Should homosexual acts be illegal from a Catholic & Government perspective?

[InSearchofGrace]

…

WHere did I say that it was everyone’s fault except the homosexual apologists.

Your post 235 and others you submitted in homosexuality threads read like it is everyone’s fault except homosexual apologists. In fact, the language in your postings puts blame on heterosexual sins to the exclusion of those by homosexuals.

You keep pointing to the prevalence of heterosexual sodomy (which is highly questionable) and incidence of homosexual practice of same (which you seem to lowball) does not translate to the objective rate of new AIDS/HIV infection according to the CDC data in the U.S. Considering that homosexuals are somewhere in the 3% of the adult population, it is mostly men who have sex with men that are getting infected. Just how do you figure the likely method of transmission is among homosexual practitioners with this information?

In some posts you cite Catholic position on homosexual acts and your agreement but in many you spout quite vigorously statements that come across as pure gay apologia. The disconnect is apparent.
,

 

[fix]

WHere did I say that it was everyone’s fault except the homosexual apologists.

It seems implicit and a form of deflection.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

A law against sodomy doesn’t have to mean the death penalty. It can be something like a fine. And perhaps the money can go to a charity such as to help homeless children.

No, it doesn’t have to mean the death penalty. I don’t agree with applying a penalty at all for that or many other victim-less crimes. But that’s another story.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Like using a computer?

My computer is made of all natural substances like twigs, juices, and berries and powered by hamsters. There’s nothing unnatural about it!

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I know. Why would anyone be against outlawing unnatural acts?

I think the problem is that what is and isn’t ‘unnatural’ is hard to define, if you’re going from a moral stance (so, natural law) rather than the definition of natural as ‘belonging to nature’. It’s only your religious doctrine that labels homosexuality as being ‘unnatural’. In the true sense of the word it is natural, hence why people are bringing up the use of computers as a counter-argument. They misunderstand your argument. Making something illegal because Catholicism claims it is unnatural makes no more sense than outlawing blasphemy or idolatry. Why oppose one and yet allow the other?

 

[Fairwinds]

This thread is surreal.

I think you mean, “unreal”.

 

[livingwordunity]

I think the problem is that what is and isn’t ‘unnatural’ is hard to define, if you’re going from a moral stance (so, natural law) rather than the definition of natural as ‘belonging to nature’. It’s only your religious doctrine that labels homosexuality as being ‘unnatural’. In the true sense of the word it is natural, hence why people are bringing up the use of computers as a counter-argument. They misunderstand your argument. Making something illegal because Catholicism claims it is unnatural makes no more sense than outlawing blasphemy or idolatry. Why oppose one and yet allow the other?

An anti-sodomy law could be for public health reasons.

“Gay and bisexual men have comprised the largest proportion of the HIV epidemic in the United States since the first cases were reported in the 1980s, and that has not changed. They still comprise the greatest proportion of infections nationally.” - Obama

Sources:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
President Obama’s National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the the the United States 2010 White House Report
WebMD
California School of Professional Psychology

 

[Regular_Atheist]

An anti-sodomy law could be for public health reasons.

“Gay and bisexual men have comprised the largest proportion of the HIV epidemic in the United States since the first cases were reported in the 1980s, and that has not changed. They still comprise the greatest proportion of infections nationally.” - Obama

Sources:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
President Obama’s National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the the the United States 2010 White House Report
WebMD
California School of Professional Psychology

Now that’s an argument. Can’t really argue against that. Homosexual men do have more health problems than heterosexuals, yes (and anyone else who engages in anal sex, I suppose).

 

[DexUK]

Now that’s an argument. Can’t really argue against that. Homosexual men do have more health problems than heterosexuals, yes (and anyone else who engages in anal sex, I suppose).

It’s not sodomy that causes illness, it’s the promiscuity that spreads illness around. There is a difference. Sodomy itself would never cause illness to anyone if all parties were completely disease free.

We don’t ban cars because some people speed in them and kill people. We simply try to discourage speeding. Promiscuity should also, therefore, be discouraged.

 

[Fairwinds]

It’s not sodomy that causes illness, it’s the promiscuity that spreads illness around. There is a difference. Sodomy itself would never cause illness to anyone if all parties were completely disease free.

We don’t ban cars because some people speed in them and kill people. We simply try to discourage speeding. Promiscuity should also, therefore, be discouraged.

you’re not getting into the spirit of this thread. somewhere, right now, couples are having fun engaging in Suspicious sex behind closed doors. ve must eradicate all deviant thought and behavior now or -]polar bears will drown/-] hellfire vill rain down and the Republic will fall.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

It’s not sodomy that causes illness, it’s the promiscuity that spreads illness around. There is a difference. Sodomy itself would never cause illness to anyone if all parties were completely disease free.

