Your message to homosexuals about their prospects for love and companionship

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

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?

Practicing safe sex and being monogamous is very good advice. But not exactly my message. Love and companionship are attainable without including unnatural sexual practices. A heterosexual marriage would be the ideal example of love and companionship. But for those who reject that and search for love and companionship within a homosexual relationship…my message would be “Don’t go down that road. The odds are against you.”

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Indeed

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.

Absolutely!

I agree it is a behavior problem. Behavior problems are solved by education at best…and legislation at worst.

But I can’t help but wonder why the Center for Disease Control maintains all the statistics and census information on homosexuality in this country.

 

[OraLabora]

I think the best message for anybody (not just homosexuals) is do the best you can at becoming holy.

Becoming holy is not a question of flipping a switch and becoming a saint overnight. In this case it may start with something like not being promiscuous, and eventually evolve into full chastity or it may not. God rewards repentance and effort, and knows we rarely can be perfect.

You have to meet people where they are in their lives. If a promiscuous person (gay or otherwise) were to say to me, for example, that they feel unfulfilled and never satisfied, meeting them where they are may mean saying “have you tried settling down with someone?”

It might not be realistic to expect the person to quit cold turkey without a TON of support (such as alcoholics receive, and in the secular world, there’s not too much support for stopping homosexual behaviour). But you can encourage baby steps in the right direction. If you start lecturing on the need to be completely chaste, I don’t think you’ll get too far. Nobody takes so well to being lectured to.

I lived in an irregular marriage for many years (because I had been estranged from the Church when I married). I always wanted to rectify the situation after I returned to the faith, but it took years, patience and prayers to win my wife over to the idea of having our marriage convalidated.

I don’t believe in a Church of rules. Jesus came to redeem us and free us from tyrannical rules. I believe in a Church of inner conversion; the dogmas and moral doctrines of the Church are ideals that we all need to strive for, but we need to get to that point by inner conversion. Doing so by willpower and simply “following the rules” will not address the root cause of what causes us to sin; it will only mask the problem and the frustrations often get taken out on our loved ones and those around us. Jesus says “come to me!” And we must, through inner conversion. We may never reach full sainthood in this life, but we must continue walking that road, one step at a time (and admittedly often with 2 steps back for every step forward). Sin is a rupture of the true integrated selves that we were (as humans) before the fall. Sin is not just an evil act; it has its source in a deep-rooted unhealthy craving or temptation. Repairing that breech is a long process of inner conversion, something I learned from monastics.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

(…)
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 agree. I hope this isn’t superficial but I think it would help if being single and chaste wasn’t seen as negative thing.

 

[on_the_hill]

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?

Obviously, it is a coincidence. I hope you are just being facetious, but I’m not sure you are.

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.”???

No one anywhere in this thread claimed that homosexual activity is perfectly safe and healthy.

But I can’t help but wonder why the Center for Disease Control maintains all the statistics and census information on homosexuality in this country.

CDC keeps the statistics. Whether or not you understand them is your business.

 

[on_the_hill]

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.

Anal sex does not necessarily produce anal ruptures, bleeding or contribute to anal cancer, whether it is practiced by straight or gay couples. Furthermore, to extend what Joie de Vivre noted, it is an incorrect assumption that gay sexual activity is centered on anal sex. There are a lot of gay men who do not engage in anal sex.

 

[on_the_hill]

I think I’m done with this. I don’t have the patience to explain elementary concepts of research when people are intentionally obtuse.

 

[Tigg]

I see, so you are using the word “behavior” as a euphemism.

It is a result of heterosexuals conflating sex and love.

Well, you can certainly understand our confusion when it is stated (an actual post on this thread) that there is nothing wrong with a same-sex romantic couple who remains sexually chaste. Or further, when I see a thread entitled “Where sin begins in same-sex physical intimacy.”

Did Merriam Webster print a new dictionary? I really do need the terms defined for me to end my confusion. What is a *romantic * SS couple? And what is same-sex physical intimacy without sin? A meeting of the minds, so to speak, or kissing – hugging without sexual arousal? Maybe it’s simply the “romance” part I don’t understand. We are entering a new and foreign era and I may use euphemisms in my bewilderment, but what I actually am wondering is… if there is not a certain amount of duplicity and guile in this debate. A pushing of the envelope of sorts to make non-acceptable (and sinful) behavior accepted. Or…maybe I’m just one of the obtuse ones as the previous poster suggests!

I cannot get the picture out of my mind of average (and older) priests hearing confessions these days. How ill-equipped they all must be!

