I haven't been on this site for over a year, but it is great to be back!

I recently got in a debate with a "well educated" person regarding Homosexuality and I need your input.

I began with the argument that homosexual acts are contrary to nature and therefore are perverted. She countered that all species of mamals practice homosexual acts (ever seen your dog with another dog which is of the same sex...?) and is therefore not contrary to nature, just not the norm.

I dont know if that is true, but it seems to me that even though animals may do this it is not usual for them to do so. Besides that, their sexual organs do not actually enter one another; heck a dog may come up & hump my leg...does that mean that bestiality isn't aganist nature?!

Also I brought up the 2 fold meaning of human sexuality. Unitive & procreative. Homosexual relations can be dubiously argued to be unitive and are never procreative. She countered that she being menopausal or my wife being pregnant should not have relations because there is no possibility for the procreative aspect to enter into play. Obviously that is wrong, so thereofre similarily (according to her) Homosexual sex is OK.

After I left, I remembered I should have mentioned that heterosexual sex within marriage reflects the Trinity. The union & love of the Father & the Son and the Holy Spirit proceding from their Love eternally is erflected in the marital act... so much so you might have to give that love a name in 9 months... it becomes a 3rd person!

Heterosexual sex is also a metting of persons who (normally) face eachother, it is a loving face to face encounter, a total donation of the persons' selves to one another. Homosexual sex is not a total donation of the person, not a face to face embrace where the two become one flesh...in fact the result of such encounters can likely end up in disease...what kind of gift is that!?

Most of us know that these are pseudo arguments which that woman proposed, but I want to score a home run in replying to her and figured you all could help pitch in!

Thanks & God Bless!

Joe Biltz

PS: life is going well, we have a 17 month old son & another due in early December!

-- Joe Biltz (joebiltz@netzero.net), August 13, 2004

Answers

Bump to New Answers to invite comment.

-- (bump@bump.bump), August 13, 2004.

"I began with the argument that homosexual acts are contrary to nature..."

One suggestion -change to" contrary to natural law

then research exactly what natural law is so you know...

In summary, natural law is that which we are endowed with (innate law), conscience -- ANIMALS do not possess this...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), August 13, 2004.

"I dont know if that is true, but it seems to me that even though animals may do this it is not usual for them to do so. Besides that, their sexual organs do not actually enter one another; heck a dog may come up & hump my leg...does that mean that bestiality isn't aganist nature?!"

You're absolutely right.

When animals do that, it's nothing to do with procreation or romance or homosexuality, but rather it's all about dominance, and establishing rank. Afaik, at least.

-- JJ (nospam@nospam.com), August 13, 2004.

Animals also get cancer. Does that make cancer "natural" and "normal"??

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 13, 2004.

Oh yes, animals do "that" to each other, and yes they achieve actual "completion" of the task.

We had two male goats who thought the pigs on our farm was their own personal harem! Try explaining THAT to your 5 and 6 year old!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 13, 2004.

Joe,

Glad to read everything is going well with you & the family.

Keep praying Joe!

God bless you.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 13, 2004.

Paul,

How is Cancer not "natural"? Does God only give cancer to sinners? My cousin of ten was diagnosed with leukemia, and her friend Alex a five year old died of cancer, I highly doubt they did anything wrong. I am confused by your statement and fail to see how that supports Joe's arguement.

-- Emelyn (Emyland@yahoo.com), August 13, 2004.

Joe,

1. Animals have sex with each other for hundreds of reasons. Chimps are extremely homosexual and have sex to simply relieve tension when meeting a new clan. 2. Sex is sacred to people because we make it so. We put the added value and importance on it, so we define what purposes it can and should be used for; so comparing human sex to animal sex is irrelevant. Also Catholics do not consider humans on the same level as animals, they define humans as superior beings made in God's image and likeness, so again, comparing to animals is irrelevant. 3. Homosexuals can face each other during sex, two men or two women, so that arguement wont get you far. Also disease is not shared any more or less often between homosexuals than heterosexuals. 4. A priest told me that sex does not HAVE to be procreative it simply has to be open and welcoming to the idea of procreation, i.e. no contraceptives which get in the way of God's will. So homosexuality goes against being open to a child because by having sex with someone of the same sex, rather than the opposite sex, they are preventing a child from being born. If a woman is menopausal it is God's will that she not be with child and is in no way the fault of the woman.

-- Emelyn (Emyland@yahoo.com), August 13, 2004.

Hi Emelyn,

Cancer is the privation of an organism. It is not normal or natural. Natural does not mean the opposite of artificial or being present in nature. Used as a noun it can mean "having all the qualifications necessary for success" or "One suited by nature for a certain purpose or function". This is what we refer to by natural law, the study of which would be edifying.

If cancer were in this sense natural, then we would have no reason to find treatment for the person who has cancer. We would let "nature take its course" and let the person duke it out with the cancer knowing well enough that the cancer would win out.

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 14, 2004.

Vincent,

Then why do we fight death? Death is natural by any sense. Cancer is one of many instruments of death as is disease. All cancer really is is the death of cells which spreads out killing other cells and a person with cancer dies once the cell death is great enough to stop organs from properly functioning. Almost everyone develops some form of cancer in their lifetime be it as simple as a sunburn or complex as organ failure. I still don't understand, and I fail to see how this arguement supports homosexuality being unnatural.

-- Emelyn (Emyland@yahoo.com), August 14, 2004.

Rather than debate the precise meaning of "natural", the point of my example was - Must we accept cancer as "normal" and acceptable simply because it occurs in nature? That is the idea proposed by those who point out that animals occasionally engage in deviant sexual behavior.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 14, 2004.

this thread is getting off topic. please, can we direct it back to its intended course. im very interested in hearing opinions on this.

im gay. im sorry, i cant help it. if i COULD change it, i would. just believe me when i say i spent years crying about it (literally), alone, feeling guilty, sad, dirty, frustrated, suicidal even (still do, at times).

this has nothing to do with my spirituality (im sure that statement will garner some argument). i simply cannot get "excited" about women the way i do about men. please understand this. honestly, i will ALWAYS be a little sad about not being able to father a child with a wonderful woman, having the grandparents over and feeling joy at the love theyd receive from their grandchildren....

trust me, in my head, ive been all over this topic. but i couldnt fight it anymore. i love the Lord, but i want to be happy, too-- have a partner, enjoy a physical relationship with him. all of that.

this doesnt make me a bad person. like i said, i will forever wish it could be different. i dont go to "Pride", i dont vote exclusively democrat, i have no rainbow stickers on my car, i hate cher (lol)...in other words, you realy wouldnt know i was gay if you personally knew me.

i know this might not sit well in this forum, but what can i say? if you can tell me how to "become hetero", i would listen. i cant help it, though......i didnt ask for this. treat me like the friend i can be. but dont i have a right to be happy too?

-- whats a name for, really? (noaddresssorry@catholic.com), August 14, 2004.

Dear, whats a name for, really? (noaddresssorry@catholic.com),

Having a username or handle makes it easy to be addressed in a conversation. It's convenient for everyone.

I'm not sure about your meaning "i simply cannot get "excited" about women the way i do about men?" Is it physical or personality? Do you find a woman's body unpleasing? Do you think a woman would find your body unpleasing? Personality..I don't find most personality traits to be exclusive among men or women, the gruff and hardy, the soft and tender, kind and mean, nurturing and spiteful, honesty and deceit..but please explain? Do you not want to please your partner be it a woman or are you into intimacy to be pleased or both? Do you pursue relationships in order to pursue intimacy? I know I've posed alot of questions but could you further elaborate?

I assume you're an honest person and your post makes me believe that you are not a bad person but a good person, unless you convince me otherwise. Sure, I can change my mind as quickly as the next person.

I can't tell you how to become hetero as I'm suspicious of how people term hetero culture...and gay culture. But, if you could elaborate some more, perhaps I can convince you(being a man) that you can be happy in an intimate relationship with a woman and have those child (ren) you always wanted - rather than consigning yourself to chastity or being convinced that you need to be in an intimate relationship with a man to be happy.

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 14, 2004.

I am so tired of hearing about sex. Since when did sex replace God as the center around which all things revolve? For far too long has society been programmed by bishops and priests to think that the validity of their faith rests solely on the nature of their sex life. It seems to me as if bishops and priests have sex on their minds more than lay people.

Sex, in the context of love and compassion, will always be chaste. Sex, dealt with in the context of dominance or apathy, is not chaste. I'll leave it up to priests and bishops to tell me when I am falling away from chastity. But my faith must be dealth with, educated, and nurtured seperate from my sexual life. If my sexual life is not chaste, that has no impact on my faith.

God, not sex, is what I'll focus on. You guys wanna keep talking about sex? That's fine. I'll just go to an actual Catholic forum where faith is discussed. Not sex.

Brian

-- Brian (Brian@Brian.com), August 14, 2004.

Joe,

Bible calls homosexuality an abomination - Leviticus 18:22 —

Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination." (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:27; 1 Cor 6:9-10).

The correct reference for the death penalty is Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." As homosexual acts (Rom. 1:26) are directly against the initial command of God to be fertile and multiply (Gn. 1:28)

-- - (David@excite.com), August 14, 2004.

Maybe you don’t get out much Brian, but surely you’ve noticed it’s the world OUTSIDE the Church that is obsessed with sexual activities. On the contrary, only about one per cent of statements by Bishops and priests are about sexual activities. Maybe you get the idea from the media that bishops and priests are obsessed with sex, because it’s only when bishops mention sex that the media even report what they say (and then they usually get it totally wrong).

As for this forum, as far as I can see only a small proportion of the threads are about sex. The threads run the whole gamut of matters related to faith and life, including sex. If there's anything that's over-represented, I'd say it's politics, not sex.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 14, 2004.

"God, not sex, is what I'll focus on. You guys wanna keep talking about sex? That's fine. I'll just go to an actual Catholic forum where faith is discussed. Not sex."

Actually Brian you just started a thread on it last week so I don't know what you mean? I'm suprised you didn't rember that thread. You even mentioned "sex" in your opening post and guess what? I was the only one top post in it so I would say most people don't like to talk about "sex". The name of your thread was "bishops" dated 8/5.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 14, 2004.

