LGBT equality same as black equality

[InSearchofGrace]

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

Truth.

Non-response. Again.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Non-response. Again.

I am irked by the persistent moral hypocrisy, that is why.

 

[epan]

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!
,

Are you trying to assess the moral worth of a sexual act by the disease transmission risk? If that is what you are trying to do, then your next task would be to defend lesbian sex, and sex with condoms.

What is the point of all this?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I am irked by the persistent moral hypocrisy, that is why.

I understand that some posters can be more tactful, more artful, and that any discussion that touches on the topic of homosexuality is particularly sensitive to the same sex attracted and gays. Note that I am using two actually different terms here to delineate those who are and who are not active in the gay lifestyle, who are and are not promoting same sex ‘marriage’ and gay parenting.

What seems to be the case is there are Catholic same sex attracted males (and females) who may not be looking to be partnered but take the position that homosexual sex and SS’'M" are harmless on a spiritual, personal and societal level, positions that run against Catholic Church doctrine and unequivocal teaching. Dealing with non-Catholics is another matter, as you likely can agree.

If I may be frank, the above would explain the reading of or actual undercurrent of postings from posters like you and Seeker. The thing is I don’t see a bunch of us heterosexuals who might come across as moral hypocrites in your terminology, giving a pass to our heterosexual brothers and sisters who are just as guilty of sexual sins, who contribute to the separation of lovemaking and lifegiving in marriage with contraception, and the cheapening or destruction of traditional marriage.

You and I, for example, if you believe as a Catholic in the moral teaching of the Church to which we both belong, need not spar on the truth that homosexual sex and SS"M" are immoral, and appearance of alignment with the gay lobby on said matters is problematic for us, prompting a reaction that seems to be invariably misunderstood by you and Seeker. Does this make sense? For me, I would not stand for persecution and discrimination of my homosexual brother. Yes, I have a homosexual brother that I love and would not turn my back on him if he ever needed my help and would defend him to the true bigots of this world. But it does not mean that I would take his side if he were to push for issues like normalization of homosexual sex in education of kids, enshrinement of SS"M" in law, not to be contested by those of us believing in natural law and standing behind Church teaching. I would not expect for him to expect people like me to look away or just play dead on said issues.
,

 

[Elizabeth502]

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.

Which is precisely why they are the highest risk group. That’s what probabilities, factors, and correlated statistics mean, Dakota.

(Simply)

 

[RobbyS]

CAF makes me so sad sometimes

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.

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

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

Truth.

The oddest thing about AIDS is that so few people acknowledge that year after year the WHO tells us that most of the new cases involve homosexual sex, and this causes no concern, Drunkenness and obesity are somewhat condemned but never sodomy. “Pedophilia "is regarded with horror, yet boy prostitutes are common in “gay” areas such as SF, and their customers are uncondemned.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Are you trying to assess the moral worth of a sexual act by the disease transmission risk? If that is what you are trying to do, then your next task would be to defend lesbian sex, and sex with condoms.

What is the point of all this?

No, I am not assessing the moral worth of a sexual act by the disease transmission risk. This is not saying, though, that there is no wisdom in choosing moral sexual acts which is consistent, I believe, with good spiritual well being (mental, as well) and good physical health. People may disregard the spiritual and mental benefits part, but who can disagree with the fact that certain sexual acts and behavior are unhealthful and unclean? That performing and persisting in such acts have consequences that are not good for the body? The common proverb “Cleanliness is next to Godliness,” reportedly originating from wise ancient Hebrew writings may be corny but it proves to be a good code by which to live.

The point of my post is to highlight an important message that seems to be muted if not lost in all the slicing and dicing of data on HIV / AIDS in and outside the U.S.

Analytical readers of the CDC report (for the U.S. population) can and should take away the message that, first and foremost and best strategy for communities in the prevention of the incidence of HIV / AIDS, is avoidance of the riskiest sexual practice of all, i.e., anal sex.

The other point I wanted to make is the promotion of condom use or “safe sex” to teens and the rest of every population, it seems, with little or no mention of more effective with no failure rate options of abstinence, fidelity/monogamy, and avoidance of risky sexual behavior altogether. That is why I found the information in the link I provided of interest.

