UN blames catholics for spread of AIDS [Archive] - Debate Policy

diuretic

10-23-2007, 07:45 PM

glockmail

10-23-2007, 09:08 PM

....
Not using a condom when having sex increases the chances of transmission of the virus.

The Vatican says Catholics shouldn't use condoms when having sex.

The Vatican is instructing Catholics that when they have sex they must expose themselves to an increased chance of transmitting the virus....

Your logic fails, of course.

chesswarsnow

10-23-2007, 10:04 PM

diuretic

10-23-2007, 10:13 PM

Your logic fails, of course.

How?

Missileman

10-23-2007, 10:17 PM

How?

You might just as well ask a blind man to describe the view of a sunset.

diuretic

10-23-2007, 10:17 PM

Sorry bout that,

1. The Vatican explains Biblical Truths.
2. One truth is one man and one women, who propagate, in normal human ways.
3. Not fornication, its a sin, and can lead a person into misery.
4. So find a good wife, settle down, and behave yourself.
5. Otherwise you take extreme chances.
6. The Vatican is correct!:clap:

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

No the Vatican merely says no condoms. What if one partner receives a blood transfusion that contains the virus? I suppose the Vatican may grant a dispensation but I don't know enough about their rules to pronounce on that.

What is one partner is attacked and injured by someone with AIDS? The test takes about three months. Should that person abstain? Should that person be given a dispensation?

Yurt

10-23-2007, 10:31 PM

Bet the UN thinks muslims solve all the worlds problems. I mean, the women wear safe sex dresses.... Oh wait, the men....

glockmail

10-24-2007, 07:18 AM

How?
Because you ignored the Church's other related edicts.

PostmodernProphet

10-24-2007, 07:32 AM

How?

I believe the official term for it is Red Herring.....since the RCC speaks out for not having sex as a solution to AIDS, the fact that they are opposed to contraception is irrelevant.....obviously, if people took the advice they give it would be at least as successful as condoms in preventing the spread of the disease......

While we are discussing religion and AIDS, let me share something I learned from a man who runs an orphanage for HIV children in Lesotho....the biggest problem they face is that the local tribal healers tell people that for $100 US they will cure them of AIDS.....the cure involves being chanted over by the healer who then tells people it will work as soon as they have sex with a virgin, at which point the evil spirits will go out of the client and into the virgin.....

do you think telling people to use a condom is going to help?

diuretic

10-24-2007, 07:37 AM

Because you ignored the Church's other related edicts.

My logic fails because I ignored the Church's other related edicts.

You might not believe this but I take your point.

Catholic theology is extremely complex and I am highly ignorant of it. I would find it interesting to discuss those other edicts. I would find it interesting in the sense of knowing, not in a sort of nyah-nyah competition.

So, without being a smart-arse, I'm happy to learn - really, I am. I might not agree but it is always interesting to examine competing ideas.

82Marine89

10-24-2007, 08:08 AM

lessee - HIV/AIDS is most-frequent in Homosexuals, right? I think if we want to BLAME folk...let's start there.

That statement and this article prove that HIV/AIDS is a social disease. Albeit a very deadly one.

glockmail

10-24-2007, 08:10 AM

My logic fails because I ignored the Church's other related edicts.

You might not believe this but I take your point.

Catholic theology is extremely complex and I am highly ignorant of it. I would find it interesting to discuss those other edicts. I would find it interesting in the sense of knowing, not in a sort of nyah-nyah competition.

So, without being a smart-arse, I'm happy to learn - really, I am. I might not agree but it is always interesting to examine competing ideas. It’s really rather simple: no sex unless you are married.

Modesty and personal responsibility controls the sex drive. The pursuit of knowledge, service to others, physical health, intellectual intimacy and of course spiritual well being through a deep personal relationship with Christ are priorities over mere sexual stimulation.

Now that I’ve shown you the Way feel free to belittle and berate at your pleasure.

KarlMarx

10-24-2007, 08:56 AM

I think we ought to blame the UN for the spread of stupidity and irrelevance.

Of course, it is interesting that HIV/AIDS seems to be very prevelant in Africa and in Asia. Many of those areas are populated by non-Catholics, e.g. Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists.

This is just a very transparent attack on the Catholic Church on the part of the UN....

Hagbard Celine

10-24-2007, 09:03 AM

Gee. Absinence and monogomy works agains AIDS, don't it?

Not really, since in the real world people have sex. AIDS is most prevalent in third world countries that aren't Christian. Without the JudeoChristian foundation, it's really difficult to explain to people why they shouldn't have sex when every fiber of their body is telling them the opposite. That's even been the problem with showing people how to use contraceptives. It doesn't translate very well across cultures. One of the most-seen forms of ignorance about the virus is the African/Arabian concept that having sex with a virgin will cure you of it. That's the kind of ignorance the west is faced when trying to tackle the problem of AIDS.
I can't believe the ignorant talk on here about gays. Just out of curiosity, how many of you apes are retarded enough to believe that AIDS is a curse sent by God to punish society for allowing homosexuality?

glockmail

10-24-2007, 09:33 AM

Not really, since in the real world people have sex. ...... how many of you apes are retarded enough .....

See post 23, Mr. Neanderthal.

Hagbard Celine

10-24-2007, 10:01 AM

See post 23, Mr. Neanderthal.

You probably don't even know the proper pronunciation of that word :rolleyes: You don't seem to understand that most of the people in the world aren't Christian and never will be. Ever. EVER. Your self righteous "abstinence" bs may make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but it simply doesn't work in the real world. It doesn't. All studies, all opinions, everything we know says it doesn't work. What works is the use of contraceptives. Your little rosey-colored view of the world is unrealistic. Sure, not having sex will prevent all disease, all pregnancy, yadda, yadda. The thing is, PEOPLE HAVE SEX. ALL PEOPLE HAVE SEX. Get it through your head. They all have it, with each other, with men, with women, some people even do it with animals--and no amount of preachy bs from stubborn Conservative Christians will ever change that. It doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it moral, but it's reality. And the only realistic way of combating the problems with it is the use of contraceptives.

darin

10-24-2007, 10:07 AM

You probably don't even know the proper pronunciation of that word :rolleyes: You don't seem to understand that most of the people in the world aren't Christian and never will be. Ever. EVER. Your self righteous "abstinence" bs may make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but it simply doesn't work in the real world. It doesn't. All studies, all opinions, everything we know says it doesn't work. What works is the use of contraceptives. Your little rosey-colored view of the world is unrealistic. Sure, not having sex will prevent all disease, all pregnancy, yadda, yadda. The thing is, PEOPLE HAVE SEX. ALL PEOPLE HAVE SEX. Get it through your head. They all have it, with each other, with men, with women, some people even do it with animals--and no amount of preachy bs from stubborn Conservative Christians will ever change that. It doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it moral, but it's reality. And the only realistic way of combating the problems with it is the use of contraceptives.

Uh - Abstinence DOES work...100% of the time, in preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancies. It only doesn't work when people stop abstaining.

You're hilarious, really. You're also a liar. Not 'all' people have sex. My kids don't. The priest down the street isn't gay, so he doesn't have sex. I'm sure there are many Monks and Gurus who don't have sex.

People who have sex outside of marriage are folk with some deficiency in self-control. It's not 'everyone' - it's people in YOUR circle. People who lack the discipline to use sex in it's proper context.

glockmail

10-24-2007, 10:09 AM

You probably don't even know the proper pronunciation of that word :rolleyes: You don't seem to understand that most of the people in the world aren't Christian and never will be. Ever. EVER. Your self righteous "abstinence" bs may make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but it simply doesn't work in the real world. It doesn't. All studies, all opinions, everything we know says it doesn't work. What works is the use of contraceptives. Your little rosey-colored view of the world is unrealistic. Sure, not having sex will prevent all disease, all pregnancy, yadda, yadda. The thing is, PEOPLE HAVE SEX. ALL PEOPLE HAVE SEX. Get it through your head. They all have it, with each other, with men, with women, some people even do it with animals--and no amount of preachy bs from stubborn Conservative Christians will ever change that. It doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it moral, but it's reality. And the only realistic way of combating the problems with it is the use of contraceptives. Christians aren't the only people with high moral standards with regards to sex. In fact Islam has similar standards. It is the secularists who are to blame for lack of ethics and the consequences, therefore the UN is to blame. Their attempt at using the Catholic Church as a scape-goat fools no rational person.

