Thread Derails... Aids, Popes And Condoms

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='jkaands' date='09 January 2010 - 11:34 AM' timestamp='1263058480' post='2033235']
Please cite the [i]source[/i] of this article.

The countries in Africa with the lowest STD and HIV rates are in Muslim Africa. I, for one, would not like to live in countries with a 14th century moral code, and when the rights of both men and women, but especially women, are severely restricted.
[/quote]
It was actually an open letter. I forget to whom it was addressed.

The authors listed at the bottom are legitimate though.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Nihil Obstat

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='09 January 2010 - 01:14 PM' timestamp='1263060886' post='2033262']
The Vatican studies many contemporary questions in order to make a clear and thorough declaration against the proponents of certain ideas. I'll bet you a positive point (worthless, I know) that the document will say something to the effect of "While the ambition to prevent the spouse from acquiring a potentially lethal disease is admirable, the means proposed would prevent the sexual act from conforming to the ends of marriage. Though the intent of those couples would be the prevention of disease, and not the prevention of conception, the deliberate use of an article which frustrates either or both of the unitive or procreative ends of the sexual act, whether this effect is willed or not, renders the use of such an article unacceptable."

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

The Vatican might say that. However it is interesting that it is being studied.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='09 January 2010 - 01:45 PM' timestamp='1263062749' post='2033295']
The Vatican might say that. However it is interesting that it is being studied.
[/quote]

To say that the Vatican is studying a question does not mean that it is deciding whether or not to allow a certain action.

~Sternhauser

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='09 January 2010 - 01:50 PM' timestamp='1263063057' post='2033302']
To say that the Vatican is studying a question does not mean that it is deciding whether or not to allow a certain action.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Actually yeah that's exactly what it means.

The committee of theologians is studying the ethical and moral nature of married couples using condoms to protect one partner from becoming HIV positive. So is it possible that the Church might allow for this? Yeah its possible. I doubt its probable but the intent of the study is to make a recommendation.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='09 January 2010 - 01:54 PM' timestamp='1263063261' post='2033307']
Actually yeah that's exactly what it means.

The committee of theologians is studying the ethical and moral nature of married couples using condoms to protect one partner from becoming HIV positive. So is it possible that the Church might allow for this? Yeah its possible. I doubt its probable but the intent of the study is to make a recommendation.
[/quote]

It's studying the ethical and moral nature. Is studying the ethical and moral nature of murder a prelude to "murder might be acceptable?"

~Sternhauser

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='09 January 2010 - 02:45 PM' timestamp='1263066359' post='2033336']
It's studying the ethical and moral nature. Is studying the ethical and moral nature of murder a prelude to "murder might be acceptable?"

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

I get wanting to be obtuse sometimes. I really do. But you're picking the wrong one to get all "obtusey" about. The theologians are really going to make a recommendation at the conclusion of their study. Is it highly likely that they will come back with "Its immoral even if one spouse is infected with HIV"? Yeah that one's probably even money. But It means they are considering the alternative.

[Happy_Catholic]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='09 January 2010 - 09:33 AM' timestamp='1263047598' post='2033192']
"Sex" with a condom is nothing more than mutual masturbation. Where do you find any support for the notion that it is morally acceptable to engage in "sexual" activity when either of the natural ends of sexual intercourse are frustrated?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

I said "I won't judge" not that what they're doing isn't morally debase.

Part of me thinks the Church should keep the no birth control policy, period. No exceptions. And that those married couples where one is infected with HIV or whatever, that obviously that couple is called to bear a heavy cross.

Yet another part of me thinks it to be rather irresponsible for them not to engage in sexual relations without protection. What if they have children? Should those children be left orphans because the Church tells the couple they cannot use a condom to protect the well one from the HIV infection of the other?

Abstience should always be first and foremost, even if it is in the confines of marriage where one carries a potentially fatal and infectious ill. But what should be, and how things work out are always two different things.

I mean, blow me down, there are a lot of healthy catholics using birth control. I think the Church should be nagging them on the spiritual bankruptcy that causes as opposed to cursing those who are in a one heck of a horrible situation.

[MithLuin]

[b]jkaands[/b], you asked which country was using that policy?

Uganda used an ABC approach.

1) Abstinence
2) Be faithful
3) Condoms

What this means is that you promote abstinence among young and unmarried people. You also promote faithfulness to one's spouse. And yes, you distribute condoms to prostitutes and truck drivers and others who are obviously not buying into the first two methods.

