Which Homosexuals Are "Incurable"?

[speakttruth]

Yes, I did read what you wrote. You did not do your research. I am not an epidemiologist, but I do have some knowledge of disease transmission and the nature of pandemics, such as the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

Your conclusions are wrong. In sub-saharan Africa, 60% of HIV infected people are heterosexual females, for example. If you don’t believe me, check the UN and WHO statistics on the disease. They are readily available. There are 10’s of millions of people worldwide living with HIV. The nature of the pandemic varies geographically, racially, and culturally.

Further, you have no idea what the actual MSM population is. Nobody does. The estimates range from 2% (conservative think tanks) to 10% (Kinsey) for primarily gay, with estimate ranging from rather lowish to nearly 30+% (which I think is very high), for MSM behavior on a sporadic basis. The exact numbers are not known.

Furthermore, genetics may play a role. Asians appear to be far less likely to be infected, than are Africans. Cultural practices count too. Transmission rates are much higher with uncircumcised men over circumcised men. Are all of these risk factors somehow God’s judgment?

Please be more careful. You are making conclusions which are false, based on what is known. You are making assumptions based on what is unknown.

Kinsey was not an expert, he was a deviant and his information was skewed by his research with a pedophile that he should have turned in that had sex with 100’s of men, women and children. I wouldn’t go by any of his findings.
The CDC is suppose to report the findings of diseases and it’s pretty clear what the Stats are.
You don’t need the exact number to see that MSM is dangerous. God’s judgments? We are all paying for our sins and WE are doing it to ourselves, not God. The worst is abortion and the rest is sexual immorality. I think it’s pretty clear how messed up our society is and it’s not getting better any time soon.

God help us!

 

[aprilfloyd]

Quote:

Accept him for what? Who is he? So 100 percent of all people with SSA can not change? Are these facts? So they should all just give up? For in Christ we become a new creation.
God works at his own pace, not ours.
GB

One cannot give up homosexuality, just as one cannot give up heterosexuality, they are both normal human sexual orientations

 

[dshix]

One cannot give up homosexuality, just as one cannot give up heterosexuality, they are both normal human sexual orientations

So far you haven’t provided an inkling of proof to support this. Please do so.

 

[epan]

oh my goodness, aids started with homosexuality, rectal chlamydia is a homosexual disease exclusively in the homosexual population back when it started, which the activists don’t like to admit…
Just how do you think the women in Africa get aids? The men are having sex with men and then with women and transmitting it to them. If women and men don’t have sex out side of marriage they don’t get Aids unless someone gave them blood that had the disease.
It was well know it started from homosexuality. We can’t have Immoral sex and unnatural sex without getting the consequences. That is why the Aids still is advancing and STD’s are growing They aren’t even using protection and now we have bug chasers who are deliberately trying to contract aids and then deliberately trying to give someone aids out of sexual satisfaction. It is a depraved activity which we are all suffering the consequences for in this society.
God help us!

AIDS started in Africa 50-100 years ago, and was transmitted from primates to homo sapiens. It began as a heterosexually transmitted disease.

There were probably cases which were never diagnosed in Europe. However, the first that I know of was a British sailor in 1959. It is not known how he contracted it. He had only left G.B. once, and had shore leave in Gibraltar. A pathologist had the foresight to freeze tissue samples, and the diagnosis was made decades later, through bioengineering studies.

Blood samples from West Africa, taken in the 1940’s, indicate that HIV was present.

More than 25 million people have died from AIDS. More than 33 million people are currently infected. More than 60 percent of these people are in Africa, where the means of transmission is heterosexual. Approximately 5 percent of HIV infections worldwide are in the US, where the transmission method is largely homosexual activity.

The disease spread slowly in Africa through the 1960’s and 1970’s, until it reached the urban areas and infected prostitutes. The prostitutes transmitted it to a wide variety of people, but particularly truck drivers. From there it was spread worldwide by air travelers.

There are a number of theories about how the virus made the leap from simians to humans. It could have been from handling infected meat. It could have been from some infected vaccines. Nobody knows for sure.

