, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Card. Schonborn IIIn yesterday’s post we left off with a comment by the heterodox Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna, in which he stated that a “stable gay relationship” is better than a ‘temporary’ one”. Today we will examine (test) whether such an animal exists and if it does, whether the desire for these “stable” relationships this is in fact an OBJECTIVELY TRUE statement.

So let’s get cracking.

According to the Catholic Education Resource Center, (see here) the following is the case with homosexual behavior: (emphasis added)

Male homosexual behaviour is not simply either ‘active’ or ‘passive,’ since penile-anal, mouth-penile, and hand-anal sexual contact is usual for both partners, and mouth-anal contact is not infrequent. . . . Mouth-anal contact is the reason for the relatively high incidence of diseases caused by bowel pathogens in male homosexuals. Trauma may encourage the entry of micro-organisms and thus lead to primary syphilitic lesions occurring in the anogenital area. . . . In addition to sodomy, trauma may be caused by foreign bodies, including stimulators of various kinds, penile adornments, and prostheses.”20

By far the largest problem with which the human body has to cope, when engaging in homosexual behavior is as follows:

Anal intercourse is the sine qua non of sex for many gay men.22 Yet human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an “exit-only” passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.

The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids.

Furthermore, ejaculate has components that are immunosuppressive. In the course of ordinary reproductive physiology, this allows the sperm to evade the immune defenses of the female. Rectal insemination of rabbits has shown that sperm impaired the immune defenses of the recipient.23 Semen may have a similar impact on humans.24

The end result is that the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections. The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming:
Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Viral hepatitis types B & C

Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown. Others, while found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners, are clearly predominated by those involved in homosexual activity. Syphilis, for example is found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners. But in 1999, King County, Washington (Seattle), reported that 85 percent of syphilis cases were among self-identified homosexual practitioners.26 And as noted above, syphilis among homosexual men is now at epidemic levels in San Francisco.27

A 1988 CDC survey identified 21 percent of all Hepatitis B cases as being homosexually transmitted while 18 percent were heterosexually transmitted.28 Since homosexuals comprise such a small percent of the population (only 1-3 percent),29 they have a significantly higher rate of infection than heterosexuals.30

Anal intercourse also puts men at significant risk for anal cancer. Anal cancer is the result of infection with some subtypes of human papilloma virus (HPV), which are known viral carcinogens. Data as of 1989 showed the rates of anal cancer in male homosexual practitioners to be 10 times that of heterosexual males, and growing. 30 Thus, the prevalence of anal cancer among gay men is of great concern. For those with AIDS, the rates are doubled.31
Other physical problems associated with anal intercourse are:
anal fissures
anorectal trauma
retained foreign bodies.

So main take away from the above text is the homosexual behavior is not only harmful, but in a clinical sense it is also dangerous.

With respect to long-term health problems for individuals who engage repeatedly in homosexual behavior, this medical condition is known as the GAY BOWEL SYNDROME (Gay Bowel Disease or GBD). The GSD is described as follows: (see here)

Gay bowel syndrome, which has also been described as gay bowel disease, was named as an illness in 1976 in the medical literature via the journal Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science and in 2004 Medscape stated that gay bowel syndrome is a significant issue in regards HIV infection (The Johns Hopkins HIV Guide website also presently features a literature review article which is essentially a duplicate of the aforementioned article at Medscape).[1][2][3][4] Gay bowel syndrome is a clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases which occur with unusual frequency in homosexual patients (the diseases are not exclusive to male homosexuals)

And the key for our post today is the following passage:

Dr. Michael Heller’s medical journal article in the Annals of Emergency Medicine entitled The Gay Bowel Syndrome: A Common Problem of Homosexual Patients in the Emergency states regarding gay bowel syndrome the following: “Frequently and promiscuity of sexual intercourse is probably a major risk factor. Gay men in this country have both higher rates of intercourse and many more sexual partners than do either straight men or gay women.”[11]

From the above, it is self-evident that the statement by the heretic Card. Schönborn is NOT AN OBJECTIVELY CORRECT statement.

It is NOT an OBJECTIVELY CORRECT statement since the “frequency” of engaging is this dangerous and “intrinsically disordered” behaviour leads to the medical conditions described above. Therefore, it is IN FACT a “temporary gay relationship” that is “better” than a “stable gay relationship” that would be the OBJECTIVELY CORRECT STATEMENT in this case. Actually, abstinence from this type of “intrinsically disordered” activity would be the best case scenario.

Clinically speaking, of course.

With respect to the “stable gay relationships” themselves, ‘do these “relationships” in fact exist?’ is the next question. And if they do exist, to what degree do they exist in a state of OBJECTIVE REALITY. Here is the relevant passage:

Monogamy, meaning long-term sexual fidelity, is rare in GLB relationships, particularly among gay men. One study reported that 66 percent of gay couples reported sex outside the relationship within the first year, and nearly 90 percent if the relationship lasted five years.

Oh well, looks like the “stable gay relationship” appears to be a very rare animal.

Actually, it is such a rare animal that a study by Colleen Hoff at the Center for Research on Gender & Sexuality at San Francisco State University affirms what we already suspected from the evidence above: monogamy in even “stable” homosexual relationships is rare. (see here) Here is a how Colleen Hoff explains this situation:

Three out of 4 people (male homosexuals) described non-monogamy as a positive thing, and said it gave them a sexual outlet without having to lie. Participants reported it helped relationships survive by providing honest options and minimizing deceit, tension and resentment. Some “played” independently, others as a threesome, and about 80 percent agreed to tell all or some details of their encounters, the rest preferring a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Concluding, from the evidence above, it becomes quite self-evident that engaging in a harmful, if not dangerous activity leads to health problems. Furthermore, the more frequent this dangerous activity, the higher the risk of these medical health problems arising. We can drop the “probably” qualifier here. The empirical evidence bears this causal relationship out. And in this section of the population, frequency and promiscuity of sexual intercourse are the norm.

On the other hand, the notion that a “stable gay relationship”, one that is monogamous, in the proper sense of that word, is ipso facto a mythical animal at best.

Therefore, summing up the heretic Card. Schönborn statement that “stable gay relationship’ is better than a ‘temporary’ one”, the evidence above suggest that what we are dealing with in this case is nothing more than a “body of doctrine, myth, etc. that guides an individual, institution, class, or large group”. A “system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation” and is confined to “theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature”.

In other words, what the heretic Card. Schönborn is promoting is simply an IDEOLOGY.

The very same IDEOLOGY WORD that that other heretic Cardinal Kasper is presently warning about. (see here)

One final thought with respect to the above.  It would appear that the secular Homo Lobby (GENDER LOBBY) and the neo-modernists have at least one thing in common. The manner in which they deconstruct and corrupt the objective meaning of words is very similar (see here). If one reads the Hoff article, one notices that the HomoLobby uses the term “monogamous” in a very similar manner as the neo-modernist uses the word “doctrine”.

Funny that!