What Puzzles me is why anyone is defending the catholic church on this.
Condoms demonstrably reduce risk for sexually active people, they allow people some degree of control over the size of their families and when used in combination with community supported Abstinence and monogamy reduce risk of HIV infection more than any other approach. Promotion of their use, in combination with education is without a shadow of a doubt, a good thing.
And the Catholic church opposes them because they believe that a invisible and rather sadistic man in the sky doesn't want us doing it. They believe this without a shred of evidence, and they teach it to vulnerable people(children and upwards.)The option that they historically favoured has been shown not to work at all, and while they are doing a little better, they still refuse to change.
Yet we, the people not taking orders from poorly translated iron age myth derived from oral traditions but instead basing are approach to the problem on the evidence provided by epidemiology, are the bad guys. Why? Because we say, hey, pull your finger out and use your influence and vast network of priests to do something useful, like provide Sex education, contraception and immunisation(the catholic church could be the biggest immunisation program in the world if it trained every priest how to give an injection, and finance immunisation of child hood disease, i mean we could literally wipe out most of them in the space of a generation). Oh and while your at it, rather than sending a former member of the Hitler youth on vastly expensive good will tours, how about you use some of you organisations Obscene wealth to actually fun further HIV (or better still malaria) research, and really do some good.
But no, we are the bad guys, because they have faith, and you can get away with murder, if you have faith. Because we can say some ones taste in music couldn't be worse if they started to listen to britney spears, or that their politics is lunacy, even that their faverate sports team sucks donkey bum. But you cant say that believing in invisible magic sky daddys is just the teeniest bit weird, you know, like 'believing your neopolian'.
*Grumbles.*
So seriously...what good reason do you have, for defending the catholic church on this?
|
CJ: No offense taken, man. As much as we strive to keep our noses out of each other's bedrooms(no kinky pun intended), the more we find that decisions made behind closed doors affect us all in our day to day lives.
In terms of the promise ring fiasco...I'd like to do a study determining not only the incidence of pregnancy around those who participate, but also the rates of STDs(not necessarily HIV, more focusing on strains of herpes). Just because vaginal intercourse was not had doesn't mean people were enjoying each other's company in other ways.
Everything we do, affects those around us whether we know it or not, or choose to acknowledge it or not.
I would like to see one as well. I am sure that many of the participants were not nearly as chaste as they claimed.
OK enough of this. I can only be so serious at a given time.
Coffee Flavored Condoms Relevant link for those who did not know.
So seriously...what good reason do you have, for defending the catholic church on this?
None that I can discern.
In the case of sex, many people don't understand the risks (as hard as that may be for people here in the U.S. to believe). Perversely, some people work to keep it that way out of a misguided belief that doing so will help prevent the spread of STDs. :(
|
|
And the Catholic church opposes them because they believe that a invisible and rather sadistic man in the sky doesn't want us doing it. They believe this without a shred of evidence, and they teach it to vulnerable people(children and upwards.)
And after things were going surprisingly well, we dive headlong back into troll territory. In the process totally validating my original post in this thread.
|
|
And the Catholic church opposes them because they believe that a invisible and rather sadistic man in the sky doesn't want us doing it. They believe this without a shred of evidence, and they teach it to vulnerable people(children and upwards.)And after things were going surprisingly well, we dive headlong back into troll territory. In the process totally validating my original post in this thread.
EDIT: never mind it is not worth the time it takes to type it.
What Puzzles me is why anyone is defending the catholic church on this....Your nescience regarding the Church is so excessive as to be unfathomable.
Nescience? Between my other halfs family(catholics all, who are far harsher critics of the the organised catholic church than i could ever hope to be) and a childhood which included weekly visits to churches (both high church CoE and Catholic), enforced with the loose of my much valued and rare moments of free time, should I so much as profess my atheism, religious education classes and a near obsessive interest in the interplay of science and faith, no I rather think that ignorance of the catholic church is something that does not apply to me, but if you really think I am ignorant with regards to the effects of the Catholic Churches policies with regards to sex, from the implications for family planning, though to STD prevention on the one hand, right over to the internal shuffling of priests to cover up paedophilia and the destructiveness of the churchs position on homosexuality, please feel free to demonstrate it...
