Religion and LGBT people

[Violet]

Why would god make sex so enjoyable, then say it's sinful unless you're trying to have babies... I never understood that one either. Speaking as a mom, kids put a serious damper on the sexy-times, so are the kids preventing their parents from having more kids? Wouldn't that be a sin?

To tempt you, obviously.

It's only a sin to be having sexy-times for enjoyment, what are you: some sodomite?

[festive1]

Maybe that's why god invented locks? Still, sexy-times with a kid knocking on your door saying, "Mommy!!! I need a cup of water/need you to wipe my butt/need you to sing me a night-night song/etc." Yeah, sexy-times don't happen then...

[Angrboda]

Maybe that's why god invented locks? Still, sexy-times with a kid knocking on your door saying, "Mommy!!! I need a cup of water/need you to wipe my butt/need you to sing me a night-night song/etc." Yeah, sexy-times don't happen then...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ds6FlIMIAjs

[Violet]

Maybe that's why god invented locks? Still, sexy-times with a kid knocking on your door saying, "Mommy!!! I need a cup of water/need you to wipe my butt/need you to sing me a night-night song/etc." Yeah, sexy-times don't happen then...

God didn't invent locks, you shouldn't need them It's not about having a good time: it's about having children

Don't misrepresent Catholicism, there's a reason or 6 why they stand against stuff like condoms

[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

[Violet]

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

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).

You're misrepresenting Catholicism. It's okay, everyone else does it too.

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

It can definitely be minimized, for instance: the woman doesn't need to orgasm. There is sex for procreation, and there is sex for pleasure. Don't become a Sodomite.

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

You're reading the wrong texts, buddy. Either that, or we return to the original, in which there's a dual purpose for phallic pleasure... but I didn't figure you'd want to associate Catholicism with sexism.

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

Exactly what I said...? It's for procreation or consummation (which is really for procreation), end of.

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.

No, only chickens can reject semen.

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

Firstly, no.

Secondly, lol

Thirdly, you missed that whole 'schooling' thing.

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

Spreading misinformation in both Catholicism and contraception... can you do anything right?

[Darkstar]

---

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

---

How are homosexuality and AIDS related? Is there somehow more chance of getting AIDS from anal? I also notice you only speak of homosexual men...how much do you want to bet lesbians don't get AIDS so easily?

[Aegrus]

[quote='Gabriel Syme' pid='399899' dateline='1360623654']

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.

No, only chickens can reject semen.

Dead on, V.



Forgive the pun but, good god, did he really just say that women can control their fertility?

Tell me, Gabriel, can you control the fertility of your semen? I don't mean by pulling out, either. I mean, can you, via telekinesis, make your sperm infertile?

[Darkstar]

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

Depends on your wording. Sex is only allowed if it is procreative, though that technically is not the only purpose.
http://suite101.com/article/catholic-tea...on-a406281

The Catholic Church teaches that the purpose of sex is both unitive and procreative. God created man and woman as sexual beings, in other words, sex was God’s idea. Sex is unitive in that through this expression of love, a man and a woman become one flesh (Genesis 2:24). The other purpose of sex is procreative. Men and women are biologically equipped to produce children by the procreative act of sex. The Church teaches that in order not to violate the nature of sex both of these qualities or purposes must be present. Without the unitive aspect, the sexual act demeans the other person and we are only using him or her for our own pleasure. Without the aspect of procreation, the sexual act is contraceptive and not open to life.

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.

O_o What? Now you're starting to sound like this guy:

---

---

[Zen Badger]

I'm intrigued..... Why should gays refrain from sex? You are trying to deny them their natural inclinations. As long as the people engaged in the relationship are informed, consenting adults they can do what they damn well please

---

Hi Zen badger,

That is an entirely reasonable question. To give one obvious example:

When you consider the facts that:

- 1 in 5 gay men in america has HIV (rising to 1 in 2 in Frisco)
- 1 in 20 gay men in the UK has HIV (rising to 1 in 10 in London)

(I am happy to provide references for this data - but I assure you, I would never lie to you).

It is very clear that people involved in homosexual sex often find it has very negative results for their health. In the west, HIV proliferation is almost exclusively associated with homosexuality. Across the western world, gay communities live with HIV infection rates similar to, or worse than, badly affected African nations (strange the media never mentions that, eh?).

HIV is an incurable disease and HIV+ people require to take daily medication, just to stay alive. The antiviral medication is very aggressive and can actually result in death itself, via causing pancreaitis.

Worse, the medication is very expensive - it costs (UK figures) £20 - 30,000 to treat a single patient for just one year, and they requie treatment every year, until their natural death.

And, unlike heterosexual sex, (which produces the next generation), there is no benefit to society from homosexual acts occuring.

Currently the presence of homosexual sex in western society:

- blights the lives of many people, but especially of homosexual people
- damages overall public health
- needlessly proliferates incurable disease
- runs up massive medial bills to deal with the large (and rising*) amounts of incurable disease

and all for no positive benefit to society.

Therefore, making an argument that gay people should be chaste is actually an entirely reasonable argument. If they were, HIV would stop spreading in the west almost overnight.

(* where I live, the best and most recent data we have shows that 1.0% of society is homosexual - meaning about 0.5% are gay men.

Also where I live (these are NHS-Scotland figures)

In 2011, gay men (0.5% of society) caused 67% of all new cases of HIV.
In 2012, gay men (0.5% of society) caused 71% of all new cases of HIV.

You can easily see that gay men are massively and disproportionately affected by HIV - and that the problem is getting worse, not better.

The reason it is getting worse is because no-one wants to talk about it, and anyone who does gets called a bigot.

Thus, young gay men are not properly informed about the very specific and exaggerated risks they face from the sexual activity they become invovled in.

They are being deliberately mislead to believe that homosexual sex is no different from heterosexual sex and does not carry any specific risks.

To be honest, I think gay people deserve better than this).

It is clear that one major downside for society is the very large medical bills it has to pay as a result of all this - thus, it is not accurate to portray the matter of homosexual sex as being purely between 2 consenting adults in private. Others have to pick up the pieces, using money that could be better spend on treating disease which we cannot easily avoid.

Cheers
GS

---