Your message to homosexuals about their prospects for love and companionship

[on_the_hill]

So by your logic…health risks related to gay sex do not exist.

Therefore homosexual activity is perfectly safe and healthy. (???)

No, the point is that gay sex is not necessarily less safe, from a physical standpoint, than straight sex.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

What health risks are unique to gay men and lesbians?

As for men…

The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse:

Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Cryptosporidium
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Microsporidia
Gonorrhea
Viral hepatitis types B & C
Syphilis25

Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown. Others, while found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners, are clearly predominated by those involved in homosexual activity. Syphilis, for example is found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners. But in 1999, King County, Washington (Seattle), reported that 85 percent of syphilis cases were among self-identified homosexual practitioners.26 And as noted above, syphilis among homosexual men is now at epidemic levels in San Francisco.27

catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

As for women:

There are really no health risks that are unique to lesbians. However it would be less than honest not to admit that the RATES of health problems shared with heterosexual women are considerably higher for lesbians. Including suicide, mental health problems and death rate.

 

[MarcoPolo]

In reading through this thread, I want to point out that even if it were true that sex with men was more “dangerous” for a woman than to engage in sexual activity with another women, it would not make lesbian activity morally licit. It would be safer for Person A to stay seated in their tanning chair on a wet boat deck than get up and throw a life preserver over the edge to drowning person B. But it wouldn’t make staying safe and tan the morally superior decision. Neither would it be morally superior to endorse lesbian sex even if we pretended it was “safer” behavior.

 

[on_the_hill]

As for men…

Finally.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

In reading through this thread, I want to point out that even if it were true that sex with men was more “dangerous” for a woman than to engage in sexual activity with another women, it would not make lesbian activity morally licit. It would be safer for Person A to stay seated in their tanning chair on a wet boat deck than get up and throw a life preserver over the edge to drowning person B. But it wouldn’t make staying safe and tan the morally superior decision. Neither would it be morally superior to endorse lesbian sex even if we pretended it was “safer” behavior.

No one on this thread, or similar threads, have suggested that safer sex during illicit sex is morally licit. The problem I have is saying that gay men and lesbians have significantly higher or different health risks. Heterosexuals engage in many of the same acts and if promiscuous will have the same health risks as gay men and lesbians that engage in certain acts or are promiscuous.

Also, this thread asked about prospects of love and companionship. I understood the question as what message of hope do you have? What can you say to gays and lesbians so when they hear about chastity they aren’t left with being alone and unloved for their whole lives? I don’t see this question being answered. Instead of a message of hope It’s been abandoned for scare tactics.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

No, the point is that gay sex is not necessarily less safe, from a physical standpoint, than straight sex.

Not necessarily???

Come on…normal sex does not produce anal ruptures, bleeding or contribute to anal cancer.

That is considerably more dangerous than normal sex.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

You know, Joie, that is such a lame argument…
Just like justifying homosexual behavior as normal because animals “hump” each other.

Almost all of those health risks are unrelated to lesbian sex and even of the ones that are related to it the overall risk there is still less than engaging in sex with men.

I honestly have no idea why you wrote “Just like justifying homosexual behavior as normal because animals ‘hump’ each other” given how little it has to do with the conversation.

NOW this is a excellent point. And you are right.

Allow me to digress:

One of my old Jesuit Theology Profs told us that one of the greatest challenges to Faith occurred when science explained how volcanoes really worked. Up till then…they were physical proof that hell and the devil really existed.

That my friend is what atheists mock as “the God of the gaps” where it is believed on faith that the cause for something is grounded in something in that persons religion. That kind of belief system is irrational and Catholicism doesn’t actually believe anything like that though laity and even some clergy do.

It is true…any temporal consequences related to transgressions of religious belief are simply coincidental.