I'll go one further and say that it is the secularists that have created the problems that we see with Islam's attitude toward the West. Sure they hate the Jews but what they really can't tolerate is the secularist culture being imported into theirs with sex anywhere, any time, with anybody. :poke:

manu1959

10-24-2007, 10:25 AM

so why didn't the UN just pass out condoms to everyone.....and set up inspection teams to make sure that everyone was having safe sex.....they should have passed a resolution that would have stopped it.....

Hagbard Celine

10-24-2007, 10:46 AM

Christians aren't the only people with high moral standards with regards to sex. In fact Islam has similar standards. It is the secularists who are to blame for lack of ethics and the consequences, therefore the UN is to blame. Their attempt at using the Catholic Church as a scape-goat fools no rational person.

I'll go one further and say that it is the secularists that have created the problems that we see with Islam's attitude toward the West. Sure they hate the Jews but what they really can't tolerate is the secularist culture being imported into theirs with sex anywhere, any time, with anybody. :poke:

The Catholic church--no church for that matter--can continue to ignore the fact that contraceptives work. End of story. It's true that abstinence works 100 percent of the time--I've already said this myself. The problem is that most real people in real situations don't abstain. How else would we have a world population of over six billion and an HIV/AIDS epidemic if everybody has such "high moral standards" as you put it? I guess all those people are "gay" or sinful "secularists" right?

glockmail

10-24-2007, 10:55 AM

The Catholic church--no church for that matter--can continue to ignore the fact that contraceptives work. End of story. It's true that abstinence works 100 percent of the time--I've already said this myself. The problem is that most real people in real situations don't abstain. How else would we have a world population of over six billion and an HIV/AIDS epidemic if everybody has such "high moral standards" as you put it? I guess all those people are "gay" or sinful "secularists" right? Devout and practicing Christians and Muslims are "real" people too. The Catholic Church would be amiss to advocate anything less than the standards ordained by God.

If those who you call "real" can't control the beast within then they simply have to face the consequences of their actions. That's not the Catholic Church's fault.

The UN has its proverbial head up it's ass.

Hagbard Celine

10-24-2007, 11:05 AM

Devout and practicing Christians and Muslims are "real" people too. The Catholic Church would be amiss to advocate anything less than the standards ordained by God.

If those who you call "real" can't control the beast within then they simply have to face the consequences of their actions. That's not the Catholic Church's fault.

The UN has its proverbial head up it's ass.

Who has their head up their ass? I think it's those who, despite reality, continue to hold the world's people to an unrealistic standard, which would only be pragmatically applicable in an ideal world. This isn't an ideal world, it's the real one. And in the real one, most of the world's people have sex outside of wedlock with several different partners before or after being married. What the more pious would call "fornication." It's stubborn and quite frankly irresponsible for a major voice of authority to eschew the use of contraceptives simply for the purpose of adhering to some idealistic moral principle.

glockmail

10-24-2007, 11:09 AM

Who has their head up their ass? I think it's those who, despite reality, continue to hold the world's people to an unrealistic standard, which would only be pragmatically applicable in an ideal world. This isn't an ideal world, it's the real one. And in the real one, most of the world's people have sex outside of wedlock with several different partners before or after being married. What the more pious would call "fornication." It's stubborn and quite frankly irresponsible for a major voice of authority to eschew the use of contraceptives simply for the purpose of adhering to some idealistic moral principle.

I think its stubborn and irresponsible for the UN to insist that humans are incapable of evolving away from ape-like activities that you describe. In fact you and your way of thinking are attempting to reverse human progress.

avatar4321

10-24-2007, 11:20 AM

Who has their head up their ass? I think it's those who, despite reality, continue to hold the world's people to an unrealistic standard, which would only be pragmatically applicable in an ideal world. This isn't an ideal world, it's the real one. And in the real one, most of the world's people have sex outside of wedlock with several different partners before or after being married. What the more pious would call "fornication." It's stubborn and quite frankly irresponsible for a major voice of authority to eschew the use of contraceptives simply for the purpose of adhering to some idealistic moral principle.

There is nothing unrealistic about the Lord's standard of chastity before marriage and fidelity afterwards.

The problem isnt that its unrealistic, its that its untried. The Lord's standard would free all people from STDs. It would ensure that the next generation has parents to raise them. If one generation stood up and acted like the men and women they should, these diseases can be eliminated within a generation and the world would be in much better economic positions.

Hagbard Celine

10-24-2007, 11:36 AM

I think its stubborn and irresponsible for the UN to insist that humans are incapable of evolving away from ape-like activities that you describe. In fact you and your way of thinking are attempting to reverse human progress.

So now you believe in evolution when it can be used to win a moral argument? Puh-leez. You and I both know, and this goes to address Avatar's post too, that humanity and self-control have been battling each other since the dawn of man. What makes you guys think that it's realistic to hold the whole of humanity to some pious standard of self-restraint when the human condition dictates and always has, that humans as a whole are a weak-minded creature whose entire psyche is dictated by the drive to procreate?

manu1959

10-24-2007, 12:09 PM

So now you believe in evolution when it can be used to win a moral argument? Puh-leez. You and I both know, and this goes to address Avatar's post too, that humanity and self-control have been battling each other since the dawn of man. What makes you guys think that it's realistic to hold the whole of humanity to some pious standard of self-restraint when the human condition dictates and always has, that humans as a whole are a weak-minded creature whose entire psyche is dictated by the drive to procreate?

then AIDS is natures way of removing weakminded creatures from the gene pool.....survival of the fittest....

glockmail

10-24-2007, 12:29 PM

So now you believe in evolution when it can be used to win a moral argument? Puh-leez. You and I both know, and this goes to address Avatar's post too, that humanity and self-control have been battling each other since the dawn of man. What makes you guys think that it's realistic to hold the whole of humanity to some pious standard of self-restraint when the human condition dictates and always has, that humans as a whole are a weak-minded creature whose entire psyche is dictated by the drive to procreate?

Evolution of ethical understanding, yes.

Since ALL MEN are created equal, strong-willed and intelligent (not weak-minded as you suggets). I therefore expect that whole-bean africans have the same in-born capacity to keep it in their pants as white-bread europeans.

Abbey Marie

10-24-2007, 12:48 PM

Hagbard Celine

10-24-2007, 12:57 PM

The kind of person who is cruel and selfish enough to expose a young virgin girl to AIDS just to cure himself, isn't likely to care about protecting her with a condom. If you are going to try blame the Catholic Chruch for the spread of AIDS, you need a much better example than that.

AIDS is generally one consequence of living a life that is not right with God, whether homsexual or not. As are many other problems, such as unwanted pregnancies, STD's, sickness or death from an addiction.

AKA, sin.

Sometimes an innocent person gets the virus from a straying spouse or a transfusion, but the original contracting of it is generally through some form of immoral behavior. That's the "reality" of it.

Glock summed it up quite well:
I a great responsibility rests with the Catholic Church for this reason: The Catholic Church is perhaps the world's most powerful and wide-reaching voice of religious and moral principle in the world, yet they do not support a proven form of disease and birth control because it conflicts with their idealistic principles despite the fact that the use of contraceptives would definately reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies and the spread of disease world-wide. Why can't they endorse BOTH contraceptive use AND absinence when both are effective? Whether one is more effective than the other is a non-issue here. You'd think that one of the world's number one voices on policy in the world would advocate any and every solution for the world's problems. Instead, they ignore one of the most potent solutions to the world's problems based on "moral principles" that are self-righteous at best. I call that EVIL.

glockmail

10-24-2007, 01:22 PM

I a great responsibility rests with the Catholic Church for this reason: The Catholic Church is perhaps the world's most powerful and wide-reaching voice of religious and moral principle in the world, yet they do not support a proven form of disease and birth control because it conflicts with their idealistic principles despite the fact that the use of contraceptives would definately reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies and the spread of disease world-wide. Why can't they endorse BOTH contraceptive use AND absinence when both are effective? Whether one is more effective than the other is a non-issue here. You'd think that one of the world's number one voices on policy in the world would advocate any and every solution for the world's problems. Instead, they ignore one of the most potent solutions to the world's problems based on "moral principles" that are self-righteous at best. I call that EVIL.

