(November 14, 2012 at 9:47 am)Daniel Wrote: Oh right, so look what happened when they got HIV then. Then the westerners had to come in and give them condoms and circumcision, and they wouldn't use the condoms in most brothels.

I will refer you to this book: Tinderbox, By: Timberg and Halperin
http://www.amazon.com/Tinderbox-Sparked-...=tinderbox
They have traced the genetic origins of HIV. It is believed to have come from a hunting expedition somewhere in the Cameroon/DRC (central, western African) jungle. Where a person killed a chimpanzee for food and was probably contaminated in the butchering process. There's a group of chimps in this region that are carriers of the closest genetic relative of human HIV. HIV doesn't kill chimps the way it does humans. They speculate that this type of cross-species contamination probably happened several times throughout human history, however, this particular transference from chimp to human occurred during Colonialism. They have it pinpointed to a 2-3 decade period of time. It was a perfect storm for the spread of HIV amongst the human population. Prior instances of contamination would have likely only effected a small population of indigenous people (one or a small handful of rural villages, as this region is so densely covered in jungle not many groups live there even today) which would not have allowed the HIV virus to spread to a larger group. Any epidemic needs a sustainable population in order to spread and infect more people. However, during Colonialism towns and cities were bustling in this region, thanks to the efforts of Westerners attempting to extract as many natural resources as possible from the continent. These busy townships had thriving prostitution, allowing HIV to spread to a greater population, causing an epidemic. In this context the thriving prostitution is attributed to the displacement of people. Men and women were separated from their traditional ways of life, their families, and their sexual partners, prostitutes filled that sexual void. The result being about 99% of HIV cases genetically originating from this initial outbreak. The entire premise of this book is that Colonialism, Westerners going into an area, causing a societal breakdown of traditional ways, and pushing into the jungle where very few people had ever gone before, is precisely what caused the HIV pandemic that we are facing today.
Circumcision is practiced throughout various African cultures, it's not just a Western import. It's true that ethnic groups who practice circumcision have lower rates of HIV, also addressed in the aforementioned book. But to suggest that they practice circumcision because the West suggested it, is laughable and completely false. Societies that traditionally practice circumcision still do, those that don't are still very resistant to it. The use of condoms has been an uphill battle. Again, I'll site Tinderbox, the ways in which condom use has been marketed to Africans was done in a decidedly Western fashion. What works in the West, doesn't work in Africa, because Africa is not WESTERN.

(November 14, 2012 at 9:47 am)Daniel Wrote: So your approach is reactive. Wait for the problem and then address it.

If 25% of Xians were drug users and 20% of them unemployed, you'd use it against us, wouldn't you?

I think we need to start by acknowledging the problems at hand. I'll post back with more later.

How is anybody supposed to predict issues with a certain behavior if there is no problem? Any approach is inherently reactive, because without a problem, there's nothing to attempt to solve. I'm not in favor of saying someone shouldn't do something because it MIGHT cause problems in the future.
If 25% of Christians were drug users and 20% were unemployed, I'd say they need help. Just like I say the same about the gay community in Australia. Help doesn't mean demonizing their behavior. They aren't using drugs or unemployed because they have gay sex. It's a larger societal problem.

I wonder if Danny boy here is aware of how well those good, Christian sexual ethics have worked out here.

To start with, I've already mentioned abstinence education, right? Plain and simple, it doesn't work. I don't think I have ever seen a reliable study done that has shown evidence that it does. However, I HAVE seen studies that show people exposed to abstinence only sex ed have a higher risk of participating in high risk sexual activities. Makes sense if you ask me; most of us want teens to hold back on sex, but if you want them to be safe when/if they do something, they're going to need to know how.

But that's mostly children. I suppose in the developing world where there isn't a good education for most people, you can't expect adults to know this either. But for the sake of discussion, let's say we did spread good Christian sexual ethics over there. Why are their ethics going to be any better than ours? I mean, it seems like we can't even go a week without another right wing, homophobic, Christian fundamentalist getting busted with a dick in his mouth (and while we're on he topic of AIDS, I should mention that guys like that are more likey to participate in high risk behavior than their openly gay counterparts). I mean, just off the top of my head there's Ted Haggard and George Rekers. And those are just the high profile ones I can mention that everybody knows about. When I was doing webcamming, it wasn't uncommon to get guys who specifically tell me they're very religious..... but they still get into seeing a chick with a dick.

Bottom line: I would trust Christian morals to fix th problems in Africa if they had better results here. You want to see real change? Get the people there out of poverty, get them food and clean water and medicine. Get them an education. Jesus magic isn't gonna do shit.

(November 14, 2012 at 12:43 pm)TaraJo Wrote: Bottom line: I would trust Christian morals to fix th problems in Africa if they had better results here. You want to see real change? Get the people there out of poverty, get them food and clean water and medicine. Get them an education. Jesus magic isn't gonna do shit.

to true, to true.

(November 14, 2012 at 12:00 pm)festive1 Wrote: If 25% of Christians were drug users and 20% were unemployed, I'd say they need help. Just like I say the same about the gay community in Australia. Help doesn't mean demonizing their behavior. They aren't using drugs or unemployed because they have gay sex. It's a larger societal problem.