It isn’t necessarily true that they are purely coincidental, for example drinking alcohol to the point of losing control of one’s reason is sinful and repeatedly drinking that much is correlated with brain damage. Now, the sinfulness of drinking to the point of losing one’s sense of reason doesn’t cause it, but they are both caused by the confounding factor of excessive drinking. Drinking to excess was considered a sin long before that was known and even if it is later shown that drinking to excess doesn’t cause permanent damage it will still remain sinful.

That being said, I am sorry you view my points that way. I focused on health issues because I want to keep on the secular non-religious side of this discussion. I want to emphasize the public health risks that homosexual behavior exposes to the whole community. More importantly I think is is vitally important that people who begin to experience homosexual tendencies be well informed of the dangers.

Most of those health risks are caused by promiscuity not gay sex and to conflate the two is considered very insulting by gay people in addition to making you look like a fool.

The links I provided were only two of 230,000 produced by a Google search for “homosexual health risks”. Of the many that I reviewed, I found none MINIMIZING the health problems associated with same sex relations of men AND women. **The FACT is that there are health risks for homosexuals and lesbians. **

Number of Google hits means nothing.

I am sure there are some hard core gay activist web sites that promote homosexuality by omitting or glossing over this information. They attempt to prove equivalency of homosexuality and normal sexual behavior by emphasizing that heterosexuals face many of the same health risks. This is another lame argument.

I simply cannot understand why supposedly caring and understanding people are not recognizing the health problems faced by gay people. Why cover it up? I believe true compassionate people would want to raise awareness of this problem and work for some solutions. Yet all I see are gay activists and sympathizers working overtime to redefine marriage rather than save the lives of their brothers and sisters.

In keeping with the thread, I still say my message to homosexuals would be to seriously consider the health issues BEFORE entertaining prospects for same sex love and companionship

Did you know that coming out of the closet is correlated with a longer life expectancy for gay people? Why are Catholics promoting behavior (hiding in the closet) that reduces their life expectancy? Please, we must spread the truth that coming out of the closet saves lives.

Note, this section of my post was facetious.

So by your logic…health risks related to gay sex do not exist.

Therefore homosexual activity is perfectly safe and healthy. (???)

I don’t see how you can derive that statement from MacQ’s logic.

Not necessarily???

Come on…normal sex does not produce anal ruptures, bleeding or contribute to anal cancer.

That is considerably more dangerous than normal sex.

Gay men engaging in oral sex also doesn’t do that (a substantial minority of sexually active gay men have no interest in anal sex whereas virtually all of them engage in oral sex).

 

[OraLabora]

I was originally going to make a poll, but set choices as responses can be very inaccurate and limiting. So instead, this is completely open-ended: When talking with persons with same-sex attraction, how do you/would you respond to their concerns about their prospects for love and companionship?

Thanks, I appreciate all thoughts.

I guess I would wonder why it is any of my business? Unless they are asking about my opinion.

If they’re Catholic, presumably they know how the Church feels about sexual activity outside of marriage and have made their decision. If they’re not Catholic, well you have to evangelize before you catechize… and evangelizing is often best done without words.

Of course if one is talking about one’s offspring, we have a moral duty as parents to express our faith. But if the children are adults, they will make their own choices whether we like it or not, and if they make the wrong choice all we can do is love them to pieces and pray for them, and be there for them when they run into trouble which invariably they will.

If it were a stranger or friend asking for my opinion, I would be very guarded but my likely response would be that our society today has come to equate “love” with “having sex with…” and nothing can be farther from the Truth. Sometimes “love” in fact means “NOT having sex with”, even if we’d like to.

I guess I could point out the example of my own mother and her spinster sister. When my father died, my mother and aunt moved in together to share living expenses. They were for all intents and purposes like a married couple. They loved each other. They cared for each other. They watched out for each other. They quarreled and made up with each other. They shared with each other. The only thing they didn’t do, was have sex with each other. They lived in this way for 30 years; my mother, interestingly, had only been married 16 years when my father passed away. They had their ups and downs just like any married couple and they were inseparable.

