Arland Nichols

Affirming love, avoiding AIDS

Arland Nichols
By Arland Nichols

June 25, 2012 (HLIAmerica.org) - It was a distressing report from the Center for Disease Control — a May 2012 update on HIV and AIDS among gay and bisexual men. The report details the degree of HIV/AIDS infection in the population of men who have sex with men (MSM).

Though the report is both startling and disturbing, I am compelled to first echo the Church’s teaching that unjust discrimination toward human beings, including those who have deep-seated homosexual inclinations, is never acceptable and most be decried wherever it occurs. Every human being should be treated with respect, his dignity honored, and his health and welfare protected and preserved. This is our obligation as Catholics.

Here are some of the sobering figures: Though they make up only 2 percent of the U.S. population, in 2009 MSM accounted for 61 percent of all new HIV infections in the United States and 79 percent of all infections among newly infected men. In 2010, this rate of diagnosis among MSM remained unchanged at 61 percent and 78 percent respectively.

By the end of 2009 there were an estimated 784,701 persons in the United States living with an HIV diagnosis and 51 percent of these were MSM. Similarly, 51 percent of AIDS diagnoses were among MSM. From 2006-09 infection rates of young men increased 34 percent. Nearly half of infections are in white males, while 30 percent are black/African American, and 19 percent are Hispanic. By the end of 2009, nearly 300,000 MSM had died from AIDS.

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

In the United States, 2 percent of the population — those who engage in homosexual acts — account for 61 percent of all new HIV infections; 19 percent of this population is infected with HIV. This is truly startling and demands our attention. It is God’s words to Cain after he killed Abel that come to mind — “The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground.”

We must respond to this cry. A dignified response to the HIV/AIDS crisis is a human response that encourages moral behavior. Pope Benedict XVI has repeatedly emphasized that a medical response is necessary but insufficient. Speaking of the crisis he says, “Above all, it is an ethical problem. The change of behavior that it requires — for example, sexual abstinence, rejection of sexual promiscuity … ultimately involves the question of integral development. … For if it is to be effective, the prevention of AIDS must be based on a sex education that is itself grounded in an anthropology anchored in the natural law and enlightened by the word of God and the Church’s teaching” (“Africae Munus,” No. 72).

In other words, chastity, abstinence and genuine friendship are essential. Somewhat surprisingly, the CDC report doesn’t entirely disagree with this, as it states that HIV is caused by the kind of behavior engaged in by homosexual men, and while condom use is recommended, the CDC goes so far as to warn against the riskiest acts stating that avoiding them are “the most effective ways to prevent HIV.”

Unfortunately the response of the federal government has not emphasized abstinence and chastity. The projected 2012 budget allocated 21.5 billion dollars to HIV/AIDS in the United States. Of that, only 1 billion is directed toward prevention. A survey of the organizations that receive these monies indicates that little if any funds are slotted for abstinence education. It is, quite simply, not a part of the federal government’s response to the crisis.

Favored is an approach that stresses “risk reduction” including condoms, counseling and testing rather than encouraging primary behavioral changes. The assumption seems to be that asking one to change his sexual behavior is unrealistic, and asks too much.

This is disastrously bad policy. As Matthew Hanley and Jokin de Irala noted in their book Affirming Love, Avoiding AIDS: What Africa Can Teach the West, “[F]rom a purely pragmatic point of view, there remain large and serious concerns about the practical impact and efficacy of risk reduction strategies.”

An authentic response to the HIV/AIDS crisis is neither discrimination nor enabling silence. We owe love that recognizes the dignity of the human person, respects the sexual act as God intended it and considers first the well-being of the other. A proper vision of sexuality must be encouraged and true friendship and compassion offered to those infected and those who struggle with deep-seated homosexual inclination.

This crisis begs for commitment to the moral law, respect for the inherent dignity of the person, and a greater recognition that each person is capable of choosing behavior that is both good for him and that allows for his flourishing.

Arland K. Nichols is the National Director of HLI America. He writes for the Truth and Charity Forum, where this article first appeared.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Saturday Chores / Tumblr
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

This woman mocks pro-lifers every week but raises money to save animals

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

Tina Haver Currin and her husband, Grayson, have become heroes in the feminist blogosphere for mocking pro-life counselors who oppose abortion. But the feminist couple, who spend their Saturdays holding irreverent signs in the midst of sidewalk counselors in North Carolina, do not approve of killing in every case: They raise money for a no-kill cat shelter and have an abiding concern over “the ethics” of eating meat.

Tina, a “creative strategist” at Myriad Media and former English teaching assistant at UNC-Chapel Hill, is a self-described “atheist” with a penchant for “black metal” – a genre of heavy metal music extolling Satanism, with occasional ties to the neo-Nazi movement. She met her husband, Grayson, through a friend and bonded over their love of similar music.

She says she and Grayson were driving past A Preferred Women's Health Center, a chain of abortion facilities with an office in Raleigh, in March when the site of pro-life sidewalk counselors angered them.

