Stephen Bennett’s latest press release is so chock-full of bizarreness that I hardly know where to start. But here goes:
Stephen Bennett, now married for 13 years to his wife Irene and father of the couple’s two children, is a national speaker on the issue of HIV/AIDS and other dangerous sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) among gay men.
He is? Just when has Bennett been a speaker on the issue of HIV/AIDS?
Quoting selected statistics does not make you an authority on medical issues, Stephen. You are NOT a speaker on the issue of HIV/AIDS, Stephen. Pedro Zamora was a speaker on the issue of HIV/AIDS. You are an anti-gay activist who regurgitates anything negative you can find about gay people and who happens to include in your arsenal some medical statistics.
As for his orientation, Stephen now says this of himself:
“As a heterosexual man who once engaged in homosexual behavior for 11 years…”
“…as a former gay man…”
I’m not even going to try to understand what Stephen means other than that he now considers himself heterosexual (and if anyone was wondering, he is his children’s father).
In response to a tentative finding that a drug is showing promise that it may possibly prevent HIV infection, Bennett says this:
“I believe this possible HIV prevention pill is only going to push a culture down an already dangerous and risky path. This pill is the equivalent to a drug rehab assisting heroine addicts in their addiction by giving them needles.”
…“Listen, as a former gay man, the news of a possible ‘prevention pill’ is one of the most dangerous signals you can send to individuals bent on engaging in unsafe sex and potentially deadly behavior. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) over 53% of all HIV/AIDS cases in America to date are due to men having sex with men (MSM). This twisted ideology only gives the appearance of a green light for gay men to engage ‘safer’ in unsafe, dangerous sexual behavior. This message is tragic and irresponsible at best,” said Bennett.
Bennett’s twisted logic seems to say gay sex is bad because it’s dangerous and deadly. And a pill that could eliminate the risk of contracting HIV would make gay sex less dangerous and deadly. And if gay sex weren’t dangerous and deadly, then people might be more inclined to have gay sex. And that would be bad. Because gay sex is dangerous and deadly, oh wait it wouldn’t be, but.. uh.. urg.. it’s bad I tell ya, bad.
I can just imagine the hysterics if a polio-style vaccine is ever found for HIV.
Stephen ended, “The medical community wants a ‘prevention pill?’ It’s already available – it’s called abstinence.”
I think it’s clear that Bennett would be horrified if all sexually transmitted disease were eliminated because then he couldn’t define gay sex as “potentially deadly” or “dangerous”. Without a real medical reason to oppose sex, he’d be left arguing solely on his own religious beliefs. And that isn’t as likely to raise money or convince people.
Bennett’s very bad response to this very good news displays the ugliest face of the ex-gay movement. Only an evil person rejoices at others’ illnesses. Only an evil person laments when this sickness can be avoided.
And it causes me to question Bennett’s claim that “I’ve lost numerous dear friends to AIDS”. If you have watched, as I have, the emaciated face of someone you love wracked in pain and dying before your eyes, you cannot think that a pill that would reduce the chance of someone else going through this is “tragic and irresponsible at best”.
Bennett claims that he is “authoring his first book, “I WAS Gay” to be released December 2006.” We’ll see, Stephen. Will this book be as vague in detail as the rest of your testimony? Will it say “I lived in Connecticut” and “I went to a church” and “I had a partner” and “I had friends die of AIDS” and all the other nameless general statements that have carried you so far? Or will this book provide any verifiable details that can substantiate any of the often bizarre and foreign claims you make about living as a gay man?
(thanks to goodasyou.org)
If you give up something you really love, because you think there’s a greater good involved.
And then someone takes away that greater good.
You feel cheated.
Maybe Stephen Bennett really was a gay man. Until this press release, I thought Stephen Bennett was a straight man playing gay, in a story of Victor, Victoria ploy by the evangelicals who got tired of having their posterboys get caught in gay bars, bathhouses, and other compromising situations, and decided the only way to make a heterosexual, is to start with one.
