LGBT equality same as black equality

[CopticChristian]

Err, you are aware that in the sodomite group there are more heterosexuals right?

DR,

I have no idea what you are thinking here other than imposing your beliefs on what I wrote.

Writings without providing evidence of sexuality, neutral, causes no one to think anything other than neutral thoughts.

Writings imposing sexuality of man/woman, man/man, woman/woman cause thinking similarly to what you have done here. You say Err…reading sodomy into man/man…concluding that man/woman sodomize. Reread what I wrote and search your mind for the relevance of sodomy.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

How do you know this?

This justification based on pro-gay “researches” is not a good argument, along what the poster marjoram has raised. It is not credible that many women, religious or not, married or not, would prefer it “there.”

Tu quoque and exaggeration are ineffective as debating methods. Further, hypersensitivity and overuse of dramatics / emotion are also unnecessary in honest discourse.
,

While the common definition has sodomy as only anal sex the Catholic definition includes all inherently sterile sexual acts. According to the CDC 35% of women have engaged in anal sex and 88% have engaged in oral sex with the opposite sex.

For it to be tu quoque I would have to be saying your argument is wrong because it applies to you also, but I am not arguing that. I am also not using exaggeration, I am using facts. I am not being hypersensitive or emotion, I in fact yawned while writing that post because it was so dry.

I am consistently baffled by this rather wearisome pesistent and most pernicious idea that I am in any way supporting sodomia imperfect by pointing out that sodomia imperfecta exists.

DR,

I have no idea what you are thinking here other than imposing your beliefs on what I wrote.

Writings without providing evidence of sexuality, neutral, causes no one to think anything other than neutral thoughts.

Writings imposing sexuality of man/woman, man/man, woman/woman cause thinking similarly to what you have done here. You say Err…reading sodomy into man/man…concluding that man/woman sodomize. Reread what I wrote and search your mind for the relevance of sodomy.

I was merely making the observation that less than half of sodomites are homosexual.

According to the Catholic definition of sodomy and hard data many men and women do commit sodomy in heterosexual relationships indeed more in absolute terms do it than homosexuals.

 

[RobbyS]

Yes, it is so. For some reason society/government has treated married people different than unmarried people. We don’t seem to treat baptized people different than unbaptized or confirmed different than unconfirmed. If there is a “civil rights” problem, it is how we treat married different from unmarried. If a solution is required them we need to change the laws not legislate a legal fiction. As we do this, we would have to think about why this laws were created in the first place. This is something I don’t think supporters of same-sex unions think about.

Society recognizes partnerships without calling them married. The business I work for is a partnership between a guy and his parents, but he is not married to them.

Yes, and why only two?

The rubric that marriage is the of coming together of opposite sex people to create and rear children it logically eliminates same-sex coupling and children. When children or same-sex coupling is included the other cannot be logically eliminated.

We treat married people differently from non-married, because marriage is a natural institution whose history precedes the law we happen to follow. IAC. the law does not treat all individuals as equals in all cases. In only a relative few,In fact. Different persons have different civil rights.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

While the common definition has sodomy as only anal sex the Catholic definition includes all inherently sterile sexual acts. According to the CDC 35% of women have engaged in anal sex and 88% have engaged in oral sex with the opposite sex.

For it to be tu quoque I would have to be saying your argument is wrong because it applies to you also, but I am not arguing that. I am also not using exaggeration, I am using facts. I am not being hypersensitive or emotion, I in fact yawned while writing that post because it was so dry.

I am consistently baffled by this rather wearisome pesistent and most pernicious idea that I am in any way supporting sodomia imperfect by pointing out that sodomia imperfecta exists.

Well, anal sex is what is referred to in my post, not oral sex or masturbation. Further, the CDC report is classifying any actively heterosexual female who has engaged at least once in anal sex (which would include experimentation in the young), not the prevalence of females who prefer it as a practice over penis-vaginal sex.

Tu quoque is defending a position by turning the same claim against the opposing side. I am not using it in the personal sense, or what you said as applying to me. It’s a tactic to diffuse the claim by changing the topic. Your claim is that heterosexuals are also engaging in sodomy as a way to dismiss the common if not the only way(s) same sex partners can and do have sex.