Please get your facts straight, and stop spreading misinformation.

 

[CopticChristian]

AIDS started in Africa 50-100 years ago, and was transmitted from primates to homo sapiens. It began as a heterosexually transmitted disease.

There were probably cases which were never diagnosed in Europe. However, the first that I know of was a British sailor in 1959. It is not known how he contracted it. He had only left G.B. once, and had shore leave in Gibraltar. A pathologist had the foresight to freeze tissue samples, and the diagnosis was made decades later, through bioengineering studies.

Blood samples from West Africa, taken in the 1940’s, indicate that HIV was present.

More than 25 million people have died from AIDS. More than 33 million people are currently infected. More than 60 percent of these people are in Africa, where the means of transmission is heterosexual. Approximately 5 percent of HIV infections worldwide are in the US, where the transmission method is largely homosexual activity.

The disease spread slowly in Africa through the 1960’s and 1970’s, until it reached the urban areas and infected prostitutes. The prostitutes transmitted it to a wide variety of people, but particularly truck drivers. From there it was spread worldwide by air travelers.

There are a number of theories about how the virus made the leap from simians to humans. It could have been from handling infected meat. It could have been from some infected vaccines. Nobody knows for sure.

Please get your facts straight, and stop spreading misinformation.

Epan

The OP, asks questions, that are framed as Pathology…

it has led me to wonder about some of the things the Church teaches and how we should interpret these with regard to direct dealings with my brother.

The Church also mentions that there is a distinction to be drawn between most who engage in homosexual practices and those who are “incurable.” According to the Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics some homosexuals are such due to innate instinct or pathology as the governing factor.

While even in these situations the Church teaches that these can never be approved of or be morally justified, I wonder if such are considered equally condemned since they are the result of a pathology. And if it is due to a pathology how can it still be immoral? What other cases other than homosexuality can I use to show that a pathological basis can call for no moral justification for others? Any thoughts?

The other question is how can one decipher if a pathology is involved, how the Church has or determines such things, and how this can help us either excuse or accuse (so to speak) persons like my brother (or used by my brother himself in dealing with his own sexuality)?

I suggested that perhaps incurable is not the most appropriate view and the view may be considered in light of corrigibility…

This thread is going south…the relvevance of AIDS, Pneumonia, Cardiac disease etc in the homosexual population as you point out here leads to misunderstanding and misinformation…

The reality that the homosexual/gay lifestyle is not healthy is fact. Nothing more needs to be said and as you point out discussing AID’s etc in the totality of what it is leads to misinformation and misunderstanding…

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I must have made a good argument. I thought for sure there would be a flaming revenge coming my way. Usually anger is the response to this information. Instead I got no response. I hope someone read those stats and took them to heart.

While I’m not sure that what you wrote counts as an analysis of much of anything, Dakota is right to suggest to you that there are flaws in your reasoning. I wasn’t planning on responding as I’m trying to limit my posting on these forums during Lent. But as you would like a response, I’m happy to give you one. Please note, by the by, that my response has nothing to do with revenge or anger.

Here is your post:

curious perhaps but accurate. think about it this way. nobody tells a person who is predisposed to colon cancer they are evil. They do however tell them how bad cancer is and that they should go for scans every few years as they get older just in case.

The churchs teaching on SSA is very much like there teaching on heterosexuality or sexuality in general. They are not saying that having a natural attraction to skinny blondes is bad. The Church is saying if you allow this attraction to consume your life in vain actions without regard for the general purpose of the union (or the good/needs of the partner in question) bad things are going to happen. The first thing you must understand about sin in Christianity is that sin is not sin because God said so. It is sin because there are moral and temporal consequences for these actions.

The biggest piece of censorship in the modern day is the death toll among the SSA male population to AIDS. Go look up the figures at the CDC.

In 2009, the estimated number of deaths of persons with an AIDS diagnosis in the United States and 6 U.S. dependent areas was 18,234. In the 50 states and the District of Columbia, this included 17,770 adults and adolescents, and 4 children aged less than 13 years at death.

