Religion...? - Page 4

If prostitution were legal, disease spread through prostitution would drop like a rock. It is BECAUSE it is underground that disease is currently spread through it.

Same to you.

Again, that's a nice opinion that you have. I again disagree. However, if it could be proven that the legalization of prostitution would dramatically reduce the spread of STDs, I'd probably support such a move. I would change my position for two reasons. First, less STDs is beneficial to society. Second, less STDs is a sign of less adultery and fornication, thus a more moral society. I would love to have a society where people were already moral. If that were the case than there would be less need for legislation that restricts destructive behavior. However, because we do not live in a completely moral society; in order to protect me and my posterity against a wide scale epidemic, I feel that it is necessary to restrict some behavior.

Alexander the Great

Exactly.

The thing is, once it's legal, businesses would immediately start popping up that can openly operate and require health inspections on their prostitutes. Not only would the underhanded pimps be out of a job, but the prostitution business would be more responsible for the quality of its product.

That is a very difficult and dangerous point to prove. However, if such legislation could be made to work extremely well in enough states, I likely would support similar nation wide legislation. I don't see that happening any time soon, but if it did, that would be great. I would not want to test such a theory in my own state.

Alexander the Great

The view that adultery, fornication, and homosexual intercourse are sins is a fundamental Christian concept. There may be some Christian denominations that differ on these points, but that does not change the fundamentals of Christianity.

Alexander the Great

If you take away a black market, it reduces the dangers of the product.

The same can be said with drugs. So much crime is caused by the profitability of selling drugs on the streets. Gang turf wars are about drug territories. Smuggling is dangerous but too profitable.

Solution? Take away the black market. Legalize the drugs. Immediately the prison system is unclogged. Immediately it is no longer profitable to sell drugs on the street when you can get guaranteed quality at a decent price legally at a liquor store. Gang warfare suddenly loses much of its motivation. Inner cities become a safer place.

Classic mind control. Make a basic natural desire against god and you get people feeling guilty over their natural state of being so they are forced to turn to the collective group for support.

What!!!??? Ever hear of "safe sex"? Less STDs is a sign of less unsafe sex. I'll bet you just about anything that here are less STDs spread in San Francisco than in Corpus Christi.

And morals are relative. Your morals are immoral to me. Sex is a healing and necessary part of both sociology and physiology. Just use a condom! And make sure that you're always honest about your intentions and your actions, and your partner(s) have the same approach.

Once again a conservative American ignoring the rest of the world.

It's been tested. And has never been unsuccessful.

Could you please clarify. I do not see how your point relates to the point I was making or to the point I was responding to. I was defending the principles of Christianity. How does that constitute mind control?

Alexander the Great

Safe sex is not all that safe.

Alexander the Great

* Note *
I removed a link that I posted earlier. A more informative web page can be found here. The next post by tonton makes reference to the earlier link.

I am very interested in learning about such cases. Do you know of any good studies I can read up on that authoritatively establish such views?

Alexander the Great

The answer to your question is no. If you are interested in an account of the events in Joseph Smith's own words, you can find it here. An in depth study will confirm the validity of his character and testimony.

Alexander the Great

I'm glad someone understands.

You must sleep very badly knowing that adultry and occurs without your permission. perhaps even next door.

You can thank the idiot in the Vatican for the disaster in Africa. A religious leader with no ethics.

No, I don't really sleep poorly because of it. I'm ok with the way things are right now, but that does not mean that I will not strive for something better. Don't get me wrong, I don't want adultery outlawed like murder is. We would have people calling the police every time a man visited his neighbor. However, I would like legislation that discourages it. There are countless ways to discourage it, many of which I'm sure would not be too offensive to you. I think it's harmful to society and I would to see it reduced, but I do not have a set plan of exactly how it should be reduced.

Alexander the Great

Actually, the link you posted is to a conservative Christian organization whose main agenda is anti-choice and whose secondary agenda is anti-birth control. I think I'll stick to the facts, thanks. Give me a link from the WHO or a non Christian/Catholic affiliated site and I'll take it seriously.