This post from you is an example of exaggeration:

Actually considering how I’ve seen Catholics (on CAF even) talk about it it would be “People keep telling me that I am a slave of Satan, worse than a rapist, and as bad as a child molester or murderer and would burn in Hell because I’m worse than Hitler so I stopped.”

You and Seeker have posts that reflect hypersensitivity and use of emotionalism but I don’t have time to dig them up.
,

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Well, anal sex is what is referred to in my post, not oral sex or masturbation. Further, the CDC report is classifying any actively heterosexual female who has engaged at least once in anal sex (which would include experimentation in the young), not the prevalence of females who prefer it as a practice over penis-vaginal sex.

Tu quoque is defending a position by turning the same claim against the opposing side. I am not using it in the personal sense, or what you said as applying to me. It’s a tactic to diffuse the claim by changing the topic. Your claim is that heterosexuals are also engaging in sodomy as a way to dismiss the common if not the only way(s) same sex partners can and do have sex.

This post from you is an example of exaggeration:

You and Seeker have posts that reflect hypersensitivity and use of emotionalism but I don’t have time to dig them up.
,

Well, only 3/4 of gays have engaged in anal sex, if you look at it half a century ago it was much lower.

I wasn’t defending a position. A century ago anal sex was actually uncommon between gays.

I’ve actually seen those things being said on CAF

What is “hypersensitivity”?

 

[Seeker1961]

Well, only 3/4 of gays have engaged in anal sex, if you look at it half a century ago it was much lower.

I wasn’t defending a position. A century ago anal sex was actually uncommon between gays.

I’ve actually seen those things being said on CAF

What is “hypersensitivity”?

Daring to express an opinion that considers the feelings and rights of Non-Catholics.

 

[epan]

Different persons have different civil rights.

Very true, and that is what the court is addressing. There is a steady expansion of the definition of what falls under a civil right, or human right (which affects our conception of civil rights). The moral question slips and slides, too. For example, it is legal to lend money at interest, and is considered a civil right to be able to enter such a contract. There was a time that the Church considered money lending to be a sin.

In every modern country, with the exception the US, access to medical care is seen as a human right, and civil right. This trend is why “Obamacare” will not be going away, over the long term. Rather than fighting the sweep of history, we should instead be fixing the plan to make it work better. Unfortunately for the insurance companies, this is probably going to mean that eventually they will not be writing health insurance policies anymore.

I think that this particular civil rights question is so loaded with controversy because it is related to the sexual practices of a minority, which has suffered prejudice and persecution for centuries. That legacy confuses people.

Money lending is an example of something proscribed in the bible, but because so many people wanted to buy things that they can’t afford, and so many wanted to enter business deals that they did not have the capital for, that this fact has been conveniently overlooked in the Christian world. Though, early contracts were convoluted in order to appear not to be lending money. After a while we had money lending with restrictions imposed by anti-usury laws. Finally, we got to where we are now, where unsound borrowing and lending can tank the world economy. The Muslims are currently making the transition that Christianity did.

If you stop worrying so much about the sexual aspects, and the emotions that one might attach to that consideration, this issue is not much different than any other civil right which the bible seems to prohibit. Much of what we consider to be “women’s rights”, which are protected, are also admonished in the bible. It’s actually a fairly long list, which includes many of our modern secular civil rights.

 

[Stephen168]

Very true, and that is what the court is addressing. There is a steady expansion of the definition of what falls under a civil right, or human right (which affects our conception of civil rights). The moral question slips and slides, too. For example, it is legal to lend money at interest, and is considered a civil right to be able to enter such a contract. There was a time that the Church considered money lending to be a sin.

In every modern country, with the exception the US, access to medical care is seen as a human right, and civil right.

Human Rights and Civil Rights are not the same thing.

Humans have a right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, reproduction, and access to their parents; who keep them alive and teach them how to take care of themselves.

Civil Rights come from the government treating everyone equal.

So free health care is not a human right but it could be a civil right if the government provides health care for old people, why not young people.

