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.