It always struck me as unfair that neither was entitled to the other’s pension benefits if one died first, whereas if they had been lesbians in a sexual relationship they would be. It sends the wrong message about what “love” and “dependency” really mean.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I guess I would wonder why it is any of my business? Unless they are asking about my opinion.

If they’re Catholic, presumably they know how the Church feels about sexual activity outside of marriage and have made their decision. If they’re not Catholic, well you have to evangelize before you catechize… and evangelizing is often best done without words.

Of course if one is talking about one’s offspring, we have a moral duty as parents to express our faith. But if the children are adults, they will make their own choices whether we like it or not, and if they make the wrong choice all we can do is love them to pieces and pray for them, and be there for them when they run into trouble which invariably they will.

If it were a stranger or friend asking for my opinion, I would be very guarded but my likely response would be that our society today has come to equate “love” with “having sex with…” and nothing can be farther from the Truth. Sometimes “love” in fact means “NOT having sex with”, even if we’d like to.

**I guess I could point out the example of my own mother and her spinster sister. When my father died, my mother and aunt moved in together to share living expenses. They were for all intents and purposes like a married couple. They loved each other. They cared for each other. They watched out for each other. They quarreled and made up with each other. They shared with each other. The only thing they didn’t do, was have sex with each other. They lived in this way for 30 years; my mother, interestingly, had only been married 16 years when my father passed away. They had their ups and downs just like any married couple and they were inseparable.
**
It always struck me as unfair that neither was entitled to the other’s pension benefits if one died first, whereas if they had been lesbians in a sexual relationship they would be. It sends the wrong message about what “love” and “dependency” really mean.

There are people who would argue that because of how they acted as one unit that they should be able to have some benefits such as inheritance, health care, survivors benefits etc. The concept of recognizing two people of the same sex as a family unit is quite old by modern standards as it dates to the premodern era.

 

[OraLabora]

There are people who would argue that because of how they acted as one unit that they should be able to have some benefits such as inheritance, health care, survivors benefits etc. The concept of recognizing two people of the same sex as a family unit is quite old by modern standards as it dates to the premodern era.

I’m certainly of the opinion that if the state allows gays to enjoy those benefits, people in my mother’s situation should as well. Alas it is too late for her, as she passed away in June 2001 at age 83, with my aunt leaving us almost exactly 11 months later in May 2002. So in reality it didn’t make any impact on their lives.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I’m certainly of the opinion that if the state allows gays to enjoy those benefits, people in my mother’s situation should as well. Alas it is too late for her, as she passed away in June 2001 at age 83, with my aunt leaving us almost exactly 11 months later in May 2002. So in reality it didn’t make any impact on their lives.

Given that the state also gives those rights to heterosexual couples who have zero intention of having children I don’t why the state should deny the rights to people who are closer to fulfilling the reasons why the state gives benefits.

 

[Rau]

… I still say my message to homosexuals would be to seriously consider the health issues BEFORE entertaining prospects for same sex love and companionship

Promiscuity is the larger health issue.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Almost all of those health risks are unrelated to lesbian sex and even of the ones that are related to it the overall risk there is still less than engaging in sex with men.

Then why does the Center for Disease Control as well as numerous Pro gay sites state that the RATES of health problems attributed to gay and lesbian sex are higher for gays & lesbians than heterosexual men and women???

Of course any woman can have health problems. But the RATE (proportion relation to population) is higher for lesbians. There can be many reasons…but the simple fact remains that more lesbians have health problems than the normal population. Therefore there is a greater health risk for lesbian behavior than there is for heterosexual activity.

That my friend is what atheists mock as “the God of the gaps” where it is believed on faith that the cause for something is grounded in something in that persons religion. That kind of belief system is irrational and Catholicism doesn’t actually believe anything like that though laity and even some clergy do.

That is a bit obtuse. Perhaps I should have used a better example.

It isn’t necessarily true that they are purely coincidental, for example drinking alcohol to the point of losing control of one’s reason is sinful and repeatedly drinking that much is correlated with brain damage. Now, the sinfulness of drinking to the point of losing one’s sense of reason doesn’t cause it, but they are both caused by the confounding factor of excessive drinking. Drinking to excess was considered a sin long before that was known and even if it is later shown that drinking to excess doesn’t cause permanent damage it will still remain sinful.

