So Is Pope Francis Leading The Catholics Into Tolerance, Did The Lds Church Just Lose A Political Ally?

[Stone holm]

stoneholm

Apparently the Chicago Diocese was filled with homosexual priests during the 70's and the strong belief is that Pope Benedict and his consort are gay and he was about to be exposed which is why he abdicated and now lives with his consort in the Vatican.

3DOP

I would like to ask in what way is the Chicago Archdiocese of 40 years ago related to "the strong belief" that Pope Benedict abdicated this year because he is an active homosexual?

This seems like saying, "Apparently Al Capone was a Chicago gangster and someone (your brother?) has 'the strong belief' that Konrad Adenauer murdered his political rivals." (Even though he was never so charged).

My point is that there seems to be no connection whatsoever between the "apparent" allegation, and the much less apparent "strong belief". Could you explain?

Oh sorry. Stream of consciousness, the Chicago Archdiocese being filled with gays 40 years ago was connected to my brother's introduction to the community. He was living in Chicago at the time and his first gay lover was an ex-Priest associated with that area. The priest had apparently left the diocese because of the amount of pedophilia which he said was going on there amongst other things. No connection to the prior Pope -- the basis there has to do with his consort, I guess.

[why me]

Oh I see, You know what the "gay lifestyle" is based on your experience in college. Well just how different is the college gay life style from the college straight lifestyle? Are you really going to judge all gays by what you saw going on in college? I was around San Francisco during the late 60's early 70's. Should the media portray all straights by what was going on in the during that time of free love and excessive drug use? I am the first to admit that there is a lot of immoral behavior in the gay community. I am also the first one to admit there is a lot of immoral behavior in the straight community.

I can see all kinds of straight immorality on the television, especially in drama series. I don't see gay immorality on the television. What I usually see is a gay guy who is funny and loveable for the audience to laugh and bond with and this is for a reason. Do you think that the hetero world would be so pro gay at this moment if their favorite gay character would attempt to pick up a guy in a public rest room like george michael did? And yet, this is what I experienced in New York every day whether it was in Macy's or at NYU as gay men would be looking for a hook up. Or our favorite gay character having several men a month from pick up bars? Or in a gay bath house? And yet, this is a part of the gay lifestyle too and the high rate of HIV among young gay males are a sign that the 70s are back in vogue.

One can not separate the positive perception of gays on television series from the pro gay lifestyle sentiment in the publjc mind by stressing that the gay lifestyle is just like the hetero lifestyle. I just want the media to be honest in presenting the gay lifestyle so that young gay men can be helped from catching HIV.

[california boy]

I can see all kinds of straight immorality on the television, especially in drama series. I don't see gay immorality on the television. What I usually see is a gay guy who is funny and loveable for the audience to laugh and bond with and this is for a reason. Do you think that the hetero world would be so pro gay at this moment if their favorite gay character would attempt to pick up a guy in a public rest room like george michael did? And yet, this is what I experienced in New York every day whether it was in Macy's or at NYU as gay men would be looking for a hook up. Or our favorite gay character having several men a month from pick up bars? Or in a gay bath house? And yet, this is a part of the gay lifestyle too and the high rate of HIV among young gay males are a sign that the 70s are back in vogue.

One can not separate the positive perception of gays on television series from the pro gay lifestyle sentiment in the publjc mind by stressing that the gay lifestyle is just like the hetero lifestyle. I just want the media to be honest in presenting the gay lifestyle so that young gay men can be helped from catching HIV.

Since you seem to be unwavering on this issue, i would like to apologize on behalf of the media for not having enough negative gay sterotypes of your liking on television. It would be so much more uplifting to the gay community and evidently to you if the media portrayed the "gay lifestyle" to fit more what you want it to be. Jeeze, what a position to take.

[Stone holm]

I can see all kinds of straight immorality on the television, especially in drama series. I don't see gay immorality on the television. What I usually see is a gay guy who is funny and loveable for the audience to laugh and bond with and this is for a reason. Do you think that the hetero world would be so pro gay at this moment if their favorite gay character would attempt to pick up a guy in a public rest room like george michael did? And yet, this is what I experienced in New York every day whether it was in Macy's or at NYU as gay men would be looking for a hook up. Or our favorite gay character having several men a month from pick up bars? Or in a gay bath house? And yet, this is a part of the gay lifestyle too and the high rate of HIV among young gay males are a sign that the 70s are back in vogue.