Cripes, that man is just plain horrid. From Bennett:
Well — for starters… the fact that such programmes for IDU are already run in comparable developed countries under “harm reduction” strategies. The United States is a noted exception. In Australia, and elsewhere, addict’s can actually shootup in some drop-in centres that have emergency staffing on hand (there are not many, sadly, due to opposition from religious cranks.. despite the fact they are also usually run by faith-based groups!). Free, clean needles are widely distributed — no questions asked. Special yellow bins for “sharps” are everywhere (even our local library has one). Along with this is a concerted effort to get people to kick the habit, and school-based drug education.The logic is simple: some, mostly young, people are going to come into contact with drugs — and we want to ensure they don’t drop dead before we’ve had an opportunity to get them off drugs and guide them into becoming productive citizens.The United States instead relies heavily on imprisonment — yes, one more fear-based effort. Most comparable countries have already recognised that putting silly kids into gaols that are thenself awash with drugs and violent criminals is at best counterproductive. At worst, it is an immoral effort to scare all others off drugs by making a sacrifical lamb of some.Yep… now you see where we’re going in the linked attitudes 🙂 Bennett is using the same willingness to sacrifice a few people to frighten the many. That, in our framework, makes him a highly immoral and unethical person.In an ironic twist, given the Bennett “logic”, these free, clean needles programmes have been highly successful from one other perspective: it has prevented the jump of HIV from IDU and/or bisexual populations into the general heterosexual population. Go look up the stats from any source and tell me how well the United States compares…And for all those who doubted it before… not us … it’s obvious, Stephen Bennett relies on a fear-based message of l.o.v.e. He’d rather see people DEAD than GAY.He’s actually pissed that what he indiscriminately calls “risky, unsafe sexual practices and behavior” might — in all cases — cease to be. That leaves him nothing else but just bangin’ on about Jesus or using social discrimination/violence to induce fear into gay men.[All this, quite apart from the fact that gay sex is not a risky, unsafe sexual practice or behavior in any case — hey, we aught to know! Two monogamous, uninfected people CANNOT pass anything onto one another; regardless of what they do. Or where. Or when. :)]And we had decided we will end any “bennett post” this way from now on…
I see the potential benefit in taking tenofovir and emtricitabine under a doctor’s careful supervision.
But I disagree that the drug qualifies as a form of harm reduction if someone is routinely using it without medical supervision, or using it without also maintaining safer-sex practices or refraining from sex altogether.
Amateur and unsupervised use, especially in conjunction with unsafe sex practices, would almost certainly contribute to the formation of drug-resistant strains of HIV and other viruses, and eventually render the drugs ineffective for other people who behave responsibly and practice legitimate harm reduction.
The human papilloma vaccine has been criticized for the same reason. If young girls are vaccinated, they’ll run out and have sex. Wow! Some people sure have an odd way of thinking.
It is also clear that Stephen is not involved in the HIV/AIDS prevention community, for he would then know that although a large percentage of new HIV cases are MSM, it is believed many of those men do not consider themselves gay, and have relationships with women as well. In fact, it is also believed that men who don’t consider themselves gay are far more likely to engage in unsafe sex practices. I would bet, were a prevention mechanism like this to come along, those men would not be likely to use it, because that might make them consider themselves “gay.”
Also, Bennet is once again engaging in gay bashing with these statistics. Yes, 53% of cases TO DATE may be due to male/male sexual contact, but in recent years the percentage of cases due to such contact is well below 50%, in fact it is below 45% if you don’t include men who both use injectable drugs and have sex with other men (e.g., a lot of male prostitutes).
One thing the “pro-family” movement has never done is acknowledge the tremendous work the gay community did in creating effective prevention campaigns in the 80s and 90s, particularly since there was very little government support for those programs until the Clinton administration. I have worked in health care since 89, and remember the early estimates of what the caseload would be in the mid and late 90s at that point. Those estimates turned out to be much higher than reality, and much of the reason for that is the amazing work the gay community did.
What an idiot this Bennett guy is!
Would he have an issue if no one had worked to cure syphillis?
Would he prefer that retroviral trials resemble the Tuskeegee Experiment?
Our human species has had an STD always. Syphillis WAS the HIV/AIDS of it’s day.
And he’s so damn focused on gay men, it’s sickening!
A very close friend of mine found out recently that her 24 year old 7 months pregnant niece is HIV +.
She was involved with a 55 year old married man with 8 children.
I don’t think he’d told this young woman that he was married, until his pissed off wife showed up to threaten her.
He’s now also tested positive for HIV.
It’s rumored this young woman isn’t his only girlfriend.
And obviously his wife is probably at risk.
I’m upset that infection rates among straight people as connected to gay people having sex with straight people.
Straight folks have to get it into their skulls that they get infected for the same reasons gay people do.
Unprotected sex. Most often unprotected promiscuity.
