Oh and that's how marriages work? Rebel stop being a dick on purpose, it's a serious problem and you're defending the Pope? I feel sorry for you
I am defending a sound principle. And yes, marriage works through having a loving, stable and monogomous relationship. I don't feel anything for you.
Your as thick as they come. Are you seriously suggesting thst somewhere a large number of people walk miles for water find condoms in readily available supply?
**** me....okay junkie catholic virgins could still get it Aids is bad Sex is fun Sex with infected is bad Sex with infected plus condom is fun but risky Sex with many partners is risky and fun Sex with one partner is less risky and not as fun Sex as virgin with virgin is safest possible method,clumsy and fun for a time So pick one and get over it Anger at the pope for promoting the safest option is silly
You're only defending the principle of 'if you don't have sex, you won't get AIDS' (which isn't true by the way, I don't know the stats but there's been a lot of issues with blood transfusions and medical practices, but the Church used to be against all of that too, maybe it's all a conspiracy ). Yet you refuse to accept the fact that marriage isn't always successful, which in itself presents a risk of catching the disease. Keep on believing your bullshit if it makes you happy, I spend enough of my time on here arguing with idiots as it is.
The church promotes the sanctity of marriage. Sex should be enjoyed within a loving and stable relationship where both parties have pledged themselves to each other. This means monogamy. This means the eradication of sexually transmitted diseases, except in cases where it has been passed down genetically, but eventually, it would be completely eradicated if people adhered to this advice. This is utterly irrefutable.... The idea of abstinence is to allow people to build close relationships before entering into a life together. This is the teaching of the church. This has been the socially accepted norm for thousands of years, and yet today folk are saying that this is unrealistic. I assume some people telling me this is unrealistic are themselves involved in monogamous relationships. I have asked you how you would use a condom. You have failed to adequately explain how to do it.I have said that it is easier to promote abstinence and demonstrated it is easier. An aspect I have not yet spoken about is the fact that people attend church voluntarily. Those who attend get to hear a message every single week. It can be reaffirmed weekly. This message , if listened to is 100% effective against the spread of STD’s. People who give out condoms do not have the same audience and do not get the same opportunity to deliver and reaffirm that message. Pre-empting a response suggesting that in that case why doesn’t the church use its platform to promote the use of condoms, well the answer is that the message they already give is even more safe than the one you are proposing. If people chose not to listen to message A, why would they listen to message B?
Then you have failed to read anything I have written Tobester. I was quite clear in mentioning STD's as opposed to any other method of contracting a disease. I have nowhere said that every single marriage will be sucessful, rather that adherence to these principles is absolutely the safest way to avoid contracting a disease. All you ****wits are filling in the blanks and attributing things to those advocating a counter argument that just isn't there.
Most people only have one sexual partner for their entire life? Er, no. That's not what's happening, though. They're angry at the Pope for talking utter ****e (condoms help to spread AIDS) and condemning the safest realistic option. Because message B isn't totally unrealistic.
I'm angry at the Pope for many reasons, but the 'safest' option doesn't work, and never will, so there needs to be an alternative. Him saying that condoms cause more problems is lies, and if anything makes the problem worse. Having sex with only one partner that you have blood-tested first is not really an option, do you remember being a teenager? (Unless you're waiting for 'the right one' ) I'll compare the 2 examples, let's see if you get it: The Pope, Rebel and MTS: If marriage works, there's no risk of HIV being spread. The sane people: If condoms work, there's no risk of HIV being spread. The Pope, Rebel and MTS: But condoms don't always work, marriage is safer. The sane people: Marriage doesn't always work, at least condoms protect you (unlike God) The Pope, Rebel, MTS: They can just not have sex then (like dogs, as MTS put it), until they meet someone that is perfect for them and doesn't have AIDS. The sane people: Yep, that's definitely a good way of solving things
So you are saying that throughout human history, where monogomy has been seen as the norm for upwards of 20, 000 years that people have had more than one partner......right.