One can not separate the positive perception of gays on television series from the pro gay lifestyle sentiment in the publjc mind by stressing that the gay lifestyle is just like the hetero lifestyle. I just want the media to be honest in presenting the gay lifestyle so that young gay men can be helped from catching HIV.

Don't you suspect that is because hetero sex sells and the market for homo sex is not as lucrative? Catching HIV is more likely when people are promiscuous -- so lets oppose SSM so that gays are less likely to form stable committed relationships -- that makes sense...uh...

[why me]

Don't you suspect that is because hetero sex sells and the market for homo sex is not as lucrative? Catching HIV is more likely when people are promiscuous -- so lets oppose SSM so that gays are less likely to form stable committed relationships -- that makes sense...uh...

American television doesn't address the problems of gay sex. They avoid it because they know that heteros would be repulsed. However, by avoiding the issues and showing gay men as the guy next door with a 'hetero' type lifestyle, american media allows for young gay men to be promiscuous because such issues as gay promiscuous behavior are not addressed. And this costs lives because at this moment the young gay lifestyle is one of promiscuity, thus the high rate of HIV.

However, by showing such gay lifestyles, the public may have been less supportive of gay marriage.

[why me]

Since you seem to be unwavering on this issue, i would like to apologize on behalf of the media for not having enough negative gay sterotypes of your liking on television. It would be so much more uplifting to the gay community and evidently to you if the media portrayed the "gay lifestyle" to fit more what you want it to be. Jeeze, what a position to take.

It is not my position nor is it a negative stereotype but it is the research that exists. Young gay men are promiscuous and because of this HIV is increasing and spreading once more in the young gay community. By showing realistic gay lifestyles and the consequences of such a lifesyle, the gay community would benefit. However, heteros may be just a little turned off. But we would be saving lives. How would you explain the spike in HIV among young gay men? Because they are monogamous?

As you know...since the antiviral drugs have become better, young gay men think that they can be promiscuous. HIV is no longer a death sentence so it is believed. But ask any HIV doctor and they would say otherwise.

Edited August 2, 2013 by why me

[Stone holm]

American television doesn't address the problems of gay sex. They avoid it because they know that heteros would be repulsed. However, by avoiding the issues and showing gay men as the guy next door with a 'hetero' type lifestyle, american media allows for young gay men to be promiscuous because such issues as gay promiscuous behavior are not addressed. And this costs lives because at this moment the young gay lifestyle is one of promiscuity, thus the high rate of HIV.

However, by showing such gay lifestyles, the public may have been less supportive of gay marriage.

American television doesn't address the problems of either gay or hetero sex, it addresses sex that sells and that is hetero sex.

[why me]

American television doesn't address the problems of either gay or hetero sex, it addresses sex that sells and that is hetero sex.

But it does show heteros in all sorts of sexual situations. But it does tend to ignore gay sexual behavior. Sitcoms with gay characters usually have asexual characters. What is important for the sitcom with the gay character is to show him in a positive light.

[california boy]

It is not my position nor is it a negative stereotype but it is the research that exists. Young gay men are promiscuous and because of this HIV is increasing and spreading once more in the young gay community. By showing realistic gay lifestyles and the consequences of such a lifesyle, the gay community would benefit. However, heteros may be just a little turned off. But we would be saving lives. How would you explain the spike in HIV among young gay men? Because they are monogamous?

As you know...since the antiviral drugs have become better, young gay men think that they can be promiscuous. HIV is no longer a death sentence so it is believed. But ask any HIV doctor and they would say otherwise.

So let me get this straight. You think that if TV showed more promiscuous gays, then it would help young gay men have less sex? Or is it that you think doctors want to show gays as being more promiscuous so that young gays will have less sex? Does this really make any sense to you??

Honestly I can't really believe that you want to show more promiscuity on television among gays or straights.

[Stone holm]

So let me get this straight. You think that if TV showed more promiscuous gays, then it would help young gay men have less sex? Or is it that you think doctors want to show gays as being more promiscuous so that young gays will have less sex? Does this really make any sense to you??

Honestly I can't really believe that you want to show more promiscuity on television among gays or straights.