1. They support abstinence. You said yourself it is the most effective method against disease and pregancy available.
2. To support contraceptive use would degrade the stance on abstinence.
3. Evils is suggesting that people have no control over their sex drive. That thinking is the producte of modern secular culture, and would be thought of as absurd a mere 50 years ago. Man has been living with STDs for 5000 years and the problem has gotten worse during the last few decades because "progressive" thinking.

avatar4321

10-24-2007, 01:34 PM

I a great responsibility rests with the Catholic Church for this reason: The Catholic Church is perhaps the world's most powerful and wide-reaching voice of religious and moral principle in the world, yet they do not support a proven form of disease and birth control because it conflicts with their idealistic principles despite the fact that the use of contraceptives would definately reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies and the spread of disease world-wide. Why can't they endorse BOTH contraceptive use AND absinence when both are effective? Whether one is more effective than the other is a non-issue here. You'd think that one of the world's number one voices on policy in the world would advocate any and every solution for the world's problems. Instead, they ignore one of the most potent solutions to the world's problems based on "moral principles" that are self-righteous at best. I call that EVIL.

Actually they support the only proven form of disease and brith control. You just dont like it because it conflicts with your hedonistic lifestyle where you would rather engage in self pleasure and pretend you are safe than look at the realities of the situation and the consequences of sin.

Hagbard Celine

10-24-2007, 01:37 PM

1. They support abstinence. You said yourself it is the most effective method against disease and pregancy available.
2. To support contraceptive use would degrade the stance on abstinence.
3. Evils is suggesting that people have no control over their sex drive. That thinking is the producte of modern secular culture, and would be thought of as absurd a mere 50 years ago. Man has been living with STDs for 5000 years and the problem has gotten worse during the last few decades because "progressive" thinking.

No, the problem has gotten worse because of population increase. It's simple logic that the larger the population gets, a larger number of people will get infected with stds. And I never said abstinence is the most effective. I said it is effective period. Since people actually do have sex in the real world, contraceptives are much more effective since they actually protect people from the perils of sex while they're actually having sex. Conceivably, a person could wait their whole life to have sex, abstaining until marriage or whatever, and then contract an std from their spouse if they don't use contraceptives. It's a simple f*cking concept. Obviously pride and self-righteousness are what's keeping you from seeing it.

Hagbard Celine

10-24-2007, 01:38 PM

Actually they support the only proven form of disease and brith control. You just dont like it because it conflicts with your hedonistic lifestyle where you would rather engage in self pleasure and pretend you are safe than look at the realities of the situation and the consequences of sin.

Pat Robertson would be so proud. I guess you can avoid addressing the fact that the Vatican doesn't support very simple solutions to the problems of disease and unwanted pregnancy simply because they don't want to forever, but that doesn't make it any less true.

glockmail

10-24-2007, 03:04 PM

No, the problem has gotten worse because of population increase. It's simple logic that the larger the population gets, a larger number of people will get infected with stds. And I never said abstinence is the most effective. I said it is effective period. Since people actually do have sex in the real world, contraceptives are much more effective since they actually protect people from the perils of sex while they're actually having sex. Conceivably, a person could wait their whole life to have sex, abstaining until marriage or whatever, and then contract an std from their spouse if they don't use contraceptives. It's a simple f*cking concept. Obviously pride and self-righteousness are what's keeping you from seeing it.

Obviously pride and your inability to comprehend controlling your animal insincts are what's keeping you from seeing my position.

What's wrong with the Catholic Church promoting their thing and the UN promoting theirs? The two should not conflict so badly that way. Besides, its not the Churh's responsibility to promote the secular agenda.

As I said before the UN has failed and is attepting to use Catholics as scapegoats. It is completely transparent.

actsnoblemartin

10-24-2007, 03:05 PM

U.n. stands for United Nazi's :lol:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071023/hl_nm/honduras_aids_dc

This is so ridiculous. i think the UN is quickly making itself irrelevant. world events are going to change shortly. and i think the UN will be wiped out of existance within the next ten years because of its uselessness.

avatar4321

10-24-2007, 04:28 PM

Pat Robertson would be so proud. I guess you can avoid addressing the fact that the Vatican doesn't support very simple solutions to the problems of disease and unwanted pregnancy simply because they don't want to forever, but that doesn't make it any less true.

What the hell does Pat Robertson have to do with common sense?

You can keep pretending the Vatican is ignoring the simple solutions. But in reality you are the one ignoring it. The Vatican is teaching the one solution that is guarenteed to work and has since the beginning of time.

Yurt

10-24-2007, 11:10 PM

What the hell does Pat Robertson have to do with common sense?

You can keep pretending the Vatican is ignoring the simple solutions. But in reality you are the one ignoring it. The Vatican is teaching the one solution that is guarenteed to work and has since the beginning of time.

What is the one solution? And how is it guaranteed?

diuretic

10-25-2007, 05:28 AM

It’s really rather simple: no sex unless you are married.

Modesty and personal responsibility controls the sex drive. The pursuit of knowledge, service to others, physical health, intellectual intimacy and of course spiritual well being through a deep personal relationship with Christ are priorities over mere sexual stimulation.

Now that I’ve shown you the Way feel free to belittle and berate at your pleasure.

No belitting because if those principles were applied then it would mean safe sex and I'm in favour of that, not on the grounds of morality but on the grounds of it's good sense. But I still think the Catholic church should allow its adherents to use condoms because that promotes safe sex too.

glockmail

10-25-2007, 05:46 AM

No belitting because if those principles were applied then it would mean safe sex and I'm in favour of that, not on the grounds of morality but on the grounds of it's good sense. But I still think the Catholic church should allow its adherents to use condoms because that promotes safe sex too. The Catholic Church thinks otherwise. Why not give them that choice? You are pro-choice, right?

avatar4321

10-25-2007, 10:21 AM

What is the one solution? And how is it guaranteed?

abstinence outside marriage and fidelity afterwards.

mrg666

10-25-2007, 11:44 AM

Using a condom when having sex cuts the chances of tranmission of the virus.
Not using a condom when having sex increases the chances of transmission of the virus.

The Vatican says Catholics shouldn't use condoms when having sex.

The Vatican is instructing Catholics that when they have sex they must expose themselves to an increased chance of transmitting the virus.

Would anyone like to defend the Vatican on this?

Associated issue. Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, insists that AIDS is not caused by a virus. His minister for heatlh insists that AIDS can be combatted with diet and garlic and a few other natural substances.

The Vatican and the South African government are, each in their own way, contributing to the spread of AIDS.

Would anyone like to defend the South African government as well?
DAD:
There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.

I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,

Because

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

CHILDREN:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

GIRL:
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

CHILDREN:
Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

MUM:
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

MEN:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
WOMEN:
If a sperm is wasted,...
CHILDREN:
...God get quite irate.

PRIEST:
Every sperm is sacred.
BRIDE and GROOM:
Every sperm is good.
NANNIES:
Every sperm is needed...
CARDINALS:
...In your neighbourhood!

CHILDREN:
Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
FUNERAL CORTEGE:
God needs everybody's.
MOURNER #1:
Mine!
MOURNER #2:
And mine!
CORPSE:
And mine!

NUN:
Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
HOLY STATUES:
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

EVERYONE:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaaate!

http://www.lyricsdepot.com/monty-python/every-sperm-is-sacred.html

http://lyrics.doheth.co.uk/songs/monty-python/index.php

TheSage

10-25-2007, 11:58 AM

No, the problem has gotten worse because of population increase. It's simple logic that the larger the population gets, a larger number of people will get infected with stds. And I never said abstinence is the most effective. I said it is effective period. Since people actually do have sex in the real world, contraceptives are much more effective since they actually protect people from the perils of sex while they're actually having sex. Conceivably, a person could wait their whole life to have sex, abstaining until marriage or whatever, and then contract an std from their spouse if they don't use contraceptives. It's a simple f*cking concept. Obviously pride and self-righteousness are what's keeping you from seeing it.

