If they are going to have sex......

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 24 2005, 10:31 AM'] Condoms don't make it any easier for teens to have sex -- they simply reduce the risk of pregnancy and STI's.



[/quote]
Condoms do ineed make it easier for teens to be okay with experimenting with sex for it means that they are "safer." If they think they are protected from all that they think sex will do to them at that age they see less and less a reason for not doing it. So, yes condoms do make it easier for teens to cave to their urgings for they see little chance of reprecusions, when infact sex at that age is determental to development.

[quote]
I'm going to guess here that you have never been that girl.  [/quote]

Pretty hard when I am a man.

[quote]I would support her choice, just as I would support her choice of treatment should she contract an STI or her choice in dealing with pregnancy.[/quote]

Once again we see the consequence of an act being seperated from an act. You say you support her choice and choice of how to pursue this pregnancy, but I doubt you would support her other than with words. Would you be the one paying for HPV or AIDS treatment/researh? How about diapers and milk? Will you be the one staying up with the kid at night? Will you be the one bearing the abortion on your soul and emotions for the rest of your life? You think that you can support her but you cannot. Continue to seperate the consequence from your actions and one day they will pile up...

[quote]Why does everything come down to being "PC" with you all?  How about, we live in a country where religious freedom is guaranteed and thus sexual education based on religious ideals shouldn't happen.  If you want to teach your children about abstinance, go ahead.  They won't be any worse off for knowing about contraceptives too.  It's abdication of parental responsiblity that leads to programs like 'abstinance only' sex ed.[/quote]

You think religous freedom is garunteed? Ha... Bashing Catholics is the last acceptable prejudice in this county. We are being forced to offer health benefits that include abortion to out employees. Religous freedom? How about not... That is a dream that was never realized. Try being Catholic in this country and we will see how free you think it is.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Mar 24 2005, 10:41 AM'] Condoms do ineed make it easier for teens to be okay with experimenting with sex for it means that they are "safer." If they think they are protected from all that they think sex will do to them at that age they see less and less a reason for not doing it. So, yes condoms do make it easier for teens to cave to their urgings for they see little chance of reprecusions, when infact sex at that age is determental to development. [/quote]
That's exactly why we need better education -- so that people know about the defeciencies of the different birth control methods in addition to the benefits. Condoms might make it easier for teens to rationalize, but it doesn't make having sex any easier.

[quote]Pretty hard when I am a man.[/quote]

Different perspectives come from different points of view.

[quote]Once again we see the consequence of an act being seperated from an act. You say you support her choice and choice of how to pursue this pregnancy, but I doubt you would support her other than with words. Would you be the one paying for HPV or AIDS treatment/researh? How about diapers and milk? Will you be the one staying up with the kid at night? Will you be the one bearing the abortion on your soul and emotions for the rest of your life? You think that you can support her but you cannot. Continue to seperate the consequence from your actions and one day they will pile up...[/quote]

I donate to AIDS research, for the record. I'm not the girl's parent, so I wouldn't assume financial responsibility for her or the offspring should she choose to have it -- that doesn't mean I wouldn't help. However, I would provide mental, emotional, spiritual support. Aside from that, I pay taxes so I would be supporting the medicaid/care (whichever it is) she might need. Yet again, I point out that it's a parental responsibility to teach children how you want the to behave. The consequenses of my actions lies directly on my head. The consequenses of the hypothetical girl's actions lies on her head. That doesn't mean that I can't help her out when she needs it.

[quote]You think religous freedom is garunteed? Ha... Bashing Catholics is the last acceptable prejudice in this county. We are being forced to offer health benefits that include abortion to out employees. Religous freedom? How about not... That is a dream that was never realized. Try being Catholic in this country and we will see how free you think it is.[/quote]

Blah, blah, 'catholics are so persecuted', blah. Take a gander at the persecution thread, for my thoughts on this. Catholic companies are only required to provide such health benefits if they accept money from the state. By doing so they are accepting the responsiblity of living up to state standards in their business practices. They have the option to not offer those health benefits -- they just [i]won't[/i] because they want the money.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 24 2005, 11:07 AM'] That's exactly why we need better education -- so that people know about the defeciencies of the different birth control methods in addition to the benefits. Condoms might make it easier for teens to rationalize, but it doesn't make having sex any easier.



[/quote]
I would first like to apologize for the tone my posts have taken as of late. I have realized I have let me emotions come into play and it appears this is a very emotional issue for the both of us.

I would agree with better education, but not with the stress that contracpetives are acceptable. For my obvious beliefs.

Here is where I am coming from:

There are teens that do not have sex for fear of becoming pregnant or contracting an STD.

Condoms enable a "safer" sex by removing some of the risks of pregnancy and STDs.

Teens are more likely to have sex for they think the consequences are removed.