Not sure i am following any of this logic. When we depict promiscuity that reins it in...hm, that didn't seem to work for the heterosexual...but if we depict homo promiscuity that will rein in the homos.... I agree that many heterosexuals like myself would prefer not to watch homosexual acts and that I find them repulsive so if we increase the amount of repulsive TV experiences then the rational response would be that the majority would reduce the amount of time they spend watching TV...I think that is a great idea, but doubt it would help the profitability of the networks.

[why me]

So let me get this straight. You think that if TV showed more promiscuous gays, then it would help young gay men have less sex? Or is it that you think doctors want to show gays as being more promiscuous so that young gays will have less sex? Does this really make any sense to you??

Honestly I can't really believe that you want to show more promiscuity on television among gays or straights.

TV drama series or sitcoms can show more realistic aspects of the gay lifestyle. For example, if Will from Will and Grace would go to gay bars and pick up several guys a month, and gets a HIV scare and goes through what that means....it may be rather educational for young gay men. But it may not promote gay rights within the USA. What has happened is that young gay men are not getting the adequate education that they need to stay healthy as gay men. With all the stress on SSM, these young men and their lifestyle have been forgotten or hidden within the gay community in hollywood who could have written and produced more realistic scripts.

And that was my point. For years now there has been an attempt by hollywood to make the gay lifestyle more acceptable by showing gays funny and adorable with heteo relationship problems. But the underside to the gay lifestyle was put under the carpet.

From the Wiki:

Will was usually less successful romantically, having the occasional one-episode fling, but never a long-term relationship. This eventually drew some criticism from those who noted that Grace was often shown being affectionate with her dates and boyfriends, while Will rarely was. In the first season, it is mentioned that Will had a seven-year relationship with a man named Michael, but this partnership ended before the series began. During the early seasons Will only had one relationship that could be constituted as 'long-term', with a sports broadcaster, Matthew played by Patrick Dempsey. Their relationship was portrayed in a total of three episodes, before Will ended it over Matthew's refusal to come out, particularly to his homophobic boss. There is a brief moment at the end of season 5 where Will and Jack wake up together naked in the same bed on Karen's Yacht after a night of drinking, at the beginning of season 6 they go through a whole episode of freaking out until Karen reveals to them that the security camera for their room showed that they didn't do anything. Will does not have any more serious long-term love interests until the spring of 2004 when the character of Vince, an Italian American New York City Police Department officer played by Bobby Cannavale, was introduced. Their relationship lasted until the spring of 2005, when Vince lost his job and the two decided to "take a break" resulting in an unofficial but obvious break-up. Will then met James, supposedly by fate, at a movie theater and again in Los Angeles. Just as they started to get close, however, James discovered he was going to be deported. To give Will and James a chance, Grace agreed to marry James to help him avoid deportation. This plan, along with James' relationship with Will, was short-lived when it was revealed he was a major jerk, who seemed completely cruel towards other people. He was played by Rent star Taye Diggs. However in the final season, Will was reunited with Vince, and the two would eventually get married and raise a son together, named Ben.

Many heteros go through the same experiences as Will. And if you watched the show, Will was a very likeable guy for the TV audience. And what fan of the show could refuse the right of Will to marry? Which was the goal of the producers of the show.

Edited August 3, 2013 by why me

[california boy]

TV drama series or sitcoms can show more realistic aspects of the gay lifestyle. For example, if Will from Will and Grace would go to gay bars and pick up several guys a month, and gets a HIV scare and goes through what that means....it may be rather educational for young gay men. But it may not promote gay rights within the USA. What has happened is that young gay men are not getting the adequate education that they need to stay healthy as gay men. With all the stress on SSM, these young men and their lifestyle have been forgotten or hidden within the gay community in hollywood who could have written and produced more realistic scripts.

And that was my point. For years now there has been an attempt by hollywood to make the gay lifestyle more acceptable by showing gays funny and adorable with heteo relationship problems. But the underside to the gay lifestyle was put under the carpet.

From the Wiki:

Will was usually less successful romantically, having the occasional one-episode fling, but never a long-term relationship. This eventually drew some criticism from those who noted that Grace was often shown being affectionate with her dates and boyfriends, while Will rarely was. In the first season, it is mentioned that Will had a seven-year relationship with a man named Michael, but this partnership ended before the series began. During the early seasons Will only had one relationship that could be constituted as 'long-term', with a sports broadcaster, Matthew played by Patrick Dempsey. Their relationship was portrayed in a total of three episodes, before Will ended it over Matthew's refusal to come out, particularly to his homophobic boss. There is a brief moment at the end of season 5 where Will and Jack wake up together naked in the same bed on Karen's Yacht after a night of drinking, at the beginning of season 6 they go through a whole episode of freaking out until Karen reveals to them that the security camera for their room showed that they didn't do anything. Will does not have any more serious long-term love interests until the spring of 2004 when the character of Vince, an Italian American New York City Police Department officer played by Bobby Cannavale, was introduced. Their relationship lasted until the spring of 2005, when Vince lost his job and the two decided to "take a break" resulting in an unofficial but obvious break-up. Will then met James, supposedly by fate, at a movie theater and again in Los Angeles. Just as they started to get close, however, James discovered he was going to be deported. To give Will and James a chance, Grace agreed to marry James to help him avoid deportation. This plan, along with James' relationship with Will, was short-lived when it was revealed he was a major jerk, who seemed completely cruel towards other people. He was played by Rent star Taye Diggs. However in the final season, Will was reunited with Vince, and the two would eventually get married and raise a son together, named Ben.

Many heteros go through the same experiences as Will. And if you watched the show, Will was a very likeable guy for the TV audience. And what fan of the show could refuse the right of Will to marry? Which was the goal of the producers of the show.

i see. You are upset because Will didn't get AIDS and die. Should we also have sitcoms on heterosexuals getting clymedia or gonorrhea as well? Now that seems like a sitcom that everyone would want to turn in to every week. It is not like we haven't had enough movies about AIDS and dying. Philadelphia, Angles in America, And The Band Played On, etc.

At this point, I feel like you are just being prejudice against gays being portrayed in a positive light and having lives that are filled with love and happiness. Well I have a news flash for you. The majority of gay people are happy and do enjoy their lives. And no, they are not so different from straight people's lives.

Like I said at the beginning of this discussion, the surveys have all shown that the single most important thing that has changed attitudes towards gay marriage is when people have gotten to know a gay person. They quickly find out that being gay is in fact not that different than being straight. They have come to the conclusion that there is no real reason to prevent gays from marrying and allowing them to marry would be a positive effect on society. The majority of people feel that allowing gays to marry will indeed make their relationships more stable. If you could just back away from your prejudice for just a minute, I think you too would see how marriage may very well be the best way for gays to be less promiscuous. Can you imagine a world where straights are not allowed to marry? Just how moral of society would that create.

You have been carefully taught that homosexual behavior is wrong, immoral, and a sin. You have also been taught that "wickedness never was happiness". I get that. But that is not always the truth. I certainly have been much more happy with my life since I have come out and quit lying about my sexual orientation. I live a very full life with my boyfriend. We love each other probably more than most straight couples. I don't have AIDS. When we go to dinner with our straight friends and they see little difference between how they love their spouse and how me and my boyfriend love each other. And that, is why attitudes are changing. It has little to do with what sitcom is on tv.

The problem with your position is that preventing gays from marrying doesn't make anyone more moral. Gay marriage does not make the straight population more moral. Preventing gays from marrying does not make gays more moral. Being against gay marriage is not a moral position, it is a religious dogma position.

[Calm]

No connection to the prior Pope -- the basis there has to do with his consort, I guess.

His alleged consort I suspect and hope you mean.

[Calm]

Don't you suspect that is because hetero sex sells and the market for homo sex is not as lucrative?

Perhaps not by the numbers, but apparently if I understand it right, for the size of the market one gets quite a bit of investment return. For example, when it came to Playgirl, the supposedly female version of Playboy where instead of a bunny one has a honey? it turned out the magazine was being bought by many more gay men than straight women....or at least that was the rumour I heard.

Here is a link to a very distressing article about gay porn (for mature audiences only...feel free to report if you think it is inappropriate even if you haven't read it) and how big a business it is:

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/commerce/100323/gay-porn-prague?page=full

Gay video sales and rentals represent a disproportionately large segment of the $10 billion to $12 billion global porn industry, up to one-third or even one-half, by some estimates, writes Joe A. Thomas in "Gay Male Video Pornography: Past, Present, and Future."