But yes, culturally, use of condoms is [i]very[/i] difficult to encourage/enforce, so any approach to how the AIDS epidemic is dealt with [i]cannot[/i] just be "use condoms" - because that will not actually cut down the spread of HIV.

You are also correct that circumcised males are [i]much[/i] less likely to catch the disease from an HIV+ woman. And, possibly, she may be a little less likely to catch it from him. (Circumcision would not prevent males from getting HIV from anal intercourse, which has a higher risk of HIV transmission than vaginal intercourse). But the same WHO study that determined the chance of partners catching HIV from each other. also determined that even with training in the importance of using condoms, only 10% of couples were using them with any consistency - [i]and this was when they knew their spouse was HIV+[/i]. I imagine the usage rates are even more abysmal if the sex is more casual.

If the Catholic Church were doing nothing to combat AIDS, the outrage would be appropriate. That we aren't promoting one of the less effective methods...when plenty of other people are.... Well, what's the problem, again? Abstinence and fidelity are the [i]best[/i] ways of preventing the spread of AIDS. While these methods are not necessarily culturally popular, changing [i]that[/i] is an important thing to do. There are lots of condoms available in African nations these days. They're available in Europe, too, where people tend to be angry at the pope's stance on them.

Edited January 10, 2010 by MithLuin

[philbo]

[quote name='jkaands' date='09 January 2010 - 06:31 PM' timestamp='1263058266' post='2033233']
Um,[i] what country[/i] is promoting abstinence to the exclusion of condoms or other barrier contraception?
[/quote]
er.. none, that I am aware of - the only people AFAICT who are doing this (i.e. promoting abstinence to the exclusion of barrier contraception) are Catholics.


[quote name='jkaands' date='09 January 2010 - 06:31 PM' timestamp='1263058266' post='2033233']
Subs-Saharan (not Muslim) Africa does not have a tradition of virginity, abstinence or fidelity in marriage. Both boys and girls, but particularly boys, have sex early and often. Many men have sex on the road, infecting their wives and through births of infected mothers, their children. It is a complete waste to promote abstinence among countries who do not have this anywhere in their traditions, to the exclusion of barrier and gel contraception, male circumcision and HPV vaccination (to deter cervical cancer, which is an STD). Condoms work in these countries to decrease the spread of HIV and AIDS. Male circumcision works too, to decrease the spread of STD's in general, and is now being promoted widely. The HPV vaccine is shown to be very well tolerated and effective in the US and will also enter widespread use.
[/quote]
I'd not disagree with any of that.. though others in this thread have.


Though none of those has seen fit to see or argue the starting assertion that I made [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=101767&view=findpost&p=2033189"]here[/url]: that condoms do reduce dramatically the odds of transmission of HIV/other STDs for each sexual act in which they are appropriately used. I thought that was an easy one to start with.


[quote name='MithLuin' date='10 January 2010 - 05:56 PM' timestamp='1263142603' post='2033957']
[b]jkaands[/b], you asked which country was using that policy?

Uganda used an ABC approach.

1) Abstinence
2) Be faithful
3) Condoms
[/quote]
jkaands actually asked which country was using abstinence [i]to the exclusion of condoms or other barrier contraception - [/i]which I think is kind of covered by point 3 above.

I don't believe any country or organization has said "go forth and multiply" (to use what seems to me to be an appropriate euphemism) as many people as you like, just make sure you wear a condom. But most people (Vatican hierarchy excluded) will realize that if you can't make the massive cultural change to ensure 1) and 2), then using condoms is a worthwhile and necessary first step to stopping people from spreading disease with every time they fornicate.

[havok579257]

[quote name='philbo' date='11 January 2010 - 05:43 AM' timestamp='1263206612' post='2034572']
er.. none, that I am aware of - the only people AFAICT who are doing this (i.e. promoting abstinence to the exclusion of barrier contraception) are Catholics.



I'd not disagree with any of that.. though others in this thread have.


Though none of those has seen fit to see or argue the starting assertion that I made [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=101767&view=findpost&p=2033189"]here[/url]: that condoms do reduce dramatically the odds of transmission of HIV/other STDs for each sexual act in which they are appropriately used. I thought that was an easy one to start with.



jkaands actually asked which country was using abstinence [i]to the exclusion of condoms or other barrier contraception - [/i]which I think is kind of covered by point 3 above.