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Actually, they do not contradict eachother. The areas that the Pope is refering to do not promote an abstinence only policy, but a community involvement policy that teaches the dangers of STDs and raises their awareness within the community, and encourages monogamy instead of polyamory. This is not the same as an abstinence only policy. All it is saying is that areas that promote condoms are not seeing significant reductions like those that promote monogamy. It says nothing about a theoretical area which promototes both, or an area that takes a similar community-based approach to condom use. Abstinence only policies do not work, as other studies have shown, because the vast majority of people do not stay abstinent until they are married.It is a proven fact that areas that try to use this method have higher rates of STDs and pregnancy.In all honesty, it does not matter what the pope actually said, or that he may be factually correct, as your sources say he may be.(Emphasis mine)
One of these things is not like the other.
You state it's a "proven fact" I show studies that it's not, and another link shows data gathering isn't spotty. You then concede that the Pope may be "factually correct" If the Pope may be right, then the "facts" are far from "Proven"
EDIT: never mind it is not worth the time it takes to type it.And the Catholic church opposes them because they believe that a invisible and rather sadistic man in the sky doesn't want us doing it. They believe this without a shred of evidence, and they teach it to vulnerable people(children and upwards.)And after things were going surprisingly well, we dive headlong back into troll territory. In the process totally validating my original post in this thread.
Sorry...is the god to which the catholic church prays is visible, and i just didn't notice.
Or is it that he is a really nice guy, and all the genocide and endorsing slavery and stuff is just bad press?
Did i get the bit about him dwelling in the sky wrong...cause thats a pretty run of the mill thing.
Or was the faux passe mentioning that there isn't a shred of evidence for his existance?
Mentioning these things is relivant, because people are making serious public health decisions based upon the foundation described above. It isn't trolling to say that basing your choices about how to deal with a pandemic upon the desires of a supernatural entity, you do not even have the slightest evidence exists, is irrational.
Zombie, please. I understand your frustrations and even agree with some. However, there is no point in being this antagonistic; it drags the thread down dark roads.
You state it's a "proven fact" I show studies that it's not, and another link shows data gathering isn't spotty. You then concede that the Pope may be "factually correct" If the Pope may be right, then the "facts" are far from "Proven"Actually, they do not contradict eachother. The areas that the Pope is refering to do not promote an abstinence only policy, but a community involvement policy that teaches the dangers of STDs and raises their awareness within the community, and encourages monogamy instead of polyamory. This is not the same as an abstinence only policy. All it is saying is that areas that promote condoms are not seeing significant reductions like those that promote monogamy. It says nothing about a theoretical area which promototes both, or an area that takes a similar community-based approach to condom use. Abstinence only policies do not work, as other studies have shown, because the vast majority of people do not stay abstinent until they are married.It is a proven fact that areas that try to use this method have higher rates of STDs and pregnancy.In all honesty, it does not matter what the pope actually said, or that he may be factually correct, as your sources say he may be.(Emphasis mine)
One of these things is not like the other.
No, because the proven fact that condom use does reduce the spread of STDs and the abstinence programs do not work is not refuted by your studies, since they do not deal with abstinence programs but with alternate cultural changes to promote monogamy and understand the effects of stds. Those programs are not about not having sex, but about changing what sex means in the community.
Mentioning these things is relevant, because people are making serious public health decisions based upon the foundation described above. It isn't trolling to say that basing your choices about how to deal with a pandemic upon the desires of a supernatural entity, you do not even have the slightest evidence exists, is irrational.
Here's the thing: I agree with you. And I do not believe you to be trolling. But you can make your position known without mentioning many of those things. Sometimes not trolling isn't enough.
For my part, I think people should be able to make an informed choice, which means knowing about condoms, and so I don't believe that providing information encourages foolish behavior.
Zombie, please. I understand your frustrations and even agree with some. However, there is no point in being this antagonistic; it drags the thread down dark roads.
Freehold, if you think that I am being antagonistic, I will happily curb my tough to avoid being rude. Just please don't expect me to be happy about the 'that offends me' defense getting another win.
Mentioning these things is relevant, because people are making serious public health decisions based upon the foundation described above. It isn't trolling to say that basing your choices about how to deal with a pandemic upon the desires of a supernatural entity, you do not even have the slightest evidence exists, is irrational.Here's the thing: I agree with you. And I do not believe you to be trolling. But you can make your position known without mentioning many of those things. Sometimes not trolling isn't enough.
For my part, I think people should be able to make an informed choice, which means knowing about condoms, and so I don't believe that providing information encourages foolish behavior.