Marriage is a human right to reproduce with whoever you choose. At one time some states blocked that until Virginia vs Loving.

 

[epan]

Human Rights and Civil Rights are not the same thing.

Humans have a right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, reproduction, and access to their parents; who keep them alive and teach them how to take care of themselves.

Civil Rights come from the government treating everyone equal.

So free health care is not a human right but it could be a civil right if the government provides health care for old people, why not young people.

Marriage is a human right to reproduce with whoever you choose. At one time some states blocked that until Virginia vs Loving.

True. But one seems to be derived from the other, and my point was that the definition changes over time. The history of marriage rights is one example. The way that access to healthcare is being viewed, is another.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Well, only 3/4 of gays have engaged in anal sex, if you look at it half a century ago it was much lower.

Regardless, the report by the CDC as of 2009 which you have raised earlier has this alarming data:
Gay and bisexual men of all races and ethnicities remain the group most severely and disproportionately affected by the HIV epidemic. Men who have sex with men, excluding those who are intravenous and drug users, represent approximately 2 percent of the U.S. population, but account for 61 percent of all new HIV infections and more than half of people living with HIV.
There is no confusion as to what sexual practice led to the revealing statistic of new cases. To anyone who is tempted to interject that it is the virus that causes HIV /AIDS, or that it is also or largely a heterosexual disease, please read back first what was stated and the context used.

I’ve actually seen those things being said on CAF

Please feel free to prove it and disprove me.

What is “hypersensitivity”?

Taking offense where none is intended,
When imperfect communication or how something is said is always more important than substance of iteration,
Usually followed by sarcasm or bombast.
Contrary to a jibe, it has nothing to do with considering the feelings of non-Catholics.

Dakota, I am not saying all or most of your posts can be described as so. If/when I come across any in reading back of threads and posts as example of ineffective debating method or style, I will surely bring it to your attention, maybe by pm.
,

 

[Elizabeth502]

Regardless, the report by the CDC as of 2009 which you have raised earlier has this alarming data:

Gay and bisexual men of all races and ethnicities remain the group most severely and disproportionately affected by the HIV epidemic. Men who have sex with men, excluding those who are intravenous and drug users, represent approximately 2 percent of the U.S. population, but account for 61 percent of all new HIV infections and more than half of people living with HIV.
There is no confusion as to what sexual practice led to the revealing statistic of new cases.

Indeed.

In itself, homosexual activity is the highest risk factor for HIV.
Separately, intravenous drug use is also a risk factor.
Combining them merely magnifies the odds, but does not cloud the issue as to the riskiest activity, relative to HIV.

In any case, if homosexual activity accounted for only 2 percent of HIV cases, such a fictional statistic would be of course irrelevant to the moral, mental, physical, and spiritual advisability of engaging in homosexual activity. I’m not saying that anyone here has explicity suggested the opposite, merely that it is to be noted that a very, very frequent contemporary “argument” about the morality of anything – from recreational drug use to permits for military-grade automatic weapons, to cohabitation, to homosexual “marriage,” to trot out some random statistic by which the arguer aims to show insignificant “harm.”

 

[Crescentinus]

Indeed.

In itself, homosexual activity is the highest risk factor for HIV.
Separately, intravenous drug use is also a risk factor.
Combining them merely magnifies the odds, but does not cloud the issue as to the riskiest activity, relative to HIV.

In any case, if homosexual activity accounted for only 2 percent of HIV cases, such a fictional statistic would be of course irrelevant to the moral, mental, physical, and spiritual advisability of engaging in homosexual activity. I’m not saying that anyone here has explicity suggested the opposite, merely that it is to be noted that a very, very frequent contemporary “argument” about the morality of anything – from recreational drug use to permits for military-grade automatic weapons, to cohabitation, to homosexual “marriage,” to trot out some random statistic by which the arguer aims to show insignificant “harm.”

Your responses here have demolished the homosexualists’ attacks.

 

[Stephen168]

True. But one seems to be derived from the other, and my point was that the definition changes over time. The history of marriage rights is one example. The way that access to healthcare is being viewed, is another.