Dear Friends,

We depend a great deal on the words of Jesus for our understanding of Holy Marriage and sexuality. The Lord Jesus said (Mark 10:2-9) that "From the beginning God made them male and female, therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Whom God has joined as one, let no one separate."

These words of Jesus call us away not only from divorce, but also from polygamy, fornication and homosexual relationships. He lifts up Holy Marriage between one man and one woman as God's original plan.

This may or may not be something we could know from "natural law", but we certainly know it from Divine Revelation, through the gracious lips of our Lord Jesus.

However, we are broken and prone to confusion and sin. None of us has a perfect sexuality. We are tempted to adultery of the heart, treating other people as objects, idolatrization of sex, and "looking for love in all the wrong places." The fact that we may be tempted by such things doesn't make them right. We don't live our Christian life by mere "feelings," but on the objective truth given us by God.

Can homosexuality be healed? Sometimes at least. But it is not easy, for this is probably a search of the inner child for innocent love and intimacy with the same sex parent, which desire can become sexualized at puberty. And though homosexuality is *not* simply genetic (identical twins of gay siblings are only gay half the time or less), there may be *some* genetic component, as there seems to be in alcoholism: not that this makes either condition good or helpful. There may even be spiritual components to this.

What I have found helpful is: (1) the great healing grace of frequent Confession and Communion; (2) regular prayer and Scripture reading; (3) having good non-sexual friends of both genders; (4) coming to terms with father or mother issues; (5) accepting the goodness and wonder of one's gender; and (6) rejecting any remaining temptations when they come along, just as all married people must reject the temptations to adultery. Point 6 is most important, because if we don't recognize it as a sin, it will take over our lives, just as can alcoholism.

By the way, I love my wife very much and have three gorgeous children: which I would not have believed possible twenty years ago. I have experienced a major "shift" in orientation which, while not total and complete, has been a profound change. A new life *is* possible. Holy Marriage is God's better gift and greater wisdom.

I am leaving on vacation for a week, but if someone on this thread wants to talk to me, I would be willing to e-mail them. I am "for real".

-- Michael (not an address@anonymous.net), August 15, 2004.

michael-- thank u 4 your contribution. yes, i would like to speak to you via priv emil, if possible. could/would you give me an email acct to send to?

-- whats a name for, really? (confuzed@hellbound.com), August 15, 2004.

Thanks for all your input. I dont know how one can seperate God & Sexuality. Suxuality is one of the core elements of our humanity and Christ came to redeem it all, especially & including our sexuality.

God bless you all!

Joe

-- Joe Biltz (joebiltz@netzero.net), August 16, 2004.

Homosexuality always existed. The mere fact, that it is mentioned in the bible should prove this beyond doubt. So we don't need to debate if it is something new, abnormal or "godless".

So the real question is, why is the tollerance of homosexuality changing during the ages ?

I guess the answer is, values change as societies change. While womens rights changed with time and nowerdays it is tollerated that women wear trousers and vote, it was strictly prohibited and punishable in former times. Is it a bad thing that societies change? Only if the rights of the individual are diminished in the process. So marrying and having sex to a 16 year old child will always be despicable, because children don't posses the maturity to fully understand the gravity of their actions. And thus, they are easily exploited and need to be protected by society.

Adult homosexuals however, posses this maturity and are fully aware of what they do. So noone is exploited or diminished in his personal rights. Some catholics may argue, that incest should be ok then, too. After all Adam and Eve where the only humans god created and the implications are clear. But I don't think that incest is comparable with homosexuality. There is always the danger of congenital deformities as we know from historic european aristocracies.

Maybe in 2000 years we will abolish sex entirely and every individual will be cloned... when I see how humans today start to modify their breast, noses or lips, I can't even begin to imagine what we will do in the future to "change" what god had planed for us.

-- Awakening (Nospam@please.com), August 17, 2004.

So, let me get this straight ... if something can be shown to have "always existed", it therefore cannot be considered "abnormal" or "godless"? Did I get that right? The Bible reveals that leprosy has existed at least as long as homosexuality, so presumably leprosy must therefore be considered "normal"? Murder is clearly documented in the oldest biblical texts. So, therefore murder is not "ungodly"? What ARE you talking about??

Yes, values do change as societies change. But truth does not. And morality is based on objective, immutable truth, not on "values". "Values" can and often do become corrupted and ungodly. Truth cannot, because God IS truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 17, 2004.

Do you believe that god is omnipotent, allknowing and everywhere ? If so, you must know that there is no action, no place and certainly no condition, that is not of gods origin.

Murder is a product of gods gift to humans. It is called free will. We don't know why he wants it to happen, but I am sure you don't want to question that nothing on earth happens in the absence of god, because that would be a direct contradiction of his omnipresence. And if you like it or not, everything that happens does so for a reason, even though mere mortals don't always understand why.

Love is certainly one of gods greatest gifts to mankind and when he makes two persons of the same gender feel love for each other, how can you say this love is not send by god? Or has Satan now taken over cupid's business and I have not noticed ? :-)

-- awakening (nospam@please.com), August 17, 2004.

“Love is certainly one of God's greatest gifts to mankind, and when he makes two people of the same sex feel love for each other, how can you say that this love is not sent by God?” (Awakening - spelling and grammar corrected)

Who said it’s not? Of course all love is an expression of God’s love. But homosexual acts cannot be an expression of love, as they diminish rather than build up the integrity of the participants. That is not a loving thing to do. Love is not, in essence, something you "feel" (unless you are confusing it with lust) but something you decide to do.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 17, 2004.

God ALLOWS moral evils to occur, for the reason you stated - He has given men free will. However, God does not WILL evil to occur, and He never CAUSES evil to occur. That would be in direct contradiction to His very nature. He is all-good, indeed He is goodness itself. Can evil be the product of perfect goodness? Evil is the rejection of goodness. Can God reject Himself? A great many things happen that are not originated by God, but only allowed by Him, even though such things violate His divine will.

Did God "send" the terrorists to destroy the World Trade Center? Was it His will for them to do so?? Certainly not! Of course this event happened "in his presence", since He is omnipresent. But it happened in open defiance of His will. He did NOT "want it to happen". He never "wants" sin to happen. But He allows it, that we might be created in His image and likeness, with free will and moral capacity. If 9/11 happened "for a reason", it most certainly was NOT His reason, but only the reason of perverted human minds.

Likewise, God does not desire or cause situations, including relationships, that violate both natural law and His own divine will. He allows such situations to occur. But those who CAUSE such situations to occur by placing their own wills and their own desires above His will and desire will eventually have to answer to Him for those freely made choices.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 17, 2004.

If I understood you right, you said, that what we call "evil" only happens because of man's´free will and is not of god's choosing. Then how do you explain natural disasters ? Aren't they of god's will ? They are certainly not made by men.

And in case you argue Satan's will caused those evils, I have another question. How can a fallen angel have a free will ? Wasn't it gods gift to mankind alone ? If a falen angel is merely a man, how can he have the power to make things happen unlike anny other man on earth ?

I don't think homosexual lust is the same as homosexual love. If you argue, that love is nothing you "feel", but something you decide to do, then how can there be a "decision" to love your children, partner or your parents? Isn't this love one of the strongest feelings and certainties man can be blessed with? I really don't think there is anny decision involved in it.

-- Awakening (nospam@please.com), August 18, 2004.

"If I understood you right, you said, that what we call "evil" only happens because of man's´free will and is not of god's choosing. Then how do you explain natural disasters ? Aren't they of god's will?"

A: I did not say that everything we think of as "evil" is the result of man's free will. I said that actual moral evil (sin) is the result of man's free will. Natural disasters, though they case a great destruction and human suffering, are not moral evils. A Typhoon or tornado or volcanic eruption has no moral status one way or the other. They are simply the result of the laws of nature which, as their name implies, are completely natural, not supernatural, forces.

"How can a fallen angel have a free will ? Wasn't it gods gift to mankind alone?

A: No it was not. Angels were also created with free will. Otherwise they would not have been able to choose to rebel against God, and there would be no fallen angels.

"I don't think homosexual lust is the same as homosexual love. If you argue, that love is nothing you "feel", but something you decide to do, then how can there be a "decision" to love your children, partner or your parents? Isn't this love one of the strongest feelings and certainties man can be blessed with? I really don't think there is anny decision involved in it."

A: I love my father and my brother and my sons, so same sex love is entirely appropriate. But I don't desire them sexually. That would be same sex lust. Feelings often lead to love, but love is more than just a feeling. Many people don't recognize the difference, which is why so many marriages fail. A marriage based on feelings is like a house built on sand. Feelings come and go, and are beyond our control. That's why in a wedding ceremony we voice our firm decision and commitment to take each other in good times and in bad, for better or for worse, regardless of how we feel at any given moment. That's why love can endure even when feelings change.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 18, 2004.

"Feelings come and go, and are beyond our control. That's why in a wedding ceremony we voice our firm decision and commitment to take each other in good times and in bad, for better or for worse, regardless of how we feel at any given moment. That's why love can endure even when feelings change."

So if it is only the "lust" you are criticizing, then why not allow homosexual marriage ? If two men voice their firm decision and commitment to take each other in good times and in bad, this shows to me that their connection is not based on lust, but on love. If we follow your definition.

-- Awakening (nospam@please.de), August 18, 2004.

Because two men or two women do not satisfy the definition of marriage. Even if the state allows homosexuals to go through the motions of marriage, and recognizes them as legally married from a civil perspective, they can never be married in the eyes of God, or in the eyes of anyone who recognizes what marriage is in its essence and in its purposes.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 18, 2004.

I think you are reffering to procreation. For a marriage to be valid, it needs to welcome the idea of procreation. And since homosexual marriage can't lead to a child, it is not valid.

But what about infertile men or women, who would like to have a child, but can't because of their condition? These marriages are valid and bear the possebility to adopt children in order to create a family.

So what is the difference , if two men or two women wish nothing more than having a child together, but can't because of their "condition", beeing of same sex?