We don’t ban cars because some people speed in them and kill people. We simply try to discourage speeding. Promiscuity should also, therefore, be discouraged.

Promiscuity does play a big factor, but the rest of your post needs correction or clarification.

Sodomy (anal sex) as a practice even with practitioners free of AIDS/virus or any STD causes health problems. You can research or talk to proctologists about this if you wish to confirm.

The body is not designed for anal sex, heterosexual or homosexual.

The Church teaching happens to be aligned with good healthful living.
,

 

[fix]

I think the problem is that what is and isn’t ‘unnatural’ is hard to define, if you’re going from a moral stance (so, natural law) rather than the definition of natural as ‘belonging to nature’. It’s only your religious doctrine that labels homosexuality as being ‘unnatural’. In the true sense of the word it is natural, hence why people are bringing up the use of computers as a counter-argument. They misunderstand your argument. Making something illegal because Catholicism claims it is unnatural makes no more sense than outlawing blasphemy or idolatry. Why oppose one and yet allow the other?

Notice I asked the poster questions to clarify their position. Unnatural is not that hard to define. In fact, up until very recently the acts that keep getting mentioned would have universally been referred to as unnatural or perverted. That is why they were illegal.

 

[livingwordunity]

No, it doesn’t have to mean the death penalty. I don’t agree with applying a penalty at all for that or many other victim-less crimes. But that’s another story.

Victimless crime?

**Fast Facts about AIDS **

“Gay and bisexual men are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States .” - CDC

“Among all gay and bisexual men, blacks/African Americans bear the greatest disproportionate burden of HIV.” – CDC

“From 2008 to 2010, HIV infections among young black/African American gay and bisexual men increased 20%.” – CDC

“Fighting HIV among African Americans is not mutually exclusive with fighting HIV among gay and bisexual men. Efforts to reduce HIV among Blacks must confront the epidemic among Black gay and bisexual men as forcefully as existing efforts to confront the epidemic among other groups.” - Obama

“Roughly three-fourths of HIV/AIDS cases in the United States are among men, the majority of whom are gay and bisexual men.” - Obama

“Gay and bisexual men have comprised the largest proportion of the HIV epidemic in the United States since the first cases were reported in the 1980s, and that has not changed. They still comprise the greatest proportion of infections nationally.” - Obama

“CDC reports that HIV diagnoses among young gay men (ages 13-24) of all races and ethnicities rose between 2001 and 2006.” – Obama

Objection:
“But that’s not fact with AIDS/HIV worldwide where most of the cases are heterosexual.”

Answer :
That’s ignoring the proportions. There are more heterosexuals with AIDS because there are more heterosexuals. Homosexuals only make up about 2% of the population. One of the primary ways AIDS got into the heterosexual population is because of bisexual men. According to the CDC and President Obama…

“Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of all new HIV infections” – CDC

“Given the starkness and the enduring nature of the disparate impact on gay and bisexual men, it is important to significantly reprioritize resources and attention on this community. The United States cannot reduce the number of HIV infections nationally without better addressing HIV among gay and bisexual men…Even though gay and bisexual men comprise only two percent of the U.S. population (4 percent of men)” – Obama (bold emphasis given in Obama’s 2010 Whitehouse report)

“Disparities in HIV infection also exist between gay and bisexual men and heterosexual populations. Recently, the CDC announced that gay and bisexual men in the United States are 44 to 86 times more likely to become infected with HIV than heterosexual men, and 40 to 77 times more likely to become infected than women.” – Obama

“Gay and bisexual men comprise the majority of people with HIV who have died in the United States.” - Obama

“1 in 5 Gay/Bi Men Have HIV, Nearly Half Don’t Know” - WebMD

“In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls. Suggestions for future research were offered.” - California School of Professional Psychology

Sources:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
President Obama’s National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the the the United States 2010 White House Report
WebMD
California School of Professional Psychology

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Notice I asked the poster questions to clarify their position. Unnatural is not that hard to define. In fact, up until very recently the acts that keep getting mentioned would have universally been referred to as unnatural or perverted. That is why they were illegal.

So, popular opinion decides what is or isn’t immoral? Why does it matter what most people think? I’m sure in the 1500s most people believed that people accused of being witches should be burned alive. You’ve told me that you have a strong basis on which you can call homosexuality unnatural, but you haven’t explained how.