[Robert F. Smith]

http://thinkprogress...re-still-a-sin/

http://news.yahoo.co...-183538032.html

It looks like an alignment, but not sure it really matters since American Catholics tend to ignore their Pope and Bishops when it comes to this kind of stuff.

Italians ignore the Pope even more than Americans do, and that is the pattern throughout Europe. However, at least in South America there is still a chance for the Catholic Church to staunch the flow of members out of the Church and into Evangelical and Pentecostal churches.

[Robert F. Smith]

Perhaps not by the numbers, but apparently if I understand it right, for the size of the market one gets quite a bit of investment return. For example, when it came to Playgirl, the supposedly female version of Playboy where instead of a bunny one has a honey? it turned out the magazine was being bought by many more gay men than straight women....or at least that was the rumour I heard.

Here is a link to a very distressing article about gay porn (for mature audiences only...feel free to report if you think it is inappropriate even if you haven't read it) and how big a business it is:

http://www.globalpos...rague?page=full

Yes, and now, instead of cruising in search of young male prostitutes – gay men are now “cruising” gay chat rooms on the internet in search of “quick turnaround sex” (2002 statistics were astonishing, and gay & bisexual males were then "two to three times as likely as heterosexual men to seek sexual partners online”).*

* Charles Ornstein, “Online Access to Risky Sex,” Los Angeles Times, July 26, 2002 (“Column One”), A1,26-27 (quotes from A1 and 26, respectively). Just one internet site, http://www.gay.com reported 17.7 million chat sessions in April 2002 (A26-27, with statistical chart). What are the stats now?

[Robert F. Smith]

Oh I see, You know what the "gay lifestyle" is based on your experience in college. Well just how different is the college gay life style from the college straight lifestyle? Are you really going to judge all gays by what you saw going on in college? I was around San Francisco during the late 60's early 70's. Should the media portray all straights by what was going on in the during that time of free love and excessive drug use? I am the first to admit that there is a lot of immoral behavior in the gay community. I am also the first one to admit there is a lot of immoral behavior in the straight community. The difference between the two groups is that straights have the option to marry. The straight community has the support of the church for their relationships. Straight people don't get shunned by their families when they bring their boyfriends home to dinner. If you want morality to change in the gay community, then society has to also continue to change on how gays are treated.

A couple of nights ago, I had some friends over for dinner. Phil had been with his partner for 33 years. Jeff and Jesus has been together for 24 years. I was with my first boyfriend and we have been together for 5. And there was our single friend Robert who seems to have a problem being in a relationship longer than a year. I might add that the subject of religion came up. Not a single one of them has anything to do with organized religion. While they consider themselves spiritual, they have no faith in organized religion. I wonder how that happened? Are you trying to make the case that the media should never show this side of the 'gay lifestyle"?

That is an extraordinary fact, if you are correct. There have been gay churches in Frisco and other large cities since you were a kid, and surely gay versions of Hinduism, Buddhism, Wiccan, and Judaism are practiced.

[Calm]

The difference between the two groups is that straights have the option to marry. The straight community has the support of the church for their relationships.

I grew up in the Bay area in the 60s and 70s. I knew of gay married couples, they saw themselves as gay, their church had married them, I saw no reason not to believe they were married in every meaningful sense of the word to them.

The only difference I saw was that it wasn't subsidized by the government.

If there were churches in the 60s and 70s that were willing to marry gays and gays that were willing to see themselves as married and act as married according to their own standards, than I don't see how one can say that straights have the option to marry and gays don't. At the time I though of them as common law marriages if they hadn't gone though a religious ceremony but called themselves married and I would not have thought of them as unmarried in any way, even if I had known the legal issues. They said they were married, they acted married, that was fine by me, they were married. That was their relationship in the context of their lives and what their relationship might have been in the context of my life surely should have had no bearing on how they viewed that relationship.

I understand that the government helps give stability to heterosexual marriages in the past that they haven't for gay relationships, whether seen as partnerships or they see themselves as married. But in the past surely there were plenty of times that the government did very little to help and yet still people got married and stay married and raised their children together and worked things out. And problems were there to, but at least they tried. It seems from the way the dialogue is given that gays don't see as there is any reason to try unless someone else gives them permission to engage in marriage behaviour....and yet this would be the last group that one would think would wait around waiting to be told it's okay for them to go all out. Gays have been living in short and long term committed relationships which include promiscuous behaviour for as long as I've been aware of them, what is stopping them from living in short and long term committed relationships that include faithful behaviour parallel to the heterosexual community?

