A
Annn
Guest
Interesting, when so many on this forum think sex education is a bad idea.Knowing the risks of engaging in homosexual activity may deter people.
Interesting, when so many on this forum think sex education is a bad idea.Knowing the risks of engaging in homosexual activity may deter people.
Do you really belive this? I have no doubt that homosexual men are in a higher risk group for a number of sexually transmitted diseases (that’s an established fact I think we can all agree on).No one knows what makes a personal “gay” anyway nor is there an objective way of determining who is “gay.”. Knowing the risks of engaging in homosexual activity may deter people…
The “evidence” (in this case) is not being debated. It is how the evidence is used/misused which is dubious.In any case, people have the right to know. Just because the evidence contradicts your worldview doesn’t automatically make it dubious. Neither you nor Dale have mentioned any studies that support the notion that the gay lifestyle is a healthy and happy one, so why pretend that scientific debate has anything to do with it…
.The Church’s teachings are based not only on revelation but also on reason. If you read what the Church says about contraception and homosexuality you will find its arguments are based heavily on the natural law. So it’s appropriate to consult epidemiologists or social scientists or other specialists when the Church is making its argument. Faith and reason go hand in hand, so it’s not surprising to find that an immoral/unnatural activity has negative health consequences…
Nobody said anything about suppressing. What I have a problem with is manipulation of research to suit a predetermined viewpoint.Leave the scientific debate to the scientists yes. But don’t suppress the evidence when it doesn’t go along with your political goals-- which is usually the case regarding homosexuality.
Is is interesting isn’t it? I wasn’t referring to mandated sex education in public schools, which is a different issue, but it would be interesting to me if people advocating sex education in public schools would present any information showing homosexuality in a negative light. Maybe they would, but I doubt it.Interesting, when so many on this forum think sex education is a bad idea.
Depends on what you mean by “sex education”.Interesting, when so many on this forum think sex education is a bad idea.
Outlining risks of sexual behavior, risk reduction (through contraceptives), and risk avoidance (abstinence). Making teens fully aware of how terrible sexually transmitted infections are, while also dispelling myths about how they aren’t spread. Telling kids what the varying risk levels of different kinds of contraceptives are. Making them full aware that contracting certain STI’s can make them sterile. Sterile. But I’m also in favor of telling them the reasons contraceptives often fail: for example: I don’t like the “condom and banana” display but I would explain the following safety precautions: if you’re going to accept the emotional and physical risks of sex (which teachers, parents, and administrators really can’t stop kids from doing, unfortunately): don’t use an expired condom, don’t store condoms in extreme heat, don’t use oil-based lubes, etc. etc.)Depends on what you mean by “sex education”.
The Church doesn’t have a monopoly on reason. Until recently, how many different cultures/societies condoned homosexuality or same-sex marriage?methinks the morals were developed well before the concept of a scientiest even existed.
A church based on faith is one thing. You can’t argue with what somebody belives. it’s pointless. But to say that the RCC has a monopoly on reason is really stretching it a bit in my book.
As an aside: Are all things that are against “natural law” sins?
This off topic I guess. I would suggest what you propose is exactly why we have many of the problems we have today.Outlining risks of sexual behavior, risk reduction (through contraceptives), and risk avoidance (abstinence). Making teens fully aware of how terrible sexually transmitted infections are, while also dispelling myths about how they aren’t spread. Telling kids what the varying risk levels of different kinds of contraceptives are. Making them full aware that contracting certain STI’s can make them sterile. Sterile. But I’m also in favor of telling them the reasons contraceptives often fail: for example: I don’t like the “condom and banana” display but I would explain the following safety precautions: if you’re going to accept the emotional and physical risks of sex (which teachers, parents, and administrators really can’t stop kids from doing, unfortunately): don’t use an expired condom, don’t store condoms in extreme heat, don’t use oil-based lubes, etc. etc.)
it’s also important for kids to know how to get help if they contract an STI.
I think sex ed should present abstinence as the ideal but accept that there’s NO WAY to keep kids from having sex, and accept that many kids aren’t lucky enough to have parents who will explain fully the risks.
