Religion and LGBT people

[Aegrus]

Now if only I could convince you to embrace and make babies with something else. . .

Respect a lady, and one might find her willing to engage in a number of activities.

She doesn't have a womb though, sorry.

By the way, the link at the bottom of your post doesn't seem to be working.

I linked it metaphysically. It was for the demon's sake, not yours.

Leaving aside that you seem to be implying I *don't* respect women and the that I'm very much aware you don't have a womb. . .

Won't the demon be pissed that its sacrificial link led to an error screen?

[Violet]

Leaving aside that you seem to be implying I *don't* respect women and the that I'm very much aware you don't have a womb. . .

If that's true, then how are you figuring me to have babies?

Won't the demon be pissed that its sacrificial link led to an error screen?

Maybe you should look up metaphysics. Sigh

[Gabriel Syme]

Hi Dee Dee

I just wanted to say that the statistics are;
1 not genuine because they are not representive for the US but represent

21 cities with the highest infection rate

The statistics are genuine. It is only urban cities which have significant LGBT populations. They naturally gravitate there, to be around other LGBT people, to avoid isolation in rural area.

Its amazing you can attempt to deny or ignore these shocking figures.

Research any western nation - the results are always the same.

2 do not prove monogamy will solve the HIV infections..

Do you need "proof" that, if less drunk people attempt to drive cars, there will be less DUI / drunk-driving incidents?

Why then do you deny that, if people have less sex partners - ie only have sex with a single monogamous partner - that will reduce the amount of STD transmission?

Its basic common sense, a child could see it.

A hint is given in the article; most people are not aware they are infected...testing and prevention is the solution

Why are they not aware? Its because they don't go to get tested.

Condoms, and testing are not the solution - that is what we have been doing since the 1960s and it has been a massive failure.

Saying condoms (mere mitigation, not a solution) are the best way to fight HIV transmission from risky sex, is like saying advocating the wearing of crash helmets is the best way to tackle suicide via jumping off buildings.

No - in both cases, the problem is behaviour. it is behaviour which must change.

I don't deny hiv infections are high among gay people, but that doesn't make the catholic monogamy story a solution to this problems. People have sex, if the church likes it or not.

The Church is not against people having sex. Sex is great, wonderful and safe - but only when sex is responsible and proper.

Homosexual sex, by its nature, is not proper as it represents the misuse of the body (wrt its physical form).

Additionally, the type of sex many gay men prefer - risky sex with others who are strangers (and so whose health status is unknown) - is very irresponsible.

It is not in the least surprising that gay communities are ravaged by HIV. It is sad however that so many people will deny the reality of why this is.

It is not very telling that the group whose sexual behaviour is most far removed from Catholic teaching - gay men - is the group worst affected by HIV?

Furthermore, please show me your truth on hiv & catholics in africa.

Certainly.

I will use two sources - avert.org (a secular HIV charity which does a lot of good work in this area) and catholic-hierarchy (a site which maintains statistics pertaining to the Catholic Church and its adherents).

Southern Africa is the worst impacted by AIDS

http://www.avert.org/hiv-aids-africa.htm

It then lists the worst hit countries, described as nations where the adult HIV rate is around 20%.

I have listed these nations below, along with their catholic population data.

Nation % HIV % Catholic
South Africa 17.8 6.36
Botswana 24.8 4.78
Lesotho 23.6 53.62
Swaziland 25.9 5.56

HIV data from the above avert link, and catholic data from:

http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/sc1.html

It is very obvious that, of the worst affected African nations, only 1 - Lesotho - has a significant Catholic population. The others have tiny Catholic minorities.

Catholic sexual morality only applies to Catholics. We can see that in the worst hit African nations, the people are overwhelmingly not Catholics. Therefore, Catholic sexual morality simply cannot be blamed for the sexual behaviour of these nations.

It is interesting to note that the HIV rate in the worst hit African nations is very similar to the HIV rates among gay men in the west.

The only thing these the groups have in common is that they do not conduct their sex lives in accordance with Catholic teaching.

None of this is vague, or at all difficult to understand. All that is required is a willingness to accept the truth which is borne out by the statistics.

However, many people cannot do this, because it either contradicts their own opinion, or they do not like to concede that the Catholic Church has a point.

The result of this refusal to accept the truth is that HIV will continue to spread and more lives will be blighted.

That the truth is so very unwelcome is shown by the fact that I am having to post this at all.

We should put faith in our scientific experts and what they teach us.

Dr Edward Green, a globally renowned public health expert, has openly stated that:

The pope was right about condoms, says Harvard HIV expert

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/03/ai...the_p.html

Dr Green is not a Catholic and does support the availability of condoms for those who want them.