-- Awakening (nospam@please.com), August 18, 2004.

Aristotle proved that all men are social creatures...ergo, all need family and friends BY NATURE to flourish as human beings. In Greek the term "idios" (idiot) means "individual" as in cut off from family and the community.

So naturally since all human beings are social in nature, all need friends and thus friendship is a necessity.

But there are many different types of friendship, and most do NOT involved sexual intimacy.

Homosexuals to their own detriment don't understand that friendship and thus true human happiness and flourishing doesn't require a sexual relationship!

This is the tragedy: most are people who have a huge need for love and acceptance as people - not as sexual beings. They confuse sexual intimacy with love all day long and this is what is the root problem.

Marriage or extramarital sex is not what they need. Social acceptance of their sodomic sex is not what they need. Massive federal research projects to come up with miracle cures to diseases they get through sodomy is not what they need.

They need true friends - and Our Lord can be that friend if they choose to forego sex and seek HIM.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 18, 2004.

"But what about infertile men or women, who would like to have a child, but can't because of their condition?"

That is irrelevant. I'm not talking about the validity or fecundity of any specific marriage. I'm talking about the general equation man + woman = offspring. that is the equation which serves as the fundamental basis for the definition of marriage. That equation is why the state has a vested interest in marriage in the first place, why it officially recognizes and regulates marriage, and why it grants certain rights and privileges to married couples - because marriage is the source of family, and family is the basic building block of society. Healthy families create a healthy society. Disfunction families lead to a disfunctional society. That has been known for centuries. Therefore, apart from the fact that homosexual marriages are an impossibility from God's perspective, there is no sound reason for the state to recognize them either. Such unions would draw from the state all of the benefits normally granted to married couples, at the expense of the taxpayers of the state, and give nothing back (other than any contributions the two people might have made as unmarried individuals). Why should I pay extra taxes so that a couple of guys who want to have sex together can claim the same benefits as a legitimately married couple bringing children into society, replenishing the population of the state? They can already have sex together. There is no reason why I should pay them or reward them for doing so. And there is no reason for the state to reward them at my expense, since the state stands to gain nothing from such an arrangement, but only incurs additional expense which must be passed along to the taxpayers of the state - ALL of them, not just the 1 to 2 percent directly affected by such legislation.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 18, 2004.

Of course the other obvious question is...if an absolute minority of Americans can dictate to the rest of us what a 3000 year old institution shall henceforth be re-defined as (to suit their whims), what rights and power do WE have? Or can only minorities re-define words affecting the whole of society?

Shall we re-define "rights" to mean priviledges'? Or "Public" to mean "Church-related things" thus scoring ourselves with billions in tax dollars for our projects?

If marriage can be re-defined to mean "any two people" then it can be re-defined to allow for any 3 or 4 or more people, of whatever age. And why stop with human "people"? Couldn't some minority demand rights to marry animals or "virtual people"? Why not? If minorities can re-define words on demand not through the democratic process of constitutional amendments but through the courts, what is really stopping EVERY institution from being re-defined to cater to the whims of the minority?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 18, 2004.

Thats a very good point. I think it boils down on how a society defines marriage. A catholic marriage will never include 2 males, that is a fact. But if a state gives certain benefits to people for taking responsebility for each other and call it marriage, what is so wrong about this ? After all marriage is not only about sex and procreation as Paul already stated correctly. A marriage is a commitment to another person and therefor I would not totaly neglect the purpose a homosexual marriage has for society. In case one of the partners dies, the other one has a legal basis because of his "husband" status, that would otherwise be denied to him. The taxation benefits of homosexual marriages can have a positive effect on their decision to adopt children and thus giving them a home and a family, that would otherwise be neglected to them.

It is all a question on how a society changes over time. I already mentioned, that in former times it was unacceptable for women to vote or even leave their husband in case they have been abused. Society changed and today women even have the right to choose if they want to carry the child of a rapist. Progress and Science had a great impact on modern societies and we have modiefied certain views and rules in order to adapt to these changes. While the best example for this adaptation is the creation itselve. We all agree, that incest is certainly not the right way to procreate today, since it has a serious impact on our genes, but this is also a product of change and adaptation. There where times, when incest was perfectly acceptable and not condemned by society and it lead to haemophilia as we know. Since god created Adam and Eve and left their family alone with the burden of creating a whole mankind, you can not even argue that god condemned incest.

So what should be the guideline, when it comes to marriage? As I said, since homosexuals are mature sentient beeings, they can both decide to spend the rest of their live together. No individuum is exploided or diminished in it's rights here. Unlike in a relationship, where children, computer programms or animals are involved, who have not reached this level of conciousness.

-- Awakening (nospam@please.com), August 18, 2004.

Nice touch, Awakening. You never give a capital letter to “God” but always give it to “Satan”. And you expect us to continue replying politely. I take it then that you are not an atheist but a Satanist?

Why should the State give a homosexual “couple” more legal rights and financial support, just because they sodomize each other, than it gives to any two people sharing a household and pooling their financial and other resources (say two siblings, or two priests sharing a presbytery)?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 18, 2004.

First of all, what makes you say that I am a Satanist ? I would be really interested in what leads you to this hurtfull assumtion.

And second, Paul already made clear, what the differences between the love between siblings or priests in contrast to a married couple is. If you never have loved a woman in your life, you can't understand that of course. But in case you did, you know what a gay couple is all about. It is exactly the same love that connects these people. A common mistake I saw here often, was the assumtion, that homosexual people can only feel lust for each other. While this may be the case for some of them it is certainly not true for every homosexual relationship. Just as there are heterosexuals, who abuse the other sex merely for fullfilling their own desires, without actually loving the person they are together with.

As long as two people are comitted to stand in for each other "till death may part them", they are able to provide the strong framework needed to grow up children. So by giving certain benefits to these kinds of families, the state benefits too. While males can adopt, lesbian women for example can take advantage of artificial impregnation and thus provide just as well or even better for a child than a single mother.

I think, if you try to see it this way, it may help you understand, why god gave certain people a different "orientation".

-- Awakening (nospam@please.com), August 19, 2004.

Since there is no evidence to suggest that people are born homosexual, there is no reason to suggest that God "made them that way". Sexual orientation is an acquired trait, not something we are born with. A baby is neither homosexual or heterosexual.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 19, 2004.

Hi, Paul Actually, there is much evidence that concludes that homosexuality is indeed an inherited characteristic. You may find this article very interesting: http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

But there is still much research to be done in this matter and we are certainly still far from having this mystery solved entirely.

But I guess for now it is save to assume, that god made them this way. Of course one could argue that homosexuality is a genetic defect and needs to be cured. But since they can live a perfectly normal live, up to even have children if they use artificial impregnation, I really don't see the difference between beeing black, wearing glasses or beeing gay.

-- Awakening (nospam@please.com), August 19, 2004.

But I guess for now it is save to assume, that god made them this way.

****God made us in his image. If we live the way he commanded no one would live a homosexual lifestyle. So to say he made them this way is ludicrous.

But since they can live a perfectly normal live, up to even have children if they use artificial impregnation, I really don't see the difference between beeing black, wearing glasses or beeing gay.

***LOL You are funny.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), August 19, 2004.

Oh please! Fruitflies? Mating in such relatively simple organisms is just a mindless response to chemical stimuli. Are you suggesting that human relationships are similar in nature? So a "DNA transplant" (the article doesn't describe what this actually consisted of) caused a particular pheromone receptor to be blocked in fruitflies. So what? That doesn't say a thing about the intricacies of human attraction, relationship and mating. What it does indicate is that such aberrant behavior in fruitflies is a result of major, artificially produced genetic abnormalities which could never occur in nature. Not a single genetic or neuroanatomical difference has been scientifically documented between homosexual and heterosexual persons, in spite of intensive research over a period of years specifically attempting to discover such a link. But even if such a genetic factor were discovered, it would not make homosexuality "normal". There are many genetically mediated physiological and neurological abnormalities.

-- (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 19, 2004.

Massive federal research projects to come up with miracle cures to diseases they get through sodomy is not what they need.

Bigotry is not what we need. Ignorance is not what we need.

Diseases "they" get? Although the incidence of homosexual cases is higher than heterosexual cases in industrialized countries, worldwide HIV/AIDS is a heterosexual disease. In case you missed it:

HIV/AIDS is a heterosexual disease.

"This population [men who have sex with men] accounts for 5–10% of all HIV/AIDS cases worldwide" (UNAIDS Global Report 2004 pg 81).

Let's do the math: 100% HIV cases - 5/10% homosexual HIV/AIDS cases = 90-95% heterosexual HIV/AIDS cases

To your credit, let's not forget IV drug use. For your sake, I'll use the most generous rates from countries that are hardest hit by IV drug user HIV/AIDS cases: W. Europe (10%) and the US (25%) but is less common worldwide (UNAIDS pg 38).

Again: 100% total HIV cases - 5/10% homosexual cases - 10-25% IV drugs = 65-85% heterosexual

Let's not perpetuate the myths that perpetuate the disease. HIV/AIDS is not "their" disease by any measure. LB

-- Louise B (elbrinke@ecologyfund.net), August 19, 2004.

Again: 100% total HIV cases - 5/10% homosexual cases - 10-25% IV drugs = 65-85% heterosexual

Let's not perpetuate the myths that perpetuate the disease. HIV/AIDS is not "their" disease by any measure. LB

***Let us not forget about a big group who also contribute to this disease and that is the bisexuals. Many of the heterosexuals who have been infected were infected by a bisexual. If the bisexuals had been heterosexuals, the number of people with AIDS would be much lower.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), August 19, 2004.

OK boys, you want to play ball, here catch: absolutely ZERO studies of twins (genetically identical) have shown a 100% correspondence of homosexual behavior or orientation... ergo this means that homosexuality is definately NOT caused by genetics as though that explains it all... certainly some people are more prone to some things than others - alcoholism, schizophrenia, etc. can be inherited, so obviously some genes are involved....predispositions don't make something "natural and good".

Secondly about statistics...if you lump in all the Africans in the HIV numbers you skew things. Look just at the USA's CDC numbers; the overwhelming number of cases per year are among two groups which are an absolute MINORITY of the overall population: Homosexual man and IV drug abusers (often the same).