But in this case, there is a little baby involved and infected pre birth.
The girl is on welfare and the father of it has created a serious web of infection and problems for a whole lot of people.
One straight married man HIV+ man=Mr. DL straight guy has infected woman AND children.
Bias in medicine and public health surely didn’t and doesn’t help anything.
Same could be said for Bennett too.
Oh, Regan, my heart wept at reading that. I feel so bad for how often good people trust someone they shouldn’t and how tragic that can be.
Thank God that we are at a place where there is some effective medication against HIV and that with proper care the baby has a fairly high chance of birth without infection. And if it does become infected at birth, there are many infants that with proper medication have been able to remove all detectable traces of the virus from their system.
Mike, I agree that a casual approach to the drug in question and an attitude of false security could result in other STIs or infections. However, from what I’ve read so far, this drug has also been fairly successful in the area of drug-resistant strains and seems to work on most (if not all) mutations and has very few negative side effects. The drug company is being very hesitant and is taking a go-very-slow approach, but this just might possibly be a “miracle drug” – though let’s not get our hopes too high yet.
As far as I can tell from the reporting so far, unlike a vaccination which could be taken once and be done with, this drug would have to be taken on a regular basis (they are not sure at what frequency) to protect against sero-conversion.
Nonetheless, even if by some miracle, you could take this drug once a month and never worry again about contracting HIV, we all know that there are other STIs. Condoms would still be necessary.
What it would do – and this would be heavenly – would be to take away the amunition of those who claim gay sex to be more “dangerous and deadly” than hetero sex.
Taking this pill would be little different from a woman taking “the pill” for contraception. And folks like Bennett hate the idea of losing the fear of AIDS as a tool with which to bash or recruit.
I’d agree, Mike, about unsupervised (or, at least, uneducated) use of any drug regime. Vaccination is different, but that also requires a concerted effort — or compulsion — to ensure that nearly all the population is vaccinated otherwise it fails too. QED the return of rubella and polio…Actually, we both feel the same way about plain old antibiotics. After several decades of often indiscriminate use — and little funding for research — we are all about to see, we fear, some of the age-old diseases make a roaring come-back; and this time be multi-drug resistant. People should not ask for , and doctors should not prescribe, antibiotics for viral infections such as the common cold. That practice of putting antibiotics into feed during intense factory farming… well, don’t get me started!… Somewhere along the way we seem to have forgotten what evolutionary theory so easily predicted.We know of one woman — neither gay or HIV+ — who after several decades of foolish antibiotic use now finds herself unresponsive to the 4 lowest stages of antibiotics. Any infection now sees her sent to the specialist HIV ward, because only they have the experience to deal with her.But, of course, those multi-drug resistant problems already appearing “only” currently impact (largely) the poor, the destitute, the drug users, gay, black inner city … so “what do I care?”It’s so much easier to demonise, than come up with a solution. So much easier to attack those infected, than attack the reasons.–And Regan — it seems there always room on your broad shoulders. Your friend is fortunate to have your support and your kind heart — make sure you don’t take on everything alone. All three of you are in our thoughts. x G&D
You are my darling friends, and thank you so much!
I will tell my friend you were so kind. She’s very distressed about her niece. It was a long lost niece who was raised in foster care her whole life.
And my friend spent years, as I did, as a counselor for AIDS Project LA. One can work for an advocacy, and lo…a family member ends up in trouble.
I read my post and I think what I tried to say was that gay men are too easily blamed for infections among straight folks.
I don’t like how eagerly the down low situation was embraced as widespread, with virtually gay sexual involvement is the fault.
In Southern Voice today, there is an article on Lou Sheldon addressing a black congregation.
He’s actually saying that black women should be sexually dutiful to their men, then the men wouldn’t have to stray and put them at risk of AIDS.
I better NEVER see Lou Sheldon in person….I seriously want to beat his face in.
From the sovo.com article:
“Addressing the “down-low,” a term that describes married black men having sex with other men in secret, Pleasant told hundreds of worshipers March 25 that God intended man and woman to procreate.
“The marital duty is not being fulfilled,” Pleasant said. “Why are we with you women? Just think about it…we have a strong sex drive. You need to do your part and keep the marriage bed pure. Whenever your husband wants sex it is your duty to say yes.””
See, Regan, it’s the fault of you and other black women. It’s nice to know that homosexuality, along with just about anything else that white conservative heterosexual males disapprove of, can be nicely blamed on black women.