If you read said linked article which contains HIV / AIDS information in other countries, there is mention that reliance on heavy promotion of condom use as better or a more effective strategy is folly, as demonstrated in the African experience, which Dr. Edward Green, Harvard University AIDS research expert reported. Behavioral change, not condom promotion, is more effective in combating spread of sexually transmitted diseases including HIV / AIDS.
,

 

[Giants]

Analytical readers of the CDC report (for the U.S. population) can and should take away the message that, first and foremost and best strategy for communities in the prevention of the incidence of HIV / AIDS, is avoidance of the riskiest sexual practice of all, i.e., anal sex.

The other point I wanted to make is the promotion of condom use or “safe sex” to teens and the rest of every population, it seems, with little or no mention of more effective with no failure rate options of abstinence, fidelity/monogamy, and avoidance of risky sexual behavior altogether.
,

This strategy is a fantasy. If history has shown us anything, it’s that you can’t legislate against sexual activity, nor is it particularly effective to shame people into not doing certain things. The primary thing that lessens risk in sexual activity is education. And telling teens not to have sex means that when teens do have sex, they’ll be going in with bad or incomplete information to make a proper risk assessment.

Sodomy doesn’t cause HIV. Having unprotected sex with an infected partner causes HIV. And on that score, it doesn’t much matter whether they’re gay or straight - the lessons are the same. Having unprotected sex with multiple partners is risky behavior. You can try to mitigate this by telling kids that they should never have sex until they’re married, and only then to have babies, or you can try a tact that is more in keeping with the realities of our world. Considering that the highest teen pregnancy rates in America occur in states that teach abstinence-only, I think we can say that one choice is worse than the other.

 

[Crescentinus]

This strategy is a fantasy. If history has shown us anything, it’s that you can’t legislate against sexual activity, nor is it particularly effective to shame people into not doing certain things. The primary thing that lessens risk in sexual activity is education. And telling teens not to have sex means that when teens do have sex, they’ll be going in with bad or incomplete information to make a proper risk assessment.

Sodomy doesn’t cause HIV. Having unprotected sex with an infected partner causes HIV. And on that score, it doesn’t much matter whether they’re gay or straight - the lessons are the same. Having unprotected sex with multiple partners is risky behavior. You can try to mitigate this by telling kids that they should never have sex until they’re married, and only then to have babies, or you can try a tact that is more in keeping with the realities of our world. Considering that the highest teen pregnancy rates in America occur in states that teach abstinence-only, I think we can say that one choice is worse than the other.

Not sure if that’s your own opinion or proselytizing…

 

[epan]

This strategy is a fantasy. If history has shown us anything, it’s that you can’t legislate against sexual activity, nor is it particularly effective to shame people into not doing certain things. The primary thing that lessens risk in sexual activity is education. And telling teens not to have sex means that when teens do have sex, they’ll be going in with bad or incomplete information to make a proper risk assessment.

Sodomy doesn’t cause HIV. Having unprotected sex with an infected partner causes HIV. And on that score, it doesn’t much matter whether they’re gay or straight - the lessons are the same. Having unprotected sex with multiple partners is risky behavior. You can try to mitigate this by telling kids that they should never have sex until they’re married, and only then to have babies, or you can try a tact that is more in keeping with the realities of our world. Considering that the highest teen pregnancy rates in America occur in states that teach abstinence-only, I think we can say that one choice is worse than the other.

I hope that we would all agree that kids need complete information, which would include risk data for disease transmission for various sexual practices, pregnancy information, and prevention methods, which would include HPV vaccination, safer sex practices, and abstinence, and where to go when they get into trouble. I had a case in training of a 15 year old girl who had both ovaries removed. The infection could have been treated easily in the early stages, but she was afraid to tell anyone that she was in trouble. The price of that mistake was sterility. I blame the parents for not creating a supportive environment.

 

[Seeker1961]

Here is what I won’t do. This is MY OPINION and your mileage may vary.

I won’t vote for or support any law that has as it’s foundation “My God or My Holy Book or My Tradition says so”. Based on my education and experience, such laws are setting a precedent that I simply am not comfortable with. I’ve read and heard pretty much every argument for the “traditional marriage” position, and I am simply not persuaded that it is rooted in anything other than “my God, my Holy Book and/or my Tradition says so”. MY OPINION is that the First Amendment protects ALL citizens of the US from the potential influence of a powerful arm of any particular religion. Sure, on this particular issue there’s a lot of agreement among differing faiths, but what about the NEXT issue? What if that one doesn’t align with Catholic teaching? Is it still ok to make a civil law based on religion then?

