Gay liaisons set to unhinge the Pope

[Ozzie Osmond]

stackmonkey said:

Oh dear, another pathetic attempt to portray AIDS as being "gay".
The vast majority of people worldwide with HIV are straight. In some countries a startling percentage of the population (25%) are infected.

You don't think anyone's going to fall for that glib statistic do you?

Only a tiny proportion of the global population is homosexual men. Compared with heterosexuals they have a massively higher rate of HIV and AIDS.

[Colonial]

Pothole said:

As a Catholic it's probably some kind of duty to call you on bullst, but I'm not sure I can be arsed.

I thought catholic duty involved pathetic guilt trips and following an old kiddy fiddler protector.

[TheHeretic]

Colonial said:

I thought catholic duty involved pathetic guilt trips and pushing from your mind that your pope is an old kiddy fiddler protector.

EFA.

[Pesty]

Ozzie Osmond said:

You don't think anyone's going to fall for that glib statistic do you?

Only a tiny proportion of the global population is homosexual men. Compared with heterosexuals they have a massively higher rate of HIV and AIDS.

And even if they do so what?

is there a point you are trying to make?

Edited by Pesty on Saturday 23 February 13:45

[anonymous-user]

Pesty said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

You don't think anyone's going to fall for that glib statistic do you?

Only a tiny proportion of the global population is homosexual men. Compared with heterosexuals they have a massively higher rate of HIV and AIDS.

And even they do so what?

is there a point you are trying to make?

Indeed who cares who's got the most or highest proportion? Appx 34million people are diagnosed with HIV worldwide, many more who are but dont know. That vast majority of both being in Africa.

It certainly is an issue that many younger men dont protect themselves as they used to. New ARV therapies that mean HIV/AIDS isnt the 5-10 year death sentence it used to be, so more HIV +ve gay men are living longer adding to the statistic. Some of the more risky behaviour amongst the younger generation is in part due to a level of complacency thanks to those drugs.

Added to that, the number of HIV tests undertaken by MSM category, in relation to their proportion in society is higher than heterosexual men/women. More tests will, sadly, mean more positive results, further skewing the stats.

In 2011 in the UK, the rate of infection was 67% male, 33% female and of the male infections 49% heterosexual, 43% MSM, the remaining being drug use/blood transfusions etc.

[otolith]

thehawk said:

And he tried to re-inforce this message by sending AIDS, but the message is still not getting through.

Hell, if we're not taking the hint about vegetarianism from zoonotic influenzas, you'd think He would try a more explicit mode of communication.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Pesty said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

You don't think anyone's going to fall for that glib statistic do you?

Only a tiny proportion of the global population is homosexual men. Compared with heterosexuals they have a massively higher rate of HIV and AIDS.

And even if they do so what?

is there a point you are trying to make?

What are you so touchy about? Having trouble with my correction of the previous poster's suggestion that homosexual men are at no greater risk of AIDS than anyone else? If you think what I've said is not correct then state your case rather then just having a hissy-fit.

[TheHeretic]

I think he is merely pointing out that all this seemed to stem from a suggestion that this is some sort of message from god, and in reality does it really matter that maybe more Gay men may contract aids per capita, or not? The original assertion is absurd.

[davepoth]

Ozzie Osmond said:

What are you so touchy about? Having trouble with my correction of the previous poster's suggestion that homosexual men are at no greater risk of AIDS than anyone else? If you think what I've said is not correct then state your case rather then just having a hissy-fit.

I'll tag in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS

I wouldn't normally back an argument with a Wikipedia article but this one has been very well researched. What does seem to be riskiest is having a penis inserted into one's anus, and you don't need to be a gay man for that to happen. The majority of HIV infections are now through hetrosexual acts.

[Pesty]

hissy fit? just a simple question.
One I think you would not really like to answer with your true feelings.

[Blue Oval84]

thehawk said:

And he tried to re-inforce this message by sending AIDS, but the message is still not getting through.

[cymtriks]

TheHeretic said:

Do christians believe in the genesis story? Do they believe in Abraham, and Noah? What about Moses? The Ten Commandments? Even Jesus himself stated that he has not come to change anything of the 'old laws'. If you think being a Christian means ignoring the OT I think you are very much mistaken. It is the OT that provides the prophecy for the 'messiah', as well as the justification for the RC church's stance on contraception, homosexuality, and so on.

Some do. Some do have a problem with it when challenged.

The Genesis story makes a lot more sense when you consider how a tribe would see the world. Adam and Eve for example are indeed the first people on Earth from a tribal point of view!

What do you mean by "believe in" ? There is no reason to assume that Abraham, Noah and Moses were not historical figures.

Some Christians genuinely accept the whole lot but most cherry pick, occasionally with some justification based on the rules no longer applying in the modern world or on some interpretation of the NT enabling the awkward issues to be avoided.

[TheHeretic]

cymtriks said:

Some do. Some do have a problem with it when challenged.

The Genesis story makes a lot more sense when you consider how a tribe would see the world. Adam and Eve for example are indeed the first people on Earth from a tribal point of view!

What do you mean by "believe in" ? There is no reason to assume that Abraham, Noah and Moses were not historical figures.

Some Christians genuinely accept the whole lot but most cherry pick, occasionally with some justification based on the rules no longer applying in the modern world or on some interpretation of the NT enabling the awkward issues to be avoided.