Don't take my word for it. Check out the CDC .gov site. It's there for the world to see.

And another thing: drug users don't think straight as drugs messes up the reasoning capacity of the mind (which is why people shouldn't drink and drive or do drugs and drive). But having multiple sexual partners on a routine basis (which all the LBGT publications promote) is a highly risky behavior pattern - and its promoted in places where "society" is most in favor of homosexuality! So it seems that the big-bad closet actually promotes physical health whereas their subjective psychological health is harmful to their very physical lives.

So who are the true bigots and haters? Those whose praise and encouragement to homosexuals leads to their early deaths or those whose moral and scientific cautioning would keep them healthy and alive for decades longer?

The first group CLAIMS to be tolerant and to love them while accusing the latter of being haters...but who really has their greatest good in heart?

As I've said and shown before (elsewhere) homosexual orientation is a mental disorder - meaning that those who suffer it need help and friendship and love and understanding and therapy, not to be told to go get some (!) and have fun. Or to feel real good doing whatever pops into their heads.

FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS DRIVE DRUNK OR DO DRUGS...WHY SHOULD FRIENDS ENCOURAGE THEIR FRIENDS TO ENGAGE IN DEADLY BEHAVIOR OR SEXUAL PROMISCUITY?

Who are your real friends - those who will stand by and let you harm yourself or those who would help you find true love?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 19, 2004.

True, bisexuals contribute to the spread; many groups do. How much is unclear (the label is not accepted well worldwide, data is difficult to verify).

Regardless... unlike Joe's oh-so-eloquent post, HIV/AIDS does not discriminate. It does not prefer a certain sexual orientation to another. It does not care if you use it as a reason to pursue a research grant or an excuse to condemn a group of people.

My point is, we should exercise caution and take a stab at informational integrity before we reference complex issues like HIV/AIDS.

LB

-- Louise B (elbrinke@ecologyfund.net), August 19, 2004.

Sigh...

First, big·ot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. (dictionary.com)

I hope my point is made regarding who the bigot and hater is.

Second, Joe, do your "morals" not apply in Africa? Has your God abandoned an entire continent? Why are those statistics irrelevant?

Your post proves nothing but your narrow-mindedness. HIV/AIDS is more prevalent in heterosexuals worldwide. The inverse is true here in the states. We both agree.

But you wrote, "Massive federal research projects to come up with miracle cures to diseases they get through sodomy is not what they need." I assumed your point was to say that HIV/AIDS was a "gay disease." You confirm that with your un-academic attempt to gut statistics and ignore the rest of the world.

I will not argue about the moral depravity (or lack thereof) regarding homosexuality. I will, however, reiterate my original point: You can skew the the mubers all you want; HIV/AIDS is not a homosexual issue. Period.

LB

-- Louise B (elbrinke@ecologyfund.net), August 19, 2004.

edit *skew the numbers* LB

-- Louise B (elbrinke@ecologyfund.net), August 19, 2004.

First off Louise, a bigot is NOT anyone who disagrees with you, LOL!

Here is the CDC AIDS in the U.S. Statistics page

And some data from it:

White, not Hispanic 364,458

Black, not Hispanic 347,491

Hispanic 163,940

Blacks represent about 13% of the U.S. population, yet have about the same number of cases of whites at about 77% of the population. Therefore blacks are more likely per person to have AIDS than whites, at the current time. Hispanics are about 12.5% of the population, but only have half the cases of blacks or whites, so are still more likely to have aids than whites, but only half as likely as blacks.

On exposure category:

male female total Male-to-male sexual contact 420,790 - 420,790

Injection Drug Use 172,351 67,917 240,268

Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 59,719

Heterosexual contact 50,793 84,835 135,628

Other* 14,350 6,519 20,869

What do we see? male to male sexual contact is the vast majority of cases. 420,000 compared with 51,000 heterosexual. There are 8 times as many cases of homosexuals afflicted with aids as heterosexuals. Factor in that homosexuals comprise about 5% of the population (for a round number) this really means you are about 160 times as likely to have AIDS as a homosexual as you are a heterosexual. If that's not a homosexual issue, what is?

Louise, how many heterosexual "bigots" in the U.S. have killed homosexuals over the past 10 years? Also, how many homosexuals have killed *each other* through AIDS in the same period? Unfortunately, this group of people is killing themselves far faster and more efficiently than anyone they rail against.

Finally, to address your other question, that about heterosexual prevalence in Africa, I remember reading somewhere about male to male sex occuring among mine laborers who would go home and spread disease to their homes. That is one cause, a larger one might just be promiscuity in general. One thing is certain though, if everyone in Africa lived up to the Christian ideal of no sex outside of heterosexual marriage, there would be NO crisis of AIDS at all (well, assuming that people didn't shoot drugs). Before calling people "bigots", clean up your own house first.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 19, 2004.

Sorry the graph got kind of screwed up. the "male female total" should be one line, and on each next line the three numbers should be directly under them.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 19, 2004.

Laughing out loud. Odd response, but I'll bite. Underlying biogtry is intolerance. I am allowing everyone on this forum to trash whichever sexual preference they like. Please, proceed.

I will not, however, stand by and let you trash mathematical fact, then use it for your arguments. You cannot use American statistics to describe a phenomenon that touches the entirety of humanity. It's illogical.

You don't have to agree with me about what homosexuality is or isn't. Frankly, I don't want to discuss it with you. But statistical figures are not about opinions. You cannot be intolerant of numbers. They are about facts, proven and concrete.

And to your credit, maybe homosexuals are killing each other with AIDS. But, given that you live in one of the industrialized countries, you are killing millions more with your high consumption patterns and the resulting pollution.

Clean your own house.

-- Louise B (elbrinke@ecologyfund.net), August 19, 2004.

But statistical figures are not about opinions. You cannot be intolerant of numbers. They are about facts, proven and concrete.

That's exactly right. The numbers I've posted are FACTS, not my opinion, not yours.

They speak for themselves.

By the way, do you know who "patient Zero" was?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 19, 2004.

In fact I do. Allow me to present some credible information: In general, the term Patient Zero refers to the central or initial patient in the population sample of an epidemiological investigation.

In particular, it refers to Gaëtan Dugas (1953 - 1984), a Canadian airline steward who was Patient Zero for an early epidemiological study on HIV by the Centers for Disease Control. His sexual partners were surveyed for the disease in order to demonstrate that it was sexually transmitted. Several of them were among the first few hundred to be diagnosed with AIDS.

Misconceptions A misconception holds that he was the first person to introduce HIV into North America. This myth was promoted by sensationalism surrounding Randy Shilts' book And The Band Played On and the movie based upon it. He is referred to as 'Patient Zero' not because he was the first to be diagnosed with the disease but rather because at least 40 of the 248 people diagnosed with AIDS by April 1982 had either had sex with him or with someone who had.

The CDC certainly did not conclude that Dugas had introduced HIV into North America, nor was he the first to have his infection identified. In fact, many AIDS cases had been identified in North America prior to Patient Zero.

Furthermore, later research has cast doubt on the validity of the conclusions that actually were advanced. At the time, it was believed that HIV incubated for about one year. The patients that were studied due to their contact with Patient Zero had their symptoms emerge on an average of eleven months after having sex with him.

Now that the incubation time of HIV is known to be longer, it is highly unlikely that any of Patient Zero's sexual partners studied were initially infected by him.

See also: AIDS myths and urban legends. (http://www.fact-index.com/p/pa/patient_zero.html)

Allow me also to give you a word problem. Frank has $40. Louise has $15. Gaëtan Dugas has $20. Who has the most money? (Let me give you a hint. Don't pay attention to Frank, he skews the data.)

-- Louise B (elbrinke@ecologyfund.net), August 19, 2004.

Finally, to address your other question, that about heterosexual prevalence in Africa, I remember reading somewhere about male to male sex occuring among mine laborers who would go home and spread disease to their homes.

***This is true. There is also a belief if a man infected with AIDS has sex with a virgin he will be cured. That is why many young girls are infected with AIDS in Africa. Plus many will become pregnant and the disease keeps spreading.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), August 19, 2004.

Now the more important part: Did he stop having sex with others when he initially found out he was infected?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 19, 2004.

You can skew the the mubers all you want; HIV/AIDS is not a homosexual issue. Period.

If its not a homosexual issue, why are homosexual practitioners and advocates soooooo interested and educated about this disease. Do you mean to tell me that HIV/AIDS is not a homosexual issue the way cancer or alzheimers is not a homosexual issue. Come on. Caveat: I don't know how significant the HIV/Aids issue is to homosexual S. Africans, or Ethiopians, or Belgians, or Filipinos or whoever, but I do know that it has HIGH PROFILE significance to U.S. homosexuals and their advocates. Noone would argue with you that today, Hiv affects many, many heteros, especially in Africa. But this wasn't always the case. In fact the CDC originally named the disease "Gay Related Immune Deficiency."

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), August 19, 2004.

So, since you all know about the AIDS problem and the catholic church nows about it too, why not handing out "catholic condoms" for free ?

Would be a great way to prevent this disease from spreading, don't you think ? Spread love not AIDS... :)

Since you already know that these people will not listen to the message of sexual abstinence, it would be better to teach them to use condoms at least.

-- Awakening (nospam@please.com), August 19, 2004.

Condoms don't prevent AIDS but reduce the chances of transmission. Assuming a 2% failure rate in condoms, that's a lot of transmission.

AIDS is spread by deliberate acts of sexual immorality, sin. While the HIV virus is organic and biological in nature, the transmission of the disease is caused purely by sin. If people refrained from sexual immorality and IV drug use, AIDS would die out in a generation.

But no, we have evil masquerading as tolerance whispering sweet death into the ears of the ignorant. Concupiscence in the guise of love, no thanks! The devil's own, misery loves company.

Cheers,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 19, 2004.

The spread of AIDS can be stopped immediately, it's just a matter of choice.

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 19, 2004.