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Well, you can certainly understand our confusion when it is stated (an actual post on this thread) that there is nothing wrong with a same-sex romantic couple who remains sexually chaste. Or further, when I see a thread entitled “Where sin begins in same-sex physical intimacy.”

Did Merriam Webster print a new dictionary? I really do need the terms defined for me to end my confusion. What is a *romantic * SS couple? And what is same-sex physical intimacy without sin? A meeting of the minds, so to speak, or kissing – hugging without sexual arousal? Maybe it’s simply the “romance” part I don’t understand. We are entering a new and foreign era and I may use euphemisms in my bewilderment, but what I actually am wondering is… if there is not a certain amount of duplicity and guile in this debate. A pushing of the envelope of sorts to make non-acceptable (and sinful) behavior accepted. Or…maybe I’m just one of the obtuse ones as the previous poster suggests!

I cannot get the picture out of my mind of average (and older) priests hearing confessions these days. How ill-equipped they all must be!

Aye.

 

[MarcoPolo]

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.

It seems we at least agree that level of supposed “safety” is not the final measure of morality. That is a peripheral attribute of the discussion.

 

[NotAllHere]

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???.

What other links did you have in mind?

cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr077.pdf 1.6 + 0.7 = 2.3
cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/
cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/
cdc.gov/lgbthealth/

Overall

Comparing 2008 to 2010, the overall estimated number of HIV infections remained stable in every age group and in all racial/ethnic groups. There were decreases among women; including African American women. However burden is still high among African Americans and men who have sex with men (MSM). There were sharp increases in youth, especially young African American MSM.

cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/surveillance/incidence/index.html

Down-low is an African American slang term[1] that refers to a subculture of men who usually identify as heterosexual, but who have sex with men; some avoid sharing this information even if they have female sexual partner(s).[2][3][4][5] The term is also used to refer to a related sexual identity.[5][6] Down-low has been viewed as ‘"a type of impression management that some of the informants use to present themselves in a manner that is consistent with perceived norms about masculine attribute, attitudes and behaviour’"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down-low_(sexual_slang

Abstract
Men who have sex with men (MSM) who are on the “down low” (DL) have been the subject of considerable media attention, but few data on this population exist. This exploratory study (N=455) compared MSM who considered themselves to be on the DL with MSM who did not (non-DL MSM). 20% self-identified as DL. Blacks and Hispanics were more likely than Whites to self identify as DL. MSM who did not identify as gay were more likely than gay-identified MSM to describe themselves as DL. DL-identified MSM were less likely to have had seven or more male partners in the prior 30 days, but were more likely to have had a female sex partner and to have had unprotected vaginal sex. DL-identified MSM were less likely to have ever been tested for HIV than were non-DL MSM. Prevention agencies should expand existing programs for MSM to include specific efforts to reach DL MSM.

PMID: 16691462 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Several large population-based public health studies are discussed in the November American Psychologist (Vol. 56, No. 11) by Susan Cochran, PhD, an epidemiologist in the University of California, Los Angeles School of Public Health, who authored or co-authored many of the studies. Specifically, the studies find:
Higher rates of major depression, generalized anxiety disorder and substance use or dependence in lesbian and gay youth. Higher rates of recurrent major depression among gay men. Higher rates of anxiety, mood and substance use disorders, and suicidal thoughts among people ages 15 to 54 with same-sex partners. Higher use of mental health services in men and women reporting same-sex partners.
Gleaning this type of information on LGB people has never been possible in general surveys before, Cochran notes. However, because the surveys on which these studies are based examine HIV-risk factors, including psychiatric problems and sexual behavior, they include questions on sexual orientation and sexual partners, she says.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16691462

apa.org/monitor/feb02/newdata.aspx

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Obviously, it is a coincidence. I hope you are just being facetious, but I’m not sure you are.

Not being funny. Glad you agree. That goes back to a statement I made for Joie:

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

I was agreeing with her…but she didn’t understand it that way and went off on a tangent.

No one anywhere in this thread claimed that homosexual activity is perfectly safe and healthy.

True.

So maybe we can agree that homosexuality is NOT safe and healthy.

CDC keeps the statistics. Whether or not you understand them is your business.

I understand the statistics. The CDC keeps them simple.

Joie stated:

I don’t see gay sex as a health issue.

I was implying that if gay sex is not a health issue why does the Center for Disease Control maintain the statistics? It just seems curious to me.

I happen to agree with Joie. I don’t consider gay sex to be a health issue. I consider it to be a behavioral problem. So I guess the CDC monitors the gay community because their behavior has a serious effect on public health.

 

[MacQ]

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

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

I don’t know how you got all that from what I said.