So no drawing attention to the absurdity? That just seems..well wrong. But thank you for the dragging of my feet back down to ground level, will endevour to be extra polite...
So no drawing attention to the absurdity? That just seems..well wrong.
It depends on your goal. If you want to have a discussion about condoms, then yeah, you have to give it a pass. I agree that faith is irrational -- in fact, that's kinda the whole point ("belief in the absence of proof"). But throwing that at people is just going to cause them to shut down. Trust me on this one. :P
So no drawing attention to the absurdity? That just seems..well wrong.It depends on your goal. If you want to have a discussion about condoms, then yeah, you have to give it a pass. I agree that faith is irrational -- in fact, that's kinda the whole point ("belief in the absence of proof"). But throwing that at people is just going to cause them to shut down. Trust me on this one. :P
But it works out about the same way whether one points out the absurdity or not.
Meanwhile the pile o' corpses continues to grow.
But it works out about the same way whether one points out the absurdity or not.
Meanwhile the pile o' corpses continues to grow.
What, if not discussion, would you suggest, Samnell? I understand that you're frustrated, I'm just not seeing any practical course of action other than trying to explain why the church's stance is destructive.
So no drawing attention to the absurdity? That just seems..well wrong.It depends on your goal. If you want to have a discussion about condoms, then yeah, you have to give it a pass. I agree that faith is irrational -- in fact, that's kinda the whole point ("belief in the absence of proof"). But throwing that at people is just going to cause them to shut down. Trust me on this one. :P
I am not even convince there is really a point having the discussion, because near as I can tell from observation, the position being taken by the other side, if faith based, or taken out of 'respect for faith'. We can be up for the next twenty four hours you and i, demonstating the causation pathway for damage caused by the churches position, evidence that such damage is occurring and the consensus amongst Public health workers and epidemiologists...and we won't change minds. Under those conditions, surely the best we can hope for is conciousness raising about the the hypersensitivity of religion, or maybe getting one of two people to think for a moment about how weird some of the stuff they believe actually is.
I am at a disadvantage in adding to this thread, since I don't share the common premise everyone else here has which is that AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease. Scientific evidence like the Padian study strongly suggest it is not.
The problem is that AIDS, from the start, was a political invention as well as a disease. There were some gay men in San Francisco who were dying due to completely destroyed immune systems in 1981. This is when Ronald Reagan was entering office and talking about downsizing government(all talk of course). The CDC was on the chopping block, after wasting so much money on the War on Cancer and then botching the 1976 swine flue vaccine.
So to justify their existence, the CDC went shopping for the most scary disease they could possibly find. And AIDS is pretty scary.
But they centered on the sexual activity despite the fact that in addition to the anonymous recreational sex these guys
1) had been heavy recreational drug users, including poppers
2) had been self-administering anitibiotics on a regular basis#1 is bad, #2 is just plain stupid. That nukes the bacteria in your gut, which you need for healthy immune function.
The fact that there has not been a pandemic of AIDS among most of the population in most countries(outside of Africa) despite about 20 years of dire warnings is also a good indication medicine and the government botched identifying the cause of AIDS from the start.
As for Africa, the "pandemic" of AIDS among heterosexuals is really a pandemic of malnutrition, tuberculosis and a few other diseases that get labeled as AIDS.
The emperor has no clothes on this one.
Wow...thanks for that. Though I still prefer the "immunization is an outdated technology that does more harm than good" schtick. :P
I am at a disadvantage in adding to this thread, since I don't share the common premise everyone else here has which is that AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease. Scientific evidence like the Padian study strongly suggest it is not.
The problem is that AIDS, from the start, was a political invention as well as a disease. There were some gay men in San Francisco who were dying due to completely destroyed immune systems in 1981. This is when Ronald Reagan was entering office and talking about downsizing government(all talk of course). The CDC was on the chopping block, after wasting so much money on the War on Cancer and then botching the 1976 swine flue vaccine.
So to justify their existence, the CDC went shopping for the most scary disease they could possibly find. And AIDS is pretty scary.
But they centered on the sexual activity despite the fact that in addition to the anonymous recreational sex these guys
1) had been heavy recreational drug users, including poppers
2) had been self-administering anitibiotics on a regular basis#1 is bad, #2 is just plain stupid. That nukes the bacteria in your gut, which you need for healthy immune function.
