The immaculate misconception

[Alindawyl]

Show me how doing something in my closed bedroom will affect you in a negative manner either now or later. Be specific.

I was specific, but here it goes again. Suicide. And I speak from experience. My brother-in-law, in 1995 in his closed bedroom, put a gun to his temple and ventilated his skull all over the wall. Try telling my in-laws, my wife… heck, try telling ME that his action only affected him. It affected all of us.

My in-laws had to shut down their business for a week while dealing with the situation and their grief. My wife went into a severe depression which lasted for years.

Think of the clients of my in-laws’ business who were impacted by not receiving product on time that week. Think of the customers of those clients who were unable to buy certain meals because the restaurant was short on or out of a particular product for a brief time. I’m sure at least one server was yelled at by someone who couldn’t get the meal they wanted that day, which of course would negatively impact that server’s day. A server who didn’t even know my brother-in-law and who had no idea she was being yelled at because someone killed himself.

My brother-in-law’s employer had to find someone to replace him with no notice.

I’m sure there’s plenty more if I gave it additional thought.

Suicide happens over thirty thousand times in this country every year. And then there’s the estimated ten people who try and fail to kill themselves for every successful suicide. Stopping someone before they can do it is good, but there’s still the knowledge of what that person is dealing with, the mental heartache and worry for a friend or relative, the cost for psychological treatment…

I can’t speak for her parents, but my wife still cries about her brother sometimes despite it having happened over 15 years ago.

But of course, none of that is relevant. It’s about people other than the suicide. The will of the individual must reign supreme. As you say:

Committing suicide does cause, grief, sadness to others. Maybe even affects their income which they were accustomed to. However, your need does not impose an obligation on me. First and foremost I belong to myself, and everyone else comes later. And if life becomes intolerable to me, why should I care about your problems? It is your obligation to deal with your problems.

You clearly believe that suicide, an action which can be taken by an individual in the privacy of their own room, hurts others. But you also clearly don’t think that the hurt caused by suicide is relevant simply on the grounds that the hurt is experienced by people other than the one who kills himself. Others being sad or experiencing any sort of negative emotion or situation should just get over it. It’s their fault. The will of the individual is supreme, and the individual who kills himself must be permitted to exercise his will.

And yet for some reason, those who would get upset at someone’s suicide shouldn’t be exercising their wills. It would be an imposition for them to do so.

This is the epitome of pride.

If you’re willing to dismiss as irrelevant the obvious negative impact on others in the case of suicide, then it’s no wonder you dismiss as irrelevant the less obvious negative impact on others in the case of promiscuity or masturbation or contraception.

 

[tonyrey]

I was specific, but here it goes again. Suicide. And I speak from experience. My brother-in-law, in 1995 in his closed bedroom, put a gun to his temple and ventilated his skull all over the wall. Try telling my in-laws, my wife… heck, try telling ME that his action only affected him. It affected all of us.

My in-laws had to shut down their business for a week while dealing with the situation and their grief. My wife went into a severe depression which lasted for years.

Think of the clients of my in-laws’ business who were impacted by not receiving product on time that week. Think of the customers of those clients who were unable to buy certain meals because the restaurant was short on or out of a particular product for a brief time. I’m sure at least one server was yelled at by someone who couldn’t get the meal they wanted that day, which of course would negatively impact that server’s day. A server who didn’t even know my brother-in-law and who had no idea she was being yelled at because someone killed himself.

My brother-in-law’s employer had to find someone to replace him with no notice.

I’m sure there’s plenty more if I gave it additional thought.

Suicide happens over thirty thousand times in this country every year. And then there’s the estimated ten people who try and fail to kill themselves for every successful suicide. Stopping someone before they can do it is good, but there’s still the knowledge of what that person is dealing with, the mental heartache and worry for a friend or relative, the cost for psychological treatment…

I can’t speak for her parents, but my wife still cries about her brother sometimes despite it having happened over 15 years ago.

But of course, none of that is relevant. It’s about people other than the suicide. The will of the individual must reign supreme. As you say:

You clearly believe that suicide, an action which can be taken by an individual in the privacy of their own room, hurts others. But you also clearly don’t think that the hurt caused by suicide is relevant simply on the grounds that the hurt is experienced by people other than the one who kills himself. Others being sad or experiencing any sort of negative emotion or situation should just get over it. It’s their fault. The will of the individual is supreme, and the individual who kills himself must be permitted to exercise his will.