I don't believe any country or organization has said "go forth and multiply" (to use what seems to me to be an appropriate euphemism) as many people as you like, just make sure you wear a condom. But most people (Vatican hierarchy excluded) will realize that if you can't make the massive cultural change to ensure 1) and 2), then using condoms is a worthwhile and necessary first step to stopping people from spreading disease with every time they fornicate.
[/quote]


why is it so hard for people to wait until marriage to have sex?

condoning something that is intrisically evil, is never right. condoms are intrisically evil. according to your theory, since there will always be heroin users the catholic church and governments should pass out free needles to help promote better heroin use. or since murder will never stop, the catholic church and governments should push for less restrictions and make murder more acceptable?

condoms promote people to have more premarital sex. most of hiv/aids victims get the disease outside or before marriage. so if everyone waited until marriage to have sex and only have sex with their spouse, the disease would eventually die out.

[philbo]

[quote name='havok579257' date='11 January 2010 - 10:36 PM' timestamp='1263245776' post='2035017']
why is it so hard for people to wait until marriage to have sex?
[/quote]
Because sex was around for aeons before anyone dreamt up marriage. It's part of the instinct of every reproducing animal.

[quote name='havok579257' date='11 January 2010 - 10:36 PM' timestamp='1263245776' post='2035017']
condoning something that is intrisically evil, is never right. condoms are intrisically evil.
[/quote]
"Intrinsically evil"??? Oh, please. That's got to be one of the silliest things I've read on this site. What is intrinsically evil about a bit of latex?

[quote name='havok579257' date='11 January 2010 - 10:36 PM' timestamp='1263245776' post='2035017']
according to your theory, since there will always be heroin users the catholic church and governments should pass out free needles to help promote better heroin use. or since murder will never stop, the catholic church and governments should push for less restrictions and make murder more acceptable?[/quote]
Leave out the strawmen, too. If this is the level of your debate, please go back to school and learn a bit more. Then try again.

[quote name='havok579257' date='11 January 2010 - 10:36 PM' timestamp='1263245776' post='2035017']
condoms promote people to have more premarital sex. most of hiv/aids victims get the disease outside or before marriage. so if everyone waited until marriage to have sex and only have sex with their spouse, the disease would eventually die out.
[/quote]
If everyone waited, and only had sex with their spouse, all STDs would eventually die out. But I live in the real world, not some fantasy one. If you can't get your priests to stay celibate, what chance is there for a people whose culture for the last x thousand years has been to have sex early and often? Just because you belong to a bunch of people who call that sort of behaviour "sinful" - they were behaving like that long before your idea of sin came about.

[havok579257]

[quote name='philbo' date='11 January 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1263247319' post='2035031']
Because sex was around for aeons before anyone dreamt up marriage. It's part of the instinct of every reproducing animal.


"Intrinsically evil"??? Oh, please. That's got to be one of the silliest things I've read on this site. What is intrinsically evil about a bit of latex?


Leave out the strawmen, too. If this is the level of your debate, please go back to school and learn a bit more. Then try again.


If everyone waited, and only had sex with their spouse, all STDs would eventually die out. But I live in the real world, not some fantasy one. If you can't get your priests to stay celibate, what chance is there for a people whose culture for the last x thousand years has been to have sex early and often? Just because you belong to a bunch of people who call that sort of behaviour "sinful" - they were behaving like that long before your idea of sin came about.
[/quote]


1. We are not animals, just so you know. Its so convientient when people like you use animal instincts to justify one or your points, but then the next, discredit animal instincts when it goes against another point. Animal instincts don't work because humans can rationalize and they can act AGAINST their animal instincts. So no go there. I mean its not animal instinct to abort your own baby, but humans do it. So don't give me animal instinct, human are not animals. We can reason and rationalize and make decisions against so called animal instincts.

2. A little piece of rubber than keeps a husband and wife from sharing everything during sex. Its simple fact, if a condom is used, the spouses are not being completly self giving with each other. Which means your holding out on your spouse. Anyone who is not giving their spouse everything during sex, is doing a discredit to thier marriage.

3. No, there is no strawman. Your saying that although the catholic church is against pre-marital sex. Although it is against condom use since the spouse's don't totally give to themselfs during sex. Although the catholic church is against extramarital sex. That although this, they should comprimise their beliefs because we can't expect everyone in the world to follow God's word? That's the exact same thing I brought up. The same point that you just brush off because you have no defense for it. Fact is, someone should not comprimise their morals, their beliefs, just becuase what they believe to be right, is considered very hard by society. So its hard. Got news for you, life is hard.