The fact that there has not been a pandemic of AIDS among most of the population in most countries(outside of Africa) despite about 20 years of dire warnings is also a good indication medicine and the government botched identifying the cause of AIDS from the start.
As for Africa, the "pandemic" of AIDS among heterosexuals is really a pandemic of malnutrition, tuberculosis and a few other diseases that get labeled as AIDS.
The emperor has no clothes on this one.
Has the study you are citing actually been published?
PS: Googles a wonderful thing, checking it out now....things don't look promising however.
I am at a disadvantage in adding to this thread, since I don't share the common premise everyone else here has which is that AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease. Scientific evidence like the Padian study strongly suggest it is not.
Reading the study itself, not the horribly misleading "summary" of it you linked to, indicates to me that (a) AIDS is indeed sexually transmitted, but (b) per-event transission rates may be lower than estimated.
Dave, it's important to separate science from politics, as I'm sure you'll agree. The thing is, that requires some knowledge of science, as well as simply a political opinion.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Has the study you are citing actually been published?
The only thing I read along these lines was an article in Rolling Stone back in the late 90's. And the only thing that it agreed with was that *some* of the cases of AIDS in Africa were not AIDS but were diagnosed as such because of grant money.
Like I said, this is over a decade ago.
"...or maybe getting one of two people to think for a moment about how weird some of the stuff they believe actually is."
I think perhaps you answered your own question. We all have misconceptions; it's an inescapable part of the human condition. The point of discussion is to try to get us to turn a critical eye on our own beliefs from time to time. Such attempts often fail -- that doesn't mean they aren't worth making.
Even if abstinence were practical, most of us would agree that people deserve to make informed decisions. Therefore, why not make information on condoms and their use freely available? That's what I don't understand -- the argument to take them away as a viable option. It smacks of the desire to force one's choices on others.
What, if not discussion, would you suggest, Samnell? I understand that you're frustrated, I'm just not seeing any practical course of action other than trying to explain why the church's stance is destructive.But it works out about the same way whether one points out the absurdity or not.
Meanwhile the pile o' corpses continues to grow.
That's just it. Stating the simple fact that the church's stance is destructive has already given up the game. It's absolutely the truth, but in having declared that the church's policies are destructive we have transgressed exactly the same way as if we said that they were the fruit of a bunch geriatric transvestites* who do it for the pure love of evil. (Doubtless they would do so while cackling in their castles and drinking blood out of goblets made from the skulls of unbaptized babies or something. Insert your own cliches.)
We end up in the same place either way. I haven't read the thread in detail, since it's so easy to anticipate the posts, but have any defenders of the church's policy come around and admitted its destructive and should be changed? If there's one here, it'll be the first one I've ever seen.
One could try to uproot the dysfunctional, archaic ideas about sex from whence the policies spring, but that takes us back to the same place too. Or we could go to work on uprooting mind/body dualism, just to get really fundamental, and be at the same place. Every road is going to end up there, so far as I can tell. Dogmas are dogmas.
I'm not happy about it, but there it is. I can think of alternatives, but none of them are the kinds of things I would accept either. So we're stuck.
*I suppose it's not really fair to call the Catholic hierarchy transvestites in the usually understood sense of the word. Their outfits were standard male fashion a handful centuries back.
|
I am at a disadvantage in adding to this thread, since I don't share the common premise everyone else here has which is that AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease. Scientific evidence like the Padian study strongly suggest it is not.
The problem is that AIDS, from the start, was a political invention as well as a disease. There were some gay men in San Francisco who were dying due to completely destroyed immune systems in 1981. This is when Ronald Reagan was entering office and talking about downsizing government(all talk of course). The CDC was on the chopping block, after wasting so much money on the War on Cancer and then botching the 1976 swine flue vaccine.
So to justify their existence, the CDC went shopping for the most scary disease they could possibly find. And AIDS is pretty scary.
But they centered on the sexual activity despite the fact that in addition to the anonymous recreational sex these guys
1) had been heavy recreational drug users, including poppers
2) had been self-administering anitibiotics on a regular basis#1 is bad, #2 is just plain stupid. That nukes the bacteria in your gut, which you need for healthy immune function.
The fact that there has not been a pandemic of AIDS among most of the population in most countries(outside of Africa) despite about 20 years of dire warnings is also a good indication medicine and the government botched identifying the cause of AIDS from the start.
As for Africa, the "pandemic" of AIDS among heterosexuals is really a pandemic of malnutrition, tuberculosis and a few other diseases that get labeled as AIDS.