And yet for some reason, those who would get upset at someone’s suicide shouldn’t be exercising their wills. It would be an imposition for them to do so.

This is the epitome of pride.

If you’re willing to dismiss as irrelevant the obvious negative impact on others in the case of suicide, then it’s no wonder you dismiss as irrelevant the less obvious negative impact on others in the case of promiscuity or masturbation or contraception.

The truth cannot be suppressed even in our secular society - which is paying the price for its nonsensical mentality that “First and foremost I belong to myself, and everyone else comes later”…

 

[CEM5]

Paul says…

“I don’t want children so I can prevent them” is little removed from “I don’t want children so I can kill them”.

FS says

I’m not trying to be difficult but I see many arguements in this area which simulate your above
captioned sentence…

Please if you or anybody has time, explain how the rythem method is acceptable as it clearly
is an intentional interuption to the natural process of sex vrs life.

it would seem to be natural yes no doubt, but it is clearly just as manipulative as birth control or whatever as the propogation is intentionally ruled out in order to self satisfy.

it could be said (rythem method) is very “cunning” …yet its ok to use trickory…very cunning indeed …with the same intent as birth control…how is the thought or intention in mindset any different?

in fact with your statement above…the rythem method is one step away from killing the un-born toddler…

edit…I don’t believe the integrity of arguement is off topic…no evaluation although either something is on track or it simply is not

The NFP or “rhythm method” works with the natural God-given cycle of the woman’s body and does not prevent an artificial barrier between becoming “one” with ones spouse. The couple is still open to the possible conception of children, for only complete abstaining is 100 % sure. The NFP does not contribute to the possibility of “abortion” like the pill, or IUD can.

Working with the woman’s natural cycle is not using trickery or “cunning”. It does not alter the woman’s horomones, or prevent periods, whereas artificial contraception uses trickery and “cunning” by doing just this. Additionally, spermicides destroy sperm, whereas the NFP does not destroy human tissue of any type.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

… my dear friends ,

… on the harm of sin which is really moral evil , but natural evil though not moral is the result of human and angelic evil too – and most destructive i’m sure you will agree if honest , but is moral evil harmful to human beings ??? , yes , of course it is , my own theory is that , besides our whole world being turned upside down due to the fall for reasons i’ve gone into oft but can again if any ask , when man does evil this corrupts his mind and heart as he is being unnatural , and being unnatural is behaving in a manner human beings are not meant to , it always harms human beings when they are unnatural in any way and not only morally ,man is love and meant only to do gods will which is love …

… but this makes tthe mind and heart sick which can oft kill the soul , but there is much more , the sickness in heart , mind and soul effects and affects the brain and body causing chemical imbalances and many physical illnesses , sicknesses and diseases not just directly in the body but also flowing from the defective brain , but it all has it’s origin in sin or evil …

… if we are serious we can easily see the terrible harm to ourselves and others by all moral evils by humans apart from yjour personal health probs , it harms others dramatically too and not just their health , anger and hatred causes fighting , killing , wars , divisions and endless evils , stealing , pride , jealously , envy , sloth , laziness , drunkeness , drug addiction , etc etc etc etc etc along with all moral evil condemned by the catholic church is the cause of all mans problems in this world and even the natural evils that afflict him are the results of moral evils …

… but the answer is virtuous good works to solve so much of these moral and natural evils , i’m not going to list every sin or evil and virtue or good work , but it is obvious evils such as sexual ones have serious consequences for man and humanity , just put your thinking cap on and think , the catholic church an god are not as stupid as many make out with all this stuff …

… and there is no doubt endless amounts more man will learn about vices and virtues and there effects on humanity let alone all creation , we know next to nothing at this stage , science and medicine have not yet solved a single problem correctly , perfectly and permanently , so whilst i give them full credit for trying don’t think man has all the answers and knows it all yet …

… there is also as a catholic the truth that every good work lifts all humanity spiritually and every evil deed drags all humanity down , it is also a gigantic spiritual warfare going on here , but even if you dismiss that you should easily see all evils and sexual evils are very harmful to oneself and all humanity , it is obvious dear friends , think …

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[tonyrey]

… there is also as a catholic the truth that every good work lifts all humanity spiritually and every evil deed drags all humanity down , it is also a gigantic spiritual warfare going on here , but even if you dismiss that you should easily see all evils and sexual evils are very harmful to oneself and all humanity , it is obvious dear friends , think …

When people deny the reality of good and evil their misconception is at the other extreme from immaculate!