Hagbard, one thing you have to understand about catholic teachings is that they are premised on a world that isn't debauched, and the assumption that life was conducted appropriately within the correct flow of sacraments, which used to be better timed for the human life cycle. Asking people to abstain till marriage was not a big deal when people paired off at puberty. In that simpler context the catholic lifestyle is not so insane, either you make the girl honest or you hit the road. Now we have pushed adulthood into middle age, eveythings off kilter from that point on. The whole society is, in fact, off kilter.

Hagbard Celine

10-25-2007, 11:58 AM

EVERYONE:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.There's a jizz rag under my bed you can have if you want it. I know it means a lot to you.

mrg666

10-25-2007, 12:07 PM

There's a jizz rag under my bed you can have if you want it. I know it means a lot to you.

you obviously have more use for it than me (im a lumberjack)

Hagbard Celine

10-25-2007, 12:11 PM

Hagbard, one thing you have to understand about catholic teachings is that they are premised on a world that isn't debauched, and the assumption that life was conducted appropriately within the correct flow of sacraments, which used to be better timed for the human life cycle. Asking people to abstain till marriage was not a big deal when people paired off at puberty. In that simpler context the catholic lifestyle is not so insane, either you make the girl honest or you hit the road. Now we have pushed adulthood into middle age, eveythings off kilter from that point on. The whole society is, in fact, off kilter.

I agree that Catholicism has failed to keep up with the changes history has wrought on culture, but I disagree that society is off kilter. I think the turmoil we see that you have interpreted as society being off kilter is simply the natural growing pains associated with what always happens when culture/society evolves. And that is the conservative element of society, fearful of change, resists the change, which causes controversy/turmoil. Eventually it dies down, the change is accepted, and the controversy moves on to the latest change. It's a never-ending process.

TheSage

10-25-2007, 12:24 PM

I agree that Catholicism has failed to keep up with the changes history has wrought on culture, but I disagree that society is off kilter. I think the turmoil we see that you have interpreted as society being off kilter is simply the natural growing pains associated with what always happens when culture/society evolves. And that is the conservative element of society, fearful of change, resists the change, which causes controversy/turmoil. Eventually it dies down, the change is accepted, and the controversy moves on to the latest change. It's a never-ending process.

Growing pains? What are we growing into? Acceptance of human slavery as a legitimate "comparative advantage" that degrades chinese workers, and puts american workers out of business? A new age global theocracy which will claim to be some fulfillment of all religions? Your changes are bad for people. They will be rejected, not on religious grounds, but on rational ones.

Human sociality our strongest asset. That flourishes best in egalitarian relationships where trust is repeatedly proven. New Age Satanic Hierarchy is based on one way communication and control, and will fail from isolation from the power of good (human trust).

Nukeman

10-25-2007, 12:38 PM

There's a jizz rag under my bed you can have if you want it. I know it means a lot to you.

You disgusting bastard!!!!!!!!!:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::lol::laug h2::slap:

Hagbard Celine

10-25-2007, 12:39 PM

Growing pains? What are we growing into? Acceptance of human slavery as a legitimate "comparative advantage" that degrades chinese workers, and puts american workers out of business? A new age global theocracy which will claim to be some fulfillment of all religions? Your changes are bad for people. They will be rejected, not on religious grounds, but on rational ones.

Human sociality our strongest asset. That flourishes best in egalitarian relationships where trust is repeatedly proven. New Age Satanic Hierarchy is based on one way communication and control, and will fail from isolation from the power of good (human trust).

Uh, well, I was talking about the Catholic church changing it's stance on contraceptives, but whatever butters your bread for you :dunno:

TheSage

10-25-2007, 12:42 PM

Uh, well, I was talking about the Catholic church changing it's stance on contraceptives, but whatever butters your bread for you :dunno:

You seem to believe in some great ongoing process of change and acceptance, or some shit. Now it's all only about contraceptives? Fine. Run. Run away coward globalist. You will be defeated, because your politic of thought control is easily shrivelled, by the rays of the truth.

Hagbard Celine

10-25-2007, 12:45 PM

you obviously have more use for it than me (im a lumberjack)

1. lumberjack 167 up, 46 down

The lumberjack is an exciting sexual maneuver which should be only attempted by professionals.

In this case, the woman is on all fours and the man enters her from behind (see "doggie style"). Hole choice is completely up to the lumberjack himself. When he is ready to cum, he yells "TIMmmBERRRrrrr" ; and takes out the woman's arms with a svelte swooping motion. The woman then, like a tree, falls to the bed. During the fall, the woman experiences excitement as well as fear during her zero gravity experience as she realizes impact is imminent. This leads to the tightening of her vaginal and anal cavities, yielding an astonishing feeling and hence orgasm for the lumberjack.

Extra points can be scored on this maneuver by the close and careful placement of the woman in relation to the headboard. When the woman's arms are taken out, her head slams into the headboard. Very fun!

"Why is Nancy wearing a neck brace at work today?" asked coworker Anne.

"I guess her husband gave her the lumberjack last night and she went down quicker 'n a Douglas Fir" responded Jim.

2. Lumberjack 112 up, 10 down

Euphemism for someone who drops a huge, usually long, piece of shit. As a lumberjack lays logs, this person laid their log into the toilet.

Aww dude, couldn't you flush the toilet?

I did, but the log was too long go down.

You lumberjack!

3. lumberjack 141 up, 70 down

The man who sings

I'm a lumberjack and I'm O.K.
I sleep all night and I work all day
I cut down trees, I eat my lunch,
I go to the lavatory.
On Wednesdays I go shopping
And have buttered scones for tea.

CHORUS
He's a lumberjack and he's O.K.
He sleeps all night
And Works all day.

I chop down trees, I skip and jump
I like to press wild flowers
I put on women's clothing
And hang around in bars

I cut down trees, I wear high heels
Suspenders and a bra.
I want to be a girlee
Just like my dear papa.

4. lumberjack 68 up, 25 down

A girl that is so disgusting, that she makes you lose a boner. she "cuts down your wood".

"Did you see Kara last night? She was such a lumberjack!"

5. Lumberjack 88 up, 46 down

Lumberjacks are the second most awesome people group, after Pirates, and before Ninjas.

Real Lumberjacks have an ax and existed long ago and wear flannel, suspenders, and pants. They have hairy faces and kick ass. They will cut down any forest easy, because they are awesome.

Fake Lumberjacks are the modern day lumberjacks who wear bright orange and they use chainsaws because they are too weak to use an ax. They also eat lots of flapjacks. Sing and breakdance.

The most awesome lumberjack ever was Paul Bunyan, he was kickass.
A lumberjack's ax is NOT spelled with an e like "axe". Only norsemen had axes.

That lumberjack will pwn j00 easy!

6. lumberjack 33 up, 18 down

A red and black flanel jacket, coat, or shirt popular in the 80s and 90s. Actual lumberjacks wear these often.

Way back when I had the red and black lumberjack, with the hat to match.

7. Lumberjack 13 up, 10 down

A harshly given wedgie where one person grabs the back of the victim's underwear and one person grabs the front of the victim's underwear. They then proceed to yank back and forth with great force until the taint is rubbed raw.

Joe kept smarting off, so we gave him a lumberjack to shut him up.

I have no idea what it means to be a "lumberjack" so here are just a few of the definitions I got for the term while looking it up on Urbandictionary.com.

actsnoblemartin

10-25-2007, 03:45 PM

:lol:

I have no idea what it means to be a "lumberjack" so here are just a few of the definitions I got for the term while looking it up on Urbandictionary.com.

glockmail

10-25-2007, 04:24 PM

I agree that Catholicism has failed to keep up with the changes history has wrought on culture.... There is a reason Catholicism hasn't changed: because morality shouldn't.

diuretic

10-25-2007, 06:22 PM

The Catholic Church thinks otherwise. Why not give them that choice? You are pro-choice, right?

