Anti-Condom argument same as life jackets?

[ProdglArchitect]

As for contraception and premarital sex being wrong; that is your opinion. Many people don’t agree with that assertion.

Truth is not dictated by majority opinion. Everyone on Earth can say that gravity doesn’t exist, but I’m nearly positive that none of us will go floating off into space. That said, free will allows you to think whatever you want, but what you’re thinking can still be wrong.

Sex outside of marriage is inherently wrong, which is why this poster is so absurd.

 

[frantony]

And some people think it is intrinsically wrong to eat pork or have a blood transfusion. Not everyone agrees with your morals.

What makes an act a sin is your intention behind the action.
King David’s deputing one of his soldiers to a war-front was not a sin.
Marrying a soldier’s widow after his death can be an act of charity.
King David sending his soldier to war-front with an intention of getting the soldier’s wife when the soldier dies in the war was a sin.

 

[Bill_7154]

sarcasm alert

Oh my goodness…You mean that exercising my right as a citizen of my country constitutes “pushing my belief” on another…

My - my - how thoroughly undemocratic of me…

end sarcasm (I think…)

This is what floors me about these sorts of arguments. A group marches in favor of changing an existing law and that is seen as fine…A group marches to keep an existing law and that group is accused of forcing their beliefs on others…
(speaking her of the “marriage” issue)…

It’s also interesting to note that Catholics have never been a majority in the United States…So who was “forcing their beliefs” when the prohibition on same sex marriage was placed in force?

Peace
James

In the USA we live in a Constitutional Republic. Yet most people, even politicians, would say we live i n a democracy.

A Democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep ‘voting’ on what’s for dinner.

It’s MOB RULE.

In a constitutional republic our rights are supposed to be our rights, period. Not open for discussion, debate, or vote. Not open to changes by the courts or any other branch of government. They our our rights, period. End of story.

 

[OCRT]

Back in the first century CE, strong injunctions against pre-marital sex made a lot of sense:

• there were no accurate methods of diagnosing STDs
• there were no useful treatments for STDs
• there were no cures for STDs.

So, Paul wrote and the early Christian Churches taught that pre-marital sex is a serious sin, and that one must remain celibate until marriage.

But times change. At the present there are reliable methods of preventing the transmission of STDs, as well as detecting, treating and either curing or controlling STDs. A good case can be made that it is time to retire the old prohibitions against pre-marital sex as long as the sexual activity is practiced safely.

Apparently most people agree that pre-marital sex is OK. On the order of 93% of Americans currently are non-virgins when they marry.

 

[superamazingman]

What makes an act a sin is your intention behind the action.

Woah. Not so fast. In some cases, that’s true. But not with everything. Some things are always wrong.

 

[superamazingman]

Back in the first century CE, strong injunctions against pre-marital sex made a lot of sense:

• there were no accurate methods of diagnosing STDs
• there were no useful treatments for STDs
• there were no cures for STDs.

So, Paul wrote and the early Christian Churches taught that pre-marital sex is a serious sin, and that one must remain celibate until marriage.

But times change. At the present there are reliable methods of preventing the transmission of STDs, as well as detecting, treating and either curing or controlling STDs. A good case can be made that it is time to retire the old prohibitions against pre-marital sex as long as the sexual activity is practiced safely.

Apparently most people agree that pre-marital sex is OK. On the order of 93% of Americans currently are non-virgins when they marry.

Times change. Morals don’t. Premarital sex is a sin

 

[JRKH]

In the USA we live in a Constitutional Republic. Yet most people, even politicians, would say we live i n a democracy.

A Democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep ‘voting’ on what’s for dinner.

It’s MOB RULE.

In a constitutional republic our rights are supposed to be our rights, period. Not open for discussion, debate, or vote. Not open to changes by the courts or any other branch of government. They our our rights, period. End of story.

Thanks for the clarification…You are of course correct. However most people do think in terms of our country being a “democracy”…

Of course I did not actually say we live in a democracy…My sarcastic comment was meant to mainly as a cut to those (mostly democrats) who seem to be tolerant only of those who agree with them and the other edge. Who think that “religion” should be kept out of the voting booth etc…

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Back in the first century CE, strong injunctions against pre-marital sex made a lot of sense:

• there were no accurate methods of diagnosing STDs
• there were no useful treatments for STDs
• there were no cures for STDs.

hhmmmmm
Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems to me that certain religious sects in the first century and before actually used “temple prostitutes”…
Were there strong injunctions in Roman Law or in Greek Law forbidding pre-marital sex?
I’m genuinely curious about this…

So, Paul wrote and the early Christian Churches taught that pre-marital sex is a serious sin, and that one must remain celibate until marriage.