The cumulative estimated number of deaths of persons with an AIDS diagnosis in the United States and 6 U.S. dependent areas, through 2009, was 641,976. In the 50 states and the District of Columbia, this included 614,394 adults and adolescents, and 4,986 children aged less than 13 years at death.
cdc.gov/hiv/topics/survei…sic.htm#ddaids

This is an unprecedented tragedy. when you factor in the figures from the government that only 2-4% of the population suffer SSA this becomes akin to genocide.

consider this found under transmission categories on the same page.

male to male contact counted for 28782 new cases diagnosed in 2010 male to female contact accounted for 4416 in males and 8459 in females
but the same organization estimated the SSA population to be no more than 4% in 2010. just doing the numbers shows that you cannot underestimate the tragedy currently underway in the SSA community among men.

and that is just one category of the spiritual and temporal consequences of acting on SSA tendencies.

There are really just three things with which I would quibble here:

1–It is a category error to assume that a predisposition to colon cancer is analogous with same-sex attraction or homosexual sexual activity or homosexual sexual activity with respect to same sex attracted people. While the analogy helps us to understand the things with which you personally associate same-sex attraction (or homosexual sexual activity, or homosexual sexual activity with respect to same-sex attracted people), it does not help us understand reality any better. A predisposition to colon cancer is as analogous with same-sex attraction (or homosexual sexual activity or homosexual sexual activity with respect to same sex attracted people) as it is analogous with preferring dogs over cats as pets. Which is to say…not analogous at all.

[CONTINUED…]

 

[Deo_Volente]

…COMPLETED]

2–You seem to be suggesting one of two things: A) that HIV infection is an inevitable consequence of same-sex attraction; or B) that HIV infection is an inevitable consequence of homosexual sexual activity. Both suggestions are inaccurate–the first is absurd, the second is just a careless misreading of the data at best, or an ideologically inflected eisegesis at worst. With respect to sexual behavior, HIV infection is a possible consequence of (repeated) unprotected sex with an HIV+ partner or partners. HIV infection is not inevitable if one is a sexually active same-sex attracted person. What the data from the CDC indicates is that “men who have sex with men” (and that’s not just sexually active same-sex attracted men) are an at-risk population when it comes to HIV infection–however, those risks are easily mitigated and can be reduced to statistical insignificance if one takes proper precautions (such as using condoms and avoiding promiscuity and promiscuous partners). That the number of HIV infections continues to grow in the “men who have sex with men” population (which, again, is really the population we’re talking about here, not the same-sex attracted population) means that people are not properly educated regarding the risks they are taking, or, knowing the risks, are being scandalously reckless or positively suicidal. But self-destructive recklessness is not an exclusive, definitive, or necessary property of “men who have sex with men” nor is it a definitive characteristic of same-sex attracted folks writ large (some of whom, as you must know, are celibate).

3–You seem to suggest that homosexual sexual activity is considered a sin in part because of the possibility of HIV transmission. Further, you suggest that sin is sin generally because it has nasty temporal consequences. First, you must be aware that the AIDS epidemic is a relatively recent phenomenon, so AIDS was likely not on the minds of our ancestors in the faith who wrote that homosexual sexual acts were abominable–in fact, what was on their minds was maintaining a distinct cultural identity. Otherwise, how could you explain that wearing cloth of mixed materials was just as abominable as homosexual sexual activity? (What were, indeed, the temporal consequences of wearing a cotton/wool blend tunic?) If homosexual sexual activity is sinful, it is not sinful because bad temporal things might happen–indeed, using a circular saw, or a hand blender or just crossing the street would be sinful for similar reasons (something bad might happen!)–it would be sinful because it turns us away from God and focuses us on “self” or, in the words of Origen,because it removes us to some degree from God’s remembrance of us because it is an act that makes us less real–i.e., sin is an act by which we choose loveless un-being (“self”) over the Uncreate and Eternal One whose being is defined by self-emptying Love.

While the numbers you mention are indeed saddening for a host of reasons, I’m afraid the conclusions you draw from them “jump the shark.”