The emperor has no clothes on this one.
The Padian study is oft mentioned as concluding that HIV is not sexually transmitted. In fact, there is a lot of debate and controversy out there about what conclusions can and should be drawn from the study, and issues with the methodology of the study. As I understand it, the study itself does NOT draw the conclusion that HIV is not sexually transmitted, but many people in looking at the apparent results of PART of the study have drawn that conclusion.
No, I’m not going to provide a look, go and look it up and do some reading yourselves you lazy bums!
And after things were going surprisingly well, we dive headlong back into troll territory. In the process totally validating my original post in this thread.
So pointing out how people legitimately feel about your camp is 'trolling' and thus validates your position?
Anyhow I disagree with your position.
Abstinence has its place, but is wildly unrealistic as a tool.
Protect people FIRST, then educate them; but saying nothing and watching them die because they won't simply accept your niche view is particularly heartless. Piety and morality are comforts that some people simply cannot afford.
So the ends justify the means?
If by "ends" you mean "prevent millions of deaths," and by "means" you mean "condoms, as a last line of defense after encouraging abstinence and monogamy," then in this particular case, yes. In other cases? Probably not.
Or, "the road to Hell is paved in good intentions."
Piety and morality are comforts that some people simply cannot afford.So the ends justify the means?
What have they lost, by being given the option of protecting themselves? What cost has been paid by them, or anyone else? For the end's justify the means comment to be meaningful there would need to be a moral quandery. Suffering by some so that the many did not suffer. But that isn't the case here.
What have they lost, by being given the option of protecting themselves? What cost has been paid by them, or anyone else? For the end's justify the means comment to be meaningful there would need to be a moral quandery. Suffering by some so that the many did not suffer. But that isn't the case here.Piety and morality are comforts that some people simply cannot afford.So the ends justify the means?
Pretty much as above. I can't add a lot more to that position, but certaonly I could ask the same to the Catholic Church, does the ends justify the means?
They are in a position to make a significant difference by introducing the notion of protected sex, and this would save enormous suffering, and I'd be suggesting that educating couples would also be a good idea, perhaps unchecked population growth might be leading to some of the other broader issues some continents are struggling with.
What have they lost, by being given the option of protecting themselves? What cost has been paid by them, or anyone else? For the end's justify the means comment to be meaningful there would need to be a moral quandery. Suffering by some so that the many did not suffer. But that isn't the case here.Piety and morality are comforts that some people simply cannot afford.So the ends justify the means?Pretty much as above. I can't add a lot more to that position, but certaonly I could ask the same to the Catholic Church, does the ends justify the means?
They are in a position to make a significant difference by introducing the notion of protected sex, and this would save enormous suffering, and I'd be suggesting that educating couples would also be a good idea, perhaps unchecked population growth might be leading to some of the other broader issues some continents are struggling with.
Thank you shifty, i wasn't sure how to word it, but that was exactly the point I wanted to move on to make.
Does the 'protection of the sanctity of sex' justify the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people, and if it does, why does it?
Does the 'protection of the sanctity of sex' justify the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people, and if it does, why does it?
If you believe that you have an eternal soul which is liable for eternal torture, then what's the suffering of millions of people in this life? Billions? No amount of actual human suffering would be enough to outweigh eternity, would it? Ultimately this life is just a waiting room. God will sort it out, and one wouldn't want to be sorted into the wrong pile.
Ultimately this life is just a waiting room. God will sort it out, and one wouldn't want to be sorted into the wrong pile.
Oh ok so by letting them die of preventable disease we are kinda doing them all a favour and expediting them off to the Big Show. I never realised genocide was an act of human compassion.
Oh ok so by letting them die of preventable disease we are kinda doing them all a favour and expediting them off to the Big Show. I never realised genocide was an act of human compassion.
Ultimately this life is just a waiting room. God will sort it out, and one wouldn't want to be sorted into the wrong pile.
For radically perverse definitions of human and compassion, sure.
|
|
Oh ok so by letting them die of preventable disease we are kinda doing them all a favour and expediting them off to the Big Show. I never realised genocide was an act of human compassion.
Ultimately this life is just a waiting room. God will sort it out, and one wouldn't want to be sorted into the wrong pile.