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

When people deny the reality of good and evil their misconception is at the other extreme from immaculate!

…seems to be true dear friend …

 

[tonyrey]

…seems to be true dear friend …

There’s no doubt about it, John!

 

[exnihilo]

I owe an apology for my dumb choice of words. Of course you are most welcome to express your opinion. What I wanted to say (and failed miserably due to not paying attention to the details) is that trying to coerce others to conform with your version of morality - and I refer to transcendental blackmail, intimidation and coersion by threatening with eternal torture - is a despicable way to argue.

No need to apologize but thank you anyway.

If trying to coerce others to conform with your version of morality is wrong then all government is wrong. What is government other than force to make people live by a certain morality. Now you might be a libertarian or even an anarchist but it is my experience that many, probably most, people who say it is wrong to force a morality on people have no problem forcing their morality on people in a very real sense in this world.

The only way I can see it as wrong to force morality on people is if we really have no way of determining what is moral. And very few people make this claim. I acknowledge that morality can be hard to determine, but it is not impossible.

Look at the Moral theology forums’ threads which are filled up with poor, frustrated teens, who suffer from their guilt stemming from their twisted upbringing.

I assume your thinking is not that guilt is bad but what they are guilty over is something they should not be. Should a child serial killer be guilty? I imagine you would say yes. So the issue is are sexual morals real. Most people throughout time have thought that there is sexual morality. And even you do. You just believe in a very liberal morality compared to what the Catholic Church teaches. The Catholic Church has a fairly well reasoned teaching. What I have not seen from those who cry out against it is a very thorough teaching. Opponents tend to object to conclusions without having any consistent framework from which they build their morality.

It is not a low level, it is its proper level. If you would argue on religious ground by saying that our bodies really belong to God, we are not free to do anything we please - then I would not argue with you any more. (I don’t argue with irrationality). But if you wish to bring up secular, rational arguments, then do that. If a fakir wishes to “break” his mortal shell to free his soul to get to a higher level of consciousness, what business of yours is that?

Who did your body belong to when you were one year old? Was it you? If so could your parents have abandoned you and that would be moral? If you refuse to allow for man’s body to be owned by anything but himself then consistency would demand you allow parents to abandon babies. That seems like a pretty poor moral system to me. I won’t however call that irrational and refuse to discuss it. I’ll call it twisted and try to convince you otherwise.

I expected better from you. I am not talking about children, who do need guidance (though not shameless lies of “going blind from masturbation”).

So you’re not going to follow radical libertarianism all the way down. Parents should teach their children. So a person can force their morality on people. The principle itself is not bad. So how far one goes and what is truth is the issue.

Close but no cigar. So far ALL societies died out, not just the “freer” ones. It has nothing to do with “freer morals”. It is an obvious historical cycle.

We cant say that all societies have died out. First off we have existing societies. Second we have some primitive societies that might have been going on for much longer than the Roman Empire. I agree we do have cycles and the issue is complex. But it seems a cycle that in a society’s ascendency it has more strict morals, as it grows it loosens them, and it soon fails.

Homosexuals are not more promiscuous than straight people. Promiscuity may shorten the lifespan, but even that is not certain. You know the opposite of “polygamy”? It is “monotony”… just kidding, of course, but who says that longevity is the best way to measure the goodness of life? And the percentage of HIV among lesbians is the lowest among the different groups. Statistics can be very misleading. My professor said at the first statistics class in college: “statistics is like a bikini; it shows a lot, but hides the important parts”. Useful to remember.

I never said anything about promiscuity. I just pointed out that gays tend to die much earlier than married men who aren’t homosexual. That is a fact that must be explained.

HIV is spread mostly by gay men. Of course lesbians would have the least occurrences of this disease. I think male homosexuality is probably worse than female, though both are bad. I’m well aware of how statistics can be misleading. But when half of all new HIV cases are from men who have sex with men what is your conclusion about the nature of the disease? We dont say breast cancer is an equal opportunity disease even though men can get it.

But let’s cut to the chase: is there any secular, rational argument which shows that I am doing something in the privacy of our bedroom (even if it is not endorsed by the church) adversely affects you - either directly or indirectly, in the short run or the long run?