4. Why do you instist that every priest can not remain celibate? Why doo you try to paint it that every priest can't abstaine from sex? Why don't you get some facts first buddy. Let me ask you, how many priests do you know who haven't remained celibate. Until you can provide some hard facts that all priets or even the majority, better yet, how about even 10% can not remain celebate, your just spewing stuff to try and sound good, when your logic is flawwed. Priests can and do abstaine from sex. And guess what, so do regualr people. There are a lot of people who don't have sex before marriage. Oh gasp, its actually possible. Its possible in the real world that is. Not in fairy tale land where everyone has sex before marriage and no one can remain faithful.

One final point. Just look back 50-60 years. Compare pre-marital and extramarital sex in the 50's to the 2000's. Are you really going to try and say people were having as much premarital and extramarital sex in the 50's as they are in the 2000's? If not, then your theory is bunk. Cause history proves you wrong. History proves that people can abstaine from sex before marriage and extramarital sex. So if it was possible for the majority of people 50-60 years ago, why can't it be possible for the majority of people today?

[philbo]

[quote name='havok579257' date='12 January 2010 - 03:11 AM' timestamp='1263262275' post='2035118']
1. We are not animals, just so you know. Its so convientient when people like you use animal instincts to justify one or your points, but then the next, discredit animal instincts when it goes against another point. Animal instincts don't work because humans can rationalize and they can act AGAINST their animal instincts. So no go there. I mean its not animal instinct to abort your own baby, but humans do it. So don't give me animal instinct, human are not animals. We can reason and rationalize and make decisions against so called animal instincts.[/quote]
We have animal instincts - many of them. Sometimes people can think their way around them; at other times people seem to rationalize the way they are behaving instinctively. The sex drive is a very strong instinct in all of us, and is probably when we are at our most animalistic: if you can really think clearly during intercourse, you're probably not doing it right

[quote name='havok579257' date='12 January 2010 - 03:11 AM' timestamp='1263262275' post='2035118']
2. A little piece of rubber than keeps a husband and wife from sharing everything during sex. Its simple fact, if a condom is used, the spouses are not being completly self giving with each other. Which means your holding out on your spouse. Anyone who is not giving their spouse everything during sex, is doing a discredit to thier marriage. [/quote]
Twaddle.. unless you really want (and can support) a house filled to the gunwales with children, or just do without sex completely (wouldn't that "discredit marriage" even more?). However much you personally would like everybody never to have sex except when married, you have to accept that people do. *most* people do - the majority of people have had sex with someone other than their marital partner. Just because you want the world to be different doesn't change things.

[quote name='havok579257' date='12 January 2010 - 03:11 AM' timestamp='1263262275' post='2035118']
3. No, there is no strawman. Your saying that although the catholic church is against pre-marital sex. Although it is against condom use since the spouse's don't totally give to themselfs during sex. Although the catholic church is against extramarital sex. That although this, they should comprimise their beliefs because we can't expect everyone in the world to follow God's word? That's the exact same thing I brought up. The same point that you just brush off because you have no defense for it. Fact is, someone should not comprimise their morals, their beliefs, just becuase what they believe to be right, is considered very hard by society. So its hard. Got news for you, life is hard.[/quote]
You said that "or since murder will never stop, the catholic church and governments should push for less restrictions and make murder more acceptable?" - that is a complete strawman argument. It's not even worth spending the time on a rebuttal.

You also said "since there will always be heroin users the catholic church and governments should pass out free needles to help promote better heroin use" - if you were to limit that to existing heroin addicts, the suggestion does have merit (and is fairly close to what UK policy was 40/50 years ago). What you'd be doing is taking a situation you don't like and making it less bad: why is that a bad thing?

[quote name='havok579257' date='12 January 2010 - 03:11 AM' timestamp='1263262275' post='2035118']
4. Why do you instist that every priest can not remain celibate? Why doo you try to paint it that every priest can't abstaine from sex? Why don't you get some facts first buddy. Let me ask you, how many priests do you know who haven't remained celibate. Until you can provide some hard facts that all priets or even the majority, better yet, how about even 10% can not remain celebate, your just spewing stuff to try and sound good, when your logic is flawwed. Priests can and do abstaine from sex. And guess what, so do regualr people. There are a lot of people who don't have sex before marriage. Oh gasp, its actually possible. Its possible in the real world that is. Not in fairy tale land where everyone has sex before marriage and no one can remain faithful.[/quote]
Where did I insist that every priest cannot remain celibate? I merely stated an inarguable fact that there are priests who don't. And if there are those in the priesthood who don't ("let's not forget people are fallible"), then expecting everybody in the general population to be celibate outside marriage is simple hypocrisy. And if you're going to accept that sex outside marriage does happen (however much you personally may dislike the idea), then condom use at least reduces the number of babies born out of wedlock.