Where did we get on to 'letting people die'? I could have sworn the discussion was about the validity of two different means of prevention. Neither of which have any means of preventing the deaths of people already infected.
|
|
Where did we get on to 'letting people die'? I could have sworn the discussion was about the validity of two different means of prevention. Neither of which have any means of preventing the deaths of people already infected.Oh ok so by letting them die of preventable disease we are kinda doing them all a favour and expediting them off to the Big Show. I never realised genocide was an act of human compassion.
Ultimately this life is just a waiting room. God will sort it out, and one wouldn't want to be sorted into the wrong pile.
Also the point is mute after today, since the Vatican has come out right and said that using a condom would be a lesser evil then spreading the disease. So lets see in a few years if anything changes. Since in Africa at least condoms are not the only issue.
I for one am done with the hate spewing in this thread. it serves no purpose and leads no where.
|
|
So the ends justify the means?If by "ends" you mean "prevent millions of deaths," and by "means" you mean "condoms, as a last line of defense after encouraging abstinence and monogamy," then in this particular case, yes. In other cases? Probably not.
Or, "the road to Hell is paved in good intentions."
Is it not always?
Also the point is mute after today, since the Vatican has come out right and said that using a condom would be a lesser evil then spreading the disease. So lets see in a few years if anything changes. Since in Africa at least condoms are not the only issue.
Well let me be one of the first to congratulate them on taking a progressive step forward, it is delightful to see them move forward in such a positive manner.
|
|
Also the point is mute after today,
Not trying to be an ass, just to educate.
EDIT: to further clarify, despite the literal meaning of 'moot', moot point would in fact be the correct turn of phrase here.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
I’m trying to restrain myself from straying too far into the debate, or any debate where religion enters into it as a major factor, as it is difficult to refute religious doctrine using, you know, logic and common sense. Of course it doesn’t help that here, as is fairly typical with these sort of debates, you have people on both sides arguing past each other rather than with each other.
Does increased safe means of action, result in ironically more reckless behavior?
Does increased safe means of action, result in ironically more reckless behavior?
Did you start driving like a maniac because you were wearing a seatbelt?
The short answer? no.
If you believe that you have an eternal soul which is liable for eternal torture, then what's the suffering of millions of people in this life? Billions? No amount of actual human suffering would be enough to outweigh eternity, would it? Ultimately this life is just a waiting room. God will sort it out, and one wouldn't want to be sorted into the wrong pile.
Does the 'protection of the sanctity of sex' justify the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people, and if it does, why does it?
Certainly there are people who believe what this. But what interests me is what those arguing in favour of the catholics church position here think is the cost.
Also the point is mute after today, since the Vatican has come out right and said that using a condom would be a lesser evil then spreading the disease. So lets see in a few years if anything changes. Since in Africa at least condoms are not the only issue.Well let me be one of the first to congratulate them on taking a progressive step forward, it is delightful to see them move forward in such a positive manner.
Sadly...I don't think it is enough. Unless the parish priests go out and spread this message, and take it to the logical and ethical end point that Condoms should be warn by all people at high or medium risk when ever they have sex, we probably wont see huge benefit.
Ofcause, 'it is still a sin' just a lesser one, so the church is still putting impediments in place. This really is a baby step in the right direction.
A terrible disease, said to come from "somewhere else", that spreads through sex, and can transmit at birth to children. A disease that takes many years, even a few decades to kill, and does so after completely breaking the victim down. And that shows through a specific appearance.
I am talking, of course, about syphilis.
When syphilis came to Europe from America, likely in return for the smallpox that Columbus brought there, most of european society changed. The bath houses were closed. Sex grew taboo outside of marriage, monogamy soared in importance.
It took the discovery of penicillin and 3-400 years to end it. Society has grown more stale during all this time, cementing principles and moral views on sex/marriage.
And now, the church thinks we're supposed to change even further in the direction of monogamy/abstinence? No. We already did that. HIV spread anyway. There is a limit to how far you can go with social change. That the Catholic church doesn't understand that, however, comes as no surprise.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
You know...
It must be so hard being an athiest. I mean I believe I have an immortal soul, and the ability to choose between right and wrong. I believe I was created in the image of the Divine, with the ability to create an innovate. I believe humanity is special, and was given the ability to be more than a primitive animal running on instinct. Religion is how we rise above the divine.
Athiests seem to believe that man is a hopped up monkey with delusions of grandure, and they have to attack anyone who says differently.
Sad really.
You know...
..that you just did what you are accusing them of doing?