Plenty of other Athiests on these forums would indeed claim that it is because they're Christian - they seem to have no problem using this argument for other things they want us to be the scapegoats for.

I'm glad to see you don't hold this view. Wouldn't it be a surprise if I agree with you here - it's "not because they're gay" - but it is because of something related to being gay.

They have an identity problem. They identify themselves via their sexuality. How many heterosexuals, if you asked them to describe who they are, would put heterosexuality at the top of the list? Not many.

A friend of mine, Lisa, my one and only lesbian friend, has at times attacked my view on sexuality. I've explained to her that I have an equal problem with de-facto relationships that are heterosexual - she doesn't care. I've asked why it's so important to her what I think, especially as it doesn't mean we can't be friends and I'm not interested in belittling or otherwise causing her any problems. She said "because it's who I am".

I've pointed out to her that at least I don't bullshit and try and hide my views.

Being attracted is a part of who she is, granted, but it isn't that which defines her as a person.

I'm a Christian, I accept the fact that we are going to be tempted to sin, and tempted in different ways. She may well have been born with same-sex sexuality, neither I nor anyone else can tell her she wasn't. If she isn't Christian then of course she's going to "live in sin" like the rest of the world does, but it doesn't mean that we should be uncompassionate.

Poor self image is the biggest problem that I think needs to be effectively addressed. I don't want to change her, God himself calls us to him and doesn't expect us to change who we are. But as we have a greater confidence, self-image, self-worth, we can rely more on what makes us special to others and to God, and less on trivial things we thought were utterly important.

---

(November 14, 2012 at 12:43 pm)TaraJo Wrote: I wonder if Danny boy here is aware of how well those good, Christian sexual ethics have worked out here.

To start with, I've already mentioned abstinence education, right? Plain and simple, it doesn't work. I don't think I have ever seen a reliable study done that has shown evidence that it does.

Don't try to set me up as someone I'm not. You have to meet people where they are, you can't expect non-Christians to accept Christian morals, if you care about the people you wish to help, you have to reach them in ways which will work for them.

Quote:They have an identity problem. They identify themselves via their sexuality.

This is a sweeping generalization. Most gay people don't "identify via their sexuality". It's society that pigeonholes them in a marginalized role because, let's face it, a large part of society expects them to fall into some sort of stereotype.

Gay people are still oppressed and shunned, in one way or another, in almost any country in the world. They react to rejection from society by trying to get accepted, but the only role that even most progressive societies gives them is to identify as members of a minority.

Quote:. I've explained to her that I have an equal problem with de-facto relationships that are heterosexual - she doesn't care. I've asked why it's so important to her what I think, especially as it doesn't mean we can't be friends and I'm not interested in belittling or otherwise causing her any problems.

What you think is important because you are passing a moral judgement. You are claiming that your life choice is morally superior to hers. Friends accept each other as persons, even if they don't agree about their tastes or choices. Long story short, yes, you are belittling her, even if you claim you aren't.

She has every reason to be angry at you.

Quote:I've pointed out to her that at least I don't bullshit and try and hide
my views.

Sincerity is important, but is not an excuse. The KKK doesn't hide its views either.

Quote:Being attracted is a part of who she is, granted, but it isn't that which defines her as a person.

Then why are you judging her? Why do you have "a problem" with a life choice that doesn't involve you?

Quote:She may well have been born with same-sex sexuality, neither I nor anyone else can tell her she wasn't. If she isn't Christian then of course she's going to "live in sin" like the rest of the world does, but it doesn't mean that we should be uncompassionate.

People don't need pity or compassion, they need acceptance. You have a patronizing attitude towards your friend. I don't doubt that you have good intentions, but you come across as judgemental and arrogant.

Quote:But as we have a greater confidence, self-image, self-worth, we can rely more on what makes us special to others and to God, and less on trivial things we thought were utterly important.

With your patronizing attitude you are definitely not helping your friend to feel better about herself.

Why can't you just accept that people have different sexual attitudes and sexual preferences? Your lifestyle choice should be something personal, not a way to classify people according to how well they conform to your standards.

Would you be friends with someone who says that your sexual morality is wrong and you need to change (even though you aren't hurting anyone)? I don't think so, even if this person claimed that they don't aim to belittle you or cause you any problems.

If you are heterosexual and don't want to have a sexual relationship before you marry, that's perfectly fine. But you can't expect people who have different views on sex to behave like you do, or to accept your patronizing and groundless moral judgement.

You really are a nasty piece of xtinan work aren't you Daniel?

(November 15, 2012 at 7:14 am)Kirbmarc Wrote: What you think is important because you are passing a moral judgement. You are claiming that your life choice is morally superior to hers. Friends accept each other as persons, even if they don't agree about their tastes or choices. Long story short, yes, you are belittling her, even if you claim you aren't.

She has every reason to be angry at you.

I never said she was angry at me. None of my gay friends ever had a problem with my views. Just as I didn't judge them for their views. That's why I used her as an example instead of them.