The whole point of the gun commnet was that by giving that person a gun knowing their intentions would just make it that much easier. I did not mean to posit that not giving them a gun would stop them, if they are that adament about it they will simply find someone else to give them the "ok".

[quote]Aside from that, I pay taxes so I would be supporting the medicaid/care (whichever it is) she might need.  Yet again, I point out that it's a parental responsibility to teach children how you want the to behave.  The consequenses of my actions lies directly on my head.  The consequenses of the hypothetical girl's actions lies on her head.  That doesn't mean that I can't help her out when she needs it.

[/quote]

Familiar with guilt by association? I am sorry but this world is not as clean cut as: I am responsible for my actions alone and everyone else for thiers. So pay taxes and donate to research? Welcome to the majority of Catholics. That is not enough. When you personally hand a person a condem, a gun, a tool for whatever, knowing their intent you assume partial responsibility. I think that the courts would see you giving someone a weapon knowing what their intent was as you assuming partial responsibility. Please do not read too much into that. My point is that regardless of your religion, when you give someone an instrument knowing what their intent is, you are responsible for the outcome, not soley, but indeed some.

[quote]Blah, blah, 'catholics are so persecuted', blah.[/quote]

As I said, you try being a Catholic and see how you feel. Try being the kid who in class would sign himself and was told by the teacher to quite or else. Try being the kid who did not go to school on Good Friday to go to attend a Holy Day and the school threatining it against him. No such thing as being persecuted? I would call your attention to students attending public colleges where the professor publicly berates them for their beliefs. Because someone turns a blind eye to it, does not mean that it does not happen.

As for the pc comment. We are not the ones hiding behind being politically correct. It is others that believe in a pluralistic, post-modern approach to everything. Forgive us for believing there is an objective truth, and not positing that everything is purley subjective to the individual. I agree, people have a right to believe what they want, that does not make them right though. PC is used so much against the Church becuase we believe that there is objective truth out there and attempt to defend it. People say that it is not pc for us to tell someone else what to do. We are not the ones hiding behind subjectivity, it is others. You will probably say this is because of our religous beliefs. I will respon ahead of time and ask you to look at how many of our defense may also be made on the grounds of natural law and just reasoning.

It appears that we are not getting anywhere with this other than making each other's fingers hurt. I realize and respect your thoughts about this topic. I disagree, but respect that you do not simply say because this is a free counrty so I may do what I want. Like I said, sorry for the emotions and I did not mean to get your feathers ruffeled if I did. Thank you for standing up for something you believe in and defending it on grounds that forced me to defend myself.

[God Conquers]

If someone is intent on murdering someone else should we give them a flak jacket?

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Mar 24 2005, 11:25 AM'] I would first like to apologize for the tone my posts have taken as of late. I have realized I have let me emotions come into play and it appears this is a very emotional issue for the both of us.

I would agree with better education, but not with the stress that contracpetives are acceptable. For my obvious beliefs. [/quote]
If a person could be totally neutral on the subject, that would be best. 'Here are the options that are currently available, here's how they are used, etc.' That would leave it open to interpretation by the teen and give parents the option to tell their children what kind of behavior they expect. I doubt many educators could do that, but it would be wonderful if they could.

[quote]Here is where I am coming from:

There are teens that do not have sex for fear of becoming pregnant or contracting an STD.

Condoms enable a "safer" sex by removing some of the risks of pregnancy and STDs.

Teens are more likely to have sex for they think the consequences are removed. [/quote]

And here is where I am coming from:

There are teens who have sex regardless of the risks involved.

Condoms provide safer sex by lessening the risks.

There will be fewer instances of STI's and pregnancy with condoms available. And, studies have shown that abstinance only education results in more STI's when people start having sex, regardless of how long they waited.

[quote]The whole point of the gun commnet was that by giving that person a gun knowing their intentions would just make it that much easier. I did not mean to posit that not giving them a gun would stop them, if they are that adament about it they will simply find someone else to give them the "ok".[/quote]

Ah, but if you don't give that person a gun you have thwarted their attempt as far as you can. If you don't give a person a condom, you have changed nothing except the potential risks.

[quote]Familiar with guilt by association? I am sorry but this world is not as clean cut as: I am responsible for my actions alone and everyone else for thiers. So pay taxes and donate to research? Welcome to the majority of Catholics. That is not enough. When you personally hand a person a condem, a gun, a tool for whatever, knowing their intent you assume partial responsibility. I think that the courts would see you giving someone a weapon knowing what their intent was as you assuming partial responsibility. Please do not read too much into that. [/quote]

Guilt by association is utter plop. I'm not sure if you're trying to associate condom with condemn, but you're spelling both words wrong. And, I'm sorry, but if you really think that my giving someone condoms makes me responsible for zir having sex you need to rethink. I did not force zir to have sex. I did not encourage zir to have sex. I did not have sex with zir.