So what I’m left wondering is: what’s your point? Is it your intention that these numbers should make same-sex attracted people afraid of themselves or other people in one way or another? Is it your idea that a life characterized by fear of oneself is a particularly worthy or good life? Is the good life an always fearful and ever-cautious life? That sounds like a life of paralysis to me–a recipe for neurosis, not holiness. But it is sometimes the case that we confuse the merely neurotic with the holy (both can, after all, seem quite strange to us), particularly when the neurosis is our own; and we are often quick to recommend that others share our neuroses as if they constituted the path to piety as opposed to the way of dysfunction. And that, too, is saddening.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[epan]

Epan

The OP, asks questions, that are framed as Pathology…

I suggested that perhaps incurable is not the most appropriate view and the view may be considered in light of corrigibility…

This thread is going south…the relvevance of AIDS, Pneumonia, Cardiac disease etc in the homosexual population as you point out here leads to misunderstanding and misinformation…

The reality that the homosexual/gay lifestyle is not healthy is fact. Nothing more needs to be said and as you point out discussing AID’s etc in the totality of what it is leads to misinformation and misunderstanding…

This thread has diverged into a variety of topics.

Obviously, there are personal health, and public health issues with sexual promiscuity, regardless of gender mix. With gay men, there is more anal contact than with other populations, and the risk of infectious disease transmission is increased.

As to whether homosexuality, as a medical condition, is curable? I am not sure that is the right question to be asking. I know that people like Nicolosi do look at it as psychologically pathological, which he says is curable in some cases. The APA dismisses the pathology argument.

The bottom line, is that all sexual behavior is just that. It is behavior. The moral stance of the Church proscribes all sexual behavior outside of a procreative framework.

 

[CopticChristian]

This thread has diverged into a variety of topics.

Obviously, there are personal health, and public health issues with sexual promiscuity, regardless of gender mix. With gay men, there is more anal contact than with other populations, and the risk of infectious disease transmission is increased.

As to whether homosexuality, as a medical condition, is curable? I am not sure that is the right question to be asking. I know that people like Nicolosi do look at it as psychologically pathological, which he says is curable in some cases. The APA dismisses the pathology argument.

The bottom line, is that all sexual behavior is just that. It is behavior. The moral stance of the Church proscribes all sexual behavior outside of a procreative framework.

Epan,

Behavior is changeable. I agree.

 

[epan]

Epan,

Behavior is changeable. I agree.

Now, convince a 20 year old Marine, who has been under fire, and who likes to jump out of helos, that he should not be taking such risks.

The military does have policies to try to reduce risky sexual behavior. For example, each service member is tested annually for HIV antibodies, and also before any major schooling. A positive test result stops that career in place. That is a strong incentive for many men.

 

[Monkey1976]

Now, convince a 20 year old Marine, who has been under fire, and who likes to jump out of helos, that he should not be taking such risks.

Those risks are undertaken for a larger purpose: Defense of his country. What larger purpose is served by homosexual activity?

The military does have policies to try to reduce risky sexual behavior. For example, each service member is tested annually for HIV antibodies, and also before any major schooling. A positive test result stops that career in place. That is a strong incentive for many men.

So why is it that pointing out the increased incidence of STDs, AIDS, colorectal problems, and so forth is seen as “anti-gay”?

 

[epan]

Those risks are undertaken for a larger purpose: Defense of his country. What larger purpose is served by homosexual activity?

So why is it that pointing out the increased incidence of STDs, AIDS, colorectal problems, and so forth is seen as “anti-gay”?

I don’t think you get the picture. A young guy, possibly an adrenalin and risk addict. Returning from deployment, wants to get his sexual pleasure. Now convince him of the risks.

I don’t know what you mean with your second question. Pointing out those risks is not anti-gay. It is helping the patient to understand the risks. Why did you ask the question?