Honestly this "gays don't have the option to marry" seems like such a cop out when they can marry, just not with the official approval of the government, but the government has a limited involvement in marriage from what I've seen, mainly gets involved when things go wrong. Since when did anyone who really loved another let someone else dictate their relationship and prevent them from turning it into the most beautiful thing in existence in their own eyes?

I am not disregarding hardship caused by cultural issues, but all marriages face hardship and it can be used to strengthen it or to give them an excuse to give up on it.

[california boy]

I grew up in the Bay area in the 60s and 70s. I knew of gay married couples, they saw themselves as gay, their church had married them, I saw no reason not to believe they were married in every meaningful sense of the word to them.

The only difference I saw was that it wasn't subsidized by the government.

If there were churches in the 60s and 70s that were willing to marry gays and gays that were willing to see themselves as married and act as married according to their own standards, than I don't see how one can say that straights have the option to marry and gays don't. At the time I though of them as common law marriages if they hadn't gone though a religious ceremony but called themselves married and I would not have thought of them as unmarried in any way, even if I had known the legal issues. They said they were married, they acted married, that was fine by me, they were married. That was their relationship in the context of their lives and what their relationship might have been in the context of my life surely should have had no bearing on how they viewed that relationship.

I understand that the government helps give stability to heterosexual marriages in the past that they haven't for gay relationships, whether seen as partnerships or they see themselves as married. But in the past surely there were plenty of times that the government did very little to help and yet still people got married and stay married and raised their children together and worked things out. And problems were there to, but at least they tried. It seems from the way the dialogue is given that gays don't see as there is any reason to try unless someone else gives them permission to engage in marriage behaviour....and yet this would be the last group that one would think would wait around waiting to be told it's okay for them to go all out. Gays have been living in short and long term committed relationships which include promiscuous behaviour for as long as I've been aware of them, what is stopping them from living in short and long term committed relationships that include faithful behaviour parallel to the heterosexual community?

Honestly this "gays don't have the option to marry" seems like such a cop out when they can marry, just not with the official approval of the government, but the government has a limited involvement in marriage from what I've seen, mainly gets involved when things go wrong. Since when did anyone who really loved another let someone else dictate their relationship and prevent them from turning it into the most beautiful thing in existence in their own eyes?

I am not disregarding hardship caused by cultural issues, but all marriages face hardship and it can be used to strengthen it or to give them an excuse to give up on it.

Do you think a pretend marriage is the same as a legally and lawful marriage?

[Calm]

Do you think a pretend marriage is the same as a legally and lawful marriage?

I think a marriage solemnized by a couple in whatever way they desire to covenant it means to that couple as much as a legal marriage, maybe even more because they are doing it without the financial benefits and knowing the hardships to come.

I would never call it a pretend marriage any more than I could call one performed by our bishop in the chapel or in front of the civil judge IF the couple was as committed as these others couples but simply did not have that option available to them.

It has value, it should have respect imo, I don't see it as removing the sinful quality of the relationship, but I look on it as a couple who is more without the law, they sincerely don't believe they are sinning, the law does not apply to them, they transgress and as they grow in knowedge they will need to repent, but God's Atonement will cover them as it covers children in innocence to allow them not to be condemned by the Law.

Now if they treat the marriage as being committed to the companionship without abiding by the concept of fidelity in intimacy, I think they are violating one of the fundamental premises of the level of commitment in the marriage, they are committing adultery even if each is okay with that...and for me that is a dysfunctional marriage and one that disrespects the relationship itself. They have chosen pleasure in my view over the potentially very deep giving of oneself fully to another. And if that is what their idea of marriage is, I only feel sorrow for them.

[Kevin Christensen]

The imposing statics on porn and internet chat do suggest that addiction ought to be recognized as a major factor in the behavior of a great number of people, gay straight, or whatever.

http://scottwoodward...ornography.html

Brain shrinkage has been seen in drug addictions such as cocaine16 and methamphetamine,17 but also in natural addictions such as obesity18 and more recently, sexual addiction.19 Studies are currently underway to examine shrinkage specifically in pornography addiction.