Also, to livingwordunity, something being unhealthy doesn’t mean it has a victim. No one engaging in homosexual acts is being violated. There is no more a victim in homosexuality than there is in smoking or overeating.

 

[DexUK]

Promiscuity does play a big factor, but the rest of your post needs correction or clarification.

Sodomy (anal sex) as a practice even with practitioners free of AIDS/virus or any STD causes health problems. You can research or talk to proctologists about this if you wish to confirm.

The body is not designed for anal sex, heterosexual or homosexual.

The Church teaching happens to be aligned with good healthful living.
,

I shall choose my words as delicately as possible, as your proposal does not hold water, at least on the medical grounds in question.

I would imagine you were referring to prolapse of the area concerned. Not being minded to partake of that activity myself, I can’t speak with any personal experience of the condition, but even the most basic of medical understanding would lead one to conclude that such a condition would not qualify as an illness in the sense that it would be liable to be passed to third parties not involved in the activity. I dare say that heterosexual intercourse if indulged in to an excessive extent, even monogamously and within marriage, could also carry certain risks that for reasons of decorum I will not attempt to illustrate in any wide sense…

You should note in any case that not all homosexuals indulge in the activity mentioned. In fact, from surveys I have read, it may only be an acceptable activity to a maximum of a third of homosexual men.

Furthermore, without putting too fine a point on it, at least partly depending on diet, the natural processes of the body could in all probability impose a similar burden on the area concerned without the need for carnal involvement at all.

I could go on, but although I am a ‘man of the world’ in as much as nothing shocks me, I won’t as I don’t wish to draw any mental pictures that might cause distress in others. Suffice to say, while there is clearly a risk of injury if sodomy is carried out in a careless way, just like injuries may be caused in almost any other activity if done so negligently, it cannot qualify as anything other than a personal risk accepted by the participant. It does not have any further effects in respect of anyone else in and of itself.

 

[CopticChristian]

We don’t ban cars because some people speed in them and kill people. We simply try to discourage speeding. Promiscuity should also, therefore, be discouraged.

It’s not sodomy that causes illness, it’s the promiscuity that spreads illness around. There is a difference. Sodomy itself would never cause illness to anyone if all parties were completely disease free.

:clapping:

Brilliant, clearly you have a handle on this issue…I could not have said it better myself…however there would be an inherent morbidity with this unnatural deviant behavior in males and that would be seen in any population that sexually acts exclusively in this way

Hemorrhoids
Rectal lacerations
Incontinence
Rectal Prolapse
Anal sphincter dispruption

There is an inherent morbidity in these unnatural, deviant and abnormal behaviors…:sad_yes::bigyikes:

 

[CopticChristian]

I shall choose my words as delicately as possible, as your proposal does not hold water, at least on the medical grounds in question.

You should note in any case that not all homosexuals indulge in the activity mentioned. In fact, from surveys I have read, it may only be an acceptable activity to a maximum of a third of homosexual men.

I would imagine you were referring to prolapse of the area concerned. Not being minded to partake of that activity myself, I can’t speak with any personal experience of the condition, but even the most basic of medical understanding would lead one to conclude that such a condition would not qualify as an illness in the sense that it would be liable to be passed to third parties not involved in the activity. I dare say that heterosexual intercourse if indulged in to an excessive extent, even monogamously and within marriage, could also carry certain risks that for reasons of decorum I will not attempt to illustrate in any wide sense…

:nope:

Sadly, your imagination has failed you…the word is morbidity…physicians, while training, go to Mortality and Morbidity conferences weekly…Heterosexual, monogamous sex would not lead to

Hemorrhoids
Rectal lacerations
Incontinence
Rectal Prolapse
Anal sphincter dispruption

You are wrong…from a medical perspective, based on my opinion that comes from knowledge, training and experience…

Furthermore, without putting too fine a point on it, at least partly depending on diet, the natural processes of the body could in all probability impose a similar burden on the area concerned without the need for carnal involvement at all.

:nope:

Wrong again. What happens when there is constipation, as you propose, the reverse of attempting to insert things into the end of the alimentary tract, a purpose it was not created for, would lead to Diverticulosis and potentially Diverticulitis…but I would not expect you to know that…The burden of insertion does not translate to the burden of expulsion…rethink your understanding…

I could go on, but although I am a ‘man of the world’ in as much as nothing shocks me, I won’t as I don’t wish to draw any mental pictures that might cause distress in others. Suffice to say, while there is clearly a risk of injury if sodomy is carried out in a careless way, just like injuries may be caused in almost any other activity if done so negligently, it cannot qualify as anything other than a personal risk accepted by the participant. It does not have any further effects in respect of anyone else in and of itself.