And the authors wrote this where??

But times change. At the present there are reliable methods of preventing the transmission of STDs, as well as detecting, treating and either curing or controlling STDs. A good case can be made that it is time to retire the old prohibitions against premarital sex as long as the sexual activity is practiced safely.

In the non-christian community this may well be the case…Not in the Christian community though…I also think that the Jewish faith and Islam would disagree as well…Can’t say about any others…

Apparently most people agree that premarital sex is OK. On the order of 93% of Americans currently are non-virgins when they marry.

Well - that does not make it not sinful…
(P.S. I was not a virgin at marriage……a fact I now deeply regret.)

Peace
James

 

[Bill_7154]

hhmmmmm
Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems to me that certain religious sects in the first century and before actually used “temple prostitutes”…

Another interesting note, although I have no idea of the century this happened in, or the region of the world… There were priests that taught that the blood from a vigin girl was poison, and that the priests had special powers preventing them from dying from having sex with virgins.

So prior to the consumation of a wedding, one of the priests would ‘assist’ the husband and basically save him from being poisoned to death by having sex with the virgin on the wedding day.

Power corrupts…

 

[Bill_Martin]

Who wants to ban condoms?

 

[Bill_Martin]

No, I really see it as people ignoring reality. I’m sure atheist believe the same thing about me. Why is their view of reality any better than mine? If they are going to ignore natural law that is their own prerogative, but I’m going to continue to believe that we are not blank canvases and the way we are made matters and has innate meanings that should not be ignored. What is occurring is a battle of philosophy not a battle of theology.

What you should be afraid of though is not Catholics, but rather Catholics or anyone else who believes in a large central government. The larger government becomes and the more decisions it makes for people, the more collisions are caused where either one choice or the other has to be made. If I for example believe that its immoral for everyone to contracept, that is really only going to affect you if I also believe the government has the power for try to enforce that. However it seems to me that people we should all really be afraid of are the people who believe they have the power to tell people how large of a soda they are allowed to drink or what kind of light bulb they are allowed to use. A Catholic who believes everyone should be Catholic is just as scary as an atheist who believes everyone who believes in God is stupid if they both believe the government has the power to enforce that on other people.

To address the original question there is a big difference between fornicating and going swimming. If they want to make the analogy work here is how they should set it up. A comparable circumstance would be if you had a guy who was bleeding, can barely kinda swim, and wanted to jump into a 40ft deep pool with a bunch of sharks swimming in it just for the rush. He then turns and asks your for a life jacket. If you give the guy the life jacket at least he won’t drown, but he is still jumping into a pool with sharks while he is bleeding… If you don’t give him the life jacket, maybe that risk on top of the sharks will be enough to convince him not to do it. At least you won’t be on record as having helped him along in making the decision to jump in though.

The original argument fails because it assumes the only bad thing about fornicating is the possibility of getting pregnant.

You just saved me a lot of time. Good post.

 

[OCRT]

Times change. Morals don’t. Premarital sex is a sin

Of course morals change with time. Slavery was once regarded as a normal feature of society; now it is considered immoral. Marriage has seen many changes in morality: In the early 20th century, marriage between two deaf people was considered immoral. Some states even passed laws prohibiting it. Now it is morally neutral. Inter-racial marriage was once considered immoral and even illegal; now it is morally neutral. Engaging in same-gender sexual behavior was once considered immoral by just about everyone. Now it is considered morally neutral by many, perhaps most. Same-sex marriage was once considered immoral by almost everyone. Today 70% or more of Democrats, religious liberals, the religoiusly unaffiliated consider it to be as moral as opposite-sex marriage.

 

[interestedman]

Truth is not dictated by majority opinion. Everyone on Earth can say that gravity doesn’t exist, but I’m nearly positive that none of us will go floating off into space. That said, free will allows you to think whatever you want, but what you’re thinking can still be wrong.

Sex outside of marriage is inherently wrong, which is why this poster is so absurd.