[quote]My point is that regardless of your religion, when you give someone an instrument knowing what their intent is, you are responsible for the outcome, not soley, but indeed some.[/quote]

And therein lies the problem with your point. A condom is not the instrument by which people have sex. Giving a condom does not in any way compare with giving a gun or other instrument.

[quote]As I said, you try being a Catholic and see how you feel. Try being the kid who in class would sign himself and was told by the teacher to quite or else. Try being the kid who did not go to school on Good Friday to go to attend a Holy Day and the school threatining it against him. No such thing as being persecuted? I would call your attention to students attending public colleges where the professor publicly berates them for their beliefs. Because someone turns a blind eye to it, does not mean that it does not happen. [/quote]

1) Didn't say that there was no such thing as persecution. Read the thread. [b]Everyone[/b] is persecuted, you aren't special.
2) [i]You[/i] try being the only non-christian in a small, southern school. Don't act like you're the only one who has ever been persecuted. Your school counted you absent because you took Good Friday off? Big deal. Try having your children taken away because your christian neighbors don't like that you're pagan.

[quote]As for the pc comment. We are not the ones hiding behind being politically correct. It is others that believe in a pluralistic, post-modern approach to everything. Forgive us for believing there is an objective truth, and not positing that everything is purley subjective to the individual. I agree, people have a right to believe what they want, that does not make them right though. PC is used so much against the Church becuase we believe that there is objective truth out there and attempt to defend it. People say that it is not pc for us to tell someone else what to do. We are not the ones hiding behind subjectivity, it is others. You will probably say this is because of our religous beliefs. I will respon ahead of time and ask you to look at how many of our defense may also be made on the grounds of natural law and just reasoning. [/quote]

Ugh. No, you just accuse everyone else of always having to be "PC". Believing in subjectivity is not "being PC". You need to get a grip on the concept of 'political correctness' before you start boiling completely unrelated things down to it. The fact that you believe in objective truth doesn't make you right, either. People say that you shouldn't tell others what to do because you have no right to do so. It has nothing to do with political correctness. Natural law is more plop that has been upheld by religious groups.

[quote]It appears that we are not getting anywhere with this other than making each other's fingers hurt. I realize and respect your thoughts about this topic. I disagree, but respect that you do not simply say because this is a free counrty so I may do what I want. Like I said, sorry for the emotions and I did not mean to get your feathers ruffeled if I did. Thank you for standing up for something you believe in and defending it on grounds that forced me to defend myself.[/quote]

Nah, feather ruffling is fine. It's debates like this that make us really evaluate our belief systems and the reasons behind them.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Antonius' date='Mar 23 2005, 05:55 PM'] Nothing can exist without God. [/quote]
I seem to have done a good job of it.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 24 2005, 01:19 PM'] If a person could be totally neutral on the subject, that would be best. 
[/quote]
Yeah, pretty much the unachievable ideal...

[quote]And here is where I am coming from:

There are teens who have sex regardless of the risks involved.

Condoms provide safer sex by lessening the risks.

There will be fewer instances of STI's and pregnancy with condoms available.  And, studies have shown that abstinance only education results in more STI's when people start having sex, regardless of how long they waited.
[/quote]

Ok just curious as to this study you are refering to. I would really like to educate myself as to why they think that is. Please provide a link. It seems like you are catering those that will do it anyway at the expense of those that are influenced by that option of condoms.

[quote]Guilt by association is utter plop.[/quote]

Why do you think so?

[quote]I'm not sure if you're trying to associate condom with condemn, but you're spelling both words wrong.[/quote]

My apologies for my haste and poor typing skills. I like that association though...

[quote] I did not encourage zir to have sex.[/quote]

I do not think that it makes you primarily responsible, but it does transmit some culpability for your involvement. Do you deny that if you give someone an instrument for a crime knowing thier intent that you should be held partially accountable? As far as I know that seems to be part of the judicial system. You are responsible for what you do and what you do not do. No man is an island and you are responsible for your impact on others and their choices. If you wish to live in a world that you think you are walled in from everyone else's actions and seperated from your influence on the, I would suggest moving to a very remote location.

[quote]A condom is not the instrument by which people have sex.[/quote]

True, but as you said so yourself, it allows teens to rationalize and it alters their behavior. It is an instrument used within sex though. What is the instrument in murder? The gun, the bullet, what part of the bullet? I hold that the primary instrument is the person, and he/she simply used a gun as a means. The people are the "instruments" in sex, and a condom is simply a means for rationalizing the consequences.

[quote]1) Didn't say that there was no such thing as persecution.  Read the thread.  [b]Everyone[/b] is persecuted, you aren't special.
[/quote]

Never said we were the only ones persecuted, simply that it was the last acceptable prejudice. Prejudice and persecution are two different things. I would say that the only garuntee in this country (aside from death and taxes ) is that you will be persecuted for your beliefs somewhere, sometime, by someone. I did not mean that we were a special case.