After her husband suggested they make their own signs to stage a counterprotest, they took pictures of themselves holding placards with such derisive messages as “Honk if you're horny” and “Bring back Crystal Pepsi.”

Another sign simply said, “pro-cat.”

They began documenting their shenanigans on their blog, Saturday Chores, and soon they received profile pieces in Cosmopolitan and The Huffington Post. The executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice North Carolina, Suzanne Buckley, recently sent Tina “a *heartfelt* thank-you” for her efforts.

“It's true that we're mocking people,” Grayson Haver Currin – who adopted his wife's maiden name when he married – told several media outlets. But Tina said their actions have been well received, except for “some creeps on the internet.”

While the couple cannot fathom anyone being concerned with unborn children – the first sign they ever made had an arrow pointing at pro-life advocates with the words “Weird hobby” – they are heavily involved in protecting stray cats from being put to sleep.

Tina is an organizer of the annual HepCat race to benefit the SAFE Haven Cat Shelter and Clinic, which its website describes as “a nonprofit, no-kill shelter” in Raleigh.

Tina, who has been a vegetarian since she was 12, told Cosmo that one of the first disagreements she and her husband had was over “the ethics and the politics of” eating meat. (The other was “about Grayson using gender pronouns.”) In time she convinced her husband to give up the joy of eating Bojangles chicken.

The born activist has taken to the streets throughout their marriage. She was arrested as part of the “Moral Monday” protests at the state capital, the weekly liberal protests against the policies of Republican Gov. Pat McCrory. In addition to McCrory's policies on abortion, she has said she is “upset about voter ID laws, [and] reduction of education funding and social programs.”

“By the way, we support marriage equality, too,” she blogged.

But it was not until they began opposing the pro-life movement that she gained any notoriety. Now, she said, her movement has ballooned from just two people to dozens.

She told The Huffington Post she “probably” had 60 people supporting her side outside the abortion facility last week. A photograph for the following Saturday showed perhaps half that many people in attendance.

Her ultimate goal, she said, is to have enough pro-abortion protesters to “crowd them out,” so that pro-life sidewalk counselors “don't have a chance to show their signs.”

“We would love to see this more humorous take on combating these hateful things spread,” she told Cosmo


Advertisement
Featured Image
womenagainstfeminism.tumblr.com
Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary

Growing ‘Women Against Feminism’ movement draws fury

Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary
By Hilary White
Image

Critics of feminism have long said that it is entering the final stages of its long career, with more of its assertions about the nature of human sexual and social relations being contradicted by the evidence and fewer young people following its dictates every decade. But in the last few weeks, it seems that feminism’s last gasp is being used to direct insults at young women who are lining up to publicly reject and ridicule it.

The Tumblr site Women Against Feminism has started a social networking trend in which thousands of young women photograph themselves holding signs bluntly denouncing feminism, giving a sharp indication that the feminist brand has become poison to young, hip, and internet-savvy women.

Mainstream and journalistic feminists have lashed out at the site and its followers, entering into an online spat over the increasingly popular photos. The signs say, “I am not a victim,” and “This is what an anti-feminist looks like.”

They continue: “I am an adult who is capable of taking responsibility for myself and my actions. I define myself and derive my value by my own standards. I don’t need to be ‘empowered’. I am not a target for violence and there is no war against me. I respect me and I refuse to demonize them and blame them for my problems.”

The messages held by the women pinpoint with pithy and acerbic precision exactly the reasons given by many critics that the movement has lost favour with young people. They call it a creed of double standards that promotes victimhood and endorses bullying of anyone who critiques it.

The site’s explanatory page, which was taken down for unknown reasons in the last two days, said, “Feminists are the only people who lose their minds with rage when you tell them that women already have the same exact rights as men. That’s not good enough. They want more. They desperately want to be victims. They want a privileged social position.”

The author goes on to accuse feminism in general of systematic censorship, discrimination, elitism and “policing other women” who do not toe the line – as well as baseline misandry. The anonymous creator denounced feminism’s adoption of “abortion as ‘empowerment’”:

This opinion is unpopular, but I don’t agree that I need to have my baby scraped out of my uterus in order to feel empowered. But the abortion industry (i.e. Planned Parenthood) makes a ton of money off this perversion of empowerment. ‘Abortion as empowerment’ teaches women to see their wombs as nothing but garbage bins full of disposable waste.

One of the contributors wrote, “I don’t need feminism because my self-worth is not directly tied to my victim complex. As a woman in the western world I am not oppressed, and neither are you,” says one. Another: “I don’t need feminism because I don’t need to bully someone to share my opinions with others.”

Some come right out and say that feminism promotes exactly the evils it purports to fight against: “I don’t need feminism because I believe in equality, not entitlements and supremacy.”

Although the site and its contentious photos have been running around the internet for many months, arguments among journalism’s feminists started breaking out this week after a mocking Buzzfeed feature helped the site gain momentum on social media outlets.

