How does he get that Automobile manfucaturer, Saleen, to make a solution, anyway?
I will not try to read any of the posts, but first and foremost the church teaches abstinence outside of marriage. Except for unfortunate incidents, that is a good way to stay as far away as one can to developing AIDS.
Do you accept without question that condoms are permeable to the Human Immuno-defficiency Virus?
that's basically true, although misleading. i'll have to find the exact figures. the initial studies done were w/regards to latex gloves, not condoms.
hmm, mixed boat.
Quote:
They found that, in 10 trials per brand, brands ranked high on their airburst test did block HIV, whereas some of those ranked low on their airburst test did not block HIV.
This is ridiculous. The AMA says condoms help prevent AIDS. The Surgeon General says condoms help prevent AIDS. A bishop with an obvious agenda says condoms have no effect against the AIDS virus. Who do you believe?
And you want to see the research, otherwise you won't believe it?
I'm still looking for an official report. All I can find are links to news reports with no references back to the original source. I have a feeling this means the documents do not yet exist in english. I will probably send an email to the Pontifical Council for the family when I have a free moment. I'll let you know what I find.
These folks are criticized no matter what they say so you can bet they have plenty to back up their statement. An anti-Catholic news blurb is hardly scientific.
These folks are criticized no matter what they say so you can bet they have plenty to back up their statement. An anti-Catholic news blurb is hardly scientific.
I've asked you to post some scientific evidence to support your claim.
In the case where the doctor chops off the wrong set of genitalia and the child grows up to be gay, then its a tragedy proportionate to all other tragedy's that affect the core of one's lifestyle. But to then say its okay to treat sex as a mere means to pleasure is against His word.
Ok let me understand this, in the case of indeterminate genitalia you are conceding that the doctor could make the wrong decision about a human being's true sexuality, but nevertheless if the person decided to follow the direction of their true sexuality they would in fact be gay?
By this reasoning if you were kidnapped by a band of crazy doctors who gave you a sex change and then you escaped and returned to your wife, you would be commiting a sin by having sex with her? Is that correct?
Furthermore, is it a sin for an infertile married couple to have sex or a post-menopausal married woman? If you think so I believe your out of step with the catholic church.
These folks are criticized no matter what they say so you can bet they have plenty to back up their statement. An anti-Catholic news blurb is hardly scientific.
And you are hardly worth the effort given by our members to reason with you. If I am not mistaken, one of the replies in your formidable arsenal of logic includes what can be best described as... "I know you are, but what am I." You know, if you say that with a bit of Shakespearean flair, it even sounds kind of legitimate.
Bigotry and no. Those who wish to believe in fairy tales aren't the most logical breed. I'm not surprised that an illogical person such as yourself confuses correlation with causation.
Of course, you didn't respond on point to the rebuttal of your convenient little misuse of terms. Instead you called me a bigot and ignored it.
Ok let me understand this, in the case of indeterminate genitalia you are conceding that the doctor could make the wrong decision about a human being's true sexuality, but nevertheless if the person decided to follow the direction of their true sexuality they would in fact be gay?
By this reasoning if you were kidnapped by a band of crazy doctors who gave you a sex change and then you escaped and returned to your wife, you would be commiting a sin by having sex with her? Is that correct?
I see your point. This was another man's mistake. But there is nothing new about a victim suffering for the sins of another person.
Quote:
Furthermore, is it a sin for an infertile married couple to have sex or a post-menopausal married woman? If you think so I believe your out of step with the catholic church.
No. In this case it is God's will to not have children.
And you are hardly worth the effort given by our members to reason with you. If I am not mistaken, one of the replies in your formidable arsenal of logic includes what can be best described as... "I know you are, but what am I." You know, if you say that with a bit of Shakespearean flair, it even sounds kind of legitimate.
I don't believe I did that. But I am guilty of responding in kind with the response given to me. You treat me badly, I give you a taste of your own medicine. You can dish it but you can't take it, fine.
Bigotry and no. Those who wish to believe in fairy tales aren't the most logical breed. I'm not surprised that an illogical person such as yourself confuses correlation with causation.
Of course, you didn't respond on point to the rebuttal of your convenient little misuse of terms. Instead you called me a bigot and ignored it.
bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
There is nothing inherent about Catholicism that would cause someone to hate gays, yet you cast all Catholics as gay haters. There is nothing disprovable or illogical in Catholic doctrine, yet you take a news blurb at face value without any research. I have done virtually no research on the particular issue of "holes in condoms", but I have done extensive research on numerous other Catholic doctrines and I find them to be a credible source. If you find Catholicism illogical it is because you haven't taken the time to really understand the point of view.