You are defining morality in a certain way. But if yours is the standard I would have to say a parent molesting their child in their private bedroom does not effect me. But I’m not going to call that moral.

 

[Sparkythedog]

The first link should have been this one. Sorry, bad copy and paste. Twice!

No problem, thanks for the clarification.

I haven’t had a chance to look at the paper in extreme depth but I think I have a grasp of what it’s saying.

Based on homicide reports from 1976 - 1994, 13.11 out of every 1 million married women are murdered by their husbands every year. And 116.06 out of every 1 million cohabiting women are murdered by their partner every year. Murder rates of cohabiting women by their partners are 8.9 times higher than those of married women. The paper then goes on to break rates down by age difference but that’s too detailed and unrelated to our discussion.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that all of Shackelford’s data and analyses are correct, lets look at the murder rates in terms of population. The murder rate of cohabiting women is 116.06 for every 1 million cohabiting women or 0.011% of that sample. That’s an extremely small percentage of that population. It is therefore true that this percentage is 8.9 times greater than the percentage of married women murdered (0.001%). However, a 0.0011 percent murder rate does not show a very strong correlation between cohabitation in general and uxoricide. I haven’t looked this up, but I’d be willing to bet that a woman runs a far, far greater risk of death just by getting into a car than she would from living with a male partner.

So what’s this paper about? Well, the murder rates of married vs cohabiting women become statistically significant when looking at the murders themselves. If you are murdered by your partner it is 8.9 times more likely that you were living together outside of marriage.

The statistics do not, however state a causal relationship that would explain the increase. Because the vast majority of cohabiting women are not murdered cohabitation alone can probably be ruled out as a cause. Other issues such as income, drug and alcohol abuse, family history, male proprietariness, etc. must be studied to see if they contribute and Shackelford discusses some of these issues at the end of his paper.

Sorry for the lengthy explanation…please let me know if I’ve made any errors.

 

[Sparkythedog]

An addendum to my last post - I just want to point out that no murder rate, no matter how small, should be acceptable. Calling the above cohabitation murder rate ‘insignificant’ is solely to illustrate a lack of correlation and causation.

 

[Spock]

Will answer when I am back from vacation

 

[carn]

The problematic part is when the posters wish to argue on secular, rational grounds. They say that masturbation, sex outside marriage or sex inside marriage but not open to procreation (active contraception or extra-vaginal ejaculation) are harmful either to the person(s) involved or to some third parties.

If they can show that such practices harmfully affect some third parties, in that case they can legitimately express their concern, even when not asked for it. But I have never seen a valid argument along those lines.

Now you see one, at least for the sex outside marriage:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=602354

The safety of usual contraception is about 95% per year in practical use, therefore the probability of an unwanted pregnancy is high during a sexual active life, likely between 10% and 50%. If you have sex without the promise and intent to stay together for a long time, probability is much higher that the women will have an abortion, so will consent and order to kill a human being, while the man is at least an enabler regarding the killing.

That of course is no problem, if you engage only in sexual activity with someone you intend to stay together with for decades and with someone you are ready to have children with. But the difference between that and marriage if the promise is realy serious is limited, so it is sensible to make the promise official and serious.

And of course,that is neither a problem if unborn are not considered to be humans, but even secular institutions are not sure about that,e.g. German supremecourt decided 1993 that unborn are humans from the perspective of German constitution and therefore have a right to live.
(No need to worry about Germany regarding the “right to abortion”, any aspect of any decision by the German supreme court that is not consistent with left-wing politics is consequently ignored by German politicians and public. They worry more about dying trees, although their supreme court made a decision, that only allows the conclusion, that about 100000 children in Germany are killed each year.)

In the old times the deeply religious do-gooders loved to lie to the adolescents and asserted that masturbation

That was and is morraly wrong.

I offered only argument regarding sex outside marriage.
Regarding masturbation i can offer, that by getting the impression that sex is primarily for enjoyment, that then the discipline to avoid engaging in a life style that has a high probability to result in the killing of a human being is harder to maintain.
Regarding male homosexuality, 2 options. Either you are bi.Then the same as with masturbation can be argued, plus the highly increased risk of spreading diseases.
Or you are pure homo, then you still have a high risk of diseases and i can refer in some way to Kant. Always behave in a way, that could set the rules for everybody to behave. If everybody would be pure homo,mankind would be gone in about 80 years. Therefore it is morally at least questionable, although some pure homos are not obviously harmful for society in that regard. But a few people lying also do not cause a breakdown of society.

Regarding female homosexuality i currently can offer no arguments, that rely on purely wordly reasoning.
Regarding contraception inside marriage its the same.

Face reality: sex is harmless when practised without coersion, when practised out of love, when practised with the desire to give and to receive. As such their practice does not concern you. Can you prove me wrong? Can you show that the natural practice of sex is somehow harmful to you?

I think 100000 dead humans per year should be a matter of concern.
Catholic church offers advice that would reduce that number if followed. Though other solutions might exist.
(Other coutries are of course safe, if their supreme court so far abstained from deciding, from what moment on human rights apply. Some constitutions, e.g. swiss i think, actually define, that rights are only gained at birth. But for some bizarre reasoning such countries still object or limit experiments with fetuses in much more ways than they limit experiments with animals. And while one can eat a cow meat in switzerland eating meat from unborn would get you into trouble, which is not sensible at all, if it is not a human being there is no reason not to eat it.)

 

[StarFireKK]

Face reality: sex is harmless when practised without coersion, when practised out of love, when practised with the desire to give and to receive. As such their practice does not concern you. Can you prove me wrong? Can you show that the natural practice of sex is somehow harmful to you? After all you are a memebr of the society, if it is harmful to you - personally, then maybe it is harmful to society as well. But if it is not harmful to you, you have no right or reason to complain and disparage they practice. It is simply none of your business.

Harm? Hmmm, ok let’s see. Where should I start?

How about the scare most of my friends had in college when they found out a man who was HIV positive was trying to sleep with as many women as he could for the purpose of infecting them? His opinion: “I’m not going down alone.” Criminal charges were brought against him but sadly for some of those girls (and some of their male partners) will live with that for the rest of their lives.

Most of them just thought they were having “innocent, harmless, fun.” I warned three of my friends away from him because I could tell he didn’t care about them. But I was told to stop being such a “prude” and that sex was “natural.”

Don’t like that example? Ok, let’s go with the fact I knew a woman had an STD and refused to tell her sexual partners for YEARS. When it came to light this happened and we asked her why she didn’t say anything. She said she was “sorry” but she was too “embarrassed.”

Another example of harm? How about all the 2 AM phone calls I have taken from my girl friends over the years while they sobbed to me. Most of them were heartbroken because they had fallen in love with someone that just wanted some “fun.” They honestly believed they could have a relationship without facing any consequences. These aren’t dumb girls.

You can sit there an say there is no “harm” but I can tell you I’ve spent my life cleaning up all the broken hearts casual sex has left in its wake. I cannot tell you a single success story where someone navigated casual sex without someone getting hurt.

Maybe I have dumb friends, maybe they are too emotional. But I don’t think so…I think they are fairly normal but decided to drink the kool-aid and believe they can do whatever they like without consequences.

I was very lucky. I was raised in a good Catholic home. I won’t lie to you, part of my getting through my teenage years without having sex was because I knew my life wouldn’t be worth living if my parents caught me. But having survived those years and most of my 20s I can say…there is a point to the Catholic teachings.

 

[tonyrey]

Harm? Hmmm, ok let’s see. Where should I start?

How about the scare most of my friends had in college when they found out a man who was HIV positive was trying to sleep with as many women as he could for the purpose of infecting them? His opinion: “I’m not going down alone.” Criminal charges were brought against him but sadly for some of those girls (and some of their male partners) will live with that for the rest of their lives.

Most of them just thought they were having “innocent, harmless, fun.” I warned three of my friends away from him because I could tell he didn’t care about them. But I was told to stop being such a “prude” and that sex was “natural.”

Don’t like that example? Ok, let’s go with the fact I knew a woman had an STD and refused to tell her sexual partners for YEARS. When it came to light this happened and we asked her why she didn’t say anything. She said she was “sorry” but she was too “embarrassed.”

Another example of harm? How about all the 2 AM phone calls I have taken from my girl friends over the years while they sobbed to me. Most of them were heartbroken because they had fallen in love with someone that just wanted some “fun.” They honestly believed they could have a relationship without facing any consequences. These aren’t dumb girls.

You can sit there an say there is no “harm” but I can tell you I’ve spent my life cleaning up all the broken hearts casual sex has left in its wake. I cannot tell you a single success story where someone navigated casual sex without someone getting hurt.

