Religion and LGBT people

[Gabriel Syme]

FUCK YOUR SEMI-serious statistics on sexual transmittable diseases

Hi Dee Dee,

What do you mean by "semi-serious" statistics? You offer no substantiation of this statement? Do you only take statistics seriously if you like what they say?

The statistics are genuine. It is wilful self-denial to claim otherwise (ironically that is a charge often levelled at religious people).

Here are some links to help convince you, relating to my statements above:

1 in 5 gay men in the USA has HIV

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/2...H220100923

http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/26/st...f-know-it/

1 in 20 gay men in the UK has HIV

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/...76455.html

71% of all new HIV infections in Scotland occur amongst gay men:

http://www.nhsggc.org.uk/content/default...e=s1240_20

The patterns repeat across the "western" world.

The only way these statistics could possibly improve, is if the gay community:

(1) stop with the wilful self denial and accept the reality
(2) seek monogamous relationships, instead of promiscuity / hedonism

since your whole fucking believe system is against the use of condoms. It makes me throw up to read your not so respectful justification of isolating gay people because of statistics on HIV. Baaah.

Tell me; if condoms are so effective, then why do we see these massive HIV rates among gay men?

The answer is, of course, that pieces of latex cannot substitute for responsible sexual behaviour.

Or all these catholics in Africa gay?

The people affected with HIV-AIDs in Africa are overwhelmingly non-Catholic.

The top 5 or 6 badly affected countries typically have Catholic minorities among the population. Only one, Lesotho, has a roughly 50% Catholic population.

Don't take my word for it - check it out for yourself. Plenty of info easily available online from HIV charities etc.

It is easy to see from that statistics that it is not the sexual behaviour of African Catholics which is causing the problem.

Catholic sexual morality is the most natural and robust defence against STDs which there is. As shown by Africa and the fact that the group in the west which is most badly affected by HIV (homosexuals) is the group whose sexual behaviour is most far removed from Catholic teaching.

You cannot argue with the truth.

Cheers
GS

---

I still don't understand how the Catholic church justifies a policy of abstinence over education of safe sex practices.

Hi Festive1,

Hows you?

Re comment above - there is no conflict between these terms which you mention.

The "safest" form of sex is only to have sex within a committed relationship (ie marriage).

Re the term "safe" - sex is not inherently dangerous lol. It is only when we have sex irresponsibly (promiscuous sex with multiple partners) that there is any risk factor - an STD or unwanted pregnancy.

Yes, even with condoms, there is a chance of becoming infected with HIV, but your chances are significantly less than without one.

The Catholic Church does not advocate having promiscuous sex at all - with or without condoms.

It only advocates sex within a committed relationship.

In such a faithful relationship, the chances of catching HIV are precisely 0%.

No method of contraception can match that.

The Catholic church can't even keep it's own priests celibate, how can it expect anyone else to refrain from sexual activity?

The overwhelming vast majority of Catholic priests are celibate, but you will not read news stories about them.

The Church does not ask people to refrain from sexual activity. it simply, recommends that we enjoy sex only within committed relationships.

It is not difficult not to have sex - we are not mindless-animals and neither do we actually require to have sex.

You simply cannot argue with the logic of this. Having promiscuous sex outwith committed relationships - even with a condom - gives rise to the risk of an STD transmission or an unwanted pregnancy.

This is precisely why we have so many abortions and high STD rates in societies - because, as you point out yourself, condoms are not 100% effective.

Sex is fun, sex is pleasurable, sex is great - but sexual intercourse is not a toy. Its a serious business, which must be treated with respect.

Take it easy
GS

---

Why would Catholicism support having sex for the hell of it? If it's not resulting in preganancy: why are you having sex?

Hi there

This is a common misconception (or deliberate distortion) - the possibility of procreation is only one aspect of heterosexual sex (the other being a uniting act of physical love between partners).

These aspects are undeniable and cannot be separated from one another.

It is simply not true that the Catholic Church says sex is only for the purposes of procreation.

However, I would agree that the Church does not promote sex "for the hell of it", which is an exceptionally irresponsible attitude!

Note also that women can control their fertility entirely naturally, with the same level of "protection" as artificial contraception, (as stated by the UK NHS),via the Billings NFP method.

Billings is what the Chinese use to police their "one child" policy - it works. There are 1,000,000 Billings teachers in China.

The reason artificial contraception is popular in the west is because:

(1) Capitalists make a lot of money from producing and selling it and

(2) it removes responsibility from the user (in contrast billings requires the user to be responsible)

Ciao ciao
GS