[quote name='havok579257' date='12 January 2010 - 03:11 AM' timestamp='1263262275' post='2035118']
One final point. Just look back 50-60 years. Compare pre-marital and extramarital sex in the 50's to the 2000's. Are you really going to try and say people were having as much premarital and extramarital sex in the 50's as they are in the 2000's? If not, then your theory is bunk. Cause history proves you wrong. History proves that people can abstaine from sex before marriage and extramarital sex. So if it was possible for the majority of people 50-60 years ago, why can't it be possible for the majority of people today?
[/quote]
If there had ever been a time when there was no extramarital sex, you might have a point.. but even with society being overwhelmingly disapproving of sex outside marriage, it still happened. It always has, and always will. There is more extramarital sex around now because there are fewer people with hangups about it being a bad thing.. I'm not a judgmental sort who'll say this is of itself a bad thing, however.

[Winchester]

[quote name='philbo' date='11 January 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1263247319' post='2035031']
"Intrinsically evil"??? Oh, please. That's got to be one of the silliest things I've read on this site. What is intrinsically evil about a bit of latex?
[/quote]
Excellent response. You've unhinged the argument completely with your train of logic. All that's missing is "LOL!". And possibly a rolling eyes smilie.

You must be the king of Debate Club at your middle school.

[philbo]

[quote name='Winchester' date='12 January 2010 - 03:13 PM' timestamp='1263305638' post='2035323']
Excellent response. You've unhinged the argument completely with your train of logic. All that's missing is "LOL!". And possibly a rolling eyes smilie.

You must be the king of Debate Club at your middle school.
[/quote]
Middle school is but a distant memory and attempts at sarcastic put-downs ping off my rhinoceros hide.. and presumably you think latex can be intrinsically evil?

[Winchester]

[quote name='philbo' date='12 January 2010 - 11:10 AM' timestamp='1263312651' post='2035378']
Middle school is but a distant memory and attempts at sarcastic put-downs ping off my rhinoceros hide[/quote]
So, apparently, does logic.

[quote]
.. and presumably you think latex can be intrinsically evil?
[/quote]
If it helps shut you up, then sure.

But that's an argument you've framed in such a manner as to demean, as opposed to deal honestly with, the opposing viewpoint.

[philbo]

[quote name='Winchester' date='12 January 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1263314823' post='2035393']
So, apparently, does logic.
[/quote]
If you start using logic rather than sarcasm, I'll deal with it. As it is, you've not exactly given me anything to counter, have you?

[quote name='Winchester' date='12 January 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1263314823' post='2035393']
If it helps shut you up, then sure.
[/quote]
Would you care to back that up with something about *why* an inanimate object can be considered intrinsically evil?

[quote name='Winchester' date='12 January 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1263314823' post='2035393']
But that's an argument you've framed in such a manner as to demean, as opposed to deal honestly with, the opposing viewpoint.
[/quote]
I notice that you've spent your sarcastic barbs complaining about that rather than answering any of the other points raised - not exactly dealing honestly with the opposing viewpoint, is it? Come to think of it, your rhetoric is doing exactly what you're accusing me of...

[Winchester]

[quote name='philbo' date='12 January 2010 - 12:04 PM' timestamp='1263315875' post='2035407']
If you start using logic rather than sarcasm, I'll deal with it. As it is, you've not exactly given me anything to counter, have you?[/quote]
You're not dealing with the arguments that spurred my evaluation.

[quote]
Would you care to back that up with something about *why* an inanimate object can be considered intrinsically evil?[/quote]
You're the one who made the statement that it's silly--the statement lacked substance and since you're the invading force here it's up to you to assert something.

[quote]
I notice that you've spent your sarcastic barbs complaining about that rather than answering any of the other points raised - not exactly dealing honestly with the opposing viewpoint, is it? Come to think of it, your rhetoric is doing exactly what you're accusing me of...
[/quote]
Calling "that's silly" a point is stretching it. I'm not really arguing with you, I'm giving you criticism to spur you to refine your argument, which thus far is not very good.