[quote]2) [i]You[/i] try being the only non-christian in a small, southern school.  Don't act like you're the only one who has ever been persecuted.  Your school counted you absent because you took Good Friday off?  Big deal. Try having your children taken away because your christian neighbors don't like that you're pagan.
[/quote]

I agree with you that is an injustice. Like I said, we are not the only ones persecuted, all are by others.

[quote]Believing in subjectivity is not "being PC".[/quote]

True, but I do see PC being upheld and indeed being championed by such subjective views.


[quote]
     The fact that you believe in objective truth doesn't make you right, either. [/quote]

Well that depends if you believe there is objective truth. Here it seems like we have no basis to argue on except to start on a long philosophical rant. It seems like you are trying to get at our objective truth being correct, that I can grant you. Simply because we believe in objective truth does not mean that ours is autmomatically correct. That does not argue the point that there isnt such a thing as definite right and wrong though.

[quote]People say that you shouldn't tell others what to do because you have no right to do so.  It has nothing to do with political correctness. [/quote]

I disagree. I see a definite connection between the American sense of "freedom", PC, and subjectivity. I think that they support each other. America has a very demented sense of freedom that is based on subjectivity that is actualized in radical PC. That is a topic for another thread however.

[quote]Natural law is more plop that has been upheld by religious groups.
[/quote]

Then what basis do you use for your own moral code? What you feel like at that time? What suits your case? Just curious as to what you use to gauge the morality or ethics of your actions, if you belive in those things that is. Religion? Natural Law? Your own interpretation of the world? Your whims? Not an attack, just a question...

Edited March 24, 2005 by Paphnutius

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Mar 24 2005, 01:45 PM'] Ok just curious as to this study you are refering to. I would really like to educate myself as to why they think that is. Please provide a link. It seems like you are catering those that will do it anyway at the expense of those that are influenced by that option of condoms. [/quote]
My apologies as I misquoted the study. They found no difference in the rate of STI's, but there was more incidence of unprotected sex for 'virginity pledgers' once they started having sex. Apparently it did delay the first incidence of intercourse, though there is argument as to whether this was due to self-selection because of the voluntary nature of the pledges. I can't link directly to the study (password protected) but [url="http://webcenter.health.webmd.netscape.com/content/article/102/106704.htm"]here's[/url] a link to WebMD's assessment.

Additionally, a study done by Douglas Kirby, PhD showed that comprehensive sex-ed didn't increase sexual activity. Then again, he seems to feel that Bearman and Bruckner's study (above) lacks merit. Meta review sometimes complicates things. [url="http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/report_summaries/emerging_answers/q&a.asp"]Here[/url] you can find the FAQ on his study. Either they don't provide a link to the actual thing, or I'm a dolt and I'm missing it. There is link to the summary of his report on that page, though.

[quote]Why do you think so?[/quote]

Because you are either guilty or you are not. You cannot be guilty because you are associated with someone who is guilty.

[quote]My apologies for my haste and poor typing skills. I like that association though...[/quote]

Heh, if I'd know it was just misstype I wouldn't have mentioned it. I just saw it appear more than once, so I thought it was intentional.

[quote]I do not think that it makes you primarily responsible, but it does transmit some culpability for your involvement. Do you deny that if you give someone an instrument for a crime knowing thier intent that you should be held partially accountable? As far as I know that seems to be part of the judicial system. You are responsible for what you do and what you do not do. No man is an island and you are responsible for your impact on others and their choices. If you wish to live in a world that you think you are walled in from everyone else's actions and seperated from your influence on the, I would suggest moving to a very remote location. [/quote]

You are responsible for yourself. There's an anagram that's used often within the polyamory community: OYOS. Own Your Own Sheise. You are solely responsible for your own emotions and actions. No one else makes you feel the way you feel or act the way you act. Similarly, blame can't be placed on the parents of a mass murderer. You wouldn't place the blame of evil on your god, would you?

[quote]True, but as you said so yourself, it allows teens to rationalize and it alters their behavior. It is an instrument used within sex though. What is the instrument in murder? The gun, the bullet, what part of the bullet? I hold that the primary instrument is the person, and he/she simply used a gun as a means. The people are the "instruments" in sex, and a condom is simply a means for rationalizing the consequences. [/quote]

No, teens use it to rationalize what they would do anyway. It doesn't alter their behavior. And a condom isn't a means to rationalize the consequenses it's a means to mitigate the risks. Please, just find a new analogy, I beg you.

[quote]Never said we were the only ones persecuted, simply that it was the last acceptable prejudice. Prejudice and persecution are two different things. I would say that the only garuntee in this country (aside from death and taxes    ) is that you will be persecuted for your beliefs somewhere, sometime, by someone. I did not mean that we were a special case.[/quote]

Okay, except you are saying that you're a special case if you argue that it's "the last acceptable prejudice". With which I would disagree, by the way.

[quote]True, but I do see PC being upheld and indeed being championed by such subjective views. [/quote]

Not sure I follow.