For instance, obne of the "facts" cited on that page is this:

"3. "The rubber comprising latex condom has intrinsic voids about 5 microns in size." The HIV virus is 0.1 micron. Roland, Rubber World. June 1993. Roland and Sobieski, Rubber Chemistry and Technology. Vol. 62, 1989."

and

"9. In one test, 33% of latex condoms leaked HIV sized particles. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. vol.19. 1992"

This is basically the same "fact". Of course, what they don't tell you is that the HIV virus only exists in fluids whose particle size is far greater than the largest of holes in the latex, meaning that it's 100% impossible for the virus to cross the barrier (it doesn't transfer between fluids across the barrier, either). But of course that fact goes against their agenda, so they let you be misled into thinking that a condom is a sieve.

And then there's this one:

"4. Condoms reduce the risk of HIV infection by about 70% if they are used "consistently and correctly" IPPF (International Planned Parenthood Federation) Medical Bulletin Feb. 1997."

First of all, IPPF is another Conservative Christian organization with the same anti safe-sex agenda. The number is completely out of their hole, with no scientific study to back it up.

While the number is absolutely not accurate, it is true that condoms reduce the risk of HIV infection, especially when used properly. But who is it that doesn't want schools to teach kids how to use condoms properly? The very same Christians!

"Condoms need to be used properly to be effective."
"We can't teach our kids how to use condoms at school, because [misperception here] that would lead to promiscuity!"

Add those two things together, with the fact that kids will have sex against their parents' guidance, and you can see what happens.

I don't even need to go on. Only an idiot would believe that condoms are not safe protection against HIV and other STDs.

"11. IPPF indicates that the risk of contracting AIDS during so-called 'protected sex' approaches 100 percent as the number of episodes of sexual intercourse increases. Cates Medical Bulletin, IPPF 1997."

Uh. Basic math. The limit of any chance at all is 100%, so even if there's one fault in a million, this statement would be true. Of course, IPPF thinks condoms only make sex 70% safer. My chances of winning the lottery approach 100% as the number of tickets I buy increases as well.

"12. The only sure ways to avoid sexual transmission of diseases (including AIDS, chlamydia, genital herpes, genital warts, gonorrhoea, hepatitis B, and syphilis) are not to have sex at all or to limit sex to one uninfected partner who is also monogamous. Food and Drug Administrationc (USA) Consumer Magazine Sep 1990."

This is true. But it is also misleading. There's never any way for us to be 100% sure any partner is uninfected. There had to be a first encounter with that partner, no? The only way to be sure is to not have sex at all (even then one might get raped or be exposed to infected blood). But not having sex is unnatural and unhealthy.

If you really want me to dispute all of the data on that bogus link, I have no doubt I can do it. If you insist, I will. Give me a few days, though, as I have to get to work today and won't be online tomorrow.

Oh, and here's the web page banner for your "source" rolleyes:

tonton,

No need to refute the points. I just did a search for condom failure and that link said "BBC - Fact Sheet on Condom Failure," so I clicked on it and although the facts did seem a little off, I just posted it. I didn't look into as much as you did. But my point is still valid, even if the rates are lower than those stated on the web site. The phrase "safe sex" is misleading. A good way to be safe is abstinence before marriage and fidelity during marriage. A person can still get HIV, but they are pretty darn safe. I think that it is perfectly normal and natural to only have sex with a spouse. I really have no fear of ever getting HIV, although there is a small chance that I will. I'd be more worried about a plane that I was on going down than getting HIV, because I'm not at risk.

Alexander the Great

Better in whos opinion? In the opinion of someone who wants to dictate what consenting adults do in private?

How is it harmful to society?
Is it more harmful, than say some old idiot in the vatican telling christians not to use condoms, when it is known that the number of aids cases would drop if they did? More harmful than that?

More harmful than evangelists telling christians to send them money or they will be recalled by god. More harmful than that?

More harmful than the church covering up child sex abuse within the church? More harmful than that?

You have a very strange definition of "harmful to society".

I actually want to know Alexander's opinion of the Mormon Castle in La Jolla, California.

http://www.sciencemeetsart.com/emese...n_temple_1.jpg
http://www.sciencemeetsart.com/emese...n_temple_3.jpg

This behemoth of a structure sure cost a pretty penny to build. I think the money could have been better spent helping society. I guess that self glorification is more important though.

A nation wide moral decline is harmful because it promotes the spread of disease. It's also harmful to the children who are born into broken homes. Concerning the importance of the family, much of what I believe can be summed up here. The other things that you mention are also harmful to society.