And isn’t it lovely to see black males so anxious to be part of the crowd of “good conservative Christians” that get faith-based cash that they are willing to perpetuate the stereotypes about black men being over-sexed.
I don’t know whether to be angry or sad
I lost an uncle to AIDS and cannot begin to believe any human being who has watched anyone die this way could be anything but ecstatic at the thought of ending this disease. Of course by the sound of it this vile s.o.b. is anything but human.
“Whenever your husband wants sex it is your duty to say yes.”
That’s hilarious. There was never enough intercourse when I was married to my wife. I guess that was the problem, we weren’t Christian. Now if only my ex-wife had been Christian maybe I’d still married to her instead of a transgendered girl in love with a man…nah, I doubt it.
Where does one begin with such an absurd premise as this? Since when do we consider how it might affect behavior if a disease is successfully treated or prevented? The only thing such a cure would endanger is the heinous argument that some zealots have made from the AIDS epidemic. We are human beings; we can decide if we are or are not going to participate in certain behaviors without requiring a deadly disease as coercion – and yes I realize that in some cases no change in behavior could have prevented infection. But if curing this disease removes that club from the arsenal of a group of grotesque, cruel hypocrites, then what a shame that is for them.
Stephen Bennett, have you given your soul to God or sold it to James Dobson, et al? I’m serious sir, step back and look at what you are saying. Are you really doing God’s work or are you just ratcheting up the rhetoric so someone somewhere will listen to your show and boost your career? Even if everything you believe about homosexuality were true, you would still be so terribly wrong for what you say.
If I speak in the tongues of men and angels, but have no love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging symbol. 1 Corinthians 13:1
David
I tried to engage him in discussion. I asked the usual, “Jesus wouldn’t say that” type question in the comments box. Steven responded a little while later and said that Jesus told the woman at the well to go an sin no more. That’s all that he was doing.
After I replied that his comment sounded a great deal like the Pharisees and their adherence to the letter of the law but not the spirit of it, and I that I questioned his compassion and humanity because such a pill could potentially save billions of lives, he pulled our little exchange and closed comments all together.
I really feel sad for the man.
“Steven responded a little while later and said that Jesus told the woman at the well to go an sin no more. That’s all that he was doing.”
Isn’t it interesting that there is only one story in the new testament, only ONE, that the scholars are not sure was ever part of the original texts. Because the “go and sin no more” story shows up in some copies and not in others and in different places within the ones it does, they just aren’t certain.
And it is this one uncertain scripture that people like Bennett have on which they base all of their judgement of others.
Wow.
The first time I read an article by Stephen I was surprised by how incredibly anti-gay he was, and I’ve read a lot of anti-gay stuff. His story couldn’t be any more anti-gay if it was scripted, which inclines me to think it was.
Steven responded a little while later and said that Jesus told the woman at the well to go an sin no more.
Just to clarify, it was the woman that Jesus saved from being stoned that he told to “go and sin no more,” not the woman at the well. I’m surprised Bennett doesn’t know his Bible stories better.
And, as Timothy pointed out, scholars debate whether that story (the attempted stoning) actually belongs in the canon.
Timothy and Eugene – my sweety gave me the book “Misquoting Jesus” by Bart D. Ehrman for my birthday. I haven’t read it yet, but the gist of it is that there are many differences between earliest texts and in his opinion there are many questions about what belongs in canon.
Thanks Eugene,
You’re correct. I focused on the “go and sin no more part” and forgot that the woman at the well was a similar but different story.
The “woman at the well” story, from John 4:1-42, was about a Samaritan woman whom Jesus, as a Jew, should not have spoken to. But since Jesus did not give a fig for the rules of the good religious folk, he did.
As a miracle, He told her that He knew that she had five husbands and the man she was living with was not her husband. And even though it is clear that Jesus knew she was sinning, he did NOT tell her that she should go and sin no more. (This is also the story where Jesus talks about “living water”).
If Stephen wishes to apply the “woman at the well” story, it’s not a bad comparison. Jesus had a chance to condemn the violation of the sexual code of Leviticus, and even noted the violation, but did not condemn the person nor tell them to stop violating the Levitical Law.
hint, hint, Stephen
Randi,
I’m slogging my way through Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman. Because it’s mostly translation of second and third century texts, and since much of it is Gnostic (who seemed to deliberately write as confusingly as they could) it’s a slow go.