I'm not arguing that the Catholic Church shouldn't be able to issue edicts, they can and they do and they have since it was founded. I'm simply saying that it would be a good idea if they would allow their devout adherents to use condoms.

diuretic

10-25-2007, 06:26 PM

There is a reason Catholicism hasn't changed: because morality shouldn't.

The Catholic Church is an incredibly conservative organisation, it changes very, very slowly, but it does change.

glockmail

10-25-2007, 07:07 PM

I'm not arguing that the Catholic Church shouldn't be able to issue edicts, they can and they do and they have since it was founded. I'm simply saying that it would be a good idea if they would allow their devout adherents to use condoms. Funny I haven't seen a priest rifle through my night stand lately.

glockmail

10-25-2007, 07:09 PM

The Catholic Church is an incredibly conservative organisation, it changes very, very slowly, but it does change. The last big change was Vatican II, 1969?, and we've lost numbers ever since.

diuretic

10-25-2007, 08:39 PM

Funny I haven't seen a priest rifle through my night stand lately.

A devout Catholic doesn't need that sort of supervision :D

diuretic

10-25-2007, 08:43 PM

The last big change was Vatican II, 1969?, and we've lost numbers ever since.

Vatican II started under Blessed John XXIII in about 1962 I think. It finished under, I think John Paul II. It did some radical things, it rehabilitated the late Pierre Teilhard de Chardin for instance. I thnk it became more conservative after the passing of Blessed John XXIII though.

glockmail

10-25-2007, 11:52 PM

A devout Catholic doesn't need that sort of supervision :D

Nice deflection. :pee:

mrg666

10-26-2007, 01:24 AM

I have no idea what it means to be a "lumberjack" so here are just a few of the definitions I got for the term while looking it up on Urbandictionary.com.

it was a clich'e carrying on the mp theme you dont need to analyze everything

diuretic

10-26-2007, 02:28 AM

Nice deflection. :pee:

You really can't handle it can you? If you can't counter a point or won't concede a point the accusations come out - "dodge", "deflection" or some other irrelevant remark usually accompanied by a pissing squirrel. Why? Is it so necessary for you to "win"? This is a forum, not the Oxford Union.

Okay, back on point. There was no deflection. Think about it for more than a millisecond.

Catholics believe in God. Catholics believe that the Catholic Church knows the word of God. Catholics believe that God is omnipotent. So Catholics know that if they sneak a condom on that God will know about it. So, no need for a priest to go rifling through the drawers is there?

Now, if you're going to try and counter a reasonably serious point with a dismissive remark such as the one about a priest going through the drawers, be ready for a follow-up. I don't care if the follow-up is going to be slightly humorous or cutting, I'm quite capable of using both. I'd prefer it to be a bit humorous (see my reference to this not being the Oxford Union) and I'll usually try and go there if I think it's in keeping with the thread. But in your case I'll make an exception in the future. You seem to not comprehend when a bit of a light hearted remark is all that's needed. You want everything to be win/lose, why I have no idea, but I'll bear that in mind in future. So if I appear to be somewhat cutting in any responses, I'd like everyone else to understand that that isn't my preferred response, but it's one I'll use with you until you demonstrate that you actually have a mature sense of humour and don't see everything as a match for your pissing squirrel alter ego.

glockmail

10-26-2007, 09:00 AM

You really can't handle it can you? If you can't counter a point or won't concede a point the accusations come out - "dodge", "deflection" or some other irrelevant remark usually accompanied by a pissing squirrel. Why? Is it so necessary for you to "win"? This is a forum, not the Oxford Union.

Okay, back on point. There was no deflection. Think about it for more than a millisecond.

Catholics believe in God. Catholics believe that the Catholic Church knows the word of God. Catholics believe that God is omnipotent. So Catholics know that if they sneak a condom on that God will know about it. So, no need for a priest to go rifling through the drawers is there?

Now, if you're going to try and counter a reasonably serious point with a dismissive remark such as the one about a priest going through the drawers, be ready for a follow-up. I don't care if the follow-up is going to be slightly humorous or cutting, I'm quite capable of using both. I'd prefer it to be a bit humorous (see my reference to this not being the Oxford Union) and I'll usually try and go there if I think it's in keeping with the thread. But in your case I'll make an exception in the future. You seem to not comprehend when a bit of a light hearted remark is all that's needed. You want everything to be win/lose, why I have no idea, but I'll bear that in mind in future. So if I appear to be somewhat cutting in any responses, I'd like everyone else to understand that that isn't my preferred response, but it's one I'll use with you until you demonstrate that you actually have a mature sense of humour and don't see everything as a match for your pissing squirrel alter ego.:pee:

You appear to have lost track of the issue, which is that the Catholic Church is an anchor of morality, and the sanctioned sexual practices have proven far more effective at preventing disease than anything mere man has develped, and as such will never condone the use of condoms.

And of course they understand that God sees who's cheating. That was my point with my priest-bedstand humor.

:pee: :laugh2:

gabosaurus

10-26-2007, 11:44 AM

I don't blame catholics for the spread of AIDS. For the support of pedophilia perhaps.

diuretic

10-26-2007, 06:10 PM

I don't blame catholics for the spread of AIDS. For the support of pedophilia perhaps.

The Church doesn't support paedophilia, however it does cover it up and move suspected priests out of the jurisdiction of their latest offence to hinder the investigation.

Abbey Marie

10-26-2007, 06:13 PM

I don't blame catholics for the spread of AIDS. For the support of pedophilia perhaps.

Strictly gay pedophilia.

diuretic

10-26-2007, 06:16 PM

:pee:

You appear to have lost track of the issue, which is that the Catholic Church is an anchor of morality, and the sanctioned sexual practices have proven far more effective at preventing disease than anything mere man has develped, and as such will never condone the use of condoms.

And of course they understand that God sees who's cheating. That was my point with my priest-bedstand humor.

:pee: :laugh2:

Lost track? I think not. But no matter.

The typing finger types; and having Typed,
Moves on: Nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it

:laugh2:

Missileman

10-26-2007, 06:31 PM

Strictly gay pedophilia.

Seems to me that the Catholic Church makes a distinction between homosexual and pedophile. They openly shun homosexuals, yet have gone(still go?) out of their way to harbor the pedophiles in their ranks.

Said1

10-26-2007, 06:34 PM

Seems to me that the Catholic Church makes a distinction between homosexual and pedophile. They openly shun homosexuals, yet have gone(still go?) out of their way to harbor the pedophiles in their ranks.

There's no doubt that they have - at least hidden the accused by moving them around, or offering money to silence people.

Abbey Marie

10-26-2007, 07:39 PM

Seems to me that the Catholic Church makes a distinction between homosexual and pedophile. They openly shun homosexuals, yet have gone(still go?) out of their way to harbor the pedophiles in their ranks.

They've harbored the gay pedophiles in their ranks. No distinction necessary, and it's hypocritical either way.

Missileman

10-26-2007, 07:44 PM

They've harbored the gay pedophiles in their ranks. No distinction necessary, and it's hypocritical either way.

The Catholic Church seems to find pedophilia less objectionable than homosexuality by their words and actions...enough so that one can conclude they see them as two separate, unlinked, behaviors.

glockmail

10-26-2007, 07:52 PM

There's no doubt that they have - at least hidden the accused by moving them around, or offering money to silence people.
Wasn't that isolated to a single Cardinal, in the most liberal (and supposedly tolerant) areas of the country? And wasn't that Cardinal de-frocked by the Vatican?

Also isn't the incidence of this sort of thing actually about the same, or slightly less, that it is in other demoninations?

glockmail

10-26-2007, 07:54 PM

The Catholic Church seems to find pedophilia less objectionable than homosexuality by their words and actions...enough so that one can conclude they see them as two separate, unlinked, behaviors.
Sounds like your just Catholic-bashing.

Also, isn't homosexuality something that you are born with, not simply a behavior? At least wasn't that your position earlier in another thread?

Said1

10-26-2007, 08:07 PM

Sounds like your just Catholic-bashing.

Also, isn't homosexuality something that you are born with, not simply a behavior? At least wasn't that your position earlier in another thread?