Significantly, some of these changes appear to be reversible with healing and recovery from addiction. Restoration to more normal brain volumes has been seen with recovery in both a drug20 and a natural addiction,21 and improvement of metabolism with abstinence has been seen in methamphetamine addiction.22

Why is it important to understand that compulsive pornography use is an actual addiction? By recognizing this, we will treat it with the respect required to overcome an addiction.

Marriage isn't a cure. An enabling society is not a cure any more than an exploitive or repressive society is a cure. And denial of the problem is not a cure either. Silencing one's critics, or lableing them as ignorant bigots is not a cure.

There is a cure that starts with recognizing the problem where it exists. For all of the talk about Jesus as exemplifying a message of universal love and tolerance, I notice that he was never shy about stating conditions as they exist. Apparently, doing so may actually have something to do with love.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited August 3, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[Stone holm]

That imposing statics on porn and internet chat do suggest that addiction ought to be recognized as a major factor in the behavior of a great number of people, gay straight, or whatever.

http://scottwoodward.org/Talks/html/z-Scholarly%20Articles/HiltonDL_UnderstandingTheAddictiveNatureOfPornography.html

Marriage isn't a cure. An enabling society is not a cure any more than an exploitive or repressive society is a cure. And denial of the problem is not a cure either. Silencing one's critics, or lableing them as ignorant bigots is not a cure.

There is a cure that starts with recognizing the problem where it exists. For all of the talk about Jesus as exemplifying a message of universal love and tolerance, I notice that he was never shy about stating conditions as they exist. Apparently, doing so may actually have something to do with love.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

I remember a National Geographic Article, at least I think that was it, where they were interviewing Africans about the general HIV epidemic over there and the generalised promiscuity. The gist was we have no food, little shelter, no money, no education, and now you want us to give up sex? Go away.

[why me]

i see. You are upset because Will didn't get AIDS and die. Should we also have sitcoms on heterosexuals getting clymedia or gonorrhea as well? Now that seems like a sitcom that everyone would want to turn in to every week. It is not like we haven't had enough movies about AIDS and dying. Philadelphia, Angles in America, And The Band Played On, etc.

At this point, I feel like you are just being prejudice against gays being portrayed in a positive light and having lives that are filled with love and happiness. Well I have a news flash for you. The majority of gay people are happy and do enjoy their lives. And no, they are not so different from straight people's lives.

http://factsaboutyou...ts/promiscuity/

Gay author Gabriel Rotello notes the perspective of many gays that “Gay liberation was founded . . . on a ‘sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,’ and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a ‘communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.’”¹ Rotello’s perception of gay promiscuity, which he criticizes, is consistent with survey results. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.² By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984.³

In more recent years, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has reported an upswing in promiscuity, at least among young homosexual men in San Francisco. From 1994 to 1997, the percentage of homosexual men reporting multiple partners and unprotected **** sex rose from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent, with the largest increase among men under 25.⁴ Despite its continuing incurability, AIDS no longer seems to deter individuals from engaging in promiscuous gay sex.⁵ A 2003 U. S.- based, Urban Men’s Health Study, reported that over 30% of the homosexual men studied frequented bathhouses with an average of 27 partners per year.⁶ In a 2003 study, Amsterdam “singles” averaged 22 casual partners/year, while those with a “steady partner” averaged eight ( .⁷ The average duration of partnerships was 1.5 years. In a 2005 Canadian vaccine trial, homosexual individuals reported 7 partners in the last 6 months.⁸

The data relating to gay promiscuity were obtained from self-identified gay men. Some advocates argue that the average would be lower if closeted homosexuals were included in the statistics.⁹ That is likely true, according to data obtained in a 2000 survey in Australia that tracked whether men who had sex with men were associated with the gay community. Men who were associated with the gay community were nearly four times as likely to have had more than 50 sex partners in the six months preceding the survey as men who were not associated with the gay community.¹⁰ This may imply that it is riskier to be “out” than “closeted.” Adopting a gay identity may create more pressure to be promiscuous and to be so with a cohort of other more promiscuous partners.