However, he agrees with Catholic sexual morality that the best and most effective way to combat STDs is for people to only have sex responsibly - ie only with monogamous partners, within committed relationships.

The problem is, most secular people listen to the media, or their favourite celebrity, when it comes to sex and morality - they do not listen to experts like Dr Green.

The idea that monogamy is some crazy idea is a nonsense. This behaviour was largely the norm everywhere, up until the 1960s.

Before the 1960s, sex was seen as a good thing, but with possible serious consequences (new life, or STD transmission) and so it was best to confine it to committed relationships.

After the 1960s, sex has been seen as a toy for our pleasure, where we can use it as we will, "protected" by condoms and testing. But - as the stats show - this change in attitude has been a disaster for the health of non-Catholics, especially homosexual men. Current sexual behaviour is based on the faulty assumption that contraception has reliable separated the pleasure of sex from its natural consequences. But this is not true - our artificial methods work most of the time, but not all of the time.

In various posts in this thread I have clearly demonstrated that:

- in the developed world, HIV is almost exclusively associated with homosexual men

- in the 3rd world, HIV is almost exclusively associated with non-Catholics

Neither of these groups adhere to Catholic sexual morality, and so it is clear that the idea that Catholic teaching is responsible for the HIV pandemic is a malicious lie, one propagated by those who - due to their hatred of Catholicism - cannot accept the truth. People who put themselves and their desires first, not the truth and not their health.

They prefer a fantasy world of lies, and ever rising HIV figures.

Cheers
GS

---

It's because gay men in the West have or at least had a habbit of not using condoms. Hetereosexuals in the West do tend to use them so that would explain the difference.

Hiya Zone

So, condoms are available, but people choose not to use them - what does this suggest about the effectiveness of condoms in tackling STD or unwanted pregnancy?

There are also problems with irresponsible heterosexual sex - mostly unwanted pregnancy and so the destruction of hundreds of 1000s of unwanted children per year.

Contraception is not effective at reliably preventing STD transmission or unwanted pregnancy. This is why we have so much HIV and abortions in our society.

That gay men are affected by incurable disease, and heterosexual couples destroy the lives they have created with their meaningless sex, is simply a reflection of the differences in nature between homosexual and heterosexual sex, and the different attitudes surrounding them.

What is common to both is irresponsible attitudes to sex, though the fall out is different.

GS.

---

Uhhh... no. That's nonsense

I notice the usual lack of evidence to support your argument and the usual ignoring of the evidence I present to you.

You are an immature idiot, Violet Lilly Blossom, and I will henceforth cease wasting my time engaging with you.

Your puerile excuse for an intellect is clearly only suited to living within your own fantasy world - it is not suited to rational, adult discussion, where we deal with facts and the truth.

With kind regards
GS

[Esquilax]

The Church is not against people having sex. Sex is great, wonderful and safe - but only when sex is responsible and proper.

That's why the church cultivates such amazing guilt over the act, yeah?

Homosexual sex, by its nature, is not proper as it represents the misuse of the body (wrt its physical form).

How much do you actually know about homosexual sex? Not vicious stereotypes, but actual homosexual sex, performed by real homosexuals. I doubt you have any real experience with it, which is why it's so great that you feel justified in making blanket statements about it.

Incidentally, I suppose you're also against heterosexual sex that isn't straight up missionary?

Additionally, the type of sex many gay men prefer - risky sex with others who are strangers (and so whose health status is unknown) - is very irresponsible.

Once again, stereotypes over facts. You clearly know a lot huh? Care to comment on the gay marriage movement, in this case?

It is not in the least surprising that gay communities are ravaged by HIV. It is sad however that so many people will deny the reality of why this is.

Mhmm. That's why the highest rates of HIV infection tend to be in countries where homosexuality is criminalized. And why the US is the only western country where the predominant demographic for infection is gay men.

Who's denying reality again?

It is not very telling that the group whose sexual behaviour is most far removed from Catholic teaching - gay men - is the group worst affected by HIV?

Interesting. Despite clearly having a thing against homosexuals you presume to know everything about their intimate sexual habits. Something doesn't add up here; could it be that you're just full of shit?

Catholic sexual morality only applies to Catholics. We can see that in the worst hit African nations, the people are overwhelmingly not Catholics. Therefore, Catholic sexual morality simply cannot be blamed for the sexual behaviour of these nations.

Gonna go ahead and say the church spreading misinformation about condom use probably did have something to do about that.