Alexander the Great

I was 4 when I was put into "sunday school" where they read bible stories, etc. Not that my parents are particularly religious - they thought it was a way to get me to meet other kids.

Anyway, I found the stories very improbable (heck, I had read several books by then, and I think some of them was about evolution). So I couldn't comfortably go to the school. I became an atheist.

Later on when I was about ten yrs old it occurred to me that I honestly do not know whether anything "supernatural" exists. So I became an agnostic. I still am.

Lately I've been interested in Zen, but haven't really taken any steps to learn about it.

Temples are expensive to build, however the blessings they provide to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints far outweigh their monetary cost. Here is some more about Temples.

Alexander the Great

Once again, "morals" are relative. You are by no means more "moral" than I am. We just have different morals. In fact I think that many of the things you are doing in this thread ar immoral.

For instance, it is extremely immoral for you to claim that prostitution promotes the spread of disease. It does not. Unsafe sex promotes the spread of disease (and dispite what you claim, sex with a condom is safer than you think). "Of the 123 couples using condoms consistently, no uninfected partner became infected during the study." (Note: that's from the American Red Cross.)

Prostitution does not inherently promote unsafe sex. Legalized prostitution goes even further to ensure that commercial sex is done safely.

From this link:

"For example, Thailand slowed its explosive HIV epidemic by promoting "100% condom" use in brothels. As a result of this policy and an accompanying public information campaign, as well as improved STD treatment services, condom use among sex workers increased to more than 90 percent, reported visits to sex workers by men declined very significantly, HIV infection rates among military recruits decreased by about half, and the number of cases of five other STIs decreased by nearly 80% among brothel workers." (Note: that's from USAID, a US government agency.)

Meanwhile, it's also immoral for you to imply that homes are broken by adultery and promiscuity. It's not sex that destroys those homes, but lies and deceit about sex. First of all, for those who don't want children, condom use decreases the chance of pregnancy significantly more than intended abstinance (abstinance fails more often than condoms do). For those who already have children, or who are planning on having children with a chosen partner, we just need to be honest and faithful. If we were honest to ourselves and to our partners about our sexual needs before we get into a relationship, and our partner held the same views, divorce from adultery would drop significantly. But conservative society teaches us to be ashamed of our sexual needs, to the extent that we may not even be fully aware of them ourselves.

But then you'll just link to the "clever" Mormons (who don't practice polygamy only because it's illegal) to dispute all this, now won't you?

tonton, thank you for the two links that you provided; I found them to be very informative. I apologize for having wasted your time by linking to an unreliable web page. I particularly liked this link that you provided. I may comment on some more points that you made, but I'd like to think about what you had to say a bit more before I reply.

Thanks for your comments,
Alexander the Great

How does adultry promote the spread of disease?
The old fool in the vatican not allowing condoms promotes disease.

I saw a news item this evening about a 9 yo african boy waiting to die. Both his parents are dead. Is this more or less harmful than fornication and adultry?

That is sick. Are you saying blessings cannot be provided in a park, or a home, or a garage? How many mormons will actually get inside these monstrosities?

I'm sorry for sounding like such a jerk (really).

But these things really get my goat:

1. Anti choice
2. Anti wealth gap reduction (like the Bush tax cut)
3. Anti gay-rights
4. Anti sex ed (including the promotion of abstinance based education)
5. Anti condom use
6. Anti diplomacy
7. Anti feminism
8. Anti racial equality
9. Anti sexual health (like spreading the idea that sex in general is a bad thing, even if only for the unmarried, or that masturbation is bad, or that sexual practices during dating is bad)
10. Anti honesty as an attainable or admirable policy (sorry, Groverat)

...and I will speak out against them with the voice of fury (in other words sound like a dick) whenever I must.

Although it may not seem so, I agree with most of what you have stated here.

I was raised in a very conservative community. Growing up, I thought I was conservative, just like everybody else. When people mentioned less government, that seemed like a reasonable good thing because I had heard that the national deficit was real big. A couple of weeks ago I signed up for an American government class. After the first or second day of class we were asked to read about a chapter and a half from the text book. The chapter I read had a pretty fair description of liberalism and conservatism. After having learned the difference between the two I very quickly became liberal. I really don't understand how those around me can be conservative, it really doesn't make sense. The whole liberal thing is still new to me however and many of my opinions on topics are still being formed. One the first posts that I made within this topic stated that I am pro gay rights. That was not an easy conclusion to come to because I personally view homosexual intercourse to be a mockery of sacred things. Albeit, it's not quite as much of a mockery if the person is not Christian. Even if I don't agree with you right now on a particular point, I may later.