 

[down_under]

Obviously, there are personal health, and public health issues with sexual promiscuity, regardless of gender mix. With gay men, there is more anal contact than with other populations, and the risk of infectious disease transmission is increased.

three people have taken shots at me for belaboring a point you make in one sentence like its no big deal. increased risk does not even come close to covering it. You are talking about hundered of times more likely. SSA active men are almost guaranteed to get HIV if they stay active for very long at all. Yes its a promiscuity problem. SSA active men have this problem as a group. There are individual members who do not, but that is not the lifestyle.

carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity
bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=17458
frc.org/get.cfm?i=Is01B1

And yes we do know within exceptable variation approximately what the SSA active population is in America. That is why I mentioned that in the same year 2010 the CDC gave those #'s as 4%. That is an accruate assessment of the figures. These figures are as good as the HIV figures which you also accept.

and yes sins are sins because they have temporal or spiritual consequences. That is the current teaching from our church. I do not know what may have been the teaching 100’s or 1000’s of years ago in cultures that most people have never heard of or only heard of in passing. (the ancient jewish culture and custom is only understood in terms of modern catholic contrast). We are talking about here, right now, in our church and our culture.

To whoever posted the interesting assertion that aids is a heterosexual disease because it was first contracted from monkeys. I don’t see the logic in how it can be called heterosexual sex if it was with a monkey, leaving that aside for the moment, do you have any evidence to support this assertion other then well everybody knows that.

and last (not in order) the idea that you can have a genetic predisposition to colon cancer was perhaps not developed so i will develop it now. Having a genetic predisposition to something (a all natural predisposition) does not make it a good or healthy thing to have never mind accept. This is akin to suggesting my father just go ahead and have cancer. I mean he does have a natural predisposition to it. It does not work. People have natural predispositions to a lot of things that does not make it good or right to accept those things simply because of a natural genetic variation. sickle cell anemia is a totally natural genetic condition you don’t tell those people to accept it. alcoholics can have a genetic predisposition to liking the drink, you don’t tell them “hey go tend bar” you say hey go to AA and see if you can change that or at least mitigate it for your own healths sake.

I’m not saying they can all change any more then all alcoholics can change. I’m saying they should give it a try for there own healths sake and if they can’t change then stay away from the drink. That’s what the alcoholics do. It makes a lot of sense to me. why don’t you see this.

 

[down_under]

http://carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity

bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=17458
frc.org/get.cfm?i=Is01B1

I make a slight retraction. It may not be Promiscuity alone, although I don’t see how the promiscuity of the lifestyle could not contribute. The statistics do not say WHY or even venture to guess why the problem of transmission is so great in the active SSA male population. It could simply be because condoms are not good at stopping disease, or that anal sex has such a high disease transmission rate, or promiscuity or all of the above. My thought would be all these things are contributing factors. To what degree I could not say.

 

[speakttruth]

One cannot give up homosexuality, just as one cannot give up heterosexuality, they are both normal human sexual orientations

Please read your Catechism, and learn what the church teaches instead of what the world is pushing. Homosexuality is not normal and not natural and far from it according to God.
He did not make Adam and Steve. This is why we are in so much trouble in this church. We are not Cafeteria Catholics that can pick and choose what we want to believe.
God help us!

 

[speakttruth]

I make a slight retraction. It may not be Promiscuity alone, although I don’t see how the promiscuity of the lifestyle could not contribute. The statistics do not say WHY or even venture to guess why the problem of transmission is so great in the active SSA male population. It could simply be because condoms are not good at stopping disease, or that anal sex has such a high disease transmission rate, or promiscuity or all of the above. My thought would be all these things are contributing factors. To what degree I could not say.

When people enter into a homosexual relationship God gives them up to their passions and they become depraved in their mind. Many of these men think that they can trust their partner because of the mind not thinking too well, skip the condom and then when they find out they have aids, it is because of the promiscuity of thier partner. I know of some men who have died from Aids and they were supposedly in a committed relationship. Their is no and can be no committed relationship when they don’t follow the rules of God in the first place. That is the first mistake they make. The age between 15-24 is rising in Aids. Rebellion big time.
Just my thoughts
God help us!

 

[epan]

three people have taken shots at me for belaboring a point you make in one sentence like its no big deal. increased risk does not even come close to covering it. You are talking about hundered of times more likely. SSA active men are almost guaranteed to get HIV if they stay active for very long at all.