The only thing these the groups have in common is that they do not conduct their sex lives in accordance with Catholic teaching.

Ah, there it is again: a blanket statement about a group you have little to now actual knowledge on. At least you're consistent.

None of this is vague, or at all difficult to understand. All that is required is a willingness to accept the truth which is borne out by the statistics.

Swallow down that Kool Aid, peons!

However, many people cannot do this, because it either contradicts their own opinion, or they do not like to concede that the Catholic Church has a point.

The Catholic Church has many points. You, however, do not.

The result of this refusal to accept the truth is that HIV will continue to spread and more lives will be blighted.

The church advocating abstinence over safe sex to the point of lying about the latter probably didn't help there.
[/quote]

[Gabriel Syme]

1. Opinion.

Hi Alternate

It is not "opinion" that the bodies of same sex couples are not naturally physical compatible, like those of a heterosexual couple are.

(This is why homosexuals have to use artificial means -lubricants etc - to overcome the fact that their bodies are not naturally compatible.)

This is biological fact. What you say is downright stupid.

You atheists seem to be of pretty low intelligence. With some notable exceptions, I am very disappointed with the level of intellect I have encountered on this site so far.

I do not take any pleasure in using words like "stupid", but in cases like this, there is nothing else for it.

2. This is true. But most people don't have sex for procreation, so this is also a pointless argument which affects nothing.

People cannot choose to have sex only for pleasure, or only for procreation.

Both aspects are inherent in any incidence of heterosexual sex. You cannot separate them.

What people do is have sex for pleasure, whilst hoping that artificial means will prevent the procreation aspect.

Unfortunately, this does not always work, which is why we encounter so many unwanted pregnancies.

Here you are making the mistake of arguing based on your own point of view, not based on reality.

Cheers
GS

---

@ Festive1

Hi there,

I note your last post goes into discussing clerical celibacy - if you want to talk about that, Id be happy to on another thread. Let us not muddy the waters of HIV etc discussion here.

PS - id expect a better source that "the daily beast". I just had a quick look and at a glance its current headlines are:

- are you in an asteroid danger zone?
- 6 secrets from the new beyonce movie
- weeks best fashion instagrams
- this week in viral videos
- OMG I want this house

Better to use credible news or scientific sources, not "news-entertainment" sources.

Cheers
GS

---

No, it means I'm heartily sick and tired of arguing with arrogant, self righteous arse holes who think they have the right to impose their bigoted hateful ways on others.

Translation -

"argh, the clever Catholic man managed to prove his point using factual data and impartial sources.

Quick - say something erroneous about bigotry or hate."

Hmm, let's look at these two points.....

1) Unifying act of love between partrners
And why should it matter what their gender is.

2) Possibility of procreation

Since there is NO possibility of us EVER having children for medical reasons ( Hysterectomony AND vasestomy) your argument is invalid.

I have already explained this to you badger. Again, briefly:

1) homosexual acts are not unifying like heterosexual sex are - because their bodies are not complimentary in the way heterosexual sex is. A unifying act of physical love is where two partners combine their sexual organs and both experience pleasure for it. Homosexuals cannot combine their sexual organs - they do not combine with each other. (eg this is why gay men have to combine their sex organ with their partners anus). You are denying reality.

2) my point is not invalid because you have undergone medical surgery to destroy the natural function of your sex organs. If you had not done this, (for reasons of health or choice), and your organs still functioned, then there would be a chance of procreation occurring. My point is valid.

And this last bit.... Well, you'd better have some stats to back up your assertion or I'm calling you a fucking liar.

I have already presented detailed statistics to show you this - please go back and read them.

We seem to have arrived at the point where my facts are bouncing off the brick wall of your own personal prejudices / bias.

Knock down that brick wall and consider the facts impartially.

Cheers dude
GS

[Angrboda]

Let's take your table and overlay some additional figures on it, namely percentage of population that is Christian and Muslim.



It would appear that rates of HIV are highest in countries that are dominated by primarily Christian populaces. If your generalization that HIV rates are highest in the south of Africa holds true, which I see no reason to doubt you on, one notices the curious correlation that HIV rates are highest in the Christian dominated countries in the south of Africa, and less so in the Muslim dominated northern countries. ("Things that make you go, hmmm....") A rough figure is that the average is 40% Muslim and 47% Christian for Africa as a whole. It would appear that Christianity is highly compatible with behavioral practices which lead to HIV infection.

See Wikipedia: Religion In Africa, Wikipedia: Christianity By Country (especially the demographic world map), and Wikipedia: Islam By Country (also for its demographic world map) for more information. See also the epidemiological maps of HIV infection (estimated) globally at Wikipedia: ; it appears the pattern of incidence in the south has shifted in composition, but it's still greater in the south than the north.