[havok579257]

[quote name='philbo' date='12 January 2010 - 06:24 AM' timestamp='1263295489' post='2035299']
We have animal instincts - many of them. Sometimes people can think their way around them; at other times people seem to rationalize the way they are behaving instinctively. The sex drive is a very strong instinct in all of us, and is probably when we are at our most animalistic: if you can really think clearly during intercourse, you're probably not doing it right


Twaddle.. unless you really want (and can support) a house filled to the gunwales with children, or just do without sex completely (wouldn't that "discredit marriage" even more?). However much you personally would like everybody never to have sex except when married, you have to accept that people do. *most* people do - the majority of people have had sex with someone other than their marital partner. Just because you want the world to be different doesn't change things.


You said that "or since murder will never stop, the catholic church and governments should push for less restrictions and make murder more acceptable?" - that is a complete strawman argument. It's not even worth spending the time on a rebuttal.

You also said "since there will always be heroin users the catholic church and governments should pass out free needles to help promote better heroin use" - if you were to limit that to existing heroin addicts, the suggestion does have merit (and is fairly close to what UK policy was 40/50 years ago). What you'd be doing is taking a situation you don't like and making it less bad: why is that a bad thing?


Where did I insist that every priest cannot remain celibate? I merely stated an inarguable fact that there are priests who don't. And if there are those in the priesthood who don't ("let's not forget people are fallible"), then expecting everybody in the general population to be celibate outside marriage is simple hypocrisy. And if you're going to accept that sex outside marriage does happen (however much you personally may dislike the idea), then condom use at least reduces the number of babies born out of wedlock.


If there had ever been a time when there was no extramarital sex, you might have a point.. but even with society being overwhelmingly disapproving of sex outside marriage, it still happened. It always has, and always will. There is more extramarital sex around now because there are fewer people with hangups about it being a bad thing.. I'm not a judgmental sort who'll say this is of itself a bad thing, however.
[/quote]


1. Dude we are human, animal instincts do not control us, logic does. An animal will have sex with any type of female that it can. That's obviously not the case with humans. Unless you are going to tell me, humans, will have sex with anyone of the opposite sex just to have sex. How does thinking clearly during intercourse at all relate to someone deciding to have sex with someone, when they just meet? Are you telling me, that when YOU meet a women, your brain shuts off and all you can think about is having sex with the women. That you almost can't control your urge to have sex? Come on man, your logic is flawed and your reaching to try and make your illogical point. You don't have sex with every female that you can from the opposite sex, so your theory is flawwed. People use logic to decide things, not animals instincts. If a person can not control themselfs when just thinking about sex with someone else, they have mental problems. Your logic is flawwed.

2. A women is only pregnant not even 10 days a month. Something you would know if you bothered to look up a women's cycle. So once again your logic is flawwed. Millions of humans have had sex throughout the centuries without condoms and never had 50 kids. Its very rare that women will have children in large numbers due to the difficulty in getting pregnant since a women is not fertaile the majority of days a month and nearly all couples do not have sex every day of their life. Once again, flawwed logic.

3. So just because the world has lots of premarital sex I just need to accept it? Well duh! But what I and the catholic church does not have to do is comprimise our morals. No one should ever comprimise their morals because of the majority of american's. If that was the case slavery and segragation would still be around. Are you for that. Cause the majority of america was for it when it was abolished. so should the american people who fought against slavery (and just for the record, the civil war was not fought over slavery, it was fought over seccession) just have acted it since the majority were for it?

4. Once again you keep saying strawman but have no rebuttal. You complain about winchester not giving you any rebuttal yet you do the same thing. Its called pot... kettle... black.

5. You insisted every preist by the way you framed your arguements. You tried to insinuate that all priests can not remain celebate, so don't even try to back track. We don't put our faith in a fallable man, we put them in an infalliable God. But your logic is faulty once again. Cause by your logic, if a few priests became murders, then how can we expect the majority of humanity to not become murderes? This is getting so old. Get some logical arguements here.

7. Dude your logic is flawwed again. You say since premarital sex and extramarital sex will never completly stop, then we will never get rid of stds, so we should just give everyone condoms. Well what if I said, sinces condoms are not perfect, whats the point of even giving them out since they could break. YOur arguing my point for me here, don't you see that.


Did you honestly want to come here and debate logically or did you just want to try and attack the catholic church?

[Winchester]

[quote name='havok579257' date='12 January 2010 - 01:43 PM' timestamp='1263321793' post='2035470']
4. Once again you keep saying strawman but have no rebuttal. You complain about winchester not giving you any rebuttal yet you do the same thing. Its called pot... kettle... black.[/quote]
Thank you. I perform a valuable service.