Why is the US Catholic church so obsessed with the gay issue?

[edwest2]

The National Health Interview Survey, July 2014, which is the government’s premier tool for annually assessing Americans’ health and behaviors, found that 1.6 percent of adults self-identify as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent consider themselves bisexual.

That would be difficult since all Catholics believe that marriage is the core of a family and marriage is between a man and a woman. So these “families” would not be Catholics. Why would they want to send their children to a school that teaches that there is no such thing as two daddies or two mommies?

Doesn’t make sense.

That’s true.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported the first large-scale government survey measuring Americans’ sexual orientation.

The National Health Interview Survey, which is the government’s premier tool for annually assessing Americans’ health and behaviors, found that 1.6 percent of adults self-identify as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent consider themselves bisexual.

washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/health-survey-gives-government-its-first-large-scale-data-on-gay-bisexual-population/2014/07/14/2db9f4b0-092f-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html

I keep wondering why agencies like the CDC and the National Health Interview Survey seem to work so closely with the gay community. Health/disease problems, maybe???

Having worked in a hospital, a person does not go to the ER with a sexual health related matter and not get screened, since an accurate diagnosis determines the proper treatment. Even with confidentiality rules, this data gets published to provide necessary information to health care providers and the public. Categories are established:

cdc.gov/std/life-stages-populations/msm.htm

Engaging in high-risk sexual practices is a problem for the gay and straight communities. Right now, in the US, there is an STD epidemic. Now, the CDC may use certain terminology but allow me to state the following: Quit having sex with total strangers.

Ed

 

[Thorolfr]

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported the first large-scale government survey measuring Americans’ sexual orientation.

The National Health Interview Survey, which is the government’s premier tool for annually assessing Americans’ health and behaviors, found that 1.6 percent of adults self-identify as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent consider themselves bisexual.

washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/health-survey-gives-government-its-first-large-scale-data-on-gay-bisexual-population/2014/07/14/2db9f4b0-092f-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html

I keep wondering why agencies like the CDC and the National Health Interview Survey seem to work so closely with the gay community. Health/disease problems, maybe???

Considering that only 2.3% of the people who took part in the National Health Interview Survey identified themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual, that does not seem to indicate some especially close relationship by LGBT people with the CDC. If taking part in this survey indicates major problems with health and disease, the straight community seems to have a big problem since the other 97.7% identified themselves as straight. As for how representative this survey is, I doubt that I would talk to a government interviewer about my sexual orientation.

 

[Bradski]

A poll can produce inaccurate results by the wording of the questions. For example…the world famous Cobalt Poll could ask:

“Since homosexual activity is neither normal or natural, should the government promote such activity by legally recognizing same sex marriage? Yes or No.”

Any reputable polling company lists the specific questions that are asked. That type of question wouldn’t even make it onto the questionnaire of a disreputable company. If it was asked and a poll issued based on the results, then it would be worthless.

Pew is an extremely reputable company that has no axe to grind. If you have anything that would counter the results it publishes, then feel free to post it. We can check who is doing the polling, what the questions were etc .

If you know enough about polling I’m sure your views will be valuable in any discussion. But as they say, put up or…thanks for coming.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Catholic tends to be ‘hit and miss’ with Bible. But from there we learn that God does not
accept ‘gay’. He hates it because it is sin. People who don’t like that should take up their
argument with God. Cyril.

God cannot hate.
Basic theology.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I am sure there are others like you who do not hate the Church about the gay issue. But the majority message out there is swift condemnation for any (no need to identify your religion) person who is against gay marriage:

Bigot
Hate-filled
Religious nut
Radical Right Wing

If you read the gay press, like the Advocate, they have a link titled Religion that anyone can click on. They watch what any religious person/group/denomination has to say. And God forbid that your free speech rights or point of view goes against theirs.

Ed

That may certainly be a message.

But it is not part of what it means to be gay or want to marry the person you love.

 

[catholic1seeks]

How every many gay people there, the fact is that there are gay people. And the number does not take away from whether or not they should be able to marry or have certain rights. If so, then what percent would be necessary? 10%? 50%? Any figure seems arbitrary.

I know plenty of LGBTQ persons, and their struggles and aspirations is enough to convince me.

 

[onenow1]

Several Catholic organizations in the US seem to be uncomfortably and awkwardly preoccupied with gay issues. Catholic Answers Live, a radio show I love, sometimes has specific shows dedicated to same-sex marriage or homosexuality. I just switched on EWTN on my TV and the show was talking about the “militant homosexual agenda.” Catholic bloggers and articles are always dedicating topics on this issue; everytime I go to NewAdvent.org, there is a good chance I’ll see a highlighted article casting the issue in a severe light.