Having said that-despite the accusations that continue to be thrown at me-I have NEVER suggested, claimed, asserted or advocated that CHURCH law should ever or will ever change on the subject of gay marriage. It’s not going to happen and as a believer in the strengths of both the Church and the First Amendment, I don’t believe it ever will. Also, despite accusations that continue to be thrown at me here, I have nothing to be ashamed of in the living of my own life regarding this issue. I have had wonderful Confessors over the years who have had zero problem telling me when I’ve stepped too far over the line, and also when I’ve let the opinions of other Catholics create scrupulosity.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’ve read and heard pretty much every argument for the “traditional marriage” position, and I am simply not persuaded that it is rooted in anything other than “my God, my Holy Book and/or my Tradition says so”

Then you have “read” and “heard” far too little. The secular arguments are abundant, many of them having been posted on CAF for quite some time, but requiring someone newer to the forum to be curious enough to seek those out. The fact that those arguments were posted on a Catholic discussion forum does not make them Catholic or religious arguments. It makes them available.

 

[fix]

Then you have “read” and “heard” far too little. The secular arguments are abundant, many of them having been posted on CAF for quite some time, but requiring someone newer to the forum to be curious enough to seek those out. The fact that those arguments were posted on a Catholic discussion forum does not make them Catholic or religious arguments. It makes them available.

Yes, and the attitude of “personally opposed but do not want to impose my values on others”, is contrary to Church teaching and reason. In fact, it is a type of straw man.

The Church is not looking to force citizens to mass on Sunday. She is not looking to make people go to confession. She is simply upholding the objective moral truth that binds all people.

Also, the eternal truths found in the Christian faith have long been part of democracy. These moral truths fit well with our system. The failure of Catholics to live their faith, including in the voting both, will lead to more tyranny.

 

[Stephen168]

I won’t vote for or support any law that has as it’s foundation “My God or My Holy Book or My Tradition says so”. Based on my education and experience, such laws are setting a precedent that I simply am not comfortable with.

My God , My Holy Book, and My Tradition tell me that murder and robbery are wrong. Does that mean you don’t support those laws?
The laws being put up for a vote in most states to redefine marriage are not being put there by the “My God or My Holy Book or My Tradition says so” crowd.

I’ve read and heard pretty much every argument for the “traditional marriage” position, and I am simply not persuaded that it is rooted in anything other than “my God, my Holy Book and/or my Tradition says so”.

Marriage precedes my Holy Book and my Tradition. It also precedes the state. I believe it is rooted in human history and human biology. It seems to me it is something Humans have agreed to do with each other since the beginning of mankind, and what they agree to do with each other is not possible with two people of the same sex.
Because marriage is such a natural human right, it is the folks who don’t like what marriage naturally is are the ones wanting the government to change it. My God or My Holy Book or My Tradition requires me to do nothing. As a citizen, I will support regulations I agree with on subjects which include murder, marriage, robbery, etc.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I hope that we would all agree that kids need complete information, which would include risk data for disease transmission for various sexual practices, pregnancy information, and prevention methods, which would include HPV vaccination, safer sex practices, and abstinence, and where to go when they get into trouble. I had a case in training of a 15 year old girl who had both ovaries removed. The infection could have been treated easily in the early stages, but she was afraid to tell anyone that she was in trouble. The price of that mistake was sterility. I blame the parents for not creating a supportive environment.

Parents are responsible for providing sufficient “grounding” of their children as they grow and supporting them when they are faced with any setback or problem. Your “complete” information does not list positive value formation and life skills so that children are helped as they enter puberty and face sex(uality) related matters. You managed to include “abstinence” but it looks like it’s squeezed towards the end of the list there.

I don’t think it is enough that parents and educators provide teens with a narrow knowledge set of health data and what to do “when” they get in trouble. The word “when” instead of or without the word “if” suggests something in your point of view that is different from mine. To optimize results, my opinion is that the sex education mindset hinged on just information on health and applied medicine needs to be broadened.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

This strategy is a fantasy. If history has shown us anything, it’s that you can’t legislate against sexual activity, nor is it particularly effective to shame people into not doing certain things. The primary thing that lessens risk in sexual activity is education. And telling teens not to have sex means that when teens do have sex, they’ll be going in with bad or incomplete information to make a proper risk assessment.

Sodomy doesn’t cause HIV. Having unprotected sex with an infected partner causes HIV. And on that score, it doesn’t much matter whether they’re gay or straight - the lessons are the same. Having unprotected sex with multiple partners is risky behavior. You can try to mitigate this by telling kids that they should never have sex until they’re married, and only then to have babies, or you can try a tact that is more in keeping with the realities of our world. Considering that the highest teen pregnancy rates in America occur in states that teach abstinence-only, I think we can say that one choice is worse than the other.

There is such a big divide between your worldview and mine and others here. I hope that you read my post above in reply to epan who reacted to yours. The posts by other members in this thread are also illuminating.

You’re lucky to have stumbled into this forum. Treat your participation as a great opportunity to understand the minds of practicing Catholics. We’re not that crazy, or out of touch with the world, you see. You never know, an epiphany might just strike you! Hope springs eternal.
,

 

[Elizabeth502]

I had a case in training of a 15 year old girl who had both ovaries removed. The infection could have been treated easily in the early stages, but she was afraid to tell anyone that she was in trouble. The price of that mistake was sterility. I blame the parents for not creating a supportive environment.

I blame the parents for not knowing where the heck their daughter was when she was engaging in sex at age 15, and for the fact that apparently she hadn’t been told that it is in fact not normal to be engaging in sex at 15, because one is not married in most societies at age 15, certainly not in most developed countries. I blame parents for not making it quite clear that it is not only dangerous when you don’t know the facts about your partner, and the medical consequences which may result, but that it is dangerous in many other ways to be engaging in underage, unmarried sex, period, paragraph.

Irresponsible and neglectful parents. And please don’t tell me that they couldn’t know where their daughter was because they were both working, and it was so responsible of them to work. Their first moral and legal responsibility was actually to their child, not to a job.

 

[Giants]

Not sure if that’s your own opinion or proselytizing…

Why would I post it if it weren’t my opinion?

 

[Giants]

There is such a big divide between your worldview and mine and others here. I hope that you read my post above in reply to epan who reacted to yours. The posts by other members in this thread are also illuminating.

You’re lucky to have stumbled into this forum. Treat your participation as a great opportunity to understand the minds of practicing Catholics. We’re not that crazy, or out of touch with the world, you see. You never know, an epiphany might just strike you! Hope springs eternal.
,

I am likewise struck by the distance between our worldviews, especially given the salient facts. I repeat - teen pregnancy rates in the United States are highest in states that teach abstinence-only sex education. This is according to the CDC. So what are to we make of this fact? And using this fact as a point of departure, how do you reason yourself back around into claiming that abstinence-only sex education is the best method for curbing teen pregnancy and STDs?

I also felt you mis-characterized epan’s comments - suggesting his idea of education was centered around what someone does after they’ve already gotten in trouble. By my lights, providing “risk data for disease transmission for various sexual practices, pregnancy information, and prevention methods, which would include HPV vaccination, safer sex practices, and abstinence” are all pro-active measures. What’s more, they do promote positive values - desire for education, self-empowerment, self-respect, parsimony, etc.

 

[epan]

Parents are responsible for providing sufficient “grounding” of their children as they grow and supporting them when they are faced with any setback or problem. Your “complete” information does not list positive value formation and life skills so that children are helped as they enter puberty and face sex(uality) related matters. You managed to include “abstinence” but it looks like it’s squeezed towards the end of the list there.

I don’t think it is enough that parents and educators provide teens with a narrow knowledge set of health data and what to do “when” they get in trouble. The word “when” instead of or without the word “if” suggests something in your point of view that is different from mine. To optimize results, my opinion is that the sex education mindset hinged on just information on health and applied medicine needs to be broadened.
,

We live in an “information age”. Kids will know whatever interests them. Sex becomes very interesting at some point. A parent’s job, in my opinion, is to instill values, and to help a kid understand the information that is available. That is all I am saying. I don’t think that withholding information improves the credibility of the parent, when a kid can just go out and find it anyway. Instead, it creates mistrust.