Quote:Then why are you judging her? Why do you have "a problem" with a life choice that doesn't involve you?

I've never told her what to do with her life, I'm not sure what you're getting at?

Quote:People don't need pity or compassion, they need acceptance. You have a patronizing attitude towards your friend. I don't doubt that you have good intentions, but you come across as judgemental and arrogant.

Yet she trusted me to tell me her sexuality while she was still "in the closet" to her family and most of her friends. If I'm as bad as you think I am, she would never tell me.

(November 15, 2012 at 3:09 am)Daniel Wrote: I'm glad to see you don't hold this view. Wouldn't it be a surprise if I agree with you here - it's "not because they're gay" - but it is because of something related to being gay.

Cue the slippery slope...

(November 15, 2012 at 3:09 am)Daniel Wrote: They have an identity problem. They identify themselves via their sexuality. How many heterosexuals, if you asked them to describe who they are, would put heterosexuality at the top of the list? Not many.

I have an identity problem, that's why I'm in therapy. I'm also unemployed (technically, I'm a stay-at-home-mom).
Heterosexuals don't use their sexuality as a key to their identity because it is the "default" position. There's nothing different from mainstream culture in being heterosexual. There is something different in being homosexual. Homosexual teens are more likely to be bullied, more likely to be kicked out of their homes by intolerant parents, and more likely to commit suicide.

(November 15, 2012 at 3:09 am)Daniel Wrote: A friend of mine, Lisa, my one and only lesbian friend, has at times attacked my view on sexuality. I've explained to her that I have an equal problem with de-facto relationships that are heterosexual - she doesn't care. I've asked why it's so important to her what I think, especially as it doesn't mean we can't be friends and I'm not interested in belittling or otherwise causing her any problems. She said "because it's who I am".

I would have problems with someone who was critical of my sexuality, regardless of their reasoning. I did have a lot of problems growing up in a Christian community, because of the judgemental-ness of the Christians around me.

(November 15, 2012 at 3:09 am)Daniel Wrote: I've pointed out to her that at least I don't bullshit and try and hide my views.

Bigoted views are bigoted, regardless if they are voiced or not. My dad is a very outspoken racist, doesn't make him a better person because he doesn't keep those thoughts to himself.

(November 15, 2012 at 3:09 am)Daniel Wrote: I'm a Christian, I accept the fact that we are going to be tempted to sin, and tempted in different ways. She may well have been born with same-sex sexuality, neither I nor anyone else can tell her she wasn't. If she isn't Christian then of course she's going to "live in sin" like the rest of the world does, but it doesn't mean that we should be uncompassionate.

Poor self image is the biggest problem that I think needs to be effectively addressed. I don't want to change her, God himself calls us to him and doesn't expect us to change who we are. But as we have a greater confidence, self-image, self-worth, we can rely more on what makes us special to others and to God, and less on trivial things we thought were utterly important.

And there's that slippery slope. She's not immoral because she's gay, she's immoral because she doesn't accept god and "lives in sin?" You say you don't want to change her... but everything else you are saying here says otherwise. You want her to convert and accept Jesus as her savior.
I have developed confidence, a more positive self-image, an increased sense of self-worth... And I've done it without god. God is not a cure-all. This reads like everyone should just find god, and then the world would hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

I have to give a nod to Kirbmarc, that was very well put. Better than my response anyway

Quote:I never said she was angry at me.

Then I stand corrected. But if she were angry at you, she'd have good reasons.

Quote:None of my gay friends ever had a problem with my views. Just as I didn't judge them for their views.

Yet you claim that they have identity problems and that they "live in sin". I'd call that judging.

Quote:I've never told her what to do with her life, I'm not sure what you're getting at?

You are still judging her. Why do you think she attacked the way you view her sexuality?

Quote:Yet she trusted me to tell me her sexuality while she was still "in the closet" to her family and most of her friends. If I'm as bad as you think I am, she would never tell me.

I don't think that you are a bad person. You have good intentions, but you come across as judgemental, at least on this forum.

(November 15, 2012 at 3:09 am)Daniel Wrote:

(November 14, 2012 at 12:43 pm)TaraJo Wrote: I wonder if Danny boy here is aware of how well those good, Christian sexual ethics have worked out here.

To start with, I've already mentioned abstinence education, right? Plain and simple, it doesn't work. I don't think I have ever seen a reliable study done that has shown evidence that it does.

Don't try to set me up as someone I'm not. You have to meet people where they are, you can't expect non-Christians to accept Christian morals, if you care about the people you wish to help, you have to reach them in ways which will work for them.

Problem: Statement A has nothing to do with Statement B. Abstinnce education doesn't work, never has and probably never will, whether it's with Christians or not.

Besides which, as far as sex goes, morals are pretty darn similar with Islam, Judaism and most religious belief systems. Monogamy is pretty much standard fare across the board, with exceptions where one man can have multiple wives (which, by the way, was considered normal and acceptable for most of Biblical history as well, seeing as how many Biblican patriarchs had multiple wives).

Danny, I'm calling bullshit on you. Care to try again?