Let me know how you like “Misquoting Jesus”. However, please don’t use this as an excuse to belittle those who don’t agree with you, or their religion, OK?
I’ve been thinking a bit lately on your anti-religious views. I will probably phrase this poorly but I don’t intend offense so please don’t take offense.
I believe that all people have spiritual aspect to their nature and that there is an internal drive to fulfill that aspect. Some folks join an organized religion, others meditate or do yoga, and yet others channel it elsewhere into art or the study of philosophy.
It seems to me (though I may be incorrect) that you are fulfilling your own drive for spirituality by attacking religion. And while this may feed your drive, I think it may be doing so in a negative way.
I’m not suggesting that you should not question what you perceive to be errors, flaws, and even danger in religion. I’m simply suggesting that you need to change the focus from a negative approach towards others into a positive approach for you. Or at least have some balance. Perhaps meditation or walks in nature would be good. Anything that feeds positive energy and gives a sense of peace, rather than that which feeds animosity and negative emotion.
I know it’s very presumptuous of me to tell you how to approach your spiritual side – while asking you to lay off of mine – so feel free to ignore this. But please understand I really am not trying to be judgmental or critical. I just think that you would be much happier if you had some positive spirituality in your life.
Well, son of a bitch. How any of these people can be held up as “moral” by themselves or anyone else is beyond me.
Bill, thanks for beating me to the point.
Regan, there are a lot of faces I’d join you in beating in right now.
Of course, Focus on the Family has a brochure about how to deal with gay friends and relatives that advocates praying that loved ones “experience the consequences of their sin”, too.
Yeah, because if they didn’t remind God to punish us, he’d forget, or what?
Timothy said:
As a miracle, He told her that He knew that she had five husbands and the man she was living with was not her husband. And even though it is clear that Jesus knew she was sinning, he did NOT tell her that she should go and sin no more.
I’m not sure I understand you here. It is my understanding that SB is inaccurate in this instance, not because Jesus has no problem with sin (a notion I feel certain most would have to find absurd on it’s face), but rather because what he is describing (homosexuality and homosexual behavior) is not in and of itself considered sinful by scripture. I don’t see a need to gut a primary characteristic of God, i.e. that He is Holy and hates sin (including what SB is doing right there), to show that SB is misusing the text. Did I misunderstand you?
David
You know, the interesting thing about when people say “well Jesus got angry and drove people out of the temple” or “Jesus told so-and-so not to go sin anymore”…
Am I the only one that thinks…That was Jesus? Did Jesus ever tell others to run around telling other people to sin no more?
I figure when Jesus gives me the ability to truly see in people’s hearts and minds…when he gives me an amazing and overwhelming sense of compassion for other people….when he gives me the ability to tell someone everything they ever did in their lives in such a loving and compassionate way that they still want to introduce me to everyone they know, then maybe (just maybe) I’ll be able to tell someone to go and sin no longer.
David,
Thanks for the question. To clarify:
I’m not discussing whether God (in the personage of Jesus) hates sin. I am discussing Jesus’ response to the sin of the person standing in front of Him.
Bennett is using the “go and sin no more story” to justify his judgmental attitude. If Jesus condemned the sin of people during His ministry and told them to “sin no more”, then Bennett feels that he, too, can lecture, condemn, and harangue people (and/or their sin) and tell them to sin no more. And further, he (Bennett) will condemn a pill that could limit the chance that their sin has punishment in the form of disease.
However, ironically, the example he gave (the woman at the well) was a clear example of how Jesus had an opportunity and justification to condemn someone’s sin – yet did NOT do so.
And the other half of Bennett’s convoluted example (where he told the woman caught in adultery who was going to be stoned to “go and sin no more”) is about the least supportable example of Jesus’ ministry in Scripture.
So, whether or not you hold that God is incompatible with sin, and without debating the varying doctrinal positions that result from that position (from harsh judgment to lenient redemption), Bennett’s justification of his judgmental attitude is weak.
Posted by: Timothy Kincaid at April 3, 2006 03:51 PM
Thanks for the thought you’ve given to me and my positions. I believe you have a good understanding of where I’m coming from and I agree with much of what you said. I’ll do my best to minimize how much I offend when I question religious beliefs but at 45 the most I believe I might achieve is to make minor changes which might add up to significant change over the years.