I simply said that using medical “health risks” as a scare tactic is not a good strategy (and gave some reasons why).
Consider making shorter leaps to conclusions…no need to assign irrational intent to what is said.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Anal sex does not necessarily produce anal ruptures, bleeding or contribute to anal cancer, whether it is practiced by straight or gay couples. Furthermore, to extend what Joie de Vivre noted, it is an incorrect assumption that gay sexual activity is centered on anal sex. There are a lot of gay men who do not engage in anal sex.

I notice you claim that…“Anal sex does not necessarily produce anal ruptures, bleeding or contribute to anal cancer,…”

You are being honest by including the word “necessarily” because the truth is that anal sex does produce anal ruptures, bleeding and it does contribute to anal cancer, whether it is practiced by straight or gay couples.

If you claim that it is an incorrect assumption that gay sexual activity is centered on anal sex, and “There are a lot of gay men who do not engage in anal sex.” I have no reason to doubt you. However you have to admit that gay men do, in fact, engage in anal sex with other men.

 

[MacQ]

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.

Neither would it be morally superior to endorse lesbian sex even if we pretended it was “safer” behavior.

I don’t think ANYone here has even hinted that.

 

[MacQ]

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.

YES!!!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I don’t know how you got all that from what I said.

I simply said that using medical “health risks” as a scare tactic is not a good strategy (and gave some reasons why).
Consider making shorter leaps to conclusions…no need to assign irrational intent to what is said.

Sorry, MacQ. I didn’t mean it that way.

There is a big difference between “scare tactics” and factual educational information

I do not consider providing factual information to be scare tactics. Granted some factual information may be scary, but as long as it is true and could save a life it should be provided.

Would you rather the subject of “health risks” relating to homosexuality, be eliminated from health and/or sex education?

 

[MacQ]

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.

Frankly, I can’t see how denying such benefits to ANYONE is constitutional.
Government (the State) has no business defining “marriage”…that’s the job of churches.
There ought to be a legal category for people to designate their civil partner for legal issues (inheritance, benefits, taxation, etc).
And the State should be blind to their reasons (whether they are sisters living together, husbands and wives in the traditional sense, or simply any two people who decide to partner in life for mutual support). None of the government’s business what they’re doing inside their bedrooms. I would hasten to add that neither should the state interfere with churches about how they confer their sacraments of matrimony.

 

[revert_jen]

I would send them to CourageRC 's website for starters.

But I would then say, that we are more than sexual experiences…much more. As a single person living celibately I can attest to there being happiness in family, friends, God, the Church, and so many other aspects of life.

It is an opportunity to grow in holiness, rising above the basic need of sex and instead seeking something far grander.

Priests, religious brothers and sisters, single people, the elderly, and many many different kinds of people do it and so can they.

I’m going to go back to before this thread was derailed. I think this was a great answer, and as another single person living celibately, I totally agree.

I would also add that it is a lot easier (at least for me) to live celibately if I am very careful about what TV and movies I watch. I really have a low tolerance for watching other people pretend to have sex, and generally avoid R-rated movies unless there in a format where I can fast-forward through the sex scenes.

I know it’s a bit of a cliche, but it really is true that a lot of the reason that a lot of people think sex is some kind of necessity is because they’re seeing it all the time. For some people, they have this problem no matter what they watch. But a lot more people are affected by not only seeing sex everywhere but also by being continually bombarded by the idea that living chastely is unnatural and/or impossible.

So I would also advise them to pay attention to what they’re watching and see if that helps them to live celibately.

–Jen

 

[MacQ]

Sorry, MacQ. I didn’t mean it that way.

There is a big difference between “scare tactics” and factual educational information

I do not consider providing factual information to be scare tactics. Granted some factual information may be scary, but as long as it is true and could save a life it should be provided.

Would you rather the subject of “health risks” relating to homosexuality, be eliminated from health and/or sex education?

I wouldn’t eliminate health risks of any kind from health education.

But you seemed to be proposing this information as a deterrent to homosexual behavior.(Perhaps a better word than scare tactic).

Others have pointed out the logical flaws in that argument and how easily it is refuted (that the risks you cite aren’t true for women (in fact they are safer in many ways)…and that any risks gay women DO have (such as a higher incidence of breast cancers) are not related to sexual acts, and are the same risks nuns have…which kind of undoes your argument).

I hate to be the one to tell you this too, but the tonsillar “herpes” you cited is every bit as prevalent among heterosexual males… HPV related oral cancers are cropping up now in fairly young men who were exposed via oral relations with… women.

Just pointing out that heterosexuals have quite a few “health risks” too…do you leave those out of the curriculum?