[quote]Well that depends if you believe there is objective truth. [/quote]

Actually, not quite. Baptist believe that there is objective truth and they still believe that you are wrong.

[quote]Simply because we believe in objective truth does not mean that ours is autmomatically correct. That does not argue the point that there isnt such a thing as definite right and wrong though. [/quote]

Good, you got my point. The problem with that model is that we have no way of knowing what those definite rights and wrongs might be. Christians could be completely wrong on everything -- not that I'm arguing that this is likely. So, we're back where I started.

[quote]I disagree. I see a definite connection between the American sense of "freedom", PC, and subjectivity. I think that they support each other. America has a very demented sense of freedom that is based on subjectivity that is actualized in radical PC. That is a topic for another thread however. [/quote]

I'm waiting for you to start a thread on this topic.

[quote]Then what basis do you use for your own moral code? What you feel like at that time? What suits your case? Just curious as to what you use to gauge the morality or ethics of your actions, if you belive in those things that is. Religion? Natural Law? Your own interpretation of the world? Your whims? Not an attack, just a question...[/quote]

I, personally, use the concept of harm to create a moral code. If something harms another person (non-consensually) then it shouldn't be done. I think you could apply this to all of your own rules as well, if you so chose.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 24 2005, 04:50 PM'] My apologies as I misquoted the study. They found no difference in the rate of STI's, but there was more incidence of unprotected sex for 'virginity pledgers' once they started having sex. Apparently it did delay the first incidence of intercourse, though there is argument as to whether this was due to self-selection because of the voluntary nature of the pledges. I can't link directly to the study (password protected) but [url="http://webcenter.health.webmd.netscape.com/content/article/102/106704.htm"]here's[/url] a link to WebMD's assessment.

Additionally, a study done by Douglas Kirby, PhD showed that comprehensive sex-ed didn't increase sexual activity. Then again, he seems to feel that Bearman and Bruckner's study (above) lacks merit. Meta review sometimes complicates things. [url="http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/report_summaries/emerging_answers/q&a.asp"]Here[/url] you can find the FAQ on his study. Either they don't provide a link to the actual thing, or I'm a dolt and I'm missing it. There is link to the summary of his report on that page, though.
[/quote]
Thank you for providing the links and admiting your fault. I find the discussions go easier when we both admit faults or over assumptions. Please feel free to smack me in place if you feel I am doing the same. (For some reason I dont get the feeling that you would hesitate to do that ).

[quote]
Because you are either guilty or you are not.  You cannot be guilty because you are associated with someone who is guilty.
[/quote]

No, but you are guilty because you are associated with the act. That is the hinge of that arguement, not association with the person so much as full and free compliance with the act and its intent.

[quote]misstype[/quote]

Speaking of typos? J/K...

[quote]You are responsible for yourself.  There's an anagram that's used often within the polyamory community: OYOS. Own Your Own Sheise.  You are solely responsible for your own emotions and actions.  No one else makes you feel the way you feel or act the way you act.  Similarly, blame can't be placed on the parents of a mass murderer.  You wouldn't place the blame of evil on your god, would you?[/quote]

You are responsible for your actions and their effects...Indeed please own it. Actually we do see people getting off of charges because of their parent's behavior. I would not blame my GOD becuase I know where the blame of evil lies, and that is me!

[quote]Please, just find a new analogy, I beg you.[/quote]

Glad we are agreed. *Is braingstorming*

[quote]No, teens use it to rationalize what they would do anyway.  It doesn't alter their behavior.  And a condom isn't a means to rationalize the consequenses it's a means to mitigate the risks. [/quote]

Would you agree that it does alter the choice that some teens make?

[quote]Not sure I follow. I'm waiting for you to start a thread on this topic.[/quote]

I am going to be out tomorrow and Easter Sunday, so I might start the thread next week. paitent please.

[quote] The problem with that model is that we have no way of knowing what those definite rights and wrongs might be.[/quote]

You would if you would recongize the truth...My personal opinion.

[quote]
Actually, not quite.  Baptist believe that there is objective truth and they still believe that you are wrong.[/quote]

Same truth, different interpretations and applications...Humans are fallible you know.


[quote]I, personally, use the concept of harm to create a moral code.  If something harms another person (non-consensually) then it shouldn't be done.  I think you could apply this to all of your own rules as well, if you so chose.[/quote]

Ok good to know that you are not like the ship without a rutter, I was beginning to get worried. I would agree, the concept of harm can be used for many of our moral codes. The only problem I see in your application is that we do not agree on some of the "harms." I believe that sex before marriage, contraceptives, etc..., are all harmful to a person's soul and character. You do not. So the concept of harm cannot really be equally applied to all if we cannot even agree on what some harms are....

[Paphnutius]

A thought jsut hit me as I was showeing after my reply to you...