:tsktsk:

Please don’t go on as your understanding of the medical field is innacurate and here spreads misinformation…

 

[livingwordunity]

:nope:

Sadly, your imagination has failed you…the word is morbidity…physicians, while training, go to Mortality and Morbidity conferences weekly…Heterosexual, monogamous sex would not lead to

Hemorrhoids
Rectal lacerations
Incontinence
Rectal Prolapse
Anal sphincter dispruption

You are wrong…from a medical perspective, based on my opinion that comes from knowledge, training and experience…

:nope:

Wrong again. What happens when there is constipation, as you propose, the reverse of attempting to insert things into the end of the alimentary tract, a purpose it was not created for, would lead to Diverticulosis and potentially Diverticulitis…but I would not expect you to know that…The burden of insertion does not translate to the burden of expulsion…rethink your understanding…

:tsktsk:

Please don’t go on as your understanding of the medical field is innacurate and here spreads misinformation…

I heard that by the time a “gay” man gets old he has to wear adult diapers because of the damage to you know what from sodomy.

 

[CopticChristian]

I heard that by the time a “gay” man gets old he has to wear adult diapers because of the damage to you know what from sodomy.

and of course reality is that there are toys…to the list we add…

Death…:sad_bye:

N Z Med J. 2007 Aug 24;120(1260):U2685.
Vibrator-induced fatal rectal perforation.
Waraich NG, Hudson JS, Iftikhar SY.
SourceDepartment of Surgery, Derby Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK. naseem.waraich@nottingham.ac.uk

Abstract
A middle-aged man was admitted to our hospital with abdominal pain and bleeding per rectum. Subsequent laparotomy indicated an established faecal peritonitis in relation to an anterior perforation of the upper rectum. He later volunteered that he had anal intercourse 2 days previously with a vibrator at an erotic party. His partner volunteered further information regarding devient practice such as regular insertion of other foreign objects (e.g. shower hose). Tearing of the rectal mucosa following such practices is a recognised complication. However mortality following foreign body perforation is reported as extremely rare in the medical literature. Surgical repair of rectal perforation and intensive treatment did not prevent development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) hence leading to multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) and death. This case report highlights the seriousness of rectal injuries following unusual sexual practices. Death in this case can be attributed to the late presentation and established faecal peritonitis. Death due to retroperitoneal perforation following such accidents have been reported in the literature. However previously no cases have been recorded where death occurred due to anterior rectal wall perforation.

 

[DexUK]

Please don’t go on as your understanding of the medical field is innacurate and here spreads misinformation

I’m not spreading any misinformation - before you mentioned it, I referred to one of the conditions you listed. I could well have moved on to others. If you are a medical person you will know that haemorrhoids are not solely a problem related only to sodomy. It is unreasonably to suggest that sodomy will inevitably lead to such a condition.

Incontinence may be a problem (in so far as muscle control may be lacking) but it is not inevitable. It tends to present in homosexual men who have indulged in things that are significantly worse than simple sodomy. If you don’t know to what I am referring, then I certainly do not intend to spell it out publicly.

Lacerations, or to put it in a more accessible way, since the word ‘laceration’ invokes images of sharp instruments, tearing can indeed happen due to friction. There are, of course, ways round this. Artificial, for sure, but not something that is entirely unknown to heterosexuals either.

I don’t know what “dispruption” is - my dictionary doesn’t have it listed, so it’s either an obscure medical word or a typo. On the assumption that you mistyped, then you will need to let me know which sphincter you’re talking about, as there are two… In any case, it would seem to be the in same category as ‘incontinence’. Perhaps you couldn’t find enough medical problems to scare people with so you decided to mention one twice?

Regardless of all the above, the original point I was answering was that homosexual sex, specifically sodomy, spreads disease and that is clearly not the case in and of itself. Promiscuity is the cause by which disease, if present at the start, is spread. I drew the analogy of the car and the driver who speeds. We do not make cars illegal (or a mortal sin to drive) because some drivers speed, therefore we should not make sodomy illegal (for those who want to engage in it) on the basis that some of those who indulge in it cause the spreading of diseases that they are carrying. If that was truly a supportable position, then we’d have to make heterosexual intercourse just as illegal because, as I’m sure you are aware, the vast majority of AIDS cases are in Africa in heterosexual people.

Now I could suggest that, other than banning them outright, for cars it is possible to fix a speed limiting switch that, if operated, prevents the driver from speeding… I wonder if such a device exists that does a reasonable job at preventing a promiscuous person from spreading disease…?