The government cannot give human rights; it can only take them away. Yes, a just government will support human rights with civil rights. Marriage is a human right; it is that place where children are created and raised. The human right to reproduce with whoever one chooses while maintaining the children’s human right to their parents was impeded in the USA by some state governments. After Virginia vs. Loving, this inequity was restored.

Marriage is not a civil right, the government can’t give it to people; they are born with it; like all human rights. Health Care is a civil right; without government it would not exist. The only health care we have as humans is our Mommy kissing the boo-boo to make it better.

 

[epan]

Indeed.

In itself, homosexual activity is the highest risk factor for HIV.
Separately, intravenous drug use is also a risk factor.
"

In the US, the highest risk factor appears to be being of African descent. In 2010, about 22,000 African Americans were diagnosed, as compared to about 14,000 Caucasians, and about 10,000 Hispanics. When you consider the ratio of African Americans to the white population, this is a rather striking statistic.

While your claim that gay sex is the largest risk factor, this is true in the US, but perhaps not quite as significant as some would like to think. Male/male sex accounts for about 58% of new diagnoses in 2010, in the US, which leaves more than 40% of new diagnoses as not related to male/male sexual activity. Heterosexual contact accounts for about 13,000 infections in the US diagnosed in 2010, or about 44% of the number for gay sex infections. Injection drug use accounts for about 3,800 transmissions of the disease diagnosed. There is also a cross over group, that is male/male sex plus injection drug use. This group accounts for about 1,400 new infections diagnosed.

But if you look at worldwide statistics, it seems that being female might be the highest risk factor. More people are infected via heterosexual contact than through homosexual contact worldwide. Women are much more likely to be infected than men. Blacks much more likely than Asians.

 

[Elizabeth502]

While your claim that gay sex is the largest risk factor, this is true in the U.S,

The poster InSearchofGrace referenced U.S. statistics, and my post responded only to hers. Thank you for confirming that both she and I were commenting on the U.S. population and its HIV risk factors.

 

[epan]

The poster InSearchofGrace referenced U.S. statistics, and my post responded only to hers. Thank you for confirming that both she and I were commenting on the U.S. population and its HIV risk factors.

Actually, being black might be the highest risk factor. But obviously, “unsafe” sex, whether hetero or homo is risky, and tends to be the riskiest for gay males, then straight females, and then straight men.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
I wasn’t defending a position. A century ago anal sex was actually uncommon between gays.

Tell us then your point with your line of argument, which you keep doing in threads in this forum on the subject, by trotting out the assertion that

… in the sodomite group there are more heterosexuals

Technical speak to what purpose? “Fact” to justify whose side, which agenda?
,

 

[Stephen168]

The secular world doesn’t care about procreation in marriage, just look at the birth rates in Europe.

You are probably right. Years ago when someone announced a pregnancy it was always joyous, and when someone announced a divorce it was always sad. Now I find myself having to ask.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Daring to express an opinion that considers the feelings and rights of Non-Catholics.

CAF makes me so sad sometimes

Regardless, the report by the CDC as of 2009 which you have raised earlier has this alarming data:
Gay and bisexual men of all races and ethnicities remain the group most severely and disproportionately affected by the HIV epidemic. Men who have sex with men, excluding those who are intravenous and drug users, represent approximately 2 percent of the U.S. population, but account for 61 percent of all new HIV infections and more than half of people living with HIV.
There is no confusion as to what sexual practice led to the revealing statistic of new cases. To anyone who is tempted to interject that it is the virus that causes HIV /AIDS, or that it is also or largely a heterosexual disease, please read back first what was stated and the context used.

Please feel free to prove it and disprove me.

Taking offense where none is intended,
When imperfect communication or how something is said is always more important than substance of iteration,
Usually followed by sarcasm or bombast.
Contrary to a jibe, it has nothing to do with considering the feelings of non-Catholics.