I don't think he's Catholic bashing, I'm actually in agreement with him - and I was raised Catholic.

glockmail

10-26-2007, 08:13 PM

I don't think he's Catholic bashing, I'm actually in agreement with him - and I was raised Catholic.
Thats convenient, since you are doing the same thing. Now please address post 82.

Abbey Marie

10-26-2007, 08:15 PM

The Catholic Church seems to find pedophilia less objectionable than homosexuality by their words and actions...enough so that one can conclude they see them as two separate, unlinked, behaviors.

Since the priests who committed the sex acts with boys are both gay and pedophile, it's impossible to say the church is objecting to or harboring one more or less than the other. The two are completely intertwined here.

Said1

10-26-2007, 08:27 PM

Wasn't that isolated to a single Cardinal, in the most liberal (and supposedly tolerant) areas of the country? And wasn't that Cardinal de-frocked by the Vatican?

Also isn't the incidence of this sort of thing actually about the same, or slightly less, that it is in other demoninations?

OMG. Forgive me, I didn't see this. :rolleyes:

Anyway. No. It wasn't limited to one cardinal in one part of the country. An no, none of these people were removed from the church by anyone with that power. At least in the instances that I'm referring too (in Canada only, perhaps clarification would have been better).

If you want proof a quick google search with the words "Cornwall Public Enquiry' will reveal one church in one province. In fact, this is a land mark case since the judge, first time in Canadian history, named the Catholic Church a public institution, subject to government oversight. This is in direct relation to the church's handling of the sex abuse accusations ie: paying people for their silence, relocated accused priests etc.

As to your second point, I have no idea how rampant pedophilia is in other denominations nor do I know the extent it is covered up - unless you mean other Catholic denominations.

Did I address that enough for you?

Said1

10-26-2007, 08:28 PM

Thats convenient, since you are doing the same thing. Now please address post 82.

No. I'm not doing the same thing.

glockmail

10-26-2007, 08:48 PM

OMG. Forgive me, I didn't see this. :rolleyes:

Anyway. No. It wasn't limited to one cardinal in one part of the country. An no, none of these people were removed from the church by anyone with that power. At least in the instances that I'm referring too (in Canada only, perhaps clarification would have been better).

If you want proof a quick google search with the words "Cornwall Public Enquiry' will reveal one church in one province. In fact, this is a land mark case since the judge, first time in Canadian history, named the Catholic Church a public institution, subject to government oversight. This is in direct relation to the church's handling of the sex abuse accusations ie: paying people for their silence, relocated accused priests etc.

As to your second point, I have no idea how rampant pedophilia is in other denominations nor do I know the extent it is covered up - unless you mean other Catholic denominations.

Did I address that enough for you?

Yes that's fine. I don't know about Canada but my understanding is that the incidence of passing a ped-priest around to different churches was limited to the Archdoicese of Boston, and that the offending Cardinal was later removed by the Vatican.

I also heard on the radio about the stat with other demonimations. I have tried to verify this through google but have been unable to come up with a match to my search terms.

actsnoblemartin

10-26-2007, 08:50 PM

Let me remake my point. Why is catholicism being made out to be a scape goat, when we know most priests didnt molest.

The evil ones who did molest and the ones who covered up, they are evil, but they are no where near the majority.

Thats all i meant, sorry

Said1

10-26-2007, 09:02 PM

Yes that's fine. I don't know about Canada but my understanding is that the incidence of passing a ped-priest around to different churches was limited to the Archdoicese of Boston, and that the offending Cardinal was later removed by the Vatican.

Their fate is probably dependent on the outcome of the inquiry. I know the Vatican doesn't micro-manage, but come on, this is a BIG case. There has to be some consequences passed down from above.

the funny part (to me a least) is that a local youth court judge turn Member of Parliament made a huge public stink when some of the charges against the priests dropped (statute of limitations I believe). This judge was the biggest, meanest prick and very conservative. Even the meanest little punks were afraid to appear before him. Anyway, if it wasn't for him, there would be no inquiry. I guess he wasn't such a bad guy after all.

I also heard on the radio about the stat with other demonimations. I have tried to verify this through google but have been unable to come up with a match to my search terms.

Other Catholic denominations? What were the stats you heard?

Said1

10-26-2007, 09:06 PM

so for some of you its not ok to bash muslims, but have at it if its catholics :lame2:

Are you a practicing Catholic? Plus, there's nothing wrong with bashing a bunch of perverts.

Missileman

10-26-2007, 09:07 PM

Since the priests who committed the sex acts with boys are both gay and pedophile, it's impossible to say the church is objecting to or harboring one more or less than the other. The two are completely intertwined here.

If they were gay they could find other gay priests to hook up with and leave the kids alone. They are pedophiles and the gender of the victim is as meaningless as the gender of a murder victim.

The Catholic Church has been denouncing homosexuality since it's inception as it's called an abomination in the Bible. For widespread, organizational acceptance of pedophiles to occur, there must be difference in how the two groups are perceived by the church...at a minimum, by lots of those in the leadership of the church.

Missileman

10-26-2007, 09:08 PM

so for some of you its not ok to bash muslims, but have at it if its catholics :lame2:

I have not bashed anyone at this point.

actsnoblemartin

10-26-2007, 09:21 PM

I was not talking about you specifically.

What i mean is, the people on this board who hate religions, but will only criticize christians.

Sorry, i didnt make that clear.

I have not bashed anyone at this point.

diuretic

10-27-2007, 12:33 AM

There have been plenty of examples here in Aus of paedophile priests - not just Catholic - being protected by their churches. Just go to google.com.au and type "paedophile priest" (not we spell it different from how it appears in Websters).

glockmail

10-30-2007, 12:54 PM

Their fate is probably dependent on the outcome of the inquiry. I know the Vatican doesn't micro-manage, but come on, this is a BIG case. There has to be some consequences passed down from above.

the funny part (to me a least) is that a local youth court judge turn Member of Parliament made a huge public stink when some of the charges against the priests dropped (statute of limitations I believe). This judge was the biggest, meanest prick and very conservative. Even the meanest little punks were afraid to appear before him. Anyway, if it wasn't for him, there would be no inquiry. I guess he wasn't such a bad guy after all.

Other Catholic denominations? What were the stats you heard?

In the Boston case the Archbishop eventually was forced to step down by the Vatican. Granted it was late in the game but this was also at the end of John Paul's life. If he had been a younger man and more in control of his facilities I believe he would have done something a lot sooner.

There is only one Catholic demonination. I'm referring to other Christain demonimations. In the US, anone can claim themselves to be a preacher and start a church- with zero oversight. At least the Catholics have a hierarchy.

Abbey Marie

10-30-2007, 02:45 PM

If they were gay they could find other gay priests to hook up with and leave the kids alone. They are pedophiles and the gender of the victim is as meaningless as the gender of a murder victim.

The Catholic Church has been denouncing homosexuality since it's inception as it's called an abomination in the Bible. For widespread, organizational acceptance of pedophiles to occur, there must be difference in how the two groups are perceived by the church...at a minimum, by lots of those in the leadership of the church.

They may be with other gay priests also, no one knows. But one thing we do know- they went after kids because they are pedophiles. And they went after male children because they are gay pedophiles. Not hetero pedophiles.

And again, covering up a crime to save your reputation, is a far cry from ""accepting" it. That spin isn't going to work.

glockmail

10-30-2007, 02:51 PM

They may be with other gay priests also, no one knows. But one thing we do know- they went after kids because they are pedophiles. And they went after male children because they are gay perdophiles. Not hetero pedophiles.

And again, covering up a crime to save your reputation, is a far cry from ""accepting" it. That spin isn't going to work.
missle's been on this one forever. He can't accept the fact that you have to be queer to like boys.

Missileman

10-30-2007, 07:52 PM

And again, covering up a crime to save your reputation, is a far cry from ""accepting" it. That spin isn't going to work.

Moving pedophiles around to new hunting grounds goes way beyond a cover up.

Abbey Marie

10-30-2007, 10:49 PM

Moving pedophiles around to new hunting grounds goes way beyond a cover up.

How so? Actually, it sounds exactly like a cover up.