Not sure what you’re counting as “many of the problems,” but if you mean teenage pregnancy/sexually transmitted diseases, etc, I think lack of information (not “advice” on how to have “good sex” and not graphic descriptions of sex acts, just information on how diseases spread and among whom they are more likely to spread) is a serious problem. I really don’t think anything other than strong support from parents/guardians/pastors/priests/other important figures can keep kids from engaging in risky behavior, besides knowing some of the facts.This off topic I guess. I would suggest what you propose is exactly why we have many of the problems we have today.
It is another thread.Not sure what you’re counting as “many of the problems,” but if you mean teenage pregnancy/sexually transmitted diseases, etc, I think lack of information (not “advice” on how to have “good sex” and not graphic descriptions of sex acts, just information on how diseases spread and among whom they are more likely to spread) is a serious problem. I really don’t think anything other than strong support from parents/guardians/pastors/priests/other important figures can keep kids from engaging in risky behavior, besides knowing some of the facts.
Its not a matter of “not being gay” as no one, even myself (I struggle with Same Sex Attraction), no one is gay. There are those who suffer with disoredered attractions, but that does not change one’s being. One is not gay by nature. That being said, we are telling people that they must suddenly stop having homosexual attractions. Rather, what is being said is that it will lead to a healthier and happier life if one does not engage in homosexual activity or relationships.Statistically it may well be… But it will not make fewer people gay.
The orginal research quoted is probably usefull for governments/organisations to put in place some support structures/measures. (i.e. to save lives, help people)
The way it has being used by this other group (and the OP I assume) is as warning to people “don’t be gay”, not only is it immoral but you’ll get depressed and die early!!!
This is what I find a little strange. I mean the RCC says it’s morally wrong. OK fine. Like it or lump it, this is the view of the church and nothing (probably) will change this. And yet these groups seem to find it necessary to scrape together/misquote bits and pieces of reseach in order to build some kind of “scientific argument”. As if that will suddenly turn all homosexuals (even those who aren’t catholic) away from gay sex. - It wont!!!
I see the same arguments against contraception. The church says its wrong. OK fine. That’s the stance they have…not likely to change anytime in the near (or distant) future.
But why oh why jump on the “condoms don’t work” band wagon? Why bother finding some dubious research to quote. Isn’t it enough for people to belive condoms are immoral, and just **leave the scientific debate to the scientists. **
Hmm, I don’t think this argument really works. I should imagine that the answers to most, if not all moral questions are based for the most part in one’s faith.The Church doesn’t have a monopoly on reason. Until recently, how many different cultures/societies condoned homosexuality or same-sex marriage?
It is the same with birth control, which until recently was illegal in many parts of the USA and was considered immoral by all Christians.
The Church’s position on birth control and homosexuality may seem ridiculous to people now who have become so accustomed to them, but universally and throughout the history of mankind, they were both considered immoral by most cultures. So while the rest of the world has lost its ability to reason, the Church has kept its.
Could you clarify your post a little. I want to make sure I understand what you are saying in response to my post.Its not a matter of “not being gay” as no one, even myself (I struggle with Same Sex Attraction), no one is gay. There are those who suffer with disoredered attractions, but that does not change one’s being. One is not gay by nature. That being said, we are telling people that they must suddenly stop having homosexual attractions. Rather, what is being said is that it will lead to a healthier and happier life if one does not engage in homosexual activity or relationships.
It only stands to reason, given society’s condemnation of homosexuality and the anger and guilt homosexual lifestyles must engender within the individual. It is truly better for the homosexual to suppress his disordered desires and seek chastity above all else. Only through Christ can the personal crisis of homosexuality be overcome.By Kathleen GilbertLONDON, September 17, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com.After analyzing 25 earlier…
Full article…
Yes, but that’s only because us close-minded Christians DARE to tell them that their lifestyle is wrong, therefore throwing them into a chaotic depression, and leading others to rebel against the EVIL Catholic Church, who dares suggest that the lifestyle is immoral.By Kathleen GilbertLONDON, September 17, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com.After analyzing 25 earlier…
Full article…
Every single practicing homosexual I know also suffers from debilitating depression.By Kathleen GilbertLONDON, September 17, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com.After analyzing 25 earlier…
Full article…
How many do you know?Every single practicing homosexual I know also suffers from debilitating depression.
It’s only anecdotal, but it seems to be validated by the research.
not meEvery single practicing homosexual I know also suffers from debilitating depression.
It’s only anecdotal, but it seems to be validated by the research.