Some feminist journalists simply flung insults. Lillian Kalish sniffed on Ryot, “These Women Who Think They Don’t Need Feminism Don’t Know What Feminism Is.” “Did these posters ever think to look up the actual definition of feminism?”

Nuala McKeever, in the Belfast Telegraph, called the women posting the photos “silly, ignorant, vacuous wee girls with absolutely no thoughts beyond their own self-absorbed inanities.”

Time Magazine’s Sarah Miller said, “I Really, Truly, Fully Hate ‘Women Against Feminism’—But…” Miller wrote, “[T]he tendency to see sexism everywhere is proof that feminism is healthy and vigilant, and that is not necessarily a bad thing, because misogyny is insidious and rampant… We need feminism.”

But Miller added, “Still, the pain that we experience as women—even physical—does not give us the right to tell people there’s one way to think or feel, or to assume that we have some god-like understanding of everyone’s motivations.”

Cathy Young, however, responded in Time, saying, “Stop Fem-Splaining: What ‘Women Against Feminism’ Gets Right.” She writes, “The charge that feminism stereotypes men as predators while reducing women to helpless victims certainly doesn’t apply to all feminists—but it’s a reasonably fair description of a large, influential, highly visible segment of modern feminism.”

The site, Young says, “raises valid questions about the state of Western feminism in the 21st Century — questions that must be addressed if we are to continue making progress toward real gender equality.”

Sarah Boesveld wrote in the National Post on Friday that the site shows that feminism has become “complicated” and “sometimes alienating.” She quotes an email sent to the paper by 22 year-old Australian Lisa Sandford, who “believes in equality for the sexes” but firmly rejects feminism as “rude and nasty” and intends to be a stay-at-home mother. 

Sandford wrote, “If feminism really accepted equality, they would not tell me my views are wrong, they would accept it and let me be.”

Browse the 'Women Against Feminism' archives here (warning: occasional strong language).


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Steven W. Mosher and Anne Roback Morse

,

Welcome Baby Filipino 100 Million!

Steven W. Mosher and Anne Roback Morse
By Steven W. Mosher and Anne Roback Morse

Population Research Institute welcomes the birth of little Chonalyn Sentino. Baby Chonalyn was born this past Sunday to parents Clemente and Dailin, and was feted in the Philippines as “Baby 100 Million.” PRI welcomes Baby Chonalyn as well, saying that she will be a blessing to her family, her community, and her nation.

The Philippines is one of the largest Catholic countries in the world, and its people value children. For this reason, it has been a target of the population controllers for decades. It was one of the countries singled out by Henry Kissinger’s National Security Council in 1974 for special “attention” and, more recently, has been bullied by the Obama administration into passing its first population control law. 

The bill, which was touted as being all about promoting “reproductive health,” was actually intended to drive down the birth rate. For example, section 15  requires that all couples receive a “Certificate of Compliance” from the local Family Planning Office before becoming eligible for a marriage license.

Some in the Philippines are decrying Chonalyn’s birth, repeating USAID’s talking points about the “dangers” of overpopulation. They welcome Chonalyn as an individual little girl, while simultaneously calling for future little girls and boys to be removed from existence.

The Philippine Star wrote that the birth symbolized a “large population that will put a strain on the country's limited resources.” Another paper cited the executive director of the official Commission on Population who bluntly said “We'd like to push the fertility rate down to two children per (woman's) lifetime.” And the Global Post cited “concerned advocates” who thought the current population was not a “complement with the country's economic growth.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

But many other Filipinos aren’t buying into the anti-people hysteria. Francisco Antonio, a Filipino Chemical Engineering graduate student at Yale, adamantly rebutted the notion that there are too many Filipinos, saying: “I celebrate life because population control is defeatism disguised as pragmatism. And because human creativity holds more potential for protecting this planet and its inhabitants than any other resource I know of.”

A Filipina currently living in California told PRI that she welcomed the transition of her country to 100 million persons: “Filipinos are not a burden to the world population, because we not only care for our own but also for others in the world. One of the greatest and most sought after exports of the Philippines is our skilled, motivated, and exemplary workforce. And these workers tirelessly cultivate their family and community abroad and in the Philippines. We are a very social and civic minded people. We care and share because it is part of our culture and we do it with a smile.”

 Ed, a Filipino accountant, also celebrated the birth of Baby Chonalyn: “The typical Filipino does not associate a baby with ‘cost’ or ‘expense’ but rather as a ‘blessing’ and a ‘gift.’ This is because Filipinos recognize that true happiness does not come from the accumulation of material wealth or prestige, but rather, from true, genuine, and strong relationships with other people. [Filipinos] value life, not because the Church says or the Pope says so, but because they recognize it to be true. And the truth about the value of life, will continue to shine, long after the debates are over.”

It goes without saying that we at the Population Research Institute also welcome Chonalyn’s birth. We need more Filipinos, not fewer. 

Reprinted with permission from Pop.org.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook