Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

church against reduction of vat on condoms !!

245

Comments

  • #32
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    The worlds' population is also on the rise....
    Yes but the rate of growth in Christianity outside of Europe is rather high. Particularly in the Far East and Africa.
    JC 2K3 wrote:
    That's quite the assertion you're making there. Besides cocaine, heroin and perhaps a few other less common ones, illegal drugs don't ruin people's lives, and even in the case of both of those drugs, there's a strong argument that it is the legal status of the drugs, and not their effects, which is a much bigger factor in them destroying lives.

    But that's a whole other topic....

    Not really. Medical figures would suggest that. I would also say cannabis is a harmful drug also given the amount of people who are admitted to mental hospitals due to abuse of it. In some cases cannabis can cause permanent brain damage.
    hairyheretic wrote:
    The same could be said of legal drugs, alcohol being the prime example. A cynical individual might point out the amount of money that is made from that drug, both to the supplier and the government, in the form of taxes, as at least part of the reason it isn't banned.

    If I remember my history correctly, the reason that marijuana was banned in the US was down to pressure (and probably bribary) from the tobacco industry.

    Hm, yes I agree that alcohol can be harmful, this is why drunkenness is forbidden in Christianity also.

    As for the US decision, good move, lousy reason.


  • #33
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    panda100 wrote: »
    It always really frustrates me the way people seem to blame the Catholic church and there stance on contraception on the aids epidemic in Africa.
    Only 13% of Africans are Catholic so the other 87% are hardly going to care about what the pope says.

    That isn't why they are blamed, they are blamed because a lot of the aid agencies are Catholic based and a lot (not all) don't teach proper sexual health education with condom use to Africans (Catholic and non-Catholic) because of the Church's stance on condoms and pre-marital sex.
    panda100 wrote: »
    The catholic church really need a new PR sytem. Instead of saying 'rawh rawh dont do this ,dont do that' they should be promoting their very valid answer to the increase in STD's,teen pregnancys etc and that is abstinence.
    Abstinence is a fairy tale. Teaching it doesn't work because most humans do not remain abstinent until marriage. Teaching it simply leads to misinformed uneducated (in terms of sexual health) people having sex, which is not good.


  • #34
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,655 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    daveyjoe wrote: »
    Are you serious?
    Don't even have to go into archive for this one (fresh from today's papers): http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0204/church.html

    I don't know if it's fair to say that a 'large number' (what's a large number?) of priests are paedophiles but it is fair to say that the proportion of priests who have abused children is much higher than that of the total population.

    Yes, quite serious.

    That quote doesn't prove that a large number - or a large proportion - of priests are paedophiles (ie sexually attracted to children) or child sex-abusers (ie carry out sexual violation of children).

    The Irish Times says that the current commission is examining 42 (or is it 41?) cases, which are representative of 102 in total.

    Now I don't know how many priests were working in Ireland over the time that these cases occurred. Google isn't even giving me a robust-looking value for the number now (though a few pages made me think it's probably around 3000). So that suggests around 3%. (Assuming that all the 102 cases were guilty - some won't have been.)

    (Actually, there's a point, is the commission looking at all of Ireland, or just Dublin?)

    Anyways ... what none of us know, although psychologists probably have some population estimates, is what proportion of non-priests are child-sex-abusers. So it's just not possible to say that priests are worse than others on a proportional basis. And there are so many more non-priests than priests in society, that on a numbers basis non-priests must be worse.

    Of course, the harm done by them is worse, because they represent an institution that is supposed to be trustworthy. (Families aren't supposed to be trustworthy ...?)

    I'm not for one minute minimising the enormous damage done, or excusing any of the behaviour.

    But remember that the vast majority of priests/brothers/nuns were not and are not sexually abusing children.

    And also remember that when you quote figures, no matter what the topic, it's always polite to quote the source that you got them from.


  • #35
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    That is the number of case which are good enough for the department of public proscution to proceed with not the nuumber of reported cases or the number of people who this happened to who have not come forward.


  • #36
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Abstinence is a fairy tale. Teaching it doesn't work because most humans do not remain abstinent until marriage. Teaching it simply leads to misinformed uneducated (in terms of sexual health) people having sex, which is not good.

    It is possible to teach abstinence and sex ed at the same time you know. I think it's a bit daft to say that it leads to misinformed people.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It is possible to teach abstinence and sex ed at the same time you know. I think it's a bit daft to say that it leads to misinformed people.

    Indeed, and a great example of this is Uganda, the biggest success story in Africa when it comes to the fight against AIDS.

    Uganda has followed the ABC approach:
    Abstinence until marriage; secondly, advising those who are sexually active to Be faithful to a single partner or to reduce their number of partners; and finally, especially if you have more than one sexual partner, always use a Condom.

    This approach has transformed the problem, and Uganda has seen a dramatic fall in rates of HIV/Aids transmission.

    The problem is that Uganda rarely seems to get mentioned in discussions like this because two sets of extremists come from opposite sides. Basically the argument is either:
    a) Condoms don't work in the fight against AIDS. Condoms are evil because the Pope says so. Anyway, condoms are ineffective against AIDS because the AIDS virus is smaller than the holes between the molecules in a condom (that last one, BTW, is nonsense and a total lie).
    b) Abstinence doesn't work because shagging everyone you want when you want is a basic human freedom that is only denied by religious fascists who are really repressed paedophiles.

    Of course both positions are nonsense and are propagated by those who are much more interested in scoring points and advancing their own moral agendas than out of any genuine concern for the plight of AIDS victims in Africa.

    The ABC approach represents, in my opinion, the best answer to the AIDS crisis. There is, sadly, widespread aversion to condom use in Africa, but most of it is based on other factors rather than Catholic teaching (eg 'Would you wear an overcoat when you're in bed having sex?' - a South African proverb).


  • #38
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It is possible to teach abstinence and sex ed at the same time you know. I think it's a bit daft to say that it leads to misinformed people.
    Of course you are quite right, and as PDN said the ABC approach can have dramatic effects. What I should have said is faith based abstinence only campaigns, particularly those funded by the Catholic groups, America churches and the Bush administration.

    These are unfortunately undoing a lot of the good work done in countries like Uganda

    http://www.avert.org/aidsuganda.htm
    Abstinence-only policies

    Uganda receives significant amounts of funding from America, and much of the PEPFAR money is being channelled through pro-abstinence and even anti-condom organisations which are faith-based, and which would like sexual abstinence to be the central pillar of the fight against HIV. This money is making a difference - some Ugandan teachers report being instructed by US contractors not to discuss condoms in schools because the new policy is "abstinence only".25

    Small community-based organisations are increasingly shifting the emphasis of their prevention programmes to comply with PEPFAR's policies. This change is also being encouraged by evangelical churches within Uganda, and by the First Lady, Janet Museveni.26 Around the country dozens of billboards have sprung up promoting only abstinence to prevent HIV infection. Some of these billboards even carry negative messages about condoms to discourage their use.

    "PEPFAR really shifted the empasis to A and B [Abstinence and Being faithful] just because of the amounts of money being put into these programmes"

    - Sam Okware, senior Health Ministry official and architect of Uganda's ABC model. - 27

    "There are some prominent people in government, and some outside, who with the help of conservative agents in the US are stigmatising AIDS, saying that only sinners use a condom. That is the message we are struggling with."

    - Dr Jotham Musinguzi, director of the Population Secretariat at the Ministry of Finance. - 28

    "Because of the US, our government now says Abstain and Be faithful only. So people stop trusting our advice. They think we were lying about how condoms can stop AIDS. Confusion is deadly."

    - Dr Katamba, health co-ordinator of the Uganda Protestant Medical Bureau. - 29


  • #39
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    b) Abstinence doesn't work because shagging everyone you want when you want is a basic human freedom that is only denied by religious fascists who are really repressed paedophiles.

    Yes, because that is the alternative to abstinence till marriage :rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • #40
    grahamo
    Registered Users Posts: 761 ✭✭✭grahamo


    The ban on all birth control is a way for the catholic church to get catholics to outbreed other religions, leading to catholics being in the majority, leading to world domination for the vatican.


  • #41
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    grahamo wrote: »
    The ban on all birth control is a way for the catholic church to get catholics to outbreed other religions, leading to catholics being in the majority, leading to world domination for the vatican.

    I thought that was the Crab People's plan?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    PDN wrote: »
    While personally I am all for abolishing VAT on condoms, in fairness to the Roman Catholic Church I should point out that the rate of VAT on condoms in Ireland is hardly going to affect anyone in third world countries
    Granted, but AIDS is still a problem in Ireland too, albeit a less widespread one.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I believe that telling someone to put on a condom and just say that it is all okay isn't acceptable.
    It's more acceptable than telling someone to abstain from sex and everything will be ok.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    There is healthy growth in Christianity in Ireland
    I doubt that very much, unless of course you are referring to the immigrant population.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    The governments stance is harsh on drugs and rightly so, our streets need to be rid of them.
    I would say alcohol and tobacco cause far more problems in Ireland than any illegal substances.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    In marriage there is a lesser likelihood of one committing adultery or being promiscuous than in a relationship without marriage.
    That is entirely dependent on the individual.
    Spyral wrote: »
    why don't you look at the UK... they have a very pro-contraception pro-abortion situation and yet teen pregnancy are at a high.
    One could also argue that the Netherlands is "pro-contraception pro-abortion", yet they have a relatively low rate of teenage pregnancy, although I’m not sure this is relevant to this discussion.
    Spyral wrote: »
    exactly and in≈2000 years the church is pretty much the same on its core beliefs..
    Ah, yes, it's greatest weakness.
    Spyral wrote: »
    the church generally is nice and non rawr but then no one listens to them so they get rarw and then even less people listen to them..
    And why do you think nobody listens to them? (see previous point)^
    Spyral wrote: »
    abstinence does work if you follow it..
    It didn't work for Mary (apparently).
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Yes but the rate of growth in Christianity outside of Europe is rather high. Particularly in the Far East and Africa.
    Hmm. Strange that :rolleyes:.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    In some cases cannabis can cause permanent brain damage.
    This statement means nothing. Paracetamol, a legal drug available without prescription, is by far the most common cause of acute liver failure in both the US and the UK. The point is, in large quantities, almost anything will have serious adverse physiological effects.
    PDN wrote: »
    This approach has transformed the problem, and Uganda has seen a dramatic fall in rates of HIV/Aids transmission.
    It should also be pointed out that a large number of Ugandan women have also been availing of PMTCT services, which is likely to have had a dramatic effect. However, the dramatic decline in prevalence of the HIV virus in Uganda has been questioned, mainly because statistics have been distorted through the inaccurate extrapolation of data from small urban clinics to the entire population.


  • #43
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It is possible to teach abstinence and sex ed at the same time you know. I think it's a bit daft to say that it leads to misinformed people.
    I have a friend who's a fundamentalist christian who spent several years in one of America's plentiful "bible colleges" spending six years earning a master's degree which turned to ash in her hands when she returned to Ireland, where she found out that the college, like most of its colleagues, was unaccredited. Could have told her that myself.

    Anyhow, while in the USA, she picked up that frightful metaphor about women being like a pressure-cooker, and men like a microwave. Anybody who's had heterosexual sex should be able to see what the inept metaphor is flailing towards. But my unfortunate. and virginal, friend thought that pressure-cooking referred to the pressure of a pregnancy and that microwaving referred to men wanting sex all the time.

    Misinformed? Wildly. And she used to teach this stuff to American and Northern Irish kids. Frankly, it's embarrassing.


  • #44
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    Basically the argument is either:
    a) Condoms don't work in the fight against AIDS [...]
    b) Abstinence doesn't work because shagging everyone you want when you want is a basic human freedom that is only denied by religious fascists who are really repressed paedophiles.
    "either"? Painting your opponents as hate-filled, fanatical bigots doesn't do your own case much good, PDN. A more moderate position might win you more support.

    Perhaps you'd like to retract this childish claim and replace it with something a bit closer to what people on my side of the fence actually say?


  • #45
    Hivemind187
    Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I couldn't care how lonely it is on that pedestal. I don't think the Pope deserves as much blame as the general public are giving him and the Catholic Church over the AIDS epidemic.

    Actually, the majority of th blame lies with a certain German doctor in Angola (might be the wrong country) who developed Polio vaccine in chimps ... thus providing a pathway for Simian Immunodeficiency Virus to jump species into humans.

    The difficulty CONTROLLING THE SPREAD of AIDS and HIV (not to mention dozens of other infections) however is a different matter and a large portion of the blame lands squarely at his holiness' feet.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Yes humans have urges, urges that can be controlled and exercised in the correct situation. Not all things that feel good are necessarily good in the light of morality. I could feel good if I took a hit of heroin but that doesn't make it correct or right does it?

    I dont know, ask a junkie.

    This is, of course, the usual tired BS peddled by those who can't bare to face facts - namely: using rhetoric and the subjective to fight something that is very real. Human beings have urges, they are known as instincts and it is amazing how the pius are always so quick to condemn them - however - have you considered that without them you wouldnt be here having this argument? Have you considered that without lust, their is no human race to worship your chosen deity? Have you considered that the so-called "sin" of lust is actually part of the so-called grand design? And that if god is made in mans image he suffers the same sins?

    Your morality is utterly meaningless to a virus as is your God and your piety and your soul. The virus doesnt give a hang whether you were having consensual sex or were raped. It doesnt care if you are a man or a woman, a child or a red haired midget from Sligo. All it wants to do is multiply.

    Jakkass wrote: »
    If the individuals were truly of the Church, they would be encouraging this also as it is truly beneficial. I believe that telling someone to put on a condom and just say that it is all okay isn't acceptable. Because you haven't tackled the root problem, which is the lust and the promiscuity about the whole thing.

    If it feels good it is immoral and therefore you get everything you deserve right Jakkass?

    There are none so evil minded as those who have the agenda of piety and look down on us in the mud from their pedestal.

    The condom is a barrier, a physical object designed to prevent unwanted pregnancy and protect against transmission of disease. It is not intended to be a religious icon nor is it intended to be a object of rebellion which for some reason the Catholic church doesnt seem to be able to understand. It is a device intended to prevent people from messing up their lives or killing themselves. Whether you like it or not, people will have sex regardless of how your god feels about the subject a rubber will protect them from getting a deadly and incurable disease. For all its missionary work (which wreaked havoc on dozens of cultures) you would think that saving lives would be the "christian" thing to do.

    Reducing the spread of disease and the preventing of pregnancy to "lust and promiscuity" is contemptible. For your information, promiscuity was widespread during Victorian times and at ALL OTHER POINTS IN HISTORY BEFORE NOW. Our existence is evidence enough for this. Moreover, the reduction of the issue to "promoting promiscuity" is utterly daft as it suggests that it is the fault of the condom that pople are choosing to have sex more often - utterly ignoring things like drink, drugs, hormones and simple, old fashioned "fancying" someone.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Hivemind, I believe it's far far easier to blame Christianity for the problems in Africa. In a sense you are using the Catholic Church in particular as a scapegoat. (I don't usually defend the RC Church as much as this but in this point of view they are spot on)

    Ah no, as always you entirely missed my point. I am placing the portion of the blame due the catholic church right at its feet. The Roman Catholic Churches position on many things cause hardship in this world. For example:

    Homosexuality
    Abortion
    Sex before marriage
    Birth Control
    Euthanasia

    In fact, reading that list back, it seems that the Catholic church is utterly obsessed with sex. Not a new statement strangely enough.


  • #46
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    Hivemind187 wrote: »
    Actually, the majority of th blame lies with a certain German doctor in Angola (might be the wrong country) who developed Polio vaccine in chimps ... thus providing a pathway for Simian Immunodeficiency Virus to jump species into humans.

    The difficulty CONTROLLING THE SPREAD of AIDS and HIV (not to mention dozens of other infections) however is a different matter and a large portion of the blame lands squarely at his holiness' feet..

    ActuallyI dont see His Holiness having sex with multiple partners and passing infected needles to unsuspecting drug users.

    Hivemind187 wrote: »
    This is, of course, the usual tired BS peddled by those who can't bare to face facts - namely: using rhetoric and the subjective to fight something that is very real. Human beings have urges, they are known as instincts and it is amazing how the pius are always so quick to condemn them - however - have you considered that without them you wouldnt be here having this argument? Have you considered that without lust, their is no human race to worship your chosen deity? Have you considered that the so-called "sin" of lust is actually part of the so-called grand design? And that if god is made in mans image he suffers the same sins?..

    watch the swearing. 1 Yellow card.

    Their is a huge difference between lust and love. Try to understand this. I LOVE my wife, I DO NOT lust after her. This is quite insulting to all Christians.

    Funny how you call Jakass pious and then hit with nonsense.

    Love is part of the grand design, not lust.
    Hivemind187 wrote: »
    Your morality is utterly meaningless to a virus as is your God and your piety and your soul. The virus doesnt give a hang whether you were having consensual sex or were raped. It doesnt care if you are a man or a woman, a child or a red haired midget from Sligo. All it wants to do is multiply..

    You bet the virus doesn't care, so we have to.

    Hivemind187 wrote: »
    There are none so evil minded as those who have the agenda of piety and look down on us in the mud from their pedestal...

    You mean like you are doing right now?
    Hivemind187 wrote: »
    The condom is a barrier, a physical object designed to prevent unwanted pregnancy and protect against transmission of disease. It is not intended to be a religious icon nor is it intended to be a object of rebellion which for some reason the Catholic church doesnt seem to be able to understand. It is a device intended to prevent people from messing up their lives or killing themselves. Whether you like it or not, people will have sex regardless of how your god feels about the subject a rubber will protect them from getting a deadly and incurable disease. For all its missionary work (which wreaked havoc on dozens of cultures) you would think that saving lives would be the "christian" thing to do..

    Why not speak to the myriads of people who have been rescued from such lifestyles by missionaries.
    Hivemind187 wrote: »
    Reducing the spread of disease and the preventing of pregnancy to "lust and promiscuity" is contemptible. For your information, promiscuity was widespread during Victorian times and at ALL OTHER POINTS IN HISTORY BEFORE NOW. Our existence is evidence enough for this. Moreover, the reduction of the issue to "promoting promiscuity" is utterly daft as it suggests that it is the fault of the condom that pople are choosing to have sex more often - utterly ignoring things like drink, drugs, hormones and simple, old fashioned "fancying" someone..

    Our existence is not evidence of promiscuity at all. The existence of my three children and my three brothers and my wifes family of 7 kids is evidence of the strong love that was shared by the parents in question.

    C'mon Hivemind, you certainly dont seem to.


    Hivemind187 wrote: »
    Ah no, as always you entirely missed my point. I am placing the portion of the blame due the catholic church right at its feet. The Roman Catholic Churches position on many things cause hardship in this world. For example:

    Homosexuality
    Abortion
    Sex before marriage
    Birth Control
    Euthanasia

    In fact, reading that list back, it seems that the Catholic church is utterly obsessed with sex. Not a new statement strangely enough.

    Whoo, this is rich. Imagine a world without abortions, or are you OK with killing poor defenseless children?

    Sex before marriage - rescue many young people from the emotional scars of giving themselves to someone idiot who doesn't deserve the. Think of the children who would grow up in a stable household instead of being born to a single Mom.

    Birth Control - I'm fine with it.

    Euthanasia - Should we warn your granny that we're going to put her on an ice flow?


  • #47
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Euthanasia - Should we warn your granny that we're going to put her on an ice flow?
    It's been a while since euthanasia came up and memories may have faded, but the position that you lampoon is -- I believe -- held by nobody, so I'm perplexed as to why you seem to think it is.

    Is it worth a separate thread to discuss the actual positions involved here?


  • #48
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    robindch wrote: »
    It's been a while since euthanasia came up and memories may have faded, but the position that you lampoon is -- I believe -- held by nobody, so I'm perplexed as to why you seem to think it is.

    Is it worth a separate thread to discuss the actual positions involved here?

    Hivemind's post certainly implies that the church's stand on Euthanasia is wrong. Therefore if the church's stance is the Euthanasia is bad, as a result hivemind must think that euthanasia is right.

    I am not accusing any other poster of supporting a pro-euthanasia position.


  • #49
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ...just read this bit. Hardly worth another post, but here we goes anyway...
    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Our existence is not evidence of promiscuity at all. The existence of my three children and my three brothers and my wifes family of 7 kids is evidence of the strong love that was shared by the parents in question.
    The existence of your three kids suggests that you and your wife are both fertile -- you're mildly lucky, since between 10% and 15% of couples are not fertile. The strength of love that one feels, however wonderful it is, does not affect fertility.

    You're quite right to say that our existence is not evidence of promiscuity. But our genetic record certainly does suggest that a reasonably substantial degree of infidelity has always existed within humans, on both male and female sides. Interestingly, research suggests that this infidelity acts in certain very specific directions only, but that's a separate topic.


  • #50
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Hivemind's post certainly implies that the church's stand on Euthanasia is wrong.
    I wasn't responding to hivemind's post -- I was responding to yours in which you ridiculed a clearly ludicrous position that nobody takes.

    If you're interested in understanding a more reasonable position on euthanasia, then it's probably best done in a separate thread.

    But characterizing supporters of euthanasia as people who'd put their granny on an ice-floe is as inaccurate as it is unpleasant.


  • #51
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Sex before marriage - rescue many young people from the emotional scars of giving themselves to someone idiot who doesn't deserve the.
    What about those who do not wish to marry? Are they condemned to a life of celibacy?
    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Think of the children who would grow up in a stable household instead of being born to a single Mom.
    A married couple is not necessarily a stable one, just as an unmarried couple is not necessarily an unstable one. Marriage is not the be-all and end-all for everyone, but that should not prevent them from having sex and/or children.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Asiaprod
    Registered Users Posts: 6,737 ✭✭✭Asiaprod


    Guys, enough. You want to debate euthanasia, start a new thread. There are pros and cons to euthanasia.
    Asia.


  • #53
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Their is a huge difference between lust and love. Try to understand this. I LOVE my wife, I DO NOT lust after her. This is quite insulting to all Christians.

    You don't find your wife sexually arousing nor do you desire to have sex with her??

    I'm sure you are great hit on Valentine's day BC :eek:
    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Sex before marriage - rescue many young people from the emotional scars of giving themselves to someone idiot who doesn't deserve the.

    Yes, because no one has ever married an idiot who didn't deserve them .... oh wait, they have

    Whats that you say, you won't end up marrying and idiot who doesn't deserve you if you just take care and be sensible in who you marry?

    Well that applies equally well to sex and premarital relationships.

    Given the option of a naive woman having sex with someone who turns out to be an idiot and a naive woman marrying said idiot so she can have sex with him because she is taught that that you should marry someone if you want to be with them, I will take the former over the latter any day.


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Think of the children who would grow up in a stable household instead of being born to a single Mom.

    Or think of the children who grow up in unstable households where the parents hate each other because they got married too young without any proper understanding of relationships because their church told them it was sinful to gain this experience before you are married.

    This goes back to the idea that you seem to hold on to that there is no such thing as an unstable married household (or a stable unmarried household), or no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy within a marriage.

    Both those ideas are nonsense myths.


  • #54
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    One of th ejoys that I have in life is the opportunity to coach minor soccer. Both boys and girls, teenagers. The teams that I currently coach are GU18 and BU16.

    Over the last 5 years of coaching I have probably coached in the neighbourhood of 100 kids.

    It is a pretty good cross section of kids and families in Calgary.

    Some observations: The homes with married parents have the married couple as being stable and solid. So wicknight don't come across as having the opinion that the majority of marriages involve an unloving fighting couple.

    The kids from these homes are well-adjusted and have a very good confident demeanour about them.

    As for the kids from the broken homes, the kids tend to lack self confidence and they act in such a way as to show the pain they are carrying inside as a result of the broken marriage.

    In the case of the girls they have a tendency to be a bot boy crazy, because Dad is not around.

    So wicknight, no , I know full well that all marriages are not all rosy, but I do know that the vast majority of marriages are rosy. Two loving parents that get along, put their kids first and sacrifice n behalf of those kids.

    AND I do NOT lust after my wife, I love my wife. There is a differnce which makes me quite fun on any day, don't need Valentine's. :)


  • #55
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Over the last 5 years of coaching I have probably coached in the neighbourhood of 100 kids.
    Having played soccer myself for several years myself at schoolboy level, I cannot believe for one second that you became so intimately involved with every single set of parents as to be able to determine whether or not their relationship was a healthy one. Unless of course soccer coaching in Canada is very different to what it is in Ireland!
    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    The kids from these homes are well-adjusted and have a very good confident demeanour about them.

    As for the kids from the broken homes, the kids tend to lack self confidence and they act in such a way as to show the pain they are carrying inside as a result of the broken marriage.
    In your opinion. In MY opinion, this is ridiculously general.
    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    ...I do know that the vast majority of marriages are rosy.
    Absolute horse ****.
    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Two loving parents that get along, put their kids first and sacrifice n behalf of those kids.
    And unmarried parents don't do this because?


  • #56
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Having played soccer myself for several years myself at schoolboy level, I cannot believe for one second that you became so intimately involved with every single set of parents as to be able to determine whether or not their relationship was a healthy oneUnless of course soccer coaching in Canada is very different to what it is in Ireland!.?

    Probably is. I do get to know most of the parents quite well. We don't play schoolboy soccer, we play minor soccer. My sons club has abot 3,000 kids for the outdoor season. My daughters club is about half that. The set-up dictates that parents are involved, as each has to volunteer time at the club.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    In your opinion. In MY opinion, this is ridiculously general.?

    No it is observed beahaviours, in the social set that I mentioned. On what do you base your opinion on?

    djpbarry wrote: »
    And unmarried parents don't do this because?

    Usually because there is an unmarried parent, or uncommited parent, not parents.

    In the case of single parent homes, the single parent is very sacrificial and supportive of their kids, yet the other parent is absolutely no where to be seen. Always seems to be the guy who is nowhere to be seen so, in the end, he had promiscuous sex, was lustful, withour love and now look at the situation, a teenager without a Dad and a struggling loving mother.


  • #57
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    It is a pretty good cross section of kids and families in Calgary.
    Where the heck do you live Brian, because where ever it is it always seems to provide plenty of anecdotally support for what ever you are arguing that day. All the Christian kids come from happy stable homes, the homosexuals all start crying on your shoulder at the drop of a hat about how horrible being gay is, church attendance is increasing and making people happier etc etc

    I jest of course :p

    Anyway back to the points at hand...
    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    The homes with married parents have the married couple as being stable and solid. So wicknight don't come across as having the opinion that the majority of marriages involve an unloving fighting couple.