Alexander the Great

My concern with this is that ONLY Mormon members can receive these blessings in a temple. It makes it seem like they don't care about the rest of society who need the gospel of Christ. The exhorbitant cost of the temples would seem more justified if ALL God's children could find refuge in those buildings. You don't see the Catholic church blocking non-members out of their cathedrals or the Salvation Army blocking non-members out of their shelters.

\

I do not disagree with you about adultery, but not because of the sexual aspect, but because it involves the betrayal of a pledge and the hurting of another.

With respect, I disagree with you about "fornication" and homosexual intercourse". Sexual activity itself was something about which Jesus had little or nothing to say. The views of some churches against certain sexual practices are not Christian in and of themselves, but are an overlay.

I agree that many Christian churches have historically taught such "values" (and many other anti-sex "values" besides), and that some still do - but I think that it is a grave error to refer to these values as Christian in and of themselves. In my view, the historical extreme anti-sex agenda of some Christian churches has itself been harmful and hurtful to human relations - and to human's persective on their relationship with God (guilt over a divine gift) - and from that point of view this agenda can itself be viewed as anti-Christian.

Your Results:


1._
Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (100%)

2._
Orthodox Quaker (93%)

3._
Liberal Quakers (81%)

4._
Unitarian Universalism (78%)

5._
Mainline - Conservative Christian Protestant (73%)

6._
Seventh Day Adventist (69%)

7._
Eastern Orthodox (68%)

8._
Roman Catholic (68%)

9._
Hinduism (47%)

10._
New Thought (46%)

11._
Reform Judaism (46%)

12._
New Age (45%)

13._
Sikhism (45%)

14._
Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (43%)

15._
Mahayana Buddhism (39%)

16._
Theravada Buddhism (39%)

17._
Neo-Pagan (38%)

18._
Orthodox Judaism (36%)


19._
Bahá'Ã* Faith (35%)

20._
Scientology (35%)

21._
Islam (33%)

22._
Secular Humanism (31%)

23._
Taoism (31%)

24._
Jainism (26%)

25._
Non-theist (20%)

26._
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (17%)

27._
Jehovah's Witness (17%)

Fellows

I got a little carried away while posting messages yesterday. It was irresponsible of me to have spent so much of my time writing messages when I really don't have that much time available to me. I have some more points that I want to make, but I've decided that for my own good, I'm going to try to limit myself to one post per day. Because I posted into the early hours this morning, I'm not going to make any more comments today. I like posting here and I'll probably get around to replying to most comments or questions about my opinions and beliefs. I do have some opinions that I can't imagine any of you persuading me to change, however there are many more opinions that I will reconsider upon refection of your opinions. So, your comments are not going out in vain; I do appreciate and consider the things that all of you write.

Alexander the Great

someone posted about looking at Africa as a symbol of what happens when one "fornicates." Much of the disease in Africa has little to do with Fornication and much to do with poverty. Many people who get HIV already have compromised immune systems due to malnutrition and other poverty related ills. The actual number of cases of HIV in Africa is also in question due to the proclivity of people to assume that one who loses weight dramatically ( which is often from Malaria) and died relatively quickly must have HIV. AS for prostiution. In South Africa and Swaziland you can thank the Aparthied system that kept many men from thier wives. Sexual gratification is basic to the human experience, to say that the men in question have low morals realy oversimplifies the truth.

In cases such as those in Rwanda and DRC. Poverty is again the prime mover for HIV. In many refugee camps women depend on men for shelter. Many women are forced by circumstances to 'shack up" with men with questionable health simply to survive. As opposed to the infections in the US and Western Europe where infections occur in a largely voluntary, pleasure seeking manner.

just wanted to clear that up.

Exactly my view.

On top of this, only elders, and I believe those who have put in many years of work can get deep into the temple. All other mormons have to be content with the rooms set aside for them.

Those VIP rooms would be the harem rooms.

I said atheist but my religion is Bad Religion8)

roman catholic but not sure if i believe yet