You have no real proof that your morality is the “real truth” if there is even such a thing.

 

[interestedman]

Of course morals change with time. Slavery was once regarded as a normal feature of society; now it is considered immoral. Marriage has seen many changes in morality: In the early 20th century, marriage between two deaf people was considered immoral. Some states even passed laws prohibiting it. Now it is morally neutral. Inter-racial marriage was once considered immoral and even illegal; now it is morally neutral. Engaging in same-gender sexual behavior was once considered immoral by just about everyone. Now it is considered morally neutral by many, perhaps most. Same-sex marriage was once considered immoral by almost everyone. Today 70% or more of Democrats, religious liberals, the religoiusly unaffiliated consider it to be as moral as opposite-sex marriage.

What the poster is saying is that there is an objectively right set of morals that are valid through out time. In any situation there is a right thing to do objectively. If people believe something is right or wrong it is irrelevant because this objective morality exists whether people believe it or not. If the Christian God exists, this makes sense. Without a God this can’t be true.

 

[OCRT]

hhmmmmm
(P.S. I was not a virgin at marriage……a fact I now deeply regret.)

Peace
James

I was a virgin at marriage… a fact I now deeply regret. When a person in their 20’s is caught between a social/religious teaching to not engage in sex before marriage, and a near toxic level of hormones urging them to do it, the result is often marriage for the wrong reasons.

 

[JRKH]

I was a virgin at marriage… a fact I now deeply regret. When a person in their 20’s is caught between a social/religious teaching to not engage in sex before marriage, and a near toxic level of hormones urging them to do it, the result is often marriage for the wrong reasons.

I agree with much of this…except for the “near toxic” comment. …and the conclusion that the result is “often” marriage for the wrong reason…

I think that the best defense against marriage for the wrong reason is being internally “well grounded” in a set of values and looking for someone equally well grounded…

But we may be getting too far off topic here…

Peace
James

 

[Nate13]

I was a virgin at marriage… a fact I now deeply regret. When a person in their 20’s is caught between a social/religious teaching to not engage in sex before marriage, and a near toxic level of hormones urging them to do it, the result is often marriage for the wrong reasons.

I agree that if you don’t understand the teaching and basically feel like your a slave to the teaching things aren’t going to go well for you. However in my own experience I would say having the ability to say no and having command over ones body is vitally important for the health of a marriage. For one, even in marriage there are going to be periods of abstinence of multiple months. Two, the act means more when your not a slave to your bodies desires. If your unable to say “no” then your “yes” lacks meaning. The sexual urge is a good thing, but it should not control us just as we should not allow our anger to control us.

 

[Elizium23]

I was a virgin at marriage… a fact I now deeply regret. When a person in their 20’s is caught between a social/religious teaching to not engage in sex before marriage, and a near toxic level of hormones urging them to do it, the result is often marriage for the wrong reasons.

And that is why the Catholic Church provides an extensive period of marriage preparation and discernment for those who wish to be married in the Church. It is the job of their pastors to weed out the people who want it “for the wrong reasons” and help the couple decide if they are truly ready for the very real life committment that marriage represents. The Church considers marriage a vocation.

Anyone may be overcome by hormones and the urge to do something contrary to moral law. But that is why it is right and good to have self-control. Mastery of one’s will is an ongoing struggle. It should be encouraged early and often as habits are formed. Everyone will go through challenges in life, but truly no challenge is insurmountable and no commission of sin is worth eternal punishment.

 

[SamH]

I was a virgin at marriage… a fact I now deeply regret. When a person in their 20’s is caught between a social/religious teaching to not engage in sex before marriage, and a near toxic level of hormones urging them to do it, the result is often marriage for the wrong reasons.

Getting married to have sex is like buying trans continental airline tickets so you can have the free peanuts they give out in flight.

Just curious - how does having sex relieve those “near toxic level of hormones” (what a strange way to put it)?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Hi, the argument is pretty much summed up below. This is popping up on facebook quite a bit… What is your best argument against this Condom analogy?

I should clarify first… I am more interested in the first portion of the analogy. The one that begins with “and if you do find yourself…” is much easier, for me, to see where it falls short. Thanks!

http://integratepr.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/on.jpeg

Sexual intercourse- a natural act for which the human body was designed for
Swimming- a learned behavior in an environment the human body was not designed to live in

The analogy is idiotic.