Dakota, I am not saying all or most of your posts can be described as so. If/when I come across any in reading back of threads and posts as example of ineffective debating method or style, I will surely bring it to your attention, maybe by pm.
,

Uh okay, I’m not saying sodomy is not immoral, I am merely pointing out that heterosexuals do it too. My pet peeve is when people bash sodomy, but focus on homosexuals and don’t comment on heterosexuals doing it which in my opinion is most disconcerting because according to the Catholic definition and statistical data in terms of absolute numbers more heterosexuals are sodomites than homosexuals. You seem to focus on only anal sex, but according to the Catholic definition that is only a subset of what sodomy is.

Considering that I have made so many posts I am sure I have made many poorly written posts.

It’s going to be fun trying to find dozens of posts in a stack of tens of thousands, like finding a needle in a hay stack.

Indeed.

In itself, homosexual activity is the highest risk factor for HIV.
Separately, intravenous drug use is also a risk factor.
Combining them merely magnifies the odds, but does not cloud the issue as to the riskiest activity, relative to HIV.

In any case, if homosexual activity accounted for only 2 percent of HIV cases, such a fictional statistic would be of course irrelevant to the moral, mental, physical, and spiritual advisability of engaging in homosexual activity. I’m not saying that anyone here has explicity suggested the opposite, merely that it is to be noted that a very, very frequent contemporary “argument” about the morality of anything – from recreational drug use to permits for military-grade automatic weapons, to cohabitation, to homosexual “marriage,” to trot out some random statistic by which the arguer aims to show insignificant “harm.”

No, anal intercourse is the highest sexual risk fctor for HIV, one group simply has a higher probability of doing it with someone who has HIV.

The poster InSearchofGrace referenced U.S. statistics, and my post responded only to hers. Thank you for confirming that both she and I were commenting on the U.S. population and its HIV risk factors.

The rest of that paragraph dealt with only the US, why did you crop it out?

Tell us then your point with your line of argument, which you keep doing in threads in this forum on the subject, by trotting out the assertion that

Technical speak to what purpose? “Fact” to justify whose side, which agenda?
,

Oh sister, please take take the beam out of your eye before you point out the speck in those poor confused fools’ eyes.

Truth.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Actually, being black might be the highest risk factor. But obviously, “unsafe” sex, whether hetero or homo is risky, and tends to be the riskiest for gay males, then straight females, and then straight men.

Whatever angle one wants to see from the CDC report, which any Internet user can easily call up, what needs to be driven home is, in the words of the CDC document under Prevention Challenges, is:
Sexual risk behaviors account for most HIV infections in men who have sex with men (MSM). Unprotected receptive anal sex is the sexual behavior that carries the highest risk for HIV acquisition. For sexually active MSM, the most effective ways to prevent HIV and many other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are to avoid anal sex, or for MSM who do have anal sex, to always use condoms. MSM are at increased risk for syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia, and CDC recommends that all sexually active MSM be tested annually for these STIs.
Notice what is first mentioned as most effective: avoidance of the high risk sexual practice of anal sex. The message is not just directed to poor blacks or females who may have the proclivity for said practice, for that matter. “Safe sex” which telegraphs to “go ahead, engage in high risk sexual practice, by all means, but remember to use a condom” is a secondary recommendation, and a poor alternative, if I may say.

Consider the Adult Prevalence Study of Select Asian Countries for 2001-2009 here.
**The only type of condom use that is really effective in reducing the risk of HIV infection is consistent, perfect condom use (10). This raises the question whether “consistent, perfect condom use” is ever attainable given the often-imperfect circumstances of the human condition. Nevertheless, even perfect condom use cannot take away the risk altogether. It is important to clarify that condoms may reduce the risk but cannot prevent it. **
and
In countries where condoms were promoted, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS increased. The latest book of Harvard University AIDS research expert Dr. Edward Green, Broken Promises: How the AIDS Establishment has Betrayed the Developing World, boldly takes up this topic and suggests that a “sex-positive” approach and condoms promotion in Africa have contributed to the continent being the home of the greatest number of AIDS victims in the world. Even way back in his 2003 book, Rethinking AIDS Prevention, Dr. Green had already pointed out that behavioral change was more effective than condom promotion.
I guess that’s enough as a related aside, unavoidable at times in threads such as this. I yield now to the main topic of LGBT equality in the U.S. experience being posed as the same as black equality. Not!
,