Awakening, I didn’t “say that” you are a Satanist, I asked a tongue in cheek question whether you were, because of your exaggerated disrespect for “god” compared to your respect for “Satan”. Sorry if it hurt your sensitive nature. You have said a few hurtful things yourself.

I wonder you people shedding crocodile tears over the millions of AIDS victims in Africa know what it's really like there. A typical hospital, clinic or dispensary in rural Africa can afford virtually none of the basic medicines that could cure or prevent many of the diseases the local people are dying of. But there is one thing that all clinics in Africa have plentiful supplies of. Contraceptives, especially condoms. The West dumps them in Africa by the billions, mainly of course because they think there are “too many” black people. They dump heaps of injectable contraceptives which have been banned in the West because of severe side-effects. Often the drugs have to be injected with needles and syringes which have been reused many times. This is a major cause of the spread of AIDS.

Another major cause is people believing the propaganda that as long as you wear condoms you can indulge in any kind of sexual behavior you want. Even under the best conditions, condoms are the LEAST effective type of contraceptive – compared to not using any contraceptive, they fail at least 5% to 10% of the time to prevent pregnancy. The HIV virus is much smaller than a sperm cell and billions of them are present in an infected person's body fluids all the time. A woman is fertile only a few days per month at most. So condoms are almost useless as an AIDS preventer. Countries which have relied primarily on condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS have instead seen their AIDS rates accelerate. Conversely, AIDS rates have plummeted in countries like Uganda which have depended mainly on a “no sexual activity outside marriage” policy.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 19, 2004.

The West dumps them in Africa by the billions, mainly of course because they think there are “too many” black people.

Wow, tell me you're joking. Please! If not, what is this; a secret CIA operation? Is the KKK getting more sophisticated? Can we expect a similar condom drop in Israel?

Actually, I think "they" think there are too many people period.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), August 20, 2004.

No I’m not joking Brian and I’m not a conspiracy theorist. “They” are the big Western pharmaceutical and rubber companies, and the so- called “Family planning” non-government organisations, all encouraged by western governments (and in many cases African dictators who see it as a means to control their unruly subjects) . Of course they all claim their aim is not to limit the number of black people, it’s all about “reproductive health”. But their real agenda is not buried too deeply. They sometimes let it slip in an unguarded moment, such as after a long business lunch. It’s all about keeping “inferior” people in their place. It’s nothing new. Throughout history you’ll find the oppressors complaining that the people they are oppressing have “too many” children. I don’t know if the CIA and KKK are involved but I guess I wouldn’t be surprised if they were. I came across a site recently (don't recall the address) complaining that "white" people were being outnumbered by "black" and "brown" people and blaming the Catholic church for this "disaster" because of its opposition to contraception.

When I say they “dump” condoms and other contraceptives I don’t mean they drop them out of planes. They supply billions of them for free (paid for by governments) or next to nothing, while demanding unaffordable prices for necessary medicines (even very basic things like antiseptics and sterile dressings).

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 20, 2004.

"So condoms are almost useless as an AIDS preventer."

Steve, I must admit, I am a bit shocked by this statement. First of all, you start talking about chemical contraceptives, wich are not ment to prevent AIDS, but pregnancy and then you talk about condoms having a faliure rate of up to 10%.

The only contraceptive, that protects against AIDS are CONDOMS. That is a fact, you need to realize. The faliure rate of 10% is absolute untrue. Let me give you a picture: If you have 100 sexual contacts a year, the condom protects you 100% from AIDS in 98 of those contacts. Do you honestly want to tell me, that those 98 lives are not worth saving, by encuraging people to use condoms ?

And I am not only talking about Africans, I am also talking about gay people in the US. Since manny of them are obviously not aware, that condoms reduce their risk of getting AIDS by nearly 98%, it would be the duty of the church to educate them about this.

If you keep this knowledge from them, in order to teach them sexual abstinence, you kill them and in cosequence break the fifth commandment.

Can you name me anny medication for a deadly desease, that has a success rate of 98% ? Since they obviously don't want to live abstinent it is our obligation to do everything we can, to educate them about condoms.

Manny people in Africa listen to the pope, if he would tell them to use some of those "billions of condoms" dumped at them, the rate of new infections would decrease by 98%... that is an awfull lot of lives to be saved... I really don't think you want them to die, just because they don't live by your standarts.

-- Awakening (nospam@please.com), August 20, 2004.

Awakening,

The only contraceptive, that protects against AIDS are CONDOMS. That is a fact, you need to realize. The faliure rate of 10% is absolute untrue. Let me give you a picture: If you have 100 sexual contacts a year, the condom protects you 100% from AIDS in 98 of those contacts. Do you honestly want to tell me, that those 98 lives are not worth saving, by encuraging people to use condoms ?

The trouble is even people who KNOW about condoms don't always use them, which is why AIDS continues to spread among the well-educated U.S. homosexual community. The truth is that condoms will SLOW the spread of AIDS, but will NOT stop it. People do respond to their environment. The less likely someone feels they are to get AIDS from sex, the less likely they are to actually use a condom. The only way to stop AIDS is to not have promiscuous sex. Follow the church's teaching: No sex outside of heterosexual marriage, you'll live a long and healthy life.

Since they obviously don't want to live abstinent it is our obligation to do everything we can, to educate them about condoms.

Again, this is 100% wrong. Homosexual transmission is UP in the U.S. over the past few years, and there is no shortage of education about condoms. The other part of your post really bothers me -- they don't want to change so it is our duty to help them in their activity. Would you say the same thing about any OTHER dangerous activity, like drunk driving? "Well, they have a genetic predisposition to be alcoholics, so it's "natural", and they like driving, so we should put them in a school so they become better drunk drivers and *less likely* to kill anyone when under the influence!" Makes sense right? A better educated drunk driver will kill less people than a non-educated one, just like your condom theory.

I hope you wouldn't think that's a good idea, but who knows? People who are engaging in risky sexual behavior or I.V. drug use are risking the lives of the people around them. It is the duty of society to STOP them, not enable them.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 20, 2004.

First of all, we are not talking about driving a car, we are talking about sex. Maybe to some people these two things are of equal value, but certainly not for me. So my next question is, have you ever heared of methadone ? Instead of leaving heroine addicts to their addiction and condemn them to poverty, social faiiure and even AIDS, we help them to ease their struggle with the help of methadone. Granted, they are still addicted, but they live a much better live beeing able to participate in society and not risking and AIDS infection from a used needle. I am talking about easing pain here. The other way would be to simply close ones eyes to the possebility to ease suffering and preach and preach and preach untill they are all dead... call me an idealist, but I really think this way is much more promising.

Do you really think homosexual atheists, will change their way of life, because the catholic church tells them to stop having sex ? Not very likely. But if the catholic church tells them to use condoms, to protect themselves, they are much more likely to listen to this message, because it is based on something they can understand and contains the honest wish to help them, without judging them.

-- Awakening (nospam@pleasse.com), August 20, 2004.

Do you really think homosexual atheists, will change their way of life, because the catholic church tells them to stop having sex ? Not very likely. But if the catholic church tells them to use condoms, to protect themselves, they are much more likely to listen to this message, because it is based on something they can understand and contains the honest wish to help them, without judging them.

***LOL So they would not listen to the Church because they are atheists, but they would listen to the Church because it is based on something they understand? What do they understand and why would they listen to a Church when they don't believe in any of it's beliefs? Too many like to go bareback even though they have heard all the lectures. Condoms is not the answer, but abstinence.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), August 20, 2004.

Ok let me put it this way, so maybe you can understand it better. If someone tells you that you can not eat pork meat, because you will lose your purity, if you do. Would you listen to him ?

But if someone else tells you, you can eat pork meat, as long as you cook it before eating, in order to kill the parasitic threadworms inside, would you listen to him ?

See, that is my whole point, so don't just LOL at me And this post was surely not intendet to make fun of jews ;-)

-- Awakening (nospam@please.com), August 20, 2004.

Awakening,

First, you completed ignored the part of my post where I pointed out that in the U.S. where the homosexual community IS educated about condom use, the rate of infections with HIV is RISING again. Why should the church tell an already educated group of people the exact same thing they already know, but don't want to do? Why would they listen to a church they don't believe in when they won't listen to people just like them who are dying of AIDS? It doesn't make much sense to me.

Ok let me put it this way, so maybe you can understand it better. If someone tells you that you can not eat pork meat, because you will lose your purity, if you do. Would you listen to him ?

But if someone else tells you, you can eat pork meat, as long as you cook it before eating, in order to kill the parasitic threadworms inside, would you listen to him ?

The trouble is, if the person really likes RAW pork and dislikes cooked pork, they are still going to eat it raw, even though they know the dangers of doing so. At least that's what the real-world people are doing. Why would the Jews care if non-Jews ate pork or not? They wouldn't, they aren't a part of their religion. Why would Jews AND Catholics care about sexual behavior? Because it kills people in addition to being a sin. I'm sorry, I know you want someone to validate your lifestyle, but having sex with multiple strangers really is more akin to drunk driving than it is to watching the thermometer on your pork-pot.

Frank

-- 2 (1@3.4), August 20, 2004.

About 25 years ago the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is the research branch of Planned Parenthood, did a major study on the effects of easy availability of condoms to adolescents. Their findings indicated what anyone with any common sense would have expected - that increased rates of sexual activity, with or without condoms, invariably leads to an increased number of unplanned pregnancies; and, that ready availability of condoms greatly increases the rate of sexual activity. The condom failure rate for a large number of brand tested ranged from 8 to 40 percent. The findings of this study were kept secret, and were only accidentally uncovered years later. The year following the conclusion of this study, Planned Parenthood began a program of distibuting free condoms to schools as a "public service".

Of course, this study didn't directly address the question of sexually transmitted diseases, just frequency of pregnancy. No surprise there since Planned Parenthood is in the business of selling abortions. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that the failure of a condom sufficient to allow the passage of sperm will also allow the passage of much smaller bacteria and viruses. In fact, the pores in many condom materials, while far smaller than the diameter of a sperm, are many times larger than viral particles.

Protection from STD's through use of condoms is at best a form of Russian Roulette, at worst an outright myth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 20, 2004.