    Well leaving aside that if they weren't stable and solid you probably would have no clue considering the lengths couples can go to to hide internal problems from the outside world, particularly in communities that judge other families to certain moral standards, I didn't actually claim that the majority of marriage involve an unloving fighting couple.

    I have no idea if the majority of marriage do or do not involve this. Canada has a divorce rate of 37%, but you can't really infer from that those who remain together are actually happy, again particularly if the belong to a group or community where separating or getting divorced would be frowned upon.

    But again that wasn't my point.

    My point was that waiting for marriage offers absolutely no extra protection against picking an mean person. In fact waiting to have your first proper relationship with the person you marry probably greatly increases that risk, as you end up with people who have little proper experience with relationships living with a partner for the first time after they are married. And that is normally when you find out what the person is really like. But if you are married and part of a community that puts pressure not to get divorced, you are stuck.
    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    As for the kids from the broken homes, the kids tend to lack self confidence and they act in such a way as to show the pain they are carrying inside as a result of the broken marriage.

    And the kids from non-broken but not married homes ... ?
    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Two loving parents that get along, put their kids first and sacrifice n behalf of those kids.
    Funny that there is no part of that sentence that actually requires marriage ...
    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    AND I do NOT lust after my wife, I love my wife. There is a differnce which makes me quite fun on any day, don't need Valentine's. :)

    Well as I asked are you saying you do not find your wife sexually arousing?

    Because that is what "lust" is BC, sexual desire for another person.

    Love is certainly different to lust, and I would certainly be worried about someone confusing lust for love.

    But equally I would be concerned about someone who didn't lust as well as love after someone they were in a relationship with. Platonic love is all very well but a healthy sex life is ... well ... healthy.

    Lust and love are not mutually exclusive


  • #58
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    I do know that the vast majority of marriages are rosy.
    So why do 40% end up in the divorce courts?


  • #59
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    I do get to know most of the parents quite well.
    I'm sure you do, but I doubt very much that they disclose the intimacies of their marriages to you. Don't get me wrong, based on my experience, Canada is a wonderful, friendly country, but I don't remember people being THAT friendly.
    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    No it is observed beahaviours, in the social set that I mentioned. On what do you base your opinion on?
    Well, that is precisely the point. It's YOUR opinion based on what YOU have seen, or rather what you have interpreted. Based on my experience, how a particular child "turns out" depends on a variety of factors. Seeing as a young child has no concept of marriage, I fail to see how this could be an influence. I would say personality traits are most likely inherited from the parents, while behavioural characteristics are probably learned during the course of their development.
    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Usually because there is an unmarried parent, or uncommited parent, not parents.
    My brother has no intention of getting married, but he and his girlfriend love their daughter dearly, as do both their families. If they do decide to marry, it will have little bearing on their child's development.
    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Always seems to be the guy who is nowhere to be seen so, in the end, he had promiscuous sex, was lustful, withour love and now look at the situation, a teenager without a Dad and a struggling loving mother.
    Yes, that is exactly what happens when unmarried couples have kids :rolleyes:.

    Do you have anything other than anecdotes to support your position?


  • #60
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    djpbarry wrote: »
    My brother has no intention of getting married, but he and his girlfriend love their daughter dearly, as do both their families. If they do decide to marry, it will have little bearing on their child's development.

    djpbarry wrote:
    Do you have anything other than anecdotes to support your position?

    :)


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    :)

    Groan

    Have you never heard of an exception disproving the rule.

    BC is assertion a generality. He is supporting that with anecdotal evidence.

    djpbarry simply has to provide one alternative to show BC's assertion does not hold in all cases. Which he did. djpbarry's example doesn't demonstrate anything about anyone else, but it does demonstrate that BC's assertion doesn't hold in all cases.


Advertisement