I’ll try not to belittle, but I must question as long as no one forces me to shut up and those two goals are in conflict. I think you acknowledged this when you said “Jesus did not give a fig for the rules of good religious folk”. Jesus also told his mother something to the effect of “Woman, I don’t know you.”. Please understand the conflict I have in living by rules I only partly agree with. Thankyou for your patience, I thought it likely when I made my previous post that would be the last straw. You’ve given me the full consideration my spirit needs and I am grateful for that.
Dear Timothy,
How can it be said, after we have seen that gay sex is a very efficient way to spread a deadly virus, that gay sex could ever be as safe as the heterosexual variety? Even if scientists find a vaccine or such like for HIV, how could anyone ever claim that this type of sex can be safe in a global village where other diseases like this could spread to all seven continents within a matter of hours?
I’m getting ready to start a family, and I don’t think I want anyone telling my children that gay sex is safe. Of course, if such a vaccine were available, I’d see that my child got it. But that is a separate question. Yes, I know that in theory gay men can be safe and straight people can be reckless, but parents generally want to steer their kids towards whatever bears them the least risk of harm. That is only natural and reasonable.
By the way Timothy, the mere fact that FOF told people to pray that their loves ones experience the consequences of sin has nothing to do with a disease.
Secular people like yourself often do not understand what “sin” means to religious people. Take the story of the Buddha. When he was mired in sensual indulgence in his father’s palace, he began to feel a certain emptiness, or cycle of dissatisfaction. He slowly came to believe that this way of life would lead him nowhere and set out to find something more.
For Christians, sin is something that eats away at us from the inside out and diverts us from the things God means for us to do here on this planet. Those are the things that bring true satisfaction. That is why the FOF brochure goes on to say that God’s hope is not punishment but repentance. In repentance, we find a deep, true liberation that sexual license cannot bring. But then, I’m sure you know this, because I think you said earlier that you are monogamous and not licentious.
The point is, to pray for someone to experience the consequences of their sin is not to pray for them to die of a disease, but to recognize that they are not on the road to true human fulfillment.
I think this is really important, because the demonizing of the religious right is no more fair than the demonizing of gay people. It just seems to me that you are unfairly trying to discredit their point of view on sexual morality by taking things out of context and making them seem inhumane.
sofita,
To be quite frank, but with any luck not to be too graphic, there is not such thing as “gay sex.” There are many different forms of sexual acts, and only one of those is limited to male/female couplings. And certainly it is true that straight people do not solely engage in that one form of sexual intimacy (remember the Kobe Bryant case? Let’s just say it was impossible for his partner/victim to have been impregnated during the incident). Different acts carry different risks of transmitting any STD, depending on the act.
More important than the sexual act itself are the contributions of the number of partners, frequency of acts and use/non-use of protection to the risks of any STD transmission. An act of “gay sex” between two virgins, or between any two STD-negative gay adults, carries no risk whatsoever (and the same goes for heterosexuals). The problem is that one does not always know when one is dealing with either a virgin or an STD-free adult, hence the drive for safer sex practices, and possibly the form of pharmaceutical prevention discussed here.
If you truly want to steer your children to the least risk of STDs, then the answer is not to stratify sex between opposite gender people as “safe” and same gender people as “dangerous,” but rather to teach that promiscuity represents the true danger of STDs. I can tell you here in Washington DC, where I reside, there is a very high HIV transmission rate among opposite-gender pairings, just as there is in Africa. Limiting the number of partners and the frequency of anonymous sex is the best way to prevent STD transmission; using protection is the next best step.
sofita, in what way is gay sex not safe? You mention the spread of disease, but a monogamous gay couple would not spread HIV any more than their heterosexual counterparts.
I know that AIDS is transmitted through heterosexual sex and that everyone must be careful. However, the fact is that if my son turns out straight, I won’t have to worry about him engaging in receptive anal sex, protected or not. Lets face it, youth get drunk, do drugs, and have unprotected sex all the time.
I feel like y’all are being dishonest if you don’t admit that gay men are at a higher risk than straight ones.
Sofita, I think we’re all fairly clear on the fact that the receptive person in a sexual encounter is more at risk. If you have daughters, they will be more at risk than your sons are. This is probably why it’s a good idea to teach kids about the consequences of unprotected sex and promiscuity.
Actually, Sofita, if your daughters are lesbians, they will be less at risk.