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry said that if elected president he would support granting same-sex couples all the federal rights offered to married heterosexuals, according to a California Democratic politician who last week questioned Kerry at a San Francisco fund-raiser.

"He told me that he would grant all 1,049 federal rights to same-sex couples in whatever legal union their states recognize," Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, told the Washington Post.

"It's the first time in history that a presidential candidate has ever supported full and equal protection for same-sex couples," Leno said.

Kerry made his comments in a conversation with Leno and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., at a fund-raiser at the plush Mark Hopkins hotel last Friday, Leno said.

Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter confirmed that the conversation had taken place, and pointed out that Kerry's statements reflected his ongoing support for providing federal benefits to same-sex couples.

John Kerry believes that women have the right to control their own bodies, their own lives, and their own destinies. He believes that the Constitution protects their right to choose and to make their own decisions in consultation with their doctor, their conscience, and their God. He will defend this right as President. He recently announced he will support only pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court. Kerry also believes that we should promote family planning and health plans should assure women contraceptive coverage.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 20, 2004.

The Catholic Church also believes that women have the right to control their own bodies, their own lives, and their own destinies. But it does not recognize anyone's "right" to destroy the bodies, lives and destinies of other people, including their children.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 20, 2004.

Thank you Awakening for giving this forum a dose of reality and solid logic.

Paul, I somehow expected more from you. To say that condoms are "at best a form of Russian Roulette, at worst an outright myth" is irresponsible. Please don't spread misinformation. Isn't lying a sin?

Frank, you are right: "condoms will SLOW the spread of AIDS, but will NOT stop it." We agree that abstinence is the only fool proof way. The fact remains that if you use a condom you greatly reduce your risk. Despite any isolated, previously hidden studies, condoms are the second best option.

I don't intend for you to accept or even endorse condoms. But don't spread lies about their effectiveness to further your own agendas.

LB

-- Louise B (elbrinke@ecologyfund.net), August 20, 2004.

Louise,

I don't intend for you to accept or even endorse condoms. But don't spread lies about their effectiveness to further your own agendas.

First of all, *I* haven't spread any lies, only quoted facts. Second, implying condoms are some sort of AIDS prevention globally IS a lie, and you are the one spreading it. People don't always USE condoms, proven by the rate of AIDS increasing again among homosexuals in this country who both know lots about condoms, and don't always use them.

The agenda of someone pushing abstinence is quite clear -- saving lives by *stopping* HIV transmission and saving souls (although you may not believe the latter half of that).

The agenda of someone pushing condoms is basically saying, "we know you'll get AIDS at some point, but we'd like to put it off awhile if possible" and to make themselves feel good by allowing people to continue their current behaviors as if they are somehow a "right".

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 20, 2004.

Frank, did you read my post?

I said: The fact remains that if you use a condom you greatly reduce your risk." Of course condoms, by themselves, will not help prevent HIV/AIDS. But the use of condoms will. That's not a lie; it's the truth. And such is my agenda: truth. You are free to believe what you like religiously, but you cannot deny that condom use reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission. By the way... have you come up with an answer to my word problem? When you ignore certain facts and cling to others, you can argue for anything. LB

-- Louise B (elbrinke@ecologyfund.net), August 20, 2004.

I'm waiting for the apology for the accusation that I am a bigot and hater.

Toleration of human beings is one thing - insofar as all are created equal, all have rights and ought to be respected. But their IDEAS AND OPINIONS AND ARGUMENTS are a TOTALLY different thing.

Ideas can be right or wrong, good or bad, healthy or harmful...sane or insane, founded on fact or fiction. Therefore IDEAS don't warrant instant and absolute TOLERATION. They must earn it.

Now I opine and believe that the homosexual orientation is a mental illness. If you don't, then we can argue based on facts.

I believe that HIV/AIDS is 'caught' predominantly through sexual promiscuity, the majority of which occures in the USA in gay circles. Given their absolute minority status in our culture, the fact that they make up the majority of cases must mean that their particular style of sexual activity is particularly dangerous - and since they're the ones harping about how effective condoms are...it only stands to reason that they'd be the ones using them...to not much avail.

Now if I'm a bigot for the above (rather than merely wrong in my opinion) please explain how you are NOT a bigot as well for opposing my opinion!

Like I say boys, if you want to play ball, you'd better step up to the plate. Definitions, distinctions, and logic are required though otherwise we're wasting each other's time.

As far as I know I'm also the only one here posting about the need to be true friends to gays - though tough-love....real friends don't stand by and say nothing when they see friends doing risky and deadly things - even if the friend thinks its cool or fun. True friends will balk and urge them to refrain from such activities.

If I was a bigot I'd not have ARGUMENTS or REASONS or FACTS upon which to base my OPINION. But I do (CDC anyone?) so I'm not a bigot - just someone you don't agree with.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 20, 2004.

Louise,

I'm sorry, I didn't know you wanted an answer to that, but I'll try:

Allow me also to give you a word problem. Frank has $40. Louise has $15. Gaëtan Dugas has $20. Who has the most money? (Let me give you a hint. Don't pay attention to Frank, he skews the data.)

Here goes: Frank works and pays taxes, about 40% of his income, all things considered, that leaves him with 24 dollars. Factor in certain obligations to his business, that sucks up half of what's left, and he's left with 12 dollars. Not bad, really, his family's cared for.

Gaëtan Dugas had 20 dollars when he died in 1984. This was invested for him and ended up generating an overall return of 7% a year, which compounded monthly is now 14 years later worth 53.14 cents. Pretty good, and better than Frank by a long shot.

Louise starts out with 15 dollars, and as she tows the current party line, gets grants from the taxpayer to spread her politically correct belief on using condoms to help spread AIDS to both homosexuals, and heterosexuals. These grants total about 60 dollars leaving her with 75 dollars, making her the winner in income.

I don't know what these vignettes prove, but you are right, appearances are quite deceiving, Mrs. Richie.

You are free to believe what you like religiously, but you cannot deny that condom use reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission.

But Louise, condom use has been beat into people's FACES in the U.S., and the HIV transmission rate is rising again! Why are you still pushing something that isn't working?

Frank

-- 2 (1@3.4), August 20, 2004.

I didn't think I'd have to do this.

big·ot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

tol·er·ance n. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

agreement n. To come into or be in accord, as of opinion

...

Joe (and Frank), you might practice what you preach regarding definitions. Being tolerant of another view is not the same as agreeing with it. I am allowing you your own religious beliefs. I allow you to believe that contraceptives are sinful. I actually agree with you that abstinence is the best way to prevent HIV/AIDS. I, like you, do not agree with sexual promiscuity. I believe supporting arguments with numerical facts (as I have done). Not only am I tolerant of your beliefs, I even share several. This is not bigotry.

You, on the other hand, are not allowing anyone to advocate the use of condoms and pursue that agenda by spreading misinformation about them. You continuously claim that I am contributing to the demise and death of gays. You audaciously assert that "as far as [you] know [you're] also the only one here posting about the need to be true friends to gays." As if my views, which are different than yours and are obviously not respected or tolerated, are wrong, deadly and contrary to the cause of "saving souls" and lives. This, I'm sorry to say, shockingly ressembles bigotry.

I am not going to fight you anymore about the factual benefits of condom use. It's silly. I have only put forth that condom use helps prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and that HIV/AIDS is not an exclusively homosexual disease. I am offering facts, using complete sets of numbers (instead of choosing statistics that suit me).

So use your abbreviated statistics, ignore Africa, and pat yourselves on the back. Your aggression and close-mindedness is refreshingly Christian.

LB

-- Louise B (elbrinke@ecologyfund.net), August 20, 2004.

LOL, my bad, Dugas has been dead 20 years, not 14 as I added, so his pile increased to $80.77. I guess the AIDS victim/distributer is the winner here, although it does make one wonder...

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 20, 2004.

Even the porn industry doesn't promote condom use - for the same reason that the hoi poloi don't seem to use them: it's not as pleasurable with them "on" and in the all the heat and "spontanaity" of the moment, they're awkward to use.

And besides it's not the poor condom's fault - it's the person using it or misusing it! If you place yourself in a dangerous situation and bad things happen you have only yourself to blame.

Or what? You think two men who engage in consensual sodomy (oral and anal) should blame the Catholic Church's moral teaching (which doesn't force them to be there) or a piece of latex (which doesn't jump on to them each and every time) for becoming infected by means of blood, semen and other bodily fluids?

HIV is an equal opportunity virus...but it is transmitted via blood, semen and bodily fluids.... and some physical methods of transmission are higher risk than others... so we again have to focus on the ACTIONS of those involved rather than their SUBJECTIVE STATES OF MIND or the opinion of 3rd parties.

If everyone in the world just loved gays and empowered them and praised them to the skies and made condoms as ubiquitous as paper- clips...gays would STILL become infected with HIV at higher rates than any other segment of the population for the following objective reasons:

a) sodomy (oral and anal sex) exposes participants to more pathogens than heterosexual intercourse. If you deny this, you'd better invoke medical/biological proof.

b) people who identify themselves as "gay" tend to be more promiscuous, have more sexual partners than heterosexuals, half of whom are monogamous. The more partners you have, the higher the chance of infection becomes.

c) people who identify themselves as "gay" have emotional issues which tend towards indulging in purposefully risky, self-destructive behavior no matter how positive society is to them - including foregoing use of condoms, the imbibing of drugs and alcohol prior to orgies, and other scatalogical pursuits which in the best of situations is unhealthy from a strictly biological point of view.

And those of us online who point this out are basing ourselves on readily available medical information, NOT the bible or some moral theory. If you call me a bigot for the above...be prepared for being exhaustively proven wrong.

PS. Hey Steve, it's a pleasure to be agreeing on some issue with you.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 20, 2004.

ready availability of condoms greatly increases the rate of sexual activity.---Paul M.

Exactly!!!