As for the misues of terms - as I recall it was a symantec game. Ok, great. I misued a term. Or maybe I didn't. Who cares?
bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
There is nothing inherent about Catholicism that would cause someone to hate gays, yet you cast all Catholics as gay haters. There is nothing disprovable or illogical in Catholic doctrine, yet you take a news blurb at face value without any research. I have done virtually no research on the particular issue of "holes in condoms", but I have done extensive research on numerous other Catholic doctrines and I find them to be a credible source. If you find Catholicism illogical it is because you haven't taken the time to really understand the point of view.
As for the misues of terms - as I recall it was a symantec game. Ok, great. I misued a term. Or maybe I didn't. Who cares?
I see your point. This was another man's mistake. But there is nothing new about a victim suffering for the sins of another person.
You lost me a bit here? Are you answering yes, it is a sin to have sex in either of the examples I mentioned (someone with indeterminate genitalia being "corrected" to the "wrong" sex or you after being forced to have a sex change operation)? It sounds like your saying yes it's still a sin even though someone else imposed this on them/you.
Quote:
No. In this case it is God's will to not have children.
Clearly most birth defects fall under "God's will" so the indeterminate genitalia qualify. If you concede it's ok for an infertile couple to have sex then why is it not ok for those with indeterminate genetalia?
There is nothing disprovable or illogical in Catholic doctrine,
Like the earth being the center of the universe? They nearly burned a guy, forced him to backtrack on a perfectly valid claim - but I guess that was not doctrine, because most likely no papal correspondence on the matter will ever surface.
It's so easy with you religious types: everything not disproven is true. If it is disproven, it was not doctrine, but a mere mortal who made an error. This way, it is completely impossible to prove you wrong.
Someone kills a gay? Hey, it's in the bible. State says killing gays is no longer a thing they'll let you get away with? No problem, it was in the old testament, we have version 2.0 now. State gives gays the right to marry? Church still cries foul murder (happened over here in Germany - good thing we have a leftist government that did not falter). Of course the sneaky bastards will not let gays live their life and admit they have been murderously wrong for a couple of centuries, oh no. Still trying to block the road to progress by every means they have.
No. In this case it is God's will to not have children. [/B]
It's His will to blight my existence and my marriage? As I don't believe in Him but until now was polite to his followers , may i say **** you. You sir, are a git.
Comments
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
to a saleen solution
he he
How does he get that Automobile manfucaturer, Saleen, to make a solution, anyway?
I will not try to read any of the posts, but first and foremost the church teaches abstinence outside of marriage. Except for unfortunate incidents, that is a good way to stay as far away as one can to developing AIDS.
Do you accept without question that condoms are permeable to the Human Immuno-defficiency Virus?
that's basically true, although misleading. i'll have to find the exact figures. the initial studies done were w/regards to latex gloves, not condoms.
hmm, mixed boat.
They found that, in 10 trials per brand, brands ranked high on their airburst test did block HIV, whereas some of those ranked low on their airburst test did not block HIV.
Originally posted by tonton
This is ridiculous. The AMA says condoms help prevent AIDS. The Surgeon General says condoms help prevent AIDS. A bishop with an obvious agenda says condoms have no effect against the AIDS virus. Who do you believe?
And you want to see the research, otherwise you won't believe it?
This is stupidity at its most incredible level.
I'm starting to think you are trolling.
After his last post, I'm sure of it.
Originally posted by murbot
After his last post, I'm sure of it.
These folks are criticized no matter what they say so you can bet they have plenty to back up their statement. An anti-Catholic news blurb is hardly scientific.
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
He deserved it and ya'll know it.
Again, I hope your children are all gay.
But to then say its okay to treat sex as a mere means to pleasure is against His word. [/B]
Who's talking about treating sex as a mere means to pleasure? Sex is the ultimate expression of intimacy and love.
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
Especially when you want to be a sexual deviant.
There's nothing inherently immoral about deviating from the statistical norm. Just ask left handed people.
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
These folks are criticized no matter what they say so you can bet they have plenty to back up their statement. An anti-Catholic news blurb is hardly scientific.
I've asked you to post some scientific evidence to support your claim.
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
In the case where the doctor chops off the wrong set of genitalia and the child grows up to be gay, then its a tragedy proportionate to all other tragedy's that affect the core of one's lifestyle. But to then say its okay to treat sex as a mere means to pleasure is against His word.
Ok let me understand this, in the case of indeterminate genitalia you are conceding that the doctor could make the wrong decision about a human being's true sexuality, but nevertