Openly gay and Catholic

[Trailblazer]

Saying that being gay is not something I want to do because of religious or personal convictions? Fine.

But that was not fine because the pro-gay people do not accept my religious convictions.

Saying gays are clinically unhealthy for being gay? Not fine. Not true. Causes harm to the gay community. Should be called out.

So then it is not okay to point out the increased health risks in a forum debate? It is not as if I am saying this to the gay community.

I would never even have brought this up if people had not been calling me a bigot. That is what led me to research the topic.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

But that was not fine because the pro-gay people do not accept my religious convictions.

I don't accept your religious convictions. But I'm also not inclined to debate them. I will debate medical knowledge though because that's my field and interest.

So then it is not okay to point out the increased health risks in a forum debate? It is not as if I am saying this to the gay community.

It's not okay in the sense that I probably won't ignore it and pass it by without response.
And there are very much people here part of the gay community and those who harm them on RF.

I would never even have brought this up if people had not been calling me a bigot. That is what led me to research the topic.

Other people being rude isn't a good reason to propagate misinformation. The research you used was very biased and made a lot of very incorrect conclusions to stigmatize gay people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But that was not fine because the pro-gay people do not accept my religious convictions.

So then it is not okay to point out the increased health risks in a forum debate? It is not as if I am saying this to the gay community.

I would never even have brought this up if people had not been calling me a bigot. That is what led me to research the topic.

I think that we have pointed out that your church is bigoted and it is hard to support that church without appearing to being bigoted oneself.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

The problem is that it is not all personal views. The position is that some of us have actual disorders and we have actual libertarian metaphysical free will.
She can believe all she likes personally, but that is not the only thing she does.

I still don't agree with resorting to the disparaging name-calling. While I believe it is fair to disagree with her personal opinions and religious convictions, I believe it is unacceptable to disparage her character and call her names. There are several individuals on RF with whom I disagree, but when I speak to them, I try to remember that they are fellow humans with feelings that can be hurt. I also try to remember to treat them the way I would like to be treated. If I cross the line in anger and am less than kind to another member, then I'll make an effort to apologize to them and edit my post if I can. I'm by no means perfect, but I try to make amends when I can.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't accept your religious convictions. But I'm also not inclined to debate them. I will debate medical knowledge though because that's my field and interest.

It's not okay in the sense that I probably won't ignore it and pass it by without response.
And there are very much people here part of the gay community and those who harm them on RF.

Other people being rude isn't a good reason to propagate misinformation. The research you used was very biased and made a lot of very incorrect conclusions to stigmatize gay people.

Can you show how what I have posted by way of medical facts is misinformation? I am not looking to support any position, I just want to know the truth.

Can you prove that what I posted about the dangers of anal sex is false information? Never mind what that means regarding homosexuality being a healthy lifestyle, although to say that those two are unrelated is illogical. Even if only 60% of gay men engage in anal sex that is still a lot of people.

Can you show that The Health Risks of Gay Sex as posted in the article I posted do not exist, so someone just made all this up and wrote an article because they had an anti-gay agenda ? Never mind that it is Christian-based, it cited 129 references from other sources.

Maybe they are biased by an anti-gay agenda, but is it possible that you are also biased by a pro-gay agenda?
But facts are facts and facts can be proven, and I just want to know the facts.

I cannot help it if medical facts stigmatize gay people. Facts are facts and they are either true or false.
How is it harming gay people to show that there are health risks to their behavior? I would rather think it is helping them.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think that we have pointed out that your church is bigoted and it is hard to support that church without appearing to being bigoted oneself.

And I have pointed out at least a dozen times that a religious law is not bigotry. It does not fit the definition so is not bigotry.

Bigotry: obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bigotry+means

If you want to 'believe' that Baha'is are bigoted because they have an "obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief about gays or a prejudice against gay people on the basis of their membership in that group" you could be right, but you could also be wrong, since you don't know what anyone is thinking unless they tell you what they are thinking, and I have heard no Baha'is saying that is what they are thinking.

What I have seen on this forum is an obstinate and unreasonable attachment to the belief that Baha'is are bigots and prejudice against the Baha'is on the basis of their membership in that group. That fits the definition of bigotry quite well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I have pointed out at least a dozen times that a religious law is not bigotry. It does not fit the definition so is not bigotry.

Bigotry: obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bigotry+means

If you want to 'believe' that Baha'is are bigoted because they have an "obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief about gays or a prejudice against gay people on the basis of their membership in that group" you could be right, but you could also be wrong, since you don't know what anyone is thinking unless they tell you what they are thinking, and I have heard no Baha'is saying that is what they are thinking.

What I have seen on this forum is an obstinate and unreasonable attachment to the belief that Baha'is are bigots and prejudice against the Baha'is on the basis of their membership in that group. That fits the definition of bigotry quite well.

You do not seem to understand. Yes, a religious law can be bigotry. It is as simple as that. People often try to blame their God for their bad behavior.

The good news is that in the US at least, most Baha'i's do not seem to follow this belief, just as most Christians do not follow the biblical teachings about homosexuality.

It is not at all unusual for people to have better morals than the religion that they follow.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Can you show how what I have posted by way of medical facts is misinformation? I am not looking to support any position, I just want to know the truth.

Can you prove that what I posted about the dangers of anal sex is false information? Never mind what that means regarding homosexuality being a healthy lifestyle, although to say that those two are unrelated is illogical. Even if only 60% of gay men engage in anal sex that is still a lot of people.

Can you show that The Health Risks of Gay Sex as posted in the article I posted do not exist, so someone just made all this up and wrote an article because they had an anti-gay agenda ? Never mind that it is Christian-based, it cited 129 references from other sources.

Maybe they are biased by an anti-gay agenda, but is it possible that you are also biased by a pro-gay agenda?
But facts are facts and facts can be proven, and I just want to know the facts.

I cannot help it if medical facts stigmatize gay people. Facts are facts and they are either true or false.
How is it harming gay people to show that there are health risks to their behavior? I would rather think it is helping them.

I have *already* shown you. But here's a bulleted list of what we've already been over:

• The article uses things like depression and suicide, as well as drugs and domestic violence as ammunition against homosexuality even though these elevated statistics apply to many minorities including racial minorities or people with disabilities. It is not because being black or Indigenous or gay is bad, it's because of complex socioeconomic factors associated with being a stigmatized minority. Labeling it as a problem with gay people and not the culture they exist in is misinformation.
• Less than half of lgbt people have anal sex, and lesbians are the least at risk, not straight people.
• The best way toward mitigating risks of HIV towards gay people is not to tell them not to be gay, but to use sti prevention and preventative measures to stop injuries (this is true of all sex.)

To add to what we've covered: the article is wrong that hiv continues to increase.
There are pockets where it has (such as in some minority groups or in high poverty areas like the American South) but in many places hiv rates among gays have been steadily declining.
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-...-among-gay-white-americans-but-not-minorities
HIV diagnoses in gay and bisexual men at 20-year low
HIV now infects more heterosexual people than gay or bisexual men – we need a new strategy

I want to post more but I'm on my phone and at work. If you really want just the truth, you've already looked at the evangelical viewpoint, why not look into the LGBT viewpoint?

 

[DNB]

Yes, but our understanding of things that affect us has grown significantly. If you said "A woman's hormones largely determines her sex drive" 20 centuries ago, no one would have a clue what you were talking about.

....but, that's the point: you're wrong. It is a person's spirit that determines their sex drive - spiritually enlightened people want affection.
Whereas, , crass, shallow & vulgar people simply want flesh - and any flesh will do when it's booty call - their spirit determines their lusts..

 

[rational experiences]

The gay sex that took disease into hetrosexual life is real.

Aids.

Now in humans past animal cell bodies in plague conditions gained worm infestation. It didn't allow humans to eat particular flesh. And it was notated brain mind attacked by worms also. Tainted flesh.

Blood letting notified as a particular cleansing of meat. Occurred bacterial cells formed in blood.

Real.

Humans water mass life support loss to flooding cooling gas sacrificed body above by technology.... introduced new bacterias in our cells blood. As blood is water based fluid.

Known a penis is an open tunnel channel into a blood engorged reaction.

Introduced bacterial invasion from excreta. Into humans blood. Via anal sex.

Medical advice today is no different from healers astute medical reasons past.

I learnt visionary healing gave me exact criteria of cell body dysfunction without being told. In the psychic vision. No different to how a scientist man first theoried himself.

Just my own proof healers of the past were accurate.

Healer advice is biblical.

Healers cared for human health in law terms ignored.

It was human care advice also.

Now technology gives you a plastic sheath to cover your penis. Do you use it? No. Human behaviour ignoring medical advice.

 

[rational experiences]

The gay sex that took disease into hetrosexual life is real.

Aids.

Now in humans past animal cell bodies in plague conditions gained worm infestation. It didn't allow humans to eat particular flesh. And it was notated brain mind attacked by worms also. Tainted flesh.

Blood letting notified as a particular cleansing of meat. Occurred bacterial cells formed in blood.

Real.

Humans water mass life support loss to flooding cooling gas sacrificed body above by technology.... introduced new bacterias in our cells blood. As blood is water based fluid.

Known a penis is an open tunnel channel into a blood engorged reaction.

Introduced bacterial invasion from excreta. Into humans blood. Via anal sex.

Medical advice today is no different from healers astute medical reasons past.

I learnt visionary healing gave me exact criteria of cell body dysfunction without being told. In the psychic vision. No different to how a scientist man first theoried himself.

Just my own proof healers of the past were accurate.

Healer advice is biblical.

Healers cared for human health in law terms ignored.

It was human care advice also.

Now technology gives you a plastic sheath to cover your penis. Do you use it? No. Human behaviour ignoring medical advice.

Today anal sex is a norm so I've been told in young population.

Why hetrosexual HIV increased.

The feedback spirit of Lust is your own body mind.

As recording image self voice is your own. Recording is a heavens one of status is not to blame.

Sin a teaching baby life mind brain to body responses changed by DNA missing no longer expressed.

As baby depends on parent memory sex natural law baby. Sex to gain baby law parent man woman proved its case already in our past.

No such status lustful spirit. It's changed human chemical body mind responses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

....but, that's the point: you're wrong. It is a person's spirit that determines their sex drive - spiritually enlightened people want affection.
Whereas, , crass, shallow & vulgar people simply want flesh - and any flesh will do when it's booty call - their spirit determines their lusts..

Not true at all. And I need to bring this up. There have been studies linked with homophobia and latent homosexuality. I have seen time and time again statements from various homophobic people that indicate that they think that homosexuality is a choice. It may be a choice for them since sexuality is a spectrum. In the studies homophobic people were shown to have a positive reaction to gay porn. It excited them sexually. The only people that I have seen to claim that "homosexuality is a choice" were also rather homophobic. That along with the study indicates that homosexuality is a choice for them. And since it is not that uncommon for people to have messed up religious beliefs they have an irrational fear stemming from that religion that prevents them from exploring that side of themselves. They tend to be very jealous of the gay men that can live the life that they were born to live.

 

[Left Coast]

I have *already* shown you. But here's a bulleted list of what we've already been over:

• The article uses things like depression and suicide, as well as drugs and domestic violence as ammunition against homosexuality even though these elevated statistics apply to many minorities including racial minorities or people with disabilities. It is not because being black or Indigenous or gay is bad, it's because of complex socioeconomic factors associated with being a stigmatized minority. Labeling it as a problem with gay people and not the culture they exist in is misinformation.
• Less than half of lgbt people have anal sex, and lesbians are the least at risk, not straight people.
• The best way toward mitigating risks of HIV towards gay people is not to tell them not to be gay, but to use sti prevention and preventative measures to stop injuries (this is true of all sex.)

To add to what we've covered: the article is wrong that hiv continues to increase.
There are pockets where it has (such as in some minority groups or in high poverty areas like the American South) but in many places hiv rates among gays have been steadily declining.
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-...-among-gay-white-americans-but-not-minorities
HIV diagnoses in gay and bisexual men at 20-year low
HIV now infects more heterosexual people than gay or bisexual men – we need a new strategy

I want to post more but I'm on my phone and at work. If you really want just the truth, you've already looked at the evangelical viewpoint, why not look into the LGBT viewpoint?

The other thing about using HIV as some sort of evidence that gay sex is bad is this: HIV has only existed for 40 years. These people's religions have been proclaiming the evils of gay sex for centuries. All of a sudden some new disease is their proof? How about the gay sex that happened for millenia before HIV existed? Was that just as morally problematic? If so, their objection to gay sex isn't about HIV. That is their latest excuse, but it is not the bedrock reason.

 

[metis]

Well, this is all news to me. 'Going through menopause' implies that you get through it.
I entered menopause early, in my late 40s, like my mother, and I never had any hot flashes or any other symptoms, I just stopped bleeding.

Not all women are the same, nor do they all have exactly the same timing and symptoms. The cessation of bleeding does not stop estrogen by itself.

BTW, men also go through menopause but usually the symptoms are milder.

 

[Subduction Zone]

BTW, men also go through menopause but usually the symptoms are milder.

And involve Ferarris and 26 year old blonde women.

 

[metis]

....but, that's the point: you're wrong. It is a person's spirit that determines their sex drive - spiritually enlightened people want affection.
Whereas, , crass, shallow & vulgar people simply want flesh - and any flesh will do when it's booty call - their spirit determines their lusts..

On this, I go by the scientific research because I am a scientist, now retired, thus not what's found in any scriptures.

There's tons of research on this, but will you actually look any up? If so, maybe even start here: Hormone - Wikipedia

 

[metis]

And involve Ferarris and 26 year old blonde women.

How about a Ford Escape and Latinas?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How about a Ford Escape and Latinas?

Only in Southern California.

 

[Trailblazer]

And involve Ferarris and 26 year old blonde women.

I don't know what I would do without you Sub, as I would have nothing to laugh about, given my rather sad life situation.
You always brighten my day, no need for sun.

 

[DNB]

On this, I go by the scientific research because I am a scientist, now retired, thus not what's found in any scriptures.

There's tons of research on this, but will you actually look any up? If so, maybe even start here: Hormone - Wikipedia

Who's talking Scripture, every point that I made was empirically based.
As we mature our desires and priorities change - what we found pleasure with in the past is an offense to us now.
Wisdom overrides the desires of the flesh - this is experience talking, merely underscored by Scripture.
Enlightened people assess their partners by their character, whereas the immature and secular are compelled by looks and ostentation.
This is not a biological issue, but a spiritual one - as are all the desires that come from our hearts.