<p>If abstinence means no sex at all, including oral, then it is 100% effective against STD’s.</p>
<p>^ you mean to say that sexually transmitted diseases can only be transmitted through sex? Gasp!</p>
<p>Any more brain-busters, balconyboy?</p>
<p>Anyway, your mom can give you STDs in utero and you have a teensy tiny chance of getting viruses like AIDS through contact with infected blood, though extremely low. So not quite 100%.</p>
<p>But did you know regularly having sex greatly reduces your chance of developing prostate cancer, amongst numerous other health benefits?</p>
<p>My overall point is, if you want to have sex, do it, if not, then don’t. Just don’t go forcing your preposterous views on others because you want to control someone’s personal life ----- i.e., preventing education about birth control and contraceptives because you think it will encourage sexual behavior, when, in reality, sexual behavior is like a speeding locomotive of 30,000 tons going 200 miles per hour that will not be stopped in our general population, including the teenage population, by any amount of Bible rattling or fear mongering.</p>
<p>“But did you know regularly having sex greatly reduces your chance of developing prostate cancer,”</p>
<p>I think that that applies to a certain age group though… 30+ or something, I don’t recall exactly.</p>
<p>EDIT: Also I think that higher sex drive = higher risk of developing prostate cancer eventually.</p>
<p>Most well-informed people who practise abstinence may happily point out that they are practising the only 100% effective way of preventing pregnancy and STDs, but that is not the main reason. The main reason is that they want to reserve sexual experiences for their married life, be it because they believe their religion dictates it or for other reasons. Therefore, debating the efficacy of abstainance-only education in a forum of whether celibacy is appropriate is out of place.</p>
<p>But if you guys insist…
If the Catholic Church were to concede that the use of barrier-method birth control were a way to stop the AIDS crisis, they would be tacitly legitimising pre- or extra-marital sex, and thus letting millions of its flock–per its belief–burn in hell by not trying to intervene and save them from that sin. Moreover, it would tacitly legitimise the practise of sex for non-procreative purposes, which is also a damning sin. While I disagree that premarital sex is categorically, a sin, I don’t think you can reasonably expect the Catholic church to respond to the AIDS crisis in any other way than it does.</p>
<p>In addition, the concept of celibacy–for men, at least–is an innovation of the Catholic Church, not of Jesus or his disciples. Not that it didn’t–or doesn’t–have its merits, but Jesus didn’t tell you to save yourself for marriage, kids. </p>
<p>I personally don’t want to engage in casual sex with many partners and experience sex as a purely physical experience. I think that it is best kept within the confines of relationships. But not having sex until your wedding night is gonna leave you with a very awkward wedding night, and working out your physical relationship with your partner is going to be a great added stressor on your relationship at a point where you really don’t need another one. So what’s wrong with the safe physical expression of love in a relationship where both people aren’t married but are mature enough to have a loving relationship?</p>
<p>sex is good, especially with the right person, nothing wrong with abstinence and celibacy but sex is better</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree on a religious basis. Or, more specifically, my child’s sex education would include a condemnation of artificial contraception. I would rather my child have unprotected sex than protected sex every time, although obviously that would be emotionally arduous for me and my family.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re confusing the policy on contraception. Catholic teaching on contraceptives is completely independent of its teaching on premarital sex. No married couple is allowed to use any form of artificial birth control (other than for medical reasons in particular situations) either. So the condom debate is not really determined by the AIDS epidemic; the contraceptive teaching has just been reaffirmed in the context of Africa.</p>
<p>My girlfriend (a devout atheist) is a virgin, I’m (not sure of my religion) not a virgin, and we are perfectly happy. As long as everyone respects each others choices, who cares if someone is celibate or not. I completely respect her decision and do not pressure her in anyway to do anything.</p>
<p>Also, for those who talk about the Bible condemning sex, you’re right that it does. You also have to make sure that you understand why it condemns sex. For example, Proverbs 5 talks about how sexual sins can cause pain and scars, so casual sex should be forbidden. Well, the reason sexual sins caused pain and scars was because hygiene was terrible and diseases were very common among the people of the time. Sex exchanges bodily fluids and offered a perfect opportunity for the disease to pass from person to person. The people of the time may not have understood much about the biology of it, but they were smart enough to see a pattern.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that is why red states have a much higher rate of teenage pregnancy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Religious people are illogical and delusional. You heard it here first, folks!</p>
<p>
And that’s why the Catholic church is completely distanced from reality. Sure, I can’t expect them to act any other way; they are completely unplugged from the real world and rules like this are just one reason why. </p>
<p>We have problems with overpopulation, a lack of resources, disease, famine, lack of drinking water, just to mention a few. And let’s not forget natural biological instincts. (But you probably don’t believe in evolution either, so we’ll just let that one slide)</p>
<p>The pope’s response? “You’re all going to hell if you use a rubber. Oh, and just get used to not having sex, because as an eighty year old celibate, I am the foremost authority on sexual relations. Just trust me on this one. Because celibacy works for me and the rest of the Catholic church (whoops), it can work for you too!”</p>
<p>Syphilis can attack your brain and make you go crazy. Crazy people are illogical. Crazy, illogical people make some bad decisions. Syphilis can attack your brain and make you go crazy. Crazy people are illogical. Crazy, illogical people make some bad decisions. Damnit it’s a cycle.</p>
<p>Eh, people in general are illogical and delusional. I don’t think religious people have a monopoly on that. </p>