Maybe I have dumb friends, maybe they are too emotional. But I don’t think so…I think they are fairly normal but decided to drink the kool-aid and believe they can do whatever they like without consequences.

I was very lucky. I was raised in a good Catholic home. I won’t lie to you, part of my getting through my teenage years without having sex was because I knew my life wouldn’t be worth living if my parents caught me. But having survived those years and most of my 20s I can say…there is a point to the Catholic teachings.

A sensationally good post! Bravissimo…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I participated in several threads dealing with the catholic concept of "proper sexuality.

I don’t agree with your attempt to sanctify hedonism. But i must congratulate you for making me laugh by your choice of title “The immaculate misconception”. I suppose i should not have found it funny; but i did.

 

[Robert_Sock]

In the old times the deeply religious do-gooders loved to lie to the adolescents and asserted that masturbation

1. will lead to blindness, or
2. causes to grow hair on the palms of your hands
3. leads to mental illness
4. permanently reduces libido, desire, and/or sexual performance
5. permanently reduces the quantity or quality of semen

which are, of course shameless lies.

Masturbation will lead to blindness; it will lead to spiritual blindness.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The couple is still open to the possible conception of children, for only complete abstaining is 100 % sure.

It’s been 99.99% effective

twitpic.com/show/thumb/6sbc6o.jpg

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

It’s been 99.99% effective

twitpic.com/show/thumb/6sbc6o.jpg

… that’s still purest gold …

 

[mark_a]

The problematic part is when the posters wish to argue on secular, rational grounds. They say that masturbation, sex outside marriage or sex inside marriage but not open to procreation (active contraception or extra-vaginal ejaculation) are harmful either to the person(s) involved or to some third parties. Of course what is “harmful” is debatable. Simply not liking what other people do is not “harm”. Even if such practices harmfully affect the practitoners - but only them! - that alleged harm is none of your business.

Are you willing to get married to anyone who will not promise to be faithful?

If they can show that such practices harmfully affect some third parties, in that case they can legitimately express their concern, even when not asked for it. But I have never seen a valid argument along those lines. Some posters say that the general acceptance of masturbation, of homosexual sex, of contraception, of extravaginal ejaculation are “harmful” to society. How are they harmful? Is there any physical harm?

Does the harm done to children by unfaithful spouses matter?

In the old times the deeply religious do-gooders loved to lie to the adolescents and asserted that masturbation

1. will lead to blindness, or
2. causes to grow hair on the palms of your hands
3. leads to mental illness
4. permanently reduces libido, desire, and/or sexual performance
5. permanently reduces the quantity or quality of semen
   which are, of course shameless lies.

Masturbation does promote premature ejaculation, which does affect marriages.

What “harm” can possibly come out of having two people express their love and commitment to each other in a proscribed manner by the church in the privacy of their home? Some people say that the acceptance of these practices will lead to the destruction of marriage, and it will lead to the destruction of society.

Correct. The family is the building block of society.

They say that openly accepted gay sex will lead to adolescents to accept that lifestyle (we all know that being around tall people will also cause you to become tall ).

Well now you are just being silly!!

Or that openly accepted promisculity will lead to less stable marriages… etc… what nonsense.

That’s just plain old common sense. What planet are you on?

When I see these “concerns” I am wondering just what society did these posters come from?

Is it possible that they were born in some ideal world

, where children never touched their own genitals to learn that it is a rather pleasant experience, where adolescents never masturbated, where everyone waited until their wedding night for their first experience, where there was no divorce, no adultery? When every act of sex was performed with being “open” to procreation?

You said it yourself, these ideas are ideals.

Face reality: sex is harmless when practised without coersion, when practised out of love, when practised with the desire to give and to receive.

And the diseases spread by sex??

 

[TimothyH]

The original post is a rediculous bunch of nonsenes about harmless sex.

Fifty million infants cut apart with wires, sucked into jars and trucked away to biomedical waste facilities where there body parts are burned. 40% of children in the USA born into homes without fathers. AIDS. 25% of men in the USA addicted to porn.

Need we go on? All a result of supposedly harmless sex outside of marriage.

It’s all part of Spocks incessant and unending attemtp to redefine right and wrong, good and evil, in favor of his own behavior. Well, I ain’t buying and respectfully request that those who agree with him stay the hell away from my daughters.

-Tim-