You added the qualifier consensualy (ok I am a terrible speller and typer!) to your harm concept. Are you saying that if that person is fully aware and fully consents to the harm it is ok?

[hyperdulia again]

Sex belongs to sacramental, eternal, indissoluable Christian (read "Catholic") marriage--sex any other context no matter how fun it might be is wrong, because it is only a shadow of a real live enfleshed reality. The Real is sacrifice, the laying down of one's body and the opening of one's soul--the other is temporal, destined to fall away, to whither, and to die.

Wearing a condom as one fornicates compounds not mitigates the sin of fornication--it is barbarous, almost unhuman, masturbatory, the idea of two living bodies being seperated by plastic.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Mar 24 2005, 05:27 PM'] A thought jsut hit me as I was showeing after my reply to you...

You added the qualifier consensualy (ok I am a terrible speller and typer!) to your harm concept. Are you saying that if that person is fully aware and fully consents to the harm it is ok? [/quote]
Yes, and I'm talking about BDSM. Surely, such a thing would be allowable within marriage, right?

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Mar 24 2005, 05:13 PM'] Thank you for providing the links and admiting your fault. I find the discussions go easier when we both admit faults or over assumptions. Please feel free to smack me in place if you feel I am doing the same. (For some reason I dont get the feeling that you would hesitate to do that ). [/quote]
You are correct, though I fully believe that you would correct yourself just as I have done.

[quote]No, but you are guilty because you are associated with the act. That is the hinge of that arguement, not association with the person so much as full and free compliance with the act and its intent.[/quote]

There's a difference between being guily by association and being guilty of abetting.

[quote]Speaking of typos? J/K...[/quote]

*snicker* D'oh!

[quote]You are responsible for your actions and their effects...Indeed please own it. Actually we do see people getting off of charges because of their parent's behavior. I would not blame my GOD becuase I know where the blame of evil lies, and that is me![/quote]

It's rare that people are acquitted of crimes based on the actions of their parents, unless those actions are directly involved in the crime or the people are found to be insane. And, surely, the devil existed befor you, right? But god made the devil, right? So, surely, he's guilty by association.

[quote]Would you agree that it does alter the choice that some teens make?[/quote]

I would agree that it [i]might[/i] alter the choice. I would, in the same breath, note that I think that number is lower than the number of teens who benefit by not getting an STI or pregnant. However, the study I linked above (2nd one) notes that comprehensive education doesn't hasten the incidence of first sexual intercourse.

[quote]I am going to be out tomorrow and Easter Sunday, so I might start the thread next week. paitent please.[/quote]

I'm almost never around on the weekends, so this works well.

[quote]You would if you would recongize the truth...My personal opinion.[/quote]

The problem is that there is no way to prove what is or is not the truth. Even if I believed in an objective truth I would have no way of knowing that it was correct. Obviously, I would believe that it is, but my belief doesn't make it so. I'm too introspective to hold both of those thoughts in my head and still hang on to that belief. Remember, I used to be die-hard christian.

[quote]Same truth, different interpretations and applications...Humans are fallible you know.[/quote]

Okay, judaism and christianity, then.

[quote]Ok good to know that you are not like the ship without a rutter, I was beginning to get worried. I would agree, the concept of harm can be used for many of our moral codes. The only problem I see in your application is that we do not agree on some of the "harms." I believe that sex before marriage, contraceptives, etc..., are all harmful to a person's soul and character. You do not. So the concept of harm cannot really be equally applied to all if we cannot even agree on what some harms are....[/quote]

Harm, like religion, has to be self-defined. Some things can be seen, like property damage or bruises, but when it comes to emotional and spiritual harm each individual has to define for themselves. Then interactions have to be based on the most conservative estimate. If you find it spiritually damaging to have pre-marital sex and I do not, we have to go with your interpretation in our interactions. This, most likely, means that you and I would never have sex, but that's the way it has to be. Now, if you decided to the spiritual harm was worth it to have pre-marital sex, you could consent to it and sex could ensue.

Hmm...I hope I didn't make that too personal. Didn't mean to imply anything, I was just giving an example.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' date='Mar 25 2005, 05:50 AM'] Sex belongs to sacramental, eternal, indissoluable Christian (read "Catholic") marriage--sex any other context no matter how fun it might be is wrong, because it is only a shadow of a real live enfleshed reality. The Real is sacrifice, the laying down of one's body and the opening of one's soul--the other is temporal, destined to fall away, to whither, and to die.

Wearing a condom as one fornicates compounds not mitigates the sin of fornication--it is barbarous, almost unhuman, masturbatory, the idea of two living bodies being seperated by plastic. [/quote]
So if one spouse is infected with HIV (say from a blood transfusion that happened pre-1985) the other spouse should be willingly infected with HIV?