Yes it is purely coincidental. If little Johnny’s mother tells him that if he masturbates he will go blind…and he does lose his sight…was that coincidence or was his mother right?

Most of those health risks are caused by promiscuity not gay sex and to conflate the two is considered very insulting by gay people in addition to making you look like a fool.

Well I certainly don’t want to insult anyone and I am not a fool.

SOME of those health risks are related to promiscuity.
Studies show that the rate promiscuity in the gay community is much higher than for heterosexuals. So we are back to square one.

Number of Google hits means nothing.

Ok. Then let’s just stick to the FACT that there are health risks for homosexuals and lesbians.

Did you know that coming out of the closet is correlated with a longer life expectancy for gay people? Why are Catholics promoting behavior (hiding in the closet) that reduces their life expectancy? Please, we must spread the truth that coming out of the closet saves lives.

Note, this section of my post was facetious.

If you were not being funny and it was true that coming out of the closet saves lives…I would support it.

I don’t see how you can derive that statement from MacQ’s logic.

It was a question that I asked Oh-the-hill and I would like his answer.

You are welcome to take a crack at it. I would be interested in your answer also.

“Therefore homosexual activity is perfectly safe and healthy.”???

Gay men engaging in oral sex also doesn’t do that (a substantial minority of sexually active gay men have no interest in anal sex whereas virtually all of them engage in oral sex).

Oh spare me…

OK then I guess I will have to include "Choking, gagging, and herpes lesions on their tonsils to the other really fun things that you consider not a dangerous sexual practice.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Promiscuity is the larger health issue.

I don’t see promiscuity as a health issue. How does medical science treat it? Is there a vaccine?

I think it is more of a behavior problem.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Then why does the Center for Disease Control as well as numerous Pro gay sites state that the RATES of health problems attributed to gay and lesbian sex are higher for gays & lesbians than heterosexual men and women???

Of course any woman can have health problems. But the RATE (proportion relation to population) is higher for lesbians. There can be many reasons…but the simple fact remains that more lesbians have health problems than the normal population. Therefore there is a greater health risk for lesbian behavior than there is for heterosexual activity.

That is a bit obtuse. Perhaps I should have used a better example.

Yes it is purely coincidental. If little Johnny’s mother tells him that if he masturbates he will go blind…and he does lose his sight…was that coincidence or was his mother right?

Well I certainly don’t want to insult anyone and I am not a fool.

SOME of those health risks are related to promiscuity.
Studies show that the rate promiscuity in the gay community is much higher than for heterosexuals. So we are back to square one.

Ok. Then let’s just stick to the FACT that there are health risks for homosexuals and lesbians.

If you were not being funny and it was true that coming out of the closet saves lives…I would support it.

It was a question that I asked MacQ and I would like his answer.

You are welcome to take a crack at it. I would be interested in your answer also.

“Therefore homosexual activity is perfectly safe and healthy.”???

Oh spare me…

OK then I guess I will have to include "Choking, gagging, and herpes lesions on their tonsils to the other really fun things that you consider not a dangerous sexual practice.

So is your message to homosexuals really to practice safe sex and be monogamous? You posted earlier that they should consider health risks. Again, the higher rate of infections is caused by promiscuity not by STIs spontaneously manifesting at a higher rate in gays and lesbians.

What if they are monogamous? There wouldn’t be the health risks. What if they are chaste? What is there to offer then? Live alone, die alone?

 

[Rau]

I don’t see promiscuity as a health issue. How does medical science treat it? Is there a vaccine?

I think it is more of a behavior problem.

I’ll try to be clearer. Promiscuity is the larger driver of health issues than is the incidence of lesbian sex.

Promiscuity drives the spread of disease, and thus it’s prevalence in a population. Some male same sex practices are intrinsically infection prone.

 

[Rau]

…What if they are chaste? What is there to offer then? Live alone, die alone?

Chastity does not imply aloneness.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Chastity does not imply aloneness.

Indeed.

I want Zoltan Cobalt’s thoughts. Or more people’s thoughts in the same vein. I think that is what the OP was asking. But if you read the thread other posters are questioning the motive behind the OP and misunderstanding answers (some cautious) that were more positive.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Then why does the Center for Disease Control as well as numerous Pro gay sites state that the RATES of health problems attributed to gay and lesbian sex are higher for gays & lesbians than heterosexual men and women???

That lesbians that higher rates does not necessarily mean lesbian sex causes said issues.

Of course any woman can have health problems. But the RATE (proportion relation to population) is higher for lesbians. There can be many reasons…but the simple fact remains that more lesbians have health problems than the normal population. Therefore there is a greater health risk for lesbian behavior than there is for heterosexual activity.

That’s not how logic works. Learn what confounding factors are.

columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.3/ross.html
Good article on statistical errors.

Yes it is purely coincidental. If little Johnny’s mother tells him that if he masturbates he will go blind…and he does lose his sight…was that coincidence or was his mother right?

Reread that post, you severely misunderstood me.

Well I certainly don’t want to insult anyone and I am not a fool.

SOME of those health risks are related to promiscuity.
Studies show that the rate promiscuity in the gay community is much higher than for heterosexuals. So we are back to square one.

Studies are also showing that average number of partners for gay males continue to trend downward.

Ok. Then let’s just stick to the FACT that there are health risks for homosexuals and lesbians.

Yes, there are different health risks for gay males, bisexual males, heterosexual males, lesbian women, bisexual women, heterosexual women, transwomen and transmen. (Note, the last two are not sexual orientations).

If you were not being funny and it was true that coming out of the closet saves lives…I would support it.

Lesbians, gays and bisexuals (LGBs) who are out to others have lower stress hormone levels and fewer symptoms of anxiety, depression, and burnout, according to researchers. Cortisol is a stress hormone in our body. When chronically strained, cortisol contributes to the ‘wear and tear’ exerted on multiple biological systems.

source

It was a question that I asked MacQ and I would like his answer.

You are welcome to take a crack at it. I would be interested in your answer also.

“Therefore homosexual activity is perfectly safe and healthy.”???

Gay sex is statistically more dangerous than vaginal intercourse for men. Lesbian sex is statistically safer than vaginal intercourse for women.

Oh spare me…

OK then I guess I will have to include "Choking, gagging, and herpes lesions on their tonsils to the other really fun things that you consider not a dangerous sexual practice.

All of those apply to women who fellate their husbands during the marital act.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Promiscuity is the larger health issue.

Indeed

I don’t see promiscuity as a health issue. How does medical science treat it? Is there a vaccine?

I think it is more of a behavior problem.

I don’t see gay sex as a health issue. How does medical science treat it? Is there a vaccine?

I think it is more of a behavior problem.

So is your message to homosexuals really to practice safe sex and be monogamous? You posted earlier that they should consider health risks. Again, the higher rate of infections is caused by promiscuity not by STIs spontaneously manifesting at a higher rate in gays and lesbians.

What if they are monogamous? There wouldn’t be the health risks. What if they are chaste? What is there to offer then? Live alone, die alone?

Ultimately it is the symptom of deeper problems: the conflation of love and sex; society forgetting that marriage is about procreation not love; society forgetting that lay celibacy is better spiritually than marriage even for heterosexuals; and other issues.

Until we start addressing these issues there isn’t all that much that we can offer.

I’ll try to be clearer. Promiscuity is the larger driver of health issues than is the incidence of lesbian sex.

Promiscuity drives the spread of disease, and thus it’s prevalence in a population. Some male same sex practices are intrinsically infection prone.

It is more correct to say that certain sexual practices are more likely to spread STIs than others. Heterosexuals also engage in anal sex although to a much lower degree