That statement pretty much obliterates your credibility. What in the world to you base that statement on?

 

[down_under]

That statement pretty much obliterates your credibility. What in the world to you base that statement on?

on the CDC stats I have quoted at least once and talked about 2 or 3 times now. where were you. There is a raging HIV/AIDS problem in the SSA male active population this is born out in the stats. it is easy to see and read if you take the time. Please don’t denigrate me personally for what the CDC spelled out in black and white for all to see. Here is the link reposed if you missed it last time.

cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#hivaidsexposure

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

on the CDC stats I have quoted at least once and talked about 2 or 3 times now. where were you. There is a raging HIV/AIDS problem in the SSA male active population this is born out in the stats. it is easy to see and read if you take the time. Please don’t denigrate me personally for what the CDC spelled out in black and white for all to see. Here is the link reposed if you missed it last time.

cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#hivaidsexposure

As I pointed out at the bottom of the previous page, you are mistaking two populations for each other: the “men who have sex with men” population and the sexually active male same-sex attracted population.

*Is there considerable overlap? *
Sure.
*
Is there a real difference? *
Definitely.
*
Does the CDC in its reporting maintain this difference? *
It does.

Why would the CDC or anyone else maintain this difference?
Because not all men who have sex with men are same-sex attracted.

*Okay–but in what way can we tell that the CDC maintains this difference? *
By referring to “male-to-male sexual contact” and not to “the behavior of sexually active same-sex attracted men.”

*Isn’t that just quibbling over details, though? *
No–it’s a demonstration of a healthy regard for facts. We wouldn’t say that a Chihuahua is a German Shepherd and behaves just like a German Shepherd because both a Chihuahua and a German Shepherd are both dogs, would we?
*No, that would be absurd. *
Indeed it would.

As I wrote before, I’m still unclear as to what your point is…same-sex attracted men should live in fear of themselves and other same-sex attracted men? The “men who have sex with men” group should better educate itself regarding safe sex practices (in truth, AIDS education has fallen off considerably–and among young people in particular–over the past decade or so)? All risky behavior is sinful behavior?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[down_under]

Grace & Peace!

As I pointed out at the bottom of the previous page, you are mistaking two populations for each other: the “men who have sex with men” population and the sexually active male same-sex attracted population.

*Is there considerable overlap? *
Sure.
*
Is there a real difference? *
Definitely.
*
Does the CDC in its reporting maintain this difference? *
It does.

Why would the CDC or anyone else maintain this difference?
Because not all men who have sex with men are same-sex attracted.

*Okay–but in what way can we tell that the CDC maintains this difference? *
By referring to “male-to-male sexual contact” and not to “the behavior of sexually active same-sex attracted men.”

*Isn’t that just quibbling over details, though? *
No–it’s a demonstration of a healthy regard for facts. We wouldn’t say that a Chihuahua is a German Shepherd and behaves just like a German Shepherd because both a Chihuahua and a German Shepherd are both dogs, would we?
*No, that would be absurd. *
Indeed it would.

As I wrote before, I’m still unclear as to what your point is…same-sex attracted men should live in fear of themselves and other same-sex attracted men? The “men who have sex with men” group should better educate itself regarding safe sex practices (in truth, AIDS education has fallen off considerably–and among young people in particular–over the past decade or so)? All risky behavior is sinful behavior?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

okay I could be wrong here but you are splitting hairs. In 2009, MSM accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections. this is true as to the distinction between SSA and MSM okay but the difference between the two is basically that one involves the method of transmission. So if you are not a SSA active male but you fit into the MSM category you got raped. This category is not very large by any estimation which is why it is not separately labeled. Yes in certain places it could be disproportionately large (prison), but against 2-4% of the population it is not statistically significant.

The point it that the behavior itself is risky. It is inherently dangerous as HIV is transmitted so much more rapidly by this pathway. Its right there spelled out for you. It is not a matter for debate.

cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm
You are in fact quibbling over minor differences in the labels even the CDC admits
“Gay and bisexual men are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States (US).”

By a disproportionately huge margin. If this was hendra or swine flu it would be illegal.