[hyperdulia again]

They should abstain. Sex is an important part of marriage, ut it isn't what defines it.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 25 2005, 12:17 PM'] There's a difference between being guily by association and being guilty of abetting. [/quote]
So be it, but do you not think that by giving condems to teens you are actively seconding or encouraging, or assisting or supporting an achievement of a purpose?

[quote]It's rare that people are acquitted of crimes based on the actions of their parents, unless those actions are directly involved in the crime or the people are found to be insane.  And, surely, the devil existed befor you, right? [/quote]

But it still happens does it not? Just pointing out that it isnt always black and white, people are responsible for what their actions do to others. You still have not answered my question: Do you deny that if you give someone an instrument for a crime knowing thier intent that you should be held partially accountable? A simple yes or no answer will suffice. Do you really think that you are only responsible for you actions so far as they affect you? What about how they affect others and their choices? Not everyone is a stonewall to other's suggestions, you cannot fault someone for being influenced by you, they always are one way or another. When you act you cause someone else to act in response to you, be it acceptance, rejection, or ignorance. They are all responses to you and therefore you bear some responsibility because you forced them to act in reaction to you.

[quote] But god made the devil, right?  So, surely, he's guilty by association. [/quote]

If you want to discuss the problem of evil start another thread. I really am interested in your views of it since you used to be a Christian and no longer are.

[quote]I would agree that it [i]might[/i] alter the choice.  I would, in the same breath, note that I think that number is lower than the number of teens who benefit by not getting an STI or pregnant[/quote]

Granted the number is indeed lower. Our poor society...But should we really sacrafice the few who as you said [i]might[/i] be altered for those that will do it anyway? The problem is not going to be fixed by a comprehensive education. It is going to take a lot more than that, reforming the media could be part of it but I will not go on my reformist rant. If I understand you correctly you think that we should have a full "comprehensive" education about contraceptives because it benefits teens by "protecting" them from STIs and pregnancy. You are willing to say this because you think that it outweighs it altering the choice of those that would not of decided to experiment if they were not informed about the "protection." So apparently yours boils down to a greater good arguement? You are willing to sacrafice the altering the choice of the few for those that will have sex anyway.

I believe that we should have abstinance only programs and remove much of the smut that is out there in the media because it is influencing the teens to make wrong choices. You of course disagree with me that it is wrong. Mine is also a greater good application. The greater good would be having teens remain virgins until marriage for a variety of reasons. Most of which have been brought up by others, but you disagree with them as well for your own reasons. My stance is that contraceptives allow teens to mitigate the consequences out of existence and thus remove any reason that they see not to have sex. The problem is only compounded by how our society views sex, which you appear to support. It is a choice that the individual, apparently regardless of age, should be free to make. You think that educating teens on the risks (and benefits) is a proper way to help them make thier choice. I agree, but we disagree that there are benefits outside of marriage and on the use of contraceptives. It appears as though we are going around in circles on this.

[quote]The problem is that there is no way to prove what is or is not the truth.[/quote]
I of course disagree.

[quote]Even if I believed in an objective truth I would have no way of knowing that it was correct.  Obviously, I would believe that it is, but my belief doesn't make it so.  I'm too introspective to hold both of those thoughts in my head and still hang on to that belief.  Remember, I used to be die-hard christian.
[/quote]

I am willing to discuess epistomology vs. skepticism if you wish. Simply start the thread and I can discuss correspondance and coherance truth with you. No, simply because you believe does that make it right, that is just what I am saying. I do however believe that there is such a thing as objective truth and that there is a way of knowing if it is correct or not.

[quote]
Okay, judaism and christianity, then.[/quote]

Same truth, different times and stages. Their truth is fulfilled in Christ and in His Church. Who are you going to pit us against next? Let me see....

Muslims-perversion and wilfull ignorance (those who truly know their Islam faith) of the truth....does not affect the truth itself.

Budhist- attempting to know the truth through different means but not quite making it. Not a different truth, but trying to come at it from a different slant that doesn't work. Once again it doesn't affect the truth.

Pagans- well at least the believe in the truth of a higher being, but not in the truth of one God.

As you can see I can say that each part of a belief contains at least [i]some[/i] truth to it. It is just that they are lacking, some more some less, in areas. Jews do believe in the truth of one God, but not in the truth of a Trinity... Now I think you will ask me how do I know that our belief is the truth...like I said start a thread on epistomology and skepticism and we will see.