Since manny of them are obviously not aware, that condoms reduce their risk of getting AIDS by nearly 98%, it would be the duty of the church to educate them about this. If you keep this knowledge from them, in order to teach them sexual abstinence, you kill them and in cosequence break the fifth commandment.--Awakening

It would be the duty of the church to educate them about the certain way to avoid AIDS: abstinence--100% effective. If the church promoted contraceptive use, not only would sexual activity increase, as Paul M. points out, but the church would be encouraging people to break the sixth commandment, as well as paragraphs 2353 and 2357 of the Catechism.

Manny people in Africa listen to the pope, if he would tell them to use some of those "billions of condoms" dumped at them, the rate of new infections would decrease by 98%... --Awakening

When I read this I had a vision of the Vatican handing out Papal condoms with the imprimatur on the wrapper. The Pope would undoubtedly win the Nobel Prize for that one. Perhaps we could tie this in to increase church attendance. People could come to church and get their free condoms, perhaps placed next to the holy water fount. Sorry, just had to share.

Oh, and if you didn't like this post, I am assuming you are an intolerant bigot. ;-)

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), August 20, 2004.

"So condoms are almost useless as an AIDS preventer." Steve, I must admit, I am a bit shocked by this statement. First of all, you start talking about chemical contraceptives, which are not ment to prevent AIDS, but pregnancy and then you talk about condoms having a faliure rate of up to 10%. The only contraceptive, that protects against AIDS are CONDOMS. (Awakening)

Maybe I didn’t express myself clearly because I mixed together several different points. I’ll try again.

1. Condoms are the LEAST effective of any form of contraceptive. This is an established fact. The “failure” rate is 5 to 10% in all the real-life scientific studies which have been done.

2. If condoms are so poor at preventing sperm cells reaching an ovum which is only present for at most a few days per month, it stands to reason that they are far LESS effective at preventing the spread of HIV particles which are present ALLL THE TIME in all bodily fluids of an infected person, and are FAR smaller than sperm cells (and smaller than the microscopic holes found in all rubber condoms). As Joe pointed out the types of activity undertaken by homosexuals makes condom failure particularly likely. So condoms ARE almost useless as an AIDS preventer.

3. Condoms MAY in theory REDUCE the transmission of HIV, but real-world studies tend to show that mass distribution and promotion of condoms as a primary strategy, if anything INCREASES the rate of spread of HIV infection. What I object to particularly is the line, still officially promoted by most “reproductive health” authorities, despite all the evidence, “As long as you use a condom you can do anything and not get AIDS”. Some are even still using the ludicrous line "Everyone who is sexually active should use condoms." (LOL! even if they are in a faithful marriage, and even if they want a child!)

Your comparison with methadone treatment for heroin addiction is faulty. (Yes I do know what I’m talking about, I’m a qualified pharmacist who used to be in charge of a methadone treatment center.) Methadone is given to help the addict REDUCE or STOP COMPLETELY his abuse of heroin which causes damage to himself and to society. Promoting condoms as an AIDS preventer, on the contrary, only encourages homosexuals (and heterosexuals) to MAINTAIN or INCREASE their promiscuity and the frequency and variety of the perverted acts which are a danger to the health of themselves and the rest of society.

People are not stupid. Despite having billions of condoms thrust on them and incessant “education” campaigns promoting condoms, most people still choose not to use them. In the overwhelming majority, this is not because of overt religious or moral objections as such, but because they don’t like them, don’t want them, and/or know they don’t work. In India alone, where trillions of "free" condoms have been distributed in the last 40 years, it is estimated that less than a quarter of them are used for sexual purposes. The ingenious Indians have found all manner of other uses for them, such as water containers and for polishing saris. They even melt thousands of them and add the goo to plaster roofs to make them waterproof, or to road-metal mixtures to make them durable and resistant to breaking up!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 20, 2004.

It skipped my mind earlier and I resent these lamers using my careless assumption to argue as facts.

It's absolutely true that condoms are porous. Condom membrane doesn't prevent the virus from diffusing across. Factor in the higher rate of failure from certain sexual activities, and we can say condoms are not effective at preventing AIDS.

Can't say I hope the facts will stop these propagandist. Something struck me reading Brian's quote from Awakening:

Manny people in Africa listen to the pope, if he would tell them to use some of those "billions of condoms" dumped at them, the rate of new infections would decrease by 98%...

Who in Africa doesn't use condoms and gets AIDS because they actually listen to the Pope Church??

Men and women who sodomize and fornicate? No. Neither listen to the Church. Although, they should. And if they would, they won't be at it.

Husbands and wives whose spouses got AIDS from fornicating?? Perhaps, but condoms wouldn't do any good once that happens. These are victims of their own spouses. Is it the condoms fault it can't protect against AIDS in marital union? No, it's the spouses' fault for bringing death home by not practicing propriety!

Here we have instigators touting condoms pretending concern for the well-being of others. But, as long as husbands and wives keep bringing AIDS home, their spouses will get AIDS. As long as sexual impropriety persists, it will claim more victims. The only recourse for them is to desist from licentiousness. It's reasonable to assume that if a woman's husband is known to have HIV/AIDS, they shouldn't be having sex!

Now, these antagonists insist people use condoms "for their own good". Fornicate away, and die(less Africans). Wives and husbands, even if your spouse has AIDS, use condoms, and get AIDS. If they don't have AIDS, protect yourself from them anyway(no more Africans).

It does appear these guys want Africans gone!

The only sound course is HIV testing and obedience to the Church's teachings...HIV testing would be of greatest help to victims of their own spouses.

Cheers,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 20, 2004.

So once and for all, for everyone, who argued against my numbers. After reading this, you should be aware, that most important in preventing AIDS, is to educate people in the correct use of condoms. If condoms are used as water containers in Africa, this should be enough eveidence to you, that the people are NOT adequatly educated in the use of condoms. The catholic church must stop spreading false information about the protective properties of condoms and you can help, by taking action in your own congregation. Let them know that if used correctly, condoms have a very high chance to save lifes.

Are condoms effective? Do condoms fail?

Are condoms effective at preventing infection with the HIV and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)?

Yes. Studies have shown that if a latex condom is used correctly every time you have sex, this is highly effective in providing protection against HIV.14

The evidence for this is clearest in studies of couples in which one person is infected with HIV and the other not. i.e. "discordant couples". In a study of discordant couples in Europe, among 123 couples who reported consistent condom use, none of the uninfected partners became infected. In contrast, among the 122 couples who used condoms inconsistently, 12 of the uninfected partners became infected.15

In addition, correct and consistent use of latex condoms can reduce the risk of other STDs.16

As these studies indicate, condoms must be used consistently and correctly to provide maximum protection. Consistent use means using a condom from start to finish with each act of intercourse. Correct condom use should include:17

Use a new condom for each act of intercourse Put on the condom as soon as erection occurs and before any sexual contact (vaginal, anal or oral). Hold the tip of the condom and unroll it onto the erect penis, leaving space at the tip of the condom, yet ensuring that no air is trapped in the condom's tip. Adequate lubrication is important, but use only water-based lubricants on latex condoms. Oil-based lubricants such as petroleum jelly (vaseline), cold cream, hand lotion or baby oil can weaken the latex condom and are not recommended. However, oil-based lubricants can be used with condoms made of polyurethane. Withdraw from the partner immediately after ejaculation, holding the condom firmly to keep it from slipping off.

More information about using condoms can be found here.

How often do condoms fail?

There is no one answer to this, as different studies have shown different results. Many studies of condom effectiveness have counted how often women have become pregnant when their partners have used condoms for birth control. This "failure rate" includes cases where the couple did not use a condom every time they had sex, or they did not use the condom correctly. Some studies have included the times the condom was torn accidentally by people using it.18

The main reason that condoms sometimes fail to prevent HIV/STD infection or pregnancy is incorrect or inconsistent use, not the failure of the condom itself. Using oil-based lubricants can weaken the latex, causing the condom to break. Condoms can also be weakened by exposure to heat or sunlight or by age, or they can be torn by teeth or fingernails. Also, remember to check the expiry date of your condom!19

How often do condoms break or slip off?

In the United States most studies of breakage caused by fault in the condom itself, have shown breakage rate is less than 2 condoms out of every 100 condoms. Studies also indicate that condoms slip of the penis in about 1-5% of acts of vaginal intercourse and slip down (but not off) about 3-13% of the time.20

How are condoms tested?

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates condoms to ensure their safety and effectiveness. Different countries have different regulatory agencies. For example, condoms in Europe that have been properly tested and approved should carry the CE Mark. Elsewhere in the world, you can find that condoms are ISO approved. Also, individual countries may have their own approval marks for condoms, for example, the Kitemark in the UK.

In the US, each condom is electronically tested for holes and defects.21 Also, condom manufacturers sample each lot of finished packaged condoms and visually examine them for holes using a water leak test. Condom manufacturers also tests lots for physical characteristics using the air burst test and the tensile (strength) test.

