How can people say homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone

How can people say homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone, when it does damage to society by spreading disease? :confused: In fact any type of sexual activity outside of committed marriages causes harm by spreading disease. Does anyone have any insight?

Well…because it’s not homosexuality that spreads diseases.
It’s sex.
Heterosexuality can spread diseases, too.

So it’s not homosexuality, as you say, that “hurts” people.

You are incorrect to say that “any type of sexual activity outside a committed marriage causes harm by spreading disease”.
This is not the case.

And actually, some could turn your question around and ask:
How can people say that condoms hurt anyone, when they prevent disease from spreading in society?

.

Good thing gay people can get married now in more and more states. Now they can be protected from diseases too.

Certain sexual acts are more likely to result in the spread of diseases. Anal sex is basically -the- most likely. This means that homosexual acts are more likely to result in the spread of diseases.

I think you are confused. You correctly state that people who are irresponsible in their sexual activities are a threat to the community. Irresponsible sexual activity that hurts others and not homosexuality per se.

Both gays and straights spread sex related diseases. Since it is unlikely that neither gays or straights will refrain from sexual activity the logical thing to do would be to educate both gays and straights on safer sex practices. This safe sex education is being used successfully in many Africa countries where the rates of HIV have dropped dramatically. In the US funding for such safe sex educational programs has been systematically cut back because of conservative opposition. Can you suggest any reason why anyone would oppose education that can save lives and lower the threat to the community?

If said education involved persuading people to adopt immoral means of preventing disease while engaging in immoral practices, perhaps?

If by “safe sex” they mean use a condom, then yes, I can think of why it should be objected to. If, instead, it means abstinence before marriage and fidelity within marriage, then no, I don’t see any call for objection.

That said, your post doesn’t actually address why I wrote that post. The point is that, sexually speaking, homosexuals are only capable of engaging an oral and anal sex, and anal sex is the most likely to result in the spread of diseases. Given this fact, homosexual acts are inherently more likely to result in the spread of STDs.

You didn’t address what I wrote. African countries already offer solid proof that safer sex education reduces the incidence of STDs, we can also the find the same proof in our own (US) past and present use of these programs, Do you believe it is reasonable that people, gay or straight, moral or immoral according to your beliefs, will stop having sex? If safer sex education provides proven benefits to individuals and the community your only argument against it is based on a faith belief resulting in a world view that collateral damage to individuals and the community is the better choice over safe sex education.

BTW at the top of the list of safe sex is celibacy followed by informed choices for responsible sex.

Do have a link that states anal sex spreads disease more easily?
Or is it that those who engage in anal sex are more likely to have a disease?

Not all homosexuals engage in anal sex. And on the flip side, many heterosexuals engage in oral and anal sex as well.

Sex can be risky for many reason, but there are precautions that can be taken to make it safer such as condoms and regular STD testing. If your religion prohibits the use of condoms you should probably abstain from riskier sex practices.

My world view does not accept collateral damage of individual in favor of religious beliefs, it accepts that properly adhering to the beliefs would almost entirely eradicate the collateral damage and is therefore the best course of action. As to your question of reasonableness, actually, yes, I do find it to be quite reasonable. There has always been sex outside of marriage, but the prevalence of it doesn’t mean that we should ignore morality to accommodate those who chose to ignore it. The widespread acceptance of sex outside of marriage has contributed to the drastic spread of STDs, and using condoms to avoid them is only trading one evil for another. If the only valid measurement was the decrease in STDs, you’d be correct, but that sort of view only looks at the ends, and not the means used to acquire them. Killing everyone in Africa would also reduce the spread of STDs, but that wouldn’t make it a good course of action. (I know that is a drastic comparison, but drastic does not mean invalid. The ends do not justify the means, and with the safer sex programs, one of the proposed means is blatantly immoral, and therefore no better than the thing is seeks to prevent. Given the fact that we view the salvation of the soul to be infinitely more important the salvation of the body, I’d argue that promoting the use of immoral methods is actually worse than the thing the method tries to prevent).

Not offhand, no, I apologize. I had some studies bookmarked but no longer have access to those sites. i will try to find some resources to that affect in a bit.

That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Just because heterosexual couples do it doesn’t mean that it suddenly becomes okay for homosexual people to do it to… or okay for the heterosexuals, for that matter.

Sex can be risky for many reason, but there are precautions that can be taken to make it safer such as condoms and regular STD testing. If your religion prohibits the use of condoms you should probably abstain from riskier sex practices.

Condoms are immoral, and therefore are not a valid method of prevent a problem. It may help the body, but it will harm the soul, and the state of the soul is infinity more important than the state of the body.

Fair enough. I understand that according to your world view, relative to your faith, you believe that the means risk reduction education is worse than the sexual sin itself and does not justify a reduction in HIV and other STDs. You brought up a drastic comparison that I find similar to the medieval belief that burning witches would save their souls. I am glad your world view is not the prevalent one even within other main stream christian denominations.

I think you are either misunderstanding, or misrepresenting my view. The sexual sin is bad whether you are using a condom or not. It is only made worse by the use of a condom. If my world view were the prevalent one, then people wouldn’t have sex outside of marriage, pretty much eliminating the issue altogether. Your comparison of my analogy to witch burning is wholly inappropriate, and completely off the mark. I was not suggesting killing off Africans to prevent the spread, simply offering it as a drastic alternative in keeping with the train of thought that the ends justify the means. The promotion of a moral evil to prevent a negative outcome (not even another moral evil, as it doesn’t prevent the sexual immorality… and in fact encourages it) is another case of the ends justifying the means, The witch burning were a similar train of thought, I agree, but your tone and comments seem to suggest that I would promote such a thing, when in fact I would not promote such an action any more than I would support killing everyone in Africa.

My view is the Church’s view, that people should refrain from sexual activity until they are married. The fact that most people are not willing to do this has absolutely no affect on the fact that it is the best course of action. Furthermore, promoting a moral evil to try to stave off the effects of another moral evil does nothing more than compound the problem.

I said specifically sexual activity. So you knew I didn’t mean homosexuality as an orientation, Was playing word games really the best you could do? :rolleyes:

Yes homosexual activity harms society.

Yes exactly but she knew what I meant. Gay supporters use that same reply all over the internet “how can an orientation spread disease?”:smiley: I think they all read from the same script.

Homosexual activity is the biggest contributor to some diseases. AIDS for example.

From WebMD

An estimated 90% of men who have sex with men and as many as 5% to 10% of sexually active women engage in receptive anal intercourse.

Is Anal Sex Safe?

There are a number of health risks with anal sex, and anal intercourse is the riskiest form of sexual activity for several reasons, including the following:

The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure. Exposure to the human papillomavirus (HPV) may also lead to the development of anal warts and anal cancer. Using lubricants can help some, but doesn’t completely prevent tearing.

The tissue inside the anus is not as well protected as the skinoutside the anus. Our external tissue has layers of dead cells that serve as a protective barrier against infection. The tissue inside the anus does not have this natural protection, which leaves it vulnerable to tearing and the spread of infection.

The anus was designed to hold in feces. The anus is surrounded with a ring-like muscle, called the anal sphincter, which tightens after we defecate. When the muscle is tight, anal penetration can be painful and difficult. Repetitive anal sex may lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, making it difficult to hold in feces until you can get to the toilet. However, Kegel exercises to strengthen the sphincter may help prevent this problem or correct it.

The anus is full of bacteria. Even if both partners do not have a sexually-transmitted infection or disease, bacteria normally in the anus can potentially infect the giving partner. Practicing vaginal sex after anal sex can also lead to vaginal and urinary tract infections.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.