Missileman

10-30-2007, 11:00 PM

How so? Actually, it sounds exactly like a cover up.

Moving the priest to some deserted island where his crimes could remain low key and where he could do no more harm would be a cover up. Moving him to a new target-rich environment and turning a blind eye until the next allegations arise is collusion.

glockmail

10-31-2007, 05:37 AM

Moving the priest to some deserted island where his crimes could remain low key and where he could do no more harm would be a cover up. Moving him to a new target-rich environment and turning a blind eye until the next allegations arise is collusion.I agree with that. The Catholic Church was wrong and is paying dearly for that. However if the offending priest was of another demonination, then he could move from town to town without any oversight, abeit piss-poor oversight.

diuretic

10-31-2007, 06:28 AM

Abbey Marie

10-31-2007, 11:36 AM

Moving the priest to some deserted island where his crimes could remain low key and where he could do no more harm would be a cover up. Moving him to a new target-rich environment and turning a blind eye until the next allegations arise is collusion.

Removing the priest altogether would raise suspicions much higher than just moving him to another parish. I think moving priests (and Protestant minsters) around is fairly common practice.

Also, removing him would be at least circumstantial evidence that the Church administration knew what was going on. Tragically, the Chruch put their own skin ahead of children's safety, but in no way do these actions constitute acceptance or condoning of the actions of the gay pedophile priests.

Missileman

10-31-2007, 06:47 PM

Removing the priest altogether would raise suspicions much higher than just moving him to another parish.

Who besides the church leadership would know the difference? "Father 'So and so' has gone on a mission to Nepal." would more than aptly cover any suspicions. Instead, they were complicit in the molestation of MORE children.

Abbey Marie

11-01-2007, 10:24 AM

Who besides the church leadership would know the difference? "Father 'So and so' has gone on a mission to Nepal." would more than aptly cover any suspicions. Instead, they were complicit in the molestation of MORE children.

You underestimate the interest that a parish has in its priests. And my other point stands: removing the priest entirely is tantamount to an admission of guilt.

As I've said, there is a shameful cover up, an attempt to remove the priest from the boys involved, there is sneakiness, but there is simply nothing in the Church's behavior that indicates they accept or condone gay pedophilia. You are attempting to read something in to their mindset to suit your agenda, that is simply not there.

Missileman

11-01-2007, 07:34 PM

but there is simply nothing in the Church's behavior that indicates they accept or condone gay pedophilia.

Nothing other than their facilitation of the offender in adding more victims to his resume.

You are attempting to read something in to their mindset to suit your agenda, that is simply not there.

What agenda is it that you are accusing me of? I'm not the one softballing with the use of terms like "shameful" instead of calling it what it really was..."criminal".

Abbey Marie

11-01-2007, 08:37 PM

Nothing other than their facilitation of the offender in adding more victims to his resume.

What agenda is it that you are accusing me of? I'm not the one softballing with the use of terms like "shameful" instead of calling it what it really was..."criminal".

Even if these priests were able to continue to molest altar boys after they were moved (if that happened), it is still not conding or accepting, as you have claimed. It's negligent and tragic, but not condoning. That's the bottom line.

As for your second point, I don't know, you tell me why you feel the need to try to portray the Church as condoning gay pedophilia? Frankly, it doesn't really make sense, so you must have unusual reason for it.

Whether or not I used the exact word "criminal" is irrelevant to the debate. After all these posts, the facts still remain that the priests are gay pedophiles, and nothing the church has said or done constitutes condoning their behavior.

Said1

11-01-2007, 08:48 PM

Even if these priests were able to continue to molest altar boys after they were moved (if that happened), it is still not conding or accepting, as you have claimed. It's negligent and tragic, but not condoning. That's the bottom line.

As for your second point, I don't know, you tell me why you feel the need to try to portray the Church as condoning gay pedophilia? Frankly, it doesn't really make sense, so you must have unusual reason for it.

Whether or not I used the exact word "criminal" is irrelevant to the debate. After all these posts, the facts still remain that the priests are gay pedophiles, and nothing the church has said or done constitutes condoning their behavior.

I think the point was somewhat lost somewhere along the way. I don't think the Catholic Church, as an institution condones pedophilia anymore than they do homosexuality.....the point is that they publiclly speak out and preach against homosexuality, when if fact, they should have remained silent until their own back yard was clean. :cool: Or at least used the scandle in a positive way.....somehow?? People want answers and they're still basically silent on the matter, yet they prattle on about every other sin under the sun.

You have to remember, each diocese in every city and in every comminity, is basically free to handle church matters as they see fit, unless they ask for guidance from higher authorities - or it's brought to their attention. They are almost sub-communities within larger communities. I would guess that sheilding outsiders from what was going on was also extended to the Vatican. It doesn't make it any less right though.

Missileman

11-01-2007, 10:26 PM

As for your second point, I don't know, you tell me why you feel the need to try to portray the Church as condoning gay pedophilia? Frankly, it doesn't really make sense, so you must have unusual reason for it.

My argument was and still is that it appears that the Catholic Church feels differently about and treats differently homosexuals and pedophiles. They publicly denounce homosexuals and put out a "do not apply within" sign. These same people went to painstaking lengths to protect and harbor child molesters and, for good measure, enabled them to acquire countless more victims. Your explanations of the motives behind these "shell games" fall far short of anything resembling sense. I find the notion that the Church had no option other than placing them in a position where they had access to more boys incredible.

Abbey Marie

11-02-2007, 09:26 AM

My argument was and still is that it appears that the Catholic Church feels differently about and treats differently homosexuals and pedophiles. They publicly denounce homosexuals and put out a "do not apply within" sign. These same people went to painstaking lengths to protect and harbor child molesters and, for good measure, enabled them to acquire countless more victims. Your explanations of the motives behind these "shell games" fall far short of anything resembling sense. I find the notion that the Church had no option other than placing them in a position where they had access to more boys incredible.

It's good to see that you are finally backing off your claim that the Church condoes gay pedophilia. It is also interesting to know that you see homosexuality and gay pedophilia as so connected. I thought you were arguing against that very thing for a long time on this board, but here you are arguing that the Church cannot be against one, without being against the other. That's a very sensible move in the right direction.

And please do not put words in my mouth; I never said they had "no other option" than moving the priests. I said they moved them because it was the best way they saw to cover it up. That's very different than saying it is the "only way". That is purely your addition.

And to sum it up once more, because the church had "protected and harbored" gay pedophiles, as you put it, does not mean that it condoned homosexuality. It only means that they had a serious problem that they dealt with very badly, putting their own self-interest first.

Abbey Marie

11-02-2007, 09:38 AM

I think the point was somewhat lost somewhere along the way. I don't think the Catholic Church, as an institution condones pedophilia anymore than they do homosexuality.....the point is that they publiclly speak out and preach against homosexuality, when if fact, they should have remained silent until their own back yard was clean. :cool: Or at least used the scandle in a positive way.....somehow?? People want answers and they're still basically silent on the matter, yet they prattle on about every other sin under the sun.

You have to remember, each diocese in every city and in every comminity, is basically free to handle church matters as they see fit, unless they ask for guidance from higher authorities - or it's brought to their attention. They are almost sub-communities within larger communities. I would guess that sheilding outsiders from what was going on was also extended to the Vatican. It doesn't make it any less right though.

Well, we agree on that. We may not think that the Church actually condones gay pedohilia, but MM has stated that he thinks it does.

If you are saying that it is hypocritical to cover up gay pedophile molestations, while openly condemning homsexuality, that is somewhat arguable, and is at least better than accusations of condoning the behavior. I would argue that as a Church, it is tasked with sheparding its congregations. Speaking out against homosexuality is part of that duty, given the Church's beliefs on homosexuality. Regardless of their own failings and cover ups.

What is really at issue here, IMO, is not any tenuous connection between the cover ups and the Church's stance on homosexuality. It is the Church's loss of credibility and moral authority, because it covered up despicable criminal behavior to try to save its own hide. With that, I agree.

Missileman

11-04-2007, 01:30 PM

It's good to see that you are finally backing off your claim that the Church condoes gay pedophilia. It is also interesting to know that you see homosexuality and gay pedophilia as so connected. I thought you were arguing against that very thing for a long time on this board, but here you are arguing that the Church cannot be against one, without being against the other. That's a very sensible move in the right direction.

And please do not put words in my mouth; I never said they had "no other option" than moving the priests. I said they moved them because it was the best way they saw to cover it up. That's very different than saying it is the "only way". That is purely your addition.

And to sum it up once more, because the church had "protected and harbored" gay pedophiles, as you put it, does not mean that it condoned homosexuality. It only means that they had a serious problem that they dealt with very badly, putting their own self-interest first.

I responded to this before the crash, but it seems to have been lost.

I think you've misunderstood what I've written. I don't believe in a link between homosexuality and pedophilia. Based on the extreme difference in the attitude displayed by the Church, it seems they don't see a link either. They have clearly come out against homosexuality but have condoned pedophilia. Despite any spin on motive that you might toss around, failing to stop the abuse of children when they had the responsibility, ability, and opportunity to do so is condoning it.

LuvRPgrl

11-04-2007, 04:53 PM

I responded to this before the crash, but it seems to have been lost.

I think you've misunderstood what I've written. I don't believe in a link between homosexuality and pedophilia. Based on the extreme difference in the attitude displayed by the Church, it seems they don't see a link either. They have clearly come out against homosexuality but have condoned pedophilia. Despite any spin on motive that you might toss around, failing to stop the abuse of children when they had the responsibility, ability, and opportunity to do so is condoning it.

SO, that means if my son is a drug addict, and I try to cover it up, then I condone drug addiction? what a Fu--ing idiotic way of thinking, hmmm, nothing new here when it comes to religion and you.
You certainly are a man on a mission, only thing is , it tends to obscure the truth and reasonable thinking processes.

Missileman

11-04-2007, 05:08 PM

SO, that means if my son is a drug addict, and I try to cover it up, then I condone drug addiction? what a Fu--ing idiotic way of thinking, hmmm, nothing new here when it comes to religion and you.
You certainly are a man on a mission, only thing is , it tends to obscure the truth and reasonable thinking processes.

No asshole! If your kid is a drug addict and you send him to live with your doper best friend after he fails a drug test AND you send him a shipment of weed every week, then you're condoning it.

carbonbased

11-06-2007, 02:49 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071023/hl_nm/honduras_aids_dc
UN blames catholics for spread of AIDS
This is so ridiculous. i think the UN is quickly making itself irrelevant. world events are going to change shortly. and i think the UN will be wiped out of existance within the next ten years because of its uselessness.

You scewed the title just enough to make it sound ridiculous. The title of the article was:
"Catholic condom ban helping AIDS spread in Latam"

It is a rather spot-on and objective conclusion. Defeating this virus is not a religious task in my eyes, although some religious ideas would certainly help.

Suppose this was the short-list of steps that could be taken to defeat HIV:

1. No pre-martial sex
2. Only one partner/lifetime
3. If you fail to meet 1 or 2, use protection

The catholic church says "no" to number three. That stance is actually helping the HIV virus spreading.

Hagbard Celine

11-06-2007, 10:17 AM

You seem to believe in some great ongoing process of change and acceptance, or some shit. Now it's all only about contraceptives? Fine. Run. Run away coward globalist. You will be defeated, because your politic of thought control is easily shrivelled, by the rays of the truth.

:laugh: The "rays of truth" huh? :rolleyes: I don't think society or culture is evolving "into" anything. Evolutionary processes don't have an end result and there is no foreknowledge of what results the processes of evolution will bring about. It isn't an intelligently guided process--atleast, not yet anyway. But society does change. I hope we can agree on that much atleast.
When I said "growing pains," I was referring to the natural strife/conflict that arises as culture changes over time. By the way: "Changes over time" = Evolution. "Growing pains" seemed less verbose.
Since we are discussing the Vatican's policy towards contraceptives, I figured it would be obvious to you that my comments, though broad-reaching, were meant to apply to the topic at hand. I still stand by that.
As human technology, especially medical technology progresses, as women's rights and ideas about gender roles progress and as human populations explode worldwide, the antiquated ideas about sex and chastity and "saving virgins for the harvest" and all that mess are going to go out the window.
That's the change I'm referring to. Currently, it's the change that the conservative element of society is resisting. Eventually they will be beaten down and they'll move-on to resist something else in their next conflict. It's inevitable, it's the way the human world has always been and it's the way it always will be.

TheSage

11-06-2007, 05:04 PM

:laugh: The "rays of truth" huh? :rolleyes: I don't think society or culture is evolving "into" anything. Evolutionary processes don't have an end result and there is no foreknowledge of what results the processes of evolution will bring about. It isn't an intelligently guided process--atleast, not yet anyway. But society does change. I hope we can agree on that much atleast.
When I said "growing pains," I was referring to the natural strife/conflict that arises as culture changes over time. By the way: "Changes over time" = Evolution. "Growing pains" seemed less verbose.
Since we are discussing the Vatican's policy towards contraceptives, I figured it would be obvious to you that my comments, though broad-reaching, were meant to apply to the topic at hand. I still stand by that.
As human technology, especially medical technology progresses, as women's rights and ideas about gender roles progress and as human populations explode worldwide, the antiquated ideas about sex and chastity and "saving virgins for the harvest" and all that mess are going to go out the window.
That's the change I'm referring to. Currently, it's the change that the conservative element of society is resisting. Eventually they will be beaten down and they'll move-on to resist something else in their next conflict. It's inevitable, it's the way the human world has always been and it's the way it always will be.

ANd you're presenting a trend into sluttiness as some sort of foregone conclusion and social improvement. THat's a fallacy on your part.

glockmail

11-06-2007, 05:08 PM

You scewed the title just enough to make it sound ridiculous. The title of the article was:
"Catholic condom ban helping AIDS spread in Latam"

It is a rather spot-on and objective conclusion. Defeating this virus is not a religious task in my eyes, although some religious ideas would certainly help.

Suppose this was the short-list of steps that could be taken to defeat HIV:

1. No pre-martial sex
2. Only one partner/lifetime
3. If you fail to meet 1 or 2, use protection

The catholic church says "no" to number three. That stance is actually helping the HIV virus spreading. No, the Church is saying "don't fuck up 1 and 2, or else".:dev:

Hagbard Celine

11-06-2007, 05:28 PM

ANd you're presenting a trend into sluttiness as some sort of foregone conclusion and social improvement. THat's a fallacy on your part.

...And it's not necessarily an "improvement" but it IS a change nonetheless. There's nothing wrong with having sex outside of the marriage ceremony--the idea that there is something "wrong" with it is the only fallacy I see. It's one of many methods the Church has used to control populations of free-thinking people. The idea that using condoms and other contraceptives somehow makes you a "sinful" person is pure bullsh*t and I won't back down from my position, which is that it is morally and ethically irresponsible of the church to condemn the use of contraceptives when they are an extremely viable form of both pregnancy control AND disease prevention, especially when the only rationalization behind its condemnation is adherence to some warped, antiquated idea of "chastity."

TheSage

11-06-2007, 05:44 PM

...And it's not necessarily an "improvement" but it IS a change nonetheless. There's nothing wrong with having sex outside of the marriage ceremony--the idea that there is something "wrong" with it is the only fallacy I see. It's one of many methods the Church has used to control populations of free-thinking people. The idea that using condoms and other contraceptives somehow makes you a "sinful" person is pure bullsh*t and I won't back down from my position, which is that it is morally and ethically irresponsible of the church to condemn the use of contraceptives when they are an extremely viable form of both pregnancy control AND disease prevention, especially when the only rationalization behind its condemnation is adherence to some warped, antiquated idea of "chastity."

menopause is a change, that doesn't mean it's "evolution".

There are scientific and even, yes, evolutionary, reasons why it is an individuals interest to insist on sexual fidelity, on the man's part, and caretaking and resource provision on the females part. A man guarantees his resources go to his offspring if he can keep his chick from doing other guys. ANd a woman has a better chance for her offspring if she insists a mate possess and be willing to give mucho dinero. This is the basic equation of human life. What are they teaching you at school?