Stop the Spread of AIDS: Don't Fornicate

College Confidential Community
81

<p>Again, you are trying to avoid the effective truth of what I said. I was not presenting an entire surveillance report, I simply mentioned the MAJORITY of the risk groups, male homosexuals, IV drug users, and those who are both.</p>

<p>And guess what? These groups represent 81% of all transmissions. In fact, this number is likely even greater, due to the fact that heterosexual transmissions (which constitute 17%) are "claimed" heterosexuals. Not everyone is immediately forthcoming with their homosexual activity, as we all know. If you factor in the males who claim to have been exposed during heterosexual intercourse (REMEMBER, the chances of transmission to a male during this act are only 2-3%), the number becomes 88%.</p>

<p>So whether it is 81%, 88%, or some number in between, I guess the only question left is: What do you consider the majority?</p>

82

<p>That the divorce rate among Christian couples is so high tells me that many Christian couples have allowed secular thinking to overtake their marriage life. Nobody is immune to secularism, not even Christians; living devoutly in a very secular culture like ours is one of the most difficult things in the world to do.</p>

<p>When the Holy Sacrament and deeply religious vocation becomes a legal arrangement, it isn't surprising when it doesn't last. Sadly, most Christian marriages these days seem to start out on the wrong foot, and I am thinking mainly of Catholics. They want their fancy Catholic wedding with all of the bells and whistles, but they don't recognize or agree with the theology, what a Catholic marriage really means, or should mean. Priests are not educating engaged couples like they used to; they're giving them a free pass, which is only leading them on a path to destruction. If and when I ever become a priest, I will categorically REFUSE to marry couples who do not fully understand and agree with the Catholic Church's theology of what matrimony really is. If they aren't particularly religious, forget it, a Catholic marriage is just not for them. Catholic marriage is a completely different thing than the secular version of marriage.</p>

83

<p>It has nothing to do with the fact that laws have made it easier for women to get out of marriages that are harmful to them?</p>

<p>Hmm...</p>

84

<p>Sure, there are always marriages that don't work because one of the spouses is abusive toward the other. But this, too, is a form of secular degradation. Christian spouses who are behaving in such ways toward one another have evidently lost sight of the fact that their marriage is sacred and holy, and are going against the teachings of their faith in a very grave way. This means that they have disconnected from God.</p>

85

<p>Yes. I'm sure that only "secular" couples end up committing violence against one another.</p>

86

<p>Fides et Ratio...my oh my. Yeah I dont care what the Bible says, condoms are great. And some of the nicest people I know are Atheist and there are clear examples of Christians who are clearly awful people, like the extremists who think it's fun to rally outside abortion clinics and harrass women on an already difficult day. Stereotyping solves nothing. Point: You can't expect people to resist their sexual desires just because some people who wrote the Bible based on their interpertation of what the so-called God say we should.</p>

87

<p>"Priests are not educating engaged couples like they used to"</p>

<p>How are priests supposed to counsel engaged couples about marriage and sex when priests have supposedly experienced neither?</p>

88

<p>merlinjones is a she. </p>

<p>In any case, the UN report on AIDS is pretty interesting.
<a href="http://www.unaids.org/en/HIV_data/2006GlobalReport/default.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.unaids.org/en/HIV_data/2006GlobalReport/default.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

89

<p>It is interesting but not relevant to the current argument, which is centered on America.</p>

90

<p>"How are priests supposed to counsel engaged couples about marriage and sex when priests have supposedly experienced neither?"</p>

<p>Catholic priests spend at least five years studying theology and pastoral counselling (AFTER their four-year BA) at the seminary before they are ordained. They are highly trained in such matters. </p>

<p>Think of psychiatrists -- they may not have personally experienced depression or schizophrenia, but they are trained to fully understand the conditions and to counsel those who are going through them.</p>

91

<p>I don't think that's a good analogy. Depression is a clinical condition with specific symptoms. Marital problems, otoh, can encompass myriad unique circumstances never before encountered. Only life experience can truly give one the tools with which to extrapolate from one's own experience in order to even begin to understand the dynamic.</p>

<p>Case in point: Just today I was talking to my hubby about my java teacher. He has 'book knowledge' but has never used java in production (ie, the 'real world'). His only experience is academic. I've been programming for 18 years and therefore asked questions related to the real world applications that he was unable to answer, or if he did attempt an answer, it was clear that he didn't fully understand what I was talking about.</p>

<p>It's like that. Celibate priests have book knowledge, but they will never fully understand the depth and complexity of what it's like to relate to another person intimately (not just physically, but emotionally as well).</p>