My question is, what is this emphasis on this issue meant to achieve? Is it supposed to help those gay persons who are already struggling to find a place in the Church? Is it supposed to convince the “militant homosexual” activists? Is it supposed to reach out to those in the Church and the world who disagree with church teaching and accept homosexual relationships? Or is it supposed to comfort those who already agree with church teaching?

Maybe I am just sensitive. But I do not see the point with this over-emphasis. I could see how such a preoccupation would turn away those from the Church, as it is making me really disappointed with the USA church’s outreach to those on the fringes.

The church instituted by Jesus, has always been in the business of saving souls and being truthful. God did not make a mistake in creating man and woman with their differences in nature allowing pro-creation as man and woman.

God Bless

 

[catholic1seeks]

The church instituted by Jesus, has always been in the business of saving souls and being truthful. God did not make a mistake in creating man and woman with their differences in nature allowing pro-creation as man and woman.

God Bless

So then did God make a mistake when he made gay men and women?

(When I say “made” I assume secondary causes. Just like God did not directly “make” man and woman or the fruit fly or the thunder cloud over my house. But in his providence and foresight, all came to be.)

 

[Rau]

So then did God make a mistake when he made gay men and women?

(When I say “made” I assume secondary causes. Just like God did not directly “make” man and woman or the fruit fly or the thunder cloud over my house. But in his providence and foresight, all came to be.)

God allows all that is. So none of what is represents a “mistake” by God.

The choices and decisions people make are not imputable to God, though his Grace may help in the making of good choices.

 

[catholic1seeks]

God allows all that is. So none of what is represents a “mistake” by God.

The choices and decisions people make are not imputable to God, though his Grace may help in the making of good choices.

So is one gay by choice?

 

[Rau]

So is one gay by choice?

I doubt it. But one partakes in sexual relationships by choice.

 

[edwest2]

That may certainly be a message.

But it is not part of what it means to be gay or want to marry the person you love.

Then why am I hearing it all the time? If you don’t agree then you are [any of the above].

Ed

 

[Darryl_Revok]

I doubt it. But one partakes in sexual relationships by choice.

Sexual activity is essentially a bodily function. It involves one more person than most other bodily functions, but it is a bodily function, nonetheless.

As with all bodily functions, there is a limit to how much choice is involved. To paraphrase the Godfather, when you gotta go, you gotta go.

 

[Rau]

Sexual activity is essentially a bodily function. It involves one more person than most other bodily functions, but it is a bodily function, nonetheless.

As with all bodily functions, there is a limit to how much choice is involved. To paraphrase the Godfather, when you gotta go, you gotta go.

Sexual activity (as you describe it - engaged with another) is entirely a bodily “activity”. But one that is not obligatory, unlike most other bodily functions.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

Sexual activity (as you describe it - engaged with another) is entirely a bodily “activity”. But one that is not obligatory, unlike most other bodily functions.

How is it not obligatory? The difference seems kind of arbitrary. It’s a bodily activity. There’s a drive to engage in it, often overwhelming and (unfortunately) uncontrollable in certain persons. It’s ultimately necessary.

 

[edwest2]

Sexual activity is essentially a bodily function. It involves one more person than most other bodily functions, but it is a bodily function, nonetheless.

As with all bodily functions, there is a limit to how much choice is involved. To paraphrase the Godfather, when you gotta go, you gotta go.

Lack of bodily control regarding sex is not the same as any other bodily function. I am guaranteed 100% protection from any sexually transmitted disease by not having sex. It’s simple, but if some want to take a risk then who is to blame?

Ed

 

[Sarcelle]

How is it not obligatory? The difference seems kind of arbitrary. It’s a bodily activity. There’s a drive to engage in it, often overwhelming and (unfortunately) uncontrollable in certain persons. It’s ultimately necessary.

I have not heard of anyone who has died from lack of sex.

The same cannot be said of hunger or thirst.

 

[Rau]

How is it not obligatory? The difference seems kind of arbitrary. It’s a bodily activity. There’s a drive to engage in it, often overwhelming and (unfortunately) uncontrollable in certain persons. It’s ultimately necessary.

Overwhelming? uncontrollable? necessary? It’s a wonder anyone ever chooses to say no It’s a wonder the folks going without are not dying.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

How is it not obligatory? The difference seems kind of arbitrary. It’s a bodily activity. There’s a drive to engage in it, often overwhelming and (unfortunately) uncontrollable in certain persons. It’s ultimately necessary.

I don’t think it’s obligatory, but I think I can understand what you are trying to express. When I read what you wrote I think about my experience of having chicken pox as a child. It’s a choice to scratch one of the many itches that is covering the entirety of one’s body. One isn’t obligated to scratch. But boy isn’t it of great value to get the temporary relief that comes from scratching even if the relief is only temporary! I don’t think any one would condemn me for the few times I did scratch among the uncountable continuous intervals of torturous itching. I don’t know anyone that once they realized it was chicken pox never scratched even one time.