The FDA, for example, recognises domestic and international standards that specify that the rate of sampled condoms failing the water leak test, for each manufacturing lot of condoms, be less than 1 condom in 400.22

--------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------

References

1 Durex website: History of Condoms www.durex.com , accessed 12/1/04 2 Durex website: History of Condoms www.durex.com , accessed 12/1/04 3 Himes N.E. (1936) 'Medical history of contraception', Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins in Lewis M. 'A Brief history of condoms' in Mindel A. (2000) 'Condoms', BMJ books 4 Langley L. L. (ed)(1973) 'Contraception' Stroudsburg: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross in Lewis M. 'A Brief history of condoms' in Mindel A. (2000) 'Condoms', BMJ books 5 Fryer P. (1965) 'the Birth controllers', London: Secker and Warburg and Dingwall EJ. (1953) 'Early contraceptive sheaths' BMJ, Jan 1: 40-1 in Lewis M. 'A Brief history of condoms' in Mindel A. (2000) 'Condoms', BMJ books 6 Fryer P. (1965) 'the Birth controllers', London: Secker and Warburg and Dingwall EJ. (1953) 'Early contraceptive sheaths' BMJ, Jan 1: 40-1 in Lewis M. 'A Brief history of condoms' in Mindel A. (2000) 'Condoms', BMJ books 7 Lewis M. 'A Brief history of condoms' in Mindel A. (2000) 'Condoms', BMJ books 8 Fryer P. (1965) 'the Birth controllers', London: Secker and Warburg and Dingwall EJ. (1953) 'Early contraceptive sheaths' BMJ, Jan 1: 40-1 in Lewis M. 'A Brief history of condoms' in Mindel A. (2000) 'Condoms', BMJ books 9 Himes N.E. (1936) 'Medical history of contraception', Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins in Lewis M. 'A Brief history of condoms' in Mindel A. (2000) 'Condoms', BMJ books 10 Durex website: History of Condoms www.durex.com , accessed 12/1/04 and Lewis M. 'A Brief history of condoms' in Mindel A. (2000) 'Condoms', BMJ books 11 Lewis M. 'A Brief history of condoms' in Mindel A. (2000) 'Condoms', BMJ books 12 Durex website: History of Durex www.durex.com , accessed 12/1/04 13 Lewis M. 'A Brief history of condoms' in Mindel A. (2000) 'Condoms', BMJ books 14 CDC (2003) 'Male latex condoms and sexually transmitted diseases', Fact sheet for public health personnel 15 De Vincenzi I. (1994) 'A longitudinal study of human immunodeficiency virus transmission by heterosexual partners', the New England Journal of Medicine; 331:341-346 16 CDC (2003) 'Male latex condoms and sexually transmitted diseases', Fact sheet for public health personnel 17 CDC (1993) ' Basic facts about condoms and their use in preventing HIV infection and other STDs', July 30 18 Sexuality Information and education Council of the United States (SIECUS) (2002) 'Fact Sheet: The truth about condoms', November 19 CDC (1999) 'Condoms and their use in preventing HIV infection and other STDs', September 20 CDC (1999) 'Condoms and their use in preventing HIV infection and other STDs', September 21 Nordenberg T. (1998) 'Condoms: barriers to bad news', FDA Consumer Magazine, March-April 22 NIAIDD (2001) 'Workshop Summary: Scientific evidence on condom effectiveness for sexually transmitted disease (STD) prevention, June 12-13, 200, Hyatt Dulles Airport, Hernon, Virginia', July 20

-- Awakening (nospam@please.com), August 21, 2004.

Awakening, your reference to a "success rate" of latex condoms of 95% or more is besides the point: all of us are arguing that the use of condoms INCREASES the FREQUENCY of the risky behavior (sexual relations).

So here's what's going on: you ASSUME that people can't change their risky behavior (having sex with many partners) whereas we ASSUME that a RATIONAL PERSON who realizes the danger of multiple partners, would change this behavior.

Since we believe people can change their behavior, we see that alternatives to less than perfect contraceptive devices ought to be taught first. You assume that "people will do it anyway" so emphasize the barriers available to limit the damage.

So which one of us is more rational? We see the danger is in the act, so ask people to avoid the act - you see the danger isn't in the act but only in the virus - so see to limit its access...

If your side wins the debate and 100% of people use condoms...people will continue to die of AIDS until the end of time. If our side wins the debate and 100% of people refrain from fornication, premarital and extramarital sex...then HIV will disappear in a single generation.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 27, 2004.

A "95% success rate" means that one time in 20 you lose. If a couple makes love twice weekly, that means more than 20 "failures" a year. Doesn't sound like very good odds to me, apart from the moral issues.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 27, 2004.

"..95% success rate" means that one time in 20 you lose. If a couple makes love twice weekly, that means more than 20 "failures" a year. Doesn't sound like very good odds to me, apart from the moral issues. "

I agree with what you debating about. But, I think your math is off. If you take the 2 times weekly times 52= 104 times a year. The 5% failure rate on 104 times a year would be 5.2 failures not 20.

Come on Paul your a scientist. :-)[Just kidding :-)]

-- - (David@excite.com), August 27, 2004.

Oops! Sorry about that. (I was in the lab when I did the calculations too!). I'm relieved that couples relying on condoms can only get pregnant 5.2 times a year, not 20! :-) Thanks David.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 27, 2004.

I just read in the paper where the U.S.'s contribution to the world AIDS/TB fund this year was 547 million dollars. The .gov put on a condition that we be contributing no more than 1/3 of the world's total contribution to the fund. So far we've contributed our share, but have witheld 120 million as the rest of the world hasn't contributed theirs.

What do you think "Awakening" is 547 million enough for one year for our country to be contributing to just ONE fund?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 27, 2004.

"So which one of us is more rational? We see the danger is in the act, so ask people to avoid the act - you see the danger isn't in the act but only in the virus - so see to limit its access... "

The missasumtion you are making is, that you can tell people to stop having sex. But this is not realistic. AIDS does not work like a Pawlow conditioning box. People enjoy the sex and 20 years later they die. So instead of still believing you can keep them away, from what they enjoy it would be much better to educate them about the proper use of condoms... you can still teach them to have less sex, that is no contradiction. But it is much more probable, you will get them to use condoms, than it is to make them stop having sex at all. I am really confused, why you can't see that...

-- Awakening (nospam@please.com), August 28, 2004.

Awakening, the “misassumption” that you are making is that you think people are simply animals who have an irresistible drive to promiscuous sexual intercourse which they MUST act upon, even when they know it is bad for their physical, mental and spiritual health. This is not so. Every human sexual act is the result of a decision made by one or more humans to do it. In every case, they are free to decide otherwise. It is not a matter of “educating” people about condoms. (at least not the “education” you mean.) You assume people in the Third World are too stupid to use condoms despite all the “condom education” they have received. Wrong. They are intelligent enough to see that using condoms is wrong and harmful, (even though you fall for the self-serving claims on the websites of Durex and other condom manufacturers). That is why they use the free condoms for more useful purposes.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 29, 2004.

Some HIV/AIDS stats from 2 reports

Report #1:

EXPOSURE RATES for SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES Chance that a woman will pickup an HIV infection from a HIV positive male through one vaginal intercourse event: One in two chance. Chance that a man will pickup a HIV infection from a HIV positive female through one vaginal intercourse event: 12% chance. Chance that one homosexual bout of anal receptive intercourse will lead to a HIV infection: One in 50 to one in 100 chance. Chance that a single needle stick from a HIV positive patient will lead to a HIV infection in a healthcare professional: One in 200 chance. Chance that a male with active gonorrhea will give it to a female sex partner with one episode of vaginal intercourse: One in 2 chance. Chance that a female with active gonorrhea will give it to a male sex partner with one episode of vaginal intercourse: One in 4 chance. Chance that a male who is infected with Hepatitis B will transfer hepatitis to a female sex partner with one episode of vaginal intercourse: One in 63 chance. Chance that a female who is infected with Hepatitis B will transfer hepatitis to a male sex partner with one episode of vaginal intercourse: One in 90 chance. Condom Failure Rate: 7 to 22% (depending on which study you read)

Report #2:

Type of Contact ..... Risk per act

Anal sex without condoms with positive partner Bottom ..... 0.82%

Anal sex without condoms with partner of unknown status Bottom ..... 0.27% Top ..... 0.06%

Anal sex using condom with partner of unknown status Bottom ..... 0.18% Top ..... 0.04%

Oral sex without a condom Person sucking ..... 0.04%

(I've had these a long time, I didnt keep a note of the sources. if anyone cares, I'm sure they can be found via Google)

The "95% success rate" calculations above are inaccurate. If each case was independent, then the chances of succeeding each of the 104 times a year, would be 0.95 ^ 104 = 0.422%

However this is highly misleading. The statistic is for random condom failure, but it masks several factors. Examples of reeasons why this kind of calculation should be taken with a pinch of salt include the following interconnected possibilities:

1. Not all condoms are alike. Theres a world of difference between a condom designed for light use and "feel", and one designed for heavy duty use or anal intercourse.

2. The experiences of a given person or couple are not independent as required for the above calculation. That's because a couple have their own sexual style, use their own preferred brand. This means that a *given* couple may have a 20% chance of breakage - or a 0.1% chance. The 95% is a generalisation and includes all condom use, including people who are neither careful, who are drunk, who use inappropriate thickness or design of condom, etc.

3. People in relationships who still use condoms may well also have sex more carefully or avoid or reduce these risks, so the rate may well be different for that couple.

4. Some couples rarely or never have breakage, because of care, or lubrication, or gentle sex, or use of heavy duty condoms.

5. Many couples in long term relationships who care enough to take such precautions also take other precautions. They have assessed the other persons history (which is contrary to rumour not always lied about), have taken blood tests, or the like.

6. If a condom breaks, the usual course of action is to withdraw upon noticing, so potentially a large number of breakages are rapidly followed by termination of the sex act (or replacement condom) reducing the risk of harm.

7. The low odds of transmission suggested above for homosexuals (1- 2% homosexual compared to 50% heterosexual per incident) suggest that event several breakages or similar unprotected events may not be very high risk. So it is surely not a case of "one break, high risk" if these figures are as they suggest.

-- Paul S. (none@na.com), October 04, 2004.

Odd that, acordign tot he CDC, 60% of all HIV cases are from Homosexuals. Your statistic seems flawed, and unrelaible, in light of that relaity. Unless yo want ot explain why the safest group for HIV transmisison, Homosexuals, are also the most commonly affected, even though they make up less than 4% of the populace...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 04, 2004.

It doesn't matter if some animals do it. And if some animals do it to other kinds of animals, this does not make bestiality natural either, or what ever you call it in the case of 2 different animals. Killing is natural and occurs althrough the animal kindom as well, but the Catholic Church does not condone this I assume. The Catholic Church does not model itself from the animal Kindom, or natural law but divine law supposively.

This is why we have laws, this is part of society. Rectal sex is harmful and can kill. If you get excrement in an open wound for instance this can be fatal. The Cong used bungy sticks for this in Vietnam because they knew all the disease excrement carries. This is why when you are shot in the stomach, you usually do not die from the bleeding, but the poisionious toxins that gets in your blood stream. Excrement carries a lot of these properties, toxins.

Like I said this is why we have laws for man and rules. And why a man is judged on the code he follows. The Catholic Church is supposed to be the guide for man. Although I think a lot of their stuff is hooey and not for me.

-- Jessie (pike159@aol.com), October 05, 2004.