<p>“It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.” – Bertrand Russell</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think that applies to most Christian denominations, or even fundamentalists. Nor have I ever lived in a red state. Perhaps more information, less asinine assumption on your part?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Everyone is illogical and delusional. See above.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Catholic Church IS reality, as in what they teach IS what is correct because they only teach what is correct (i.e. it is taught because it is correct, not the other direction). But that’s another issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do believe in evolution. So does the Pope, for that matter. And you’re already operating in the incorrect framework, i.e. utilitarianism/temporal or geographic relativism. The Church deals in absolutes. Contraception is intrinsically wrong, and therefore is not dependent on circumstances. Abortion is intrinsically wrong, and therefore is not dependent on circumstances. The Church is not going to change its teachings (which it believes ARE the truth) simply because people are unwilling to live (ostensibly) moral lives. Should paedophilia become allowed because priests are doing it? LOL, obviously not. A tangential and somewhat incomparable example, but one that nonetheless illustrates at least part of the point. The Church is not going to renege on celibacy/contraception simply because people are having sex and getting disease. Contraception IS wrong, and is ALWAYS wrong. If you don’t like it, fine. Believe something else. But just remember that your framework is fundamentally as
arbitrary as the Church’s – there is NO empirically correct morality.</p>
<p>Perhaps you should take your incoherent vitriol somewhere else.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>yeah.</p>
<p>pandem: here’s an exercise for you. try examining your views wrt ethics, politics, & metaphysics back to their first principles. figure out the reasons for holding your beliefs, and the reasons for using those reasons, etc. . . and so forth. i bet you’ll find that your opinions on things aren’t as well-reasoned as you think.</p>
<p>
You are correct about this. I also have a highly cogent, internally consistent ethical framework that deals in absolutes. Consensual sex is always right, always good, and as a corollary, should be practiced as often as possible. God encourages premarital sex, whether it be oral, vaginal, or anal. He similarly holds that the use of artificial contraception as a means to increase the frequency and quality of sex without the burden of unwanted pregnancy or transmission of disease is also absolutely right.</p>
<p>
[AMERICAblog</a> News: Red states dominate teen pregnancy statistics](<a href=“http://www.americablog.com/2009/01/red-states-dominate-teen-pregnancy.html]AMERICAblog”>http://www.americablog.com/2009/01/red-states-dominate-teen-pregnancy.html)
first link that popped up in a google search.</p>
<p>I shouldn’t have said “red states” - I should have said states that push abstinence-only education.</p>
<p>For the record, I’m Christian (protestant, but dads side is catholic).
Also, I’m fairly independent politically speaking. Liberal about some issues, conservative on others.</p>
<p>I made no remark on you as a person or where you live or your political ideologies. So no, I did not make an asinine assumption. That’s all you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You could have said red states if that had been correct. The problem is that there is a fundamental disconnect between my statement and yours, one that is unexplained by you.</p>
<p>I: I oppose contraception, and therefore like unprotected sex
You: This is why Red States have higher pregnancy rates; people like you who oppose contraception (explicit by way of quoting only the contraception part)</p>
<p>I challenged the assumption that people in Red States are anti-contraception. No response to that claim yet.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never claimed you did. Please read my post and assume nothing except what is literally there, and you will see that you are responding to a nonextant claim.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bringing unwanted children into this world is not being responsible. While I would rather my kids wait until marriage to have sex, if they do decide to have sex before marriage, I hope they would have sex using protection.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Abstinence-only</a> sex ed defies common sense - Health - Health care - Breaking Bioethics - msnbc.com](<a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9504871/]Abstinence-only”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9504871/)</p>
<p>This article suggests that they are ‘anti-artificial contraceptive’. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Baelor, I’m not sure what you are trying to argue here. Are you trying to argue that abstinence-only education doesn’t result in higher teen pregnancy rates?</p>
<p>If you assert that there is no empirically correct morality then how, how can you claim that anything is wrong?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, I don’t look for Plan Bs – I believe that contraception is fundamentally and intrinsically wrong, and therefore never justifiable. There’s no consideration for circumstances as a result. The irresponsibility is in having premarital sex, not in having unprotected premarital sex. So if this discussion goes anywhere, then the beliefs on contraception as an absolute concept will yield interesting results; nothing else will.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay. Let’s play a game called “prove it.” I read the entire article and found not a single thing that suggested they were morally opposed to contraception. In fact:</p>
<p>“There can be no discussion of contraception except with reference to marriage”</p>
<p>In other words, contraception is FINE, just not worth discussing outside the context of marriage, which is entirely consistent with the rest of the ill-advised sex programs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not arguing for anything. I just took exception to the brainless claim that moral opposition to contraceptives is why “red states” have more teenage pregnancy. It makes no sense and is completely unsupported as of yet. If you have evidence, please, bring it forth. But the evidence belongs with the claim, not way after it once someone calls you out for asserting things at random.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Assumption/faith, depending.</p>