[quote]Harm, like religion, has to be self-defined.  Some things can be seen, like property damage or bruises, but when it comes to emotional and spiritual harm each individual has to define for themselves.  Then interactions have to be based on the most conservative estimate.  If you find it spiritually damaging to have pre-marital sex and I do not, we have to go with your interpretation in our interactions.  This, most likely, means that you and I would never have sex, but that's the way it has to be.  Now, if you decided to the spiritual harm was worth it to have pre-marital sex, you could consent to it and sex could ensue.
[/quote]

Umm...religion is not self defined, it is defined by the truth which is revealed to us. I believe that there are some things that cause objective emotional harm, it does not have to be defined. It also appears that you are operating on a cost-benifit analysis of the harm concept. Just curious, do you think that if someone wants to committ suicide that is ok? I mean after all they consent to the harm they are doing to themselves. Here is the snag though. The harm that one person causes is never isolated to that one person alone. [b]never[/b]. When someone does harm to his or herslf it causes harm to other indirectly, most of which do not want to consent to it. Suicide causes emotional harm to loved ones. Self infilicted pain causes harm to others who are scandalized by it, the emotional scares left of the individual influences the way he treats others, probably in a harmful way. The deal is that one person cannot cause harm to oneself and expect it to end there. We are communal beings and what one does affects all. I know you probably disagree with that, but that is life. You affect others around you, how they feel, how they act, how they respond, and you will be held accountable to an extent for that. Harm is never isolated to that one act.

So....If you believe in the harm concept based on concent then all of society would have to give concent for someone to harm himself for it affects others around him.

[quote] This, most likely, means that you and I would never have sex, but that's the way it has to be.[/quote]

Indeed that is just the way it has to be.

[quote]Hmm...I hope I didn't make that too personal.  Didn't mean to imply anything, I was just giving an example.[/quote]

Don't worry, it made me laugh. Kinda odd but funny.

[Guest AveMaria]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 22 2005, 05:03 PM']"Failure to transmit human life is not the primary reason why fornication is wrong, but rather, because fornication is an attack on the dignity of the human person; it is a selfish act which uses another person to gratify your base sexual desires. A human being is a person to be loved, not used. If you really want to give yourself to someone totally, you will take their hand in marriage, and show that you want them totally. Otherwise, you are simply using them."

[/quote]
I would really encourage the couple to wait until marriage, and tell them all the great reasons why and how special it is and how much more meaningful it will be when they are husband and wife. They will Love and Respect eachother even more and will totally understand what it is to give one self out of Love for eachother. And let them know that contraception is in fact wrong, and any sexual act outside of marriage is a sin and could also lead to pregnancy. And teens i would encourage everyone to wait until marriage. I also agree the promoting of condoms just leads to promiscuity more sex outside of marriage. People put their trust and lives in some plastic that could seperate them from possible diseases. And condoms are not always 100% effective, and really just think about it, you dont know what diseases the person could have and do you really want to risk your life because they are using a condom it will be ok. Evil does exist and there are people out there that want to purposely spread std's and purposely infect others with hiv it happens and some may even trick others by using a condom and then not. Think about it God has that special person for each of us out there do you really want to take away from your future spouse? I always think like would i want my future spouse to be doing something with someone else?
Thanks for posting this I wish all men respected and appreciated women this way.
This is exactly how every woman wishes to be treated, to be honored and loved by a man. To be respected, and not forced into anything she does not wish to do. I myself have been the victim of a forced act and have been hurt by someone that i know.
A woman is naturally kind and trusting, at least i am and have never had an experience quite like this. I am very nice and trusting and I tend to believe everyone is the same way, I have a hard time seeing bad in people, I try to think everyone is nice and just like anyone trusts their friends. But i did trust the wrong person. I have been waiting for marriage and made this person very aware that i wanted nothing to do with them and did not want any of their advances. I dont believe it is right to pressure and manipulate and force another person for one's own gratification and also the intent to hurt another human being. A person should never ever pressure and force another person into sexual activity, especially when they make it known they are waiting for marriage. God made sex to be shared between a married man and woman to show Love for eachother and to create life. This is the way it should be and I myself was waiting for my husband that God has for me. I just wish that I saw that bad in this person and didnt trust too much, but he is the one that shouldnt act that way. All men should show love and respect for women. And i know there are many out there that do, i have very good christian friends that would make perfect husbands, but there are of course those that just view us as objects. I just wanted to share because sex really is a gift from God and it is intended for married men and women. It is the purpose to unite a man and woman that are in Love and devote themselves to eachother for the rest of their lives.

[Theoketos]

I would not answer the question but instead recomend them to not have sex

[MichaelFilo]

If they are completly set on doing it then I wouldn't condone the use of contraception. Mortal sins add up, and make it harder for people to get out of. That is why taking the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is a mortal sin, because you sin against God again,a nd so puts you even deeper in a muck. It's not just mortal sin - state of grace. Totally not that black and white, so no I wouldn't say use a condomn. When the abortion question comes up, then a resounding no. This might actually sound like a situation I'd end up in... how awkward...

God bless,
Mikey

[thessalonian]

One cannot recommend grave moral evils under any circumstances. Further, the least of their worries is a pregnancy. They may well have STD's that they don't even know they have. This is a greater concern for the woman as HPV can cause cervical cancer and sterilizatoin. The man is not likely to know he has it. I don't recall a pill being able to help this. And the condom is a poor remedy as well because genital contact prior to use of one can spread it.

Thess