You know you have said that stuff before? It is like you have the same story to tell every time... It is very odd.

As I have told you several times before, but you don't seem able to understand, I have no issue with these characters being based on real life people, however the claims are absurd in the extreme. My issue is with the supernatural claims, and the exaggeration.

Noah may well have been a chap who built a boat and put his livestock upon it during a flood. This does not mean that the biblical account is true.
Moses may well have been some leader of the Jews, but there is zero evidence of a 40 year wander in the desert, and so on, and so forth.
Adam and Eve may well be a tribal story about the forst people, but again, it does not make it true.

Please tey to absorb this this time, so the next time you come out with this you won't have to tell me the same thing.

The point about cherry picking is absolutely true. The people who do not cherry pick, we label extremists, fundamentalists, or plain old nut jobs. The Westboro Baptist church, and so on. That is the point.

[anonymous-user]

Oh I so hope this is true....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/23/cardin...

It's only Feb, but it would make my year.

[Pothole]

Colonial said:

Pothole said:

As a Catholic it's probably some kind of duty to call you on bullst, but I'm not sure I can be arsed.

I thought catholic duty involved pathetic guilt trips and following an old kiddy fiddler protector.

Can't help you there, I was talking about Catholic duty. Two very different meanings. You're incredibly funny, though.

[Pints]

TheFive said:

Sorry, but no. Check out the Roman Catholic catechism - The official guide to the Roman Catholic belief system and not open to negotiation or any kind of 'interpretation' - It's all clear as day:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Or, here for the abridged version:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/docum...

Old testament is a completely valid text I'm afraid. Genesis, the great flood, original sin, all of it. OT hasn't been superseded by NT at all, you've just made that bit up for yourself.

As you probably know, Catholicism doesn't work like that - You're either in or you're out. And if you're out, then be damned to a fiery hell for all eternity. Sorry if I've messed up anybody's plans for after they die.

Edited by TheFive on Friday 22 February 20:21

Hold on. We're talking about Christianity the one minute and then applying Catholic catechisms the next. The whole of Christendom is most certainly not defined by Catholicism and its beliefs.

[Pesty]

Pothole said:

Colonial said:

Pothole said:

As a Catholic it's probably some kind of duty to call you on bullst, but I'm not sure I can be arsed.

I thought catholic duty involved pathetic guilt trips and following an old kiddy fiddler protector.

Can't help you there, I was talking about Catholic duty. Two very different meanings. You're incredibly funny, though.

Isn't it your duty to turn the other cheek and forgive him?

[Derek Smith]

TheHeretic said:

You know you have said that stuff before? It is like you have the same story to tell every time... It is very odd.

As I have told you several times before, but you don't seem able to understand, I have no issue with these characters being based on real life people, however the claims are absurd in the extreme. My issue is with the supernatural claims, and the exaggeration.

Noah may well have been a chap who built a boat and put his livestock upon it during a flood. This does not mean that the biblical account is true.
Moses may well have been some leader of the Jews, but there is zero evidence of a 40 year wander in the desert, and so on, and so forth.
Adam and Eve may well be a tribal story about the forst people, but again, it does not make it true.

Please tey to absorb this this time, so the next time you come out with this you won't have to tell me the same thing.

The point about cherry picking is absolutely true. The people who do not cherry pick, we label extremists, fundamentalists, or plain old nut jobs. The Westboro Baptist church, and so on. That is the point.

The flood, Adam and Eve and other stories in the bible originated far from Palestine. They are copies from other, mainly more eastern, religions. Other bits, such as the virgin birth of the mother of god (read the book) are common to quite a few, mainly misogynistic, religions. Most, rather uncomfortably for the whole Abrahamic religions, predate the bible, and by some distance. There has been some evidence adduced recently to suggest that the creation of the Black Sea might have given rise to the earliest mention of a great flood, but one will never be able to say of course.

Most large western christian religions acknowledge the myths of the early part of the bible. Popes no longer profess to believe in Adam and Eve although the Garden of Eden still has a fair bit of support. Any suggestion of world-wide flooding is ignored as well, not to mention the logistical problem of getting polar bears and penguins to relocate to Palestine. But two men lying together as with a woman is supported with a violent energy. But we can eat pork, shellfish and all the other tasty stuff.

Pesty said:

Isn't it your duty to turn the other cheek and forgive him?

I've forgiven myself. In the great scheme of things, what with institutionlised sexual assualts on children, the inquisition and buggering up the life expectancy of Africans, using the term vicar to cover employees in various sects of some religion is a petty misdemeanor. A couple of Hail Hitlers will do.

[munroman]

djstevec said:

Oh I so hope this is true....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/23/cardin...

It's only Feb, but it would make my year.

Can't be true, after all this is a 'man' who implies that priests should be allowed to get married, so obviously he's a raging heterosexual.......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-21552628

[Derek Smith]

munroman said:

djstevec said:

Oh I so hope this is true....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/23/cardin...

It's only Feb, but it would make my year.

Can't be true, after all this is a 'man' who implies that priests should be allowed to get married, so obviously he's a raging heterosexual.......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-21552628

Coincidence. A couple of days after he suggested that the pope should consider allowing priests to marry we have him being denounced.

Further, his pronoucement came out as soon as same-sex marriage is voted in.