<p>That is my major complaint about having priests be in a position of counseling married people. I think it's fine for them to preach on spiritual matters, but applying those concepts to real life is an entirely different issue.</p>

<p>Other religions that do allow their pastors to marry have discovered that they are often more effective in counseling others, because they have firsthand experience.</p>

<p>Having said all that, I want to say that I really do respect your views, Fides. I don't agree with them, because my Catholic upbringing (contrasted with your recent conversion) gives me a different perspective. But, it is obvious that you have a genuine reverence for God and for your chosen spiritual path, and this I do respect.</p>

<p>Contrary to what you might think based on my comments, I actually do have a very deep reverence for God myself, and a very strong spriitual faith. It is extremely important to me, and, while I no longer share your views on 'morality' - I have a new definition of morality which is that it is immoral to hurt/kill/control another - I do actually have some very strong convictions, and I am often on your side of the fence in that I am the one who is defending my views against mainstream opposition.</p>

<p>(An example of this is my being pro-life in a predominately 'New Age' social circle. Another example is the opposition I faced in one of the threads I started.)</p>

<p>So I can relate to your convictions, even though I have different convictions.</p>

<p>While I respect your reverence, I hope that you can broaden your thinking a bit to include the possibility that Catholicism does not have a monopoly on God, any more than the born-again Christians do. God is bigger and more open-minded than that.</p>

<p>In other words, consider the possibility that others may choose a different path, and still 'find God.' I found my own relationship with God AFTER I left both Catholicism and born-again Christianity. God is too big, too wondrous, too loving, to be confined to the dogma of a religion.</p>

<p>Religions serve a wonderful purpose. Many are inspired by their religion. Religion can often provide a roadmap for the path to God. But religion is not God. It's just a map. There is more than one path up the mountain. Some are rockier than others, and some wind around and around unnecessarily, but they all do eventually lead up to the top.</p>

92

<p>Freakonomist, I can relate. I got the exact same treatment for daring to post some facts about a controversial topic. Don't take it personally. People tend to lash out when faced with facts they don't like. They tend to immediately label the harbinger of the news as biased, when in fact there is a clear, logical explanation that has nothing to do with any bias.</p>

<p>It is undeniable that certain segments of the population have a higher risk of AIDS. This does not in any way make one a homophobe. There is obviously something in the lifestyle of these groups that makes them more susceptible. </p>

<p>I read a good bit of the article, but not all of it. So far, it hasn't addressed what the reason might be that these groups are more susceptible, beyond the fact that they tend to be less vocal in standing up for their rights.</p>

<p>I don't remember where it was that I read it, but I read someplace that a possible reason for higher risk of AIDS among gay men has to do with the tissue in the orifice that they tend to favor. (Um, trying not to get too graphic here.) It's less elastic than the, um, more conventionally used orifice, and more susceptible to tears, in which the virus can get into the bloodstream. The tissue is thin, and simply does not accomodate all the, er, intense pounding that the other, more conventional orifice tolerates with ease.</p>

<p>This sounds like a logical explanation. If I find where I read that, I'll post it. I don't know whether this was based on scientific study or was just a theory.</p>

<p>If true, it would indicate that heterosexual activity that includes said orifice would present the same risks. If true, it would also raise the question of 'design' or evolution. Either one could still explain the simple biological fact that different parts of the body are composed of different types of tissue because they serve different functions. Heart tissue is not the same as brain tissue, for example. It's important to note that this is NOT a moral assessment, but a biological one.</p>

93

<p>
[quote]
And guess what? These groups represent 81% of all transmissions. In fact, this number is likely even greater, due to the fact that heterosexual transmissions (which constitute 17%) are "claimed" heterosexuals. Not everyone is immediately forthcoming with their homosexual activity, as we all know. If you factor in the males who claim to have been exposed during heterosexual intercourse (REMEMBER, the chances of transmission to a male during this act are only 2-3%), the number becomes 88%.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I can no longer edit this post, but I should make a correction: 88% is actually 87% (even though I did the calculation twice, it is 87.17%, and I didn't see the 1 and thought I got 87.7%). Not really a substantial difference, but there it is.</p>

94

<p>^</p>

<p>Oh, alright.</p>

95

<p>Fight Club does have a lot of depth, no doubt about it. It's one of my son's fav movies.</p>

<p>But, it STILL glorifies violence. I dislike the movie for that reason. No amount of intense soul-searching depicted in the movie can get away from that fact.</p>