spouses to abstain from all sex during the pregnancy. But if they don’t think they can manage 9 months of abstinence, it would certainly be safer to use a condom. A condom in this case might not be 100% effective, but it would be safer than not using a condom.
Click to expand...
Actually I know for a fact that neither me or my wife have an STD, I have no worry about either of us ever having an STD, and I will help my daughter to understand why being chaste and married is the best way to never contract an STD.

I feel sorry for you and all people that can not know this also. I pray your STD riddled sex life doesn’t get the better of you!
Peace to you and your pocket full of condoms:thumbsup:
 
dcana said:
Before I ask the question, I’ll make some things clear:
  1. I believe homosexual activity is a grave sin against God and nature. There is nothing more depraved that two men could do to each others’ bodies.
  2. I understand and accept that the use of artificial contraception (between persons of the opposite sex, married or not) is intrinsically evil. IMO, the use of ABC is the root cause of untold suffering and death and 90% of the problems we see in our society today.
  3. I do not think that condoms are a solution to the spread of HIV or other STDs. They: 1. Are not 100% effective and 2. provide a false sense of security and encourage more sexual activity and promiscuity, resulting in - on the contrary - the spread of STDs like HIV.
Having said all that, why is it the teaching of the Church that condom use by gay men, having what they call “sex”, is not allowed? ABC is not allowed when a man and a woman have sex because, to put it simply, it goes against the designs of God and nature for sexual relations between a husband and a wife in artificially separating the two purposes of sex: procreation and the unification of the persons. Properly speaking, two persons of the same sex cannot have sexual intercourse. They can engage in depraved genital sexual activity but what two men or two women do is not sexual intercourse. There is no possibility of the generation of life, so there is no procreative aspect to this behavior to frustrate, and the unitive aspect is…well, let’s just say, false.

So why is condom use morally illicit by two gay men? (not that even 100% consistent and perfect use (which nobody does anyway plus there is the breakage factor) would protect them from STDs over time).

Thanks
Click to expand...
I think I’m going to really bake your noodle with this one, but I remember Pope Benedict XVI actually saying that condom usage in some situations could be a moral good.

Consider this: 2 men, both homosexual, one has HIV and the other does not. If they are going to have sex, the man with HIV has a moral responsibility to protect his partner from getting the disease, and should therefore use a condom. And I know that condoms aren’t 100%, I used to work with HIV and STD patients, but trust me, they’re better than nothing.

Now, I don’t know what Benedict’s actual quote was, and I haven’t looked it up, but that’s pretty much the gist of it. Personally, I don’t feel that using a condom for sex between homosexual men is an issue because the only thing they’re potentially contracepting is a disease. Consider murder. If you murder someone, does it make the murder more sinful if you cut off one of your victim’s toes? They’re already dead, so the total damage that can be done has been. Two men can’t create life, so they’re not trying to circumvent the process.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top