[Esquilax]

It is not "opinion" that the bodies of same sex couples are not naturally physical compatible, like those of a heterosexual couple are.

Ever gotten a surgery? Worn glasses? If you were dying, would you get an organ transplant?

Just how important is the integrity of the human body and what it's used for, to you? And that's even ignoring the fact that what you think other people should do with their bodies means nothing to the rest of the world.

(This is why homosexuals have to use artificial means -lubricants etc - to overcome the fact that their bodies are not naturally compatible.)

Ha! You know that straight people use lube too, right?

This is biological fact. What you say is downright stupid.

I guess the more important question is this: why does your opinion about gay sex matter at all?

You atheists seem to be of pretty low intelligence. With some notable exceptions, I am very disappointed with the level of intellect I have encountered on this site so far.

Insults. Just what I'd expect from a theist, when their arguments run out.

Here you are making the mistake of arguing based on your own point of view, not based on reality.

Speak for yourself, dummy.

Translation -

"argh, the clever Catholic man managed to prove his point using factual data and impartial sources.

Quick - say something erroneous about bigotry or hate."

Yes, you certainly seem less arrogant and self righteous after that.

1) homosexual acts are not unifying like heterosexual sex are - because their bodies are not complimentary in the way heterosexual sex is. A unifying act of physical love is where two partners combine their sexual organs and both experience pleasure for it. Homosexuals cannot combine their sexual organs - they do not combine with each other. (eg this is why gay men have to combine their sex organ with their partners anus). You are denying reality.

You are assigning meaning to reality that's highly subjective. Why does your opinion of "physical love" mean anything in this context? Why should it mean anything to anyone else? This is a total non argument.

2) my point is not invalid because you have undergone medical surgery to destroy the natural function of your sex organs. If you had not done this, (for reasons of health or choice), and your organs still functioned, then there would be a chance of procreation occurring. My point is valid.

So you think that people that are infertile from birth, or become infertile through disease, shouldn't be allowed to marry?

I have already presented detailed statistics to show you this - please go back and read them.

We seem to have arrived at the point where my facts are bouncing off the brick wall of your own personal prejudices / bias.

Knock down that brick wall and consider the facts impartially.

Cheers dude
GS

Why should we, when you so clearly refuse to do likewise?

[Zone]

"It is not "opinion" that the bodies of same sex couples are not naturally physical compatible, like those of a heterosexual couple are."

They're both equally compatible in a certain way so God must have had that in mind when he...evolved humans naturally. I don't think Christians particularly have to be homophobic because it says this in the Bible, there's a whole lot of other stuff in there that you're more than happy to ignore or say Jesus rendered obsolete.

[Angrboda]

It is not "opinion" that the bodies of same sex couples are not naturally physical compatible, like those of a heterosexual couple are.

Ever gotten a surgery? Worn glasses? If you were dying, would you get an organ transplant?

I understand the Catholic church is preparing a position paper on whether or not people should live at higher latitudes. It seems that the human body is not well suited to enduring the cold and inclement weather in these colder climates, and the church is considering declaring living more than 20 degrees north or south of the equator to be an abomination and against the will of God. They will be issuing a list of the technical inventions, like clothing and fire, which are to be avoided by all good Catholics at the very peril of their eternal souls. I thank the Catholic church for bringing this late-breaking issue to our attention.



(On a more serious note, I read some commentary which suggests that the Catholic church's position on homosexuality, by resting predominately on natural law theory, is intimately entangled with its position on birth control, such that, if one falls by argument, that deprives the other of its essential foundation. So it's not necessarily a war fought on isolated fronts, and the suggestion is that the church's catechism is carefully constructed so as to prevent difficulties with one doctrine impacting the other. See Austin Cline's article on at About.com for more on this aspect.)

[Zone]

I understand the Catholic church is preparing a position paper on whether or not people should live at higher latitudes. It seems that the human body is not well suited to enduring the cold and inclement whether in these colder climates, and is considering declaring living more than 10 degrees north or south of the equator to be an abomination and against the will of God. They will be issuing a list of the technical inventions, like clothing and fire, which are to be avoided by all good Catholics at the very peril of their eternal souls. I thank the Catholic church for bringing this late-breaking issue to our attention.

It does actually say that clothing and technology is a result of original sin in Genesis when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. They were romping around naked before that. There was a time I suppose when our ancestors were romping around naked on the African savannah though it wasn't much of a paradise.