So, Sofita, you think if your son gets drunk and has unprotected heterosexual sex he’s at less risk than if he has drunken unprotected gay sex? I think you’re being dishonest if you can’t acknowledge the problem is the drunken unprotected part, not the gay part. My boyfriend was a virgin when we fell in love which is more than I can say for the women I had relationships with.
Sofita,
You have so many false assumptions that it is hard to know where to start.
First let’s discuss HIV:
1. To discuss “gay sex” as being dangerous in the context of a “global village” is either woefully ignorant or hopelessly uninformed. There are reasons why huge percentages of the population of some areas of the African continent are HIV positive, and “gay sex” is not one of them.
2. As pointed out above, sex between two non-infected partners has no danger of either contracting HIV. While it is dangerous to engage in sexual activity with an HIV positive opposite sex partner, there is no risk or serotransmission from an HIV negative person. This is the information that you should tell your children.
3. The information about the safety of sex – or lack thereof – that you provide to your children will have absolutely zero to do with their sexual orientation. Their orientation – the sex to whom they are attracted and whom they find desireable – will be determined long before you have any discussion with them about the birds and bees.
Now your assumptions about me personally:
4. I’m not a “secular person”. If you read much here you will see that I’m one of many “religous people” here. In fact, you would notice that David Roberts and I from time to time will to off on a tangent and debate minutia of religious interpretation, tradition, doctrine, and dogma. I’m not a theologian, nor am I a minister, but I’m very well versed in what things “mean to religous people”.
Dismissing my views as “secular” shows a willful intention to dismiss that with which you disagree rather than a thoughtful and prayerful challenge to your presumptions. In other words, arrogance, willfulness, and a haughty spirit.
5. I’m well aware of what what “sin” means to a fundamentalist Christian.
6. No, I’ve actually not said that I’m “monogamous and not licentious.” I deliberately have avoided discussing my sexual life, sexual history, or relationship status. I think that such a discussion distracts from the issues at hand and devolves into a critique of the personal rather than the item under discussion. And I have no intention of opening myself up to that (though I suspect that the more observant can deduce).
To the conversation at hand:
6. No one is discussing “sexual license”. Under no one’s definition (other than perhaps yours) could a committed monogamous covenanted same sex relationship be considered sexual license. Perhaps that is the reason that the anti-gay activists try so hard to say that such relationships do not exist.
7. Praying for the consequences of sin to be brought down upon someone is cruel. And unscriptural. Christ does tell us to pray for our enemies, but it isn’t for them to be “eaten away from the inside” either physically or metaphorically. The desire that our loved ones be miserable enough that they turn to God is so contrary to the teachings of Christ that I marvel that you could defend it. God is not looking for us to come to him under coercion.
Finally, back to the thread topic:
8. The fact that you would vaccinate your children for HIV sets you apart from Alan Chambers. He is dismayed at anything that would reduce the misery of gay people. This is also evident in his opposition to gay marriage because he might have found happiness in one. The position taken by Chambers, and defended by you, in anathema to the teachings of Christ. In every instance,
Christ taught us to love our neighbors, our enemies, and everyone in between. By “love”, he said meant care for them physically, visit the sick, feed the hungry. Never did he say “when you see someone sinning, hope they get good and hungry so that will make them start behaving”. He said time and again that the social rejects (the Samaritans, the “least of these”) are the ones that will represent Christ when it comes to how you treat them. Praying for their misery or for them to experience the “consequences of sin” is exactly the opposite of the only commandments Christ gave to us.
You are preaching an anti-Christ theology.
Well put. As an evangelical I specifically and unreservedly condemn such an attitude. How this can be reconciled with anything taught by Jesus is beyond me.
Timothy said “David Roberts and I from time to time will to off on a tangent and debate minutia of religious interpretation, tradition, doctrine, and dogma.”
I’d like to join in on that.
I know that AIDS is transmitted through heterosexual sex and that everyone must be careful. However, the fact is that if my son turns out straight, I won’t have to worry about him engaging in receptive anal sex, protected or not.
I wouldn’t be too sure of that. Heterosexuals engage in anal sex, including teenagers.
Just by chance, I happened to read a report just this morning that according to the National Survey of Adolescent Males (a nationally representative sample of males aged 15-19) 11% of heterosexual teen males had anal sex with a female.
Gates, Gary J.; Sonenstein,. Freya L. “Heterosexual genital sexual activity among adolescent males: 1988 and 1995.” Family Planning Perspectives 32, no. 6 (November 2000): 295-297, 304. Full text available online at https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3229500.html.