Excessive sexual promiscuity results in serious medical consequences — indeed, it is a recipe for transmitting disease and generating an epidemic.¹¹ The HIV/AIDS epidemic has remained a predominantly gay issue in the U.S. primarily because of the greater degree of promiscuity among gays.¹² A study based upon statistics from 1986 through 1990 estimated that 20-year-old gay men had a 50 percent chance of becoming HIV positive by age 55.¹³ As of June 2001, nearly 64 percent of men with AIDS were men who have had sex with men.¹⁴ Syphilis is also more common among gay men. The San Francisco Public Health Department recently reported that syphilis among the city’s gay and bisexual men was at epidemic levels. According to the San Francisco Chronicle:

“Experts believe syphilis is on the rise among gay and bisexual men because they are engaging in unprotected sex with multiple partners, many of whom they met in anonymous situations such as sex clubs, adult bookstores, meetings through the Internet and in bathhouses. The new data will show that in the 93 cases involving gay and bisexual men this year, the group reported having 1,225 sexual partners.”¹⁵

A 2010 CDC data analysis reveals that the rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM (men who have sex with men) is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women. ¹⁶[insert reference 10 from Male Homosexual Behavior] Promiscuity is the factor most responsible for the extreme rates of these and other Sexually Transmitted Diseases cited below, many of which result in a shortened life span for men who have sex with men.

I think that you need to educate yourself on this issue a little more. Strangely, in my posts I am standing up for gay men. I want them to be educated that the 'free' lifestyle is not so free. One cannot argue with the research. As gays fight for SSM, many young homosexual men are catching HIV because of their unrecognized lifestyle. And yes, you will not see this lifestyle on the television in any sitcom as displayed in the research. The gay community needs to become award of the problem.

Now of course, there is other research that shows a decline in gay promiscuous relationships. However, the point is the more young gay males are contacting HIV because of their behavior. And this needs to change.

Edited August 3, 2013 by why me

[california boy]

I think a marriage solemnized by a couple in whatever way they desire to covenant it means to that couple as much as a legal marriage, maybe even more because they are doing it without the financial benefits and knowing the hardships to come.

I would never call it a pretend marriage any more than I could call one performed by our bishop in the chapel or in front of the civil judge IF the couple was as committed as these others couples but simply did not have that option available to them.

It has value, it should have respect imo, I don't see it as removing the sinful quality of the relationship, but I look on it as a couple who is more without the law, they sincerely don't believe they are sinning, the law does not apply to them, they transgress and as they grow in knowedge they will need to repent, but God's Atonement will cover them as it covers children in innocence to allow them not to be condemned by the Law.

Now if they treat the marriage as being committed to the companionship without abiding by the concept of fidelity in intimacy, I think they are violating one of the fundamental premises of the level of commitment in the marriage, they are committing adultery even if each is okay with that...and for me that is a dysfunctional marriage and one that disrespects the relationship itself. They have chosen pleasure in my view over the potentially very deep giving of oneself fully to another. And if that is what their idea of marriage is, I only feel sorrow for them.

You are kind of talking through both sides of your mouth. There is no room in the gospel for any marriage that is not legal no matter who performs it. Anyone who has a pretend marriage and has sex is committing a sin whether they are monogamous or have multiple partners. The sin is the same. Sex outside a legal and lawful marriage is the sin. As far as I know, having sex with just one person outside of a legal marriage doesn't make the sin somehow better. So what difference does it make if a gay person or a straight person has a monogamous relationship outside of marriage or multiple partners? The sin is the same. The repentance would be the same.

You can not compare the commitment of a fake gay marriage with a legal and lawful marriage. So yeah, gays have not had the legal right to be married. And it does make a difference in how they view fidelity because they know the sin is the same. What difference does it make to them how many partners they have. Could you tell them that if they have a monogamous relationship, somehow their judgement will be different? Now do you understand why many gay men have decided that monogamy only matters if it is important to their partner? Gay men can't be with someone they love and be moral. Church dogma teaches that to every gay man. Most have given up on that as something to strive towards. They have chosen to be immoral rather than live a life of loneliness with no one to share their life with. It is not as hard of decision as you might think it is. And yeah, the statistics bear this brutal fact out quite clearly. No surprise there really.

[why me]

Since this thread has to do with the catholic church, I link some information from a catholic site.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

And this:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/2012/HIV-Infections-2007-2010.pdf

What I don't understand is when gay men deny the problem or refuse to recognize the problem. Equality is fine but one must be alive to experience it. Gay men have dropped the ball on this issue. By focusing all attention on SSM, they have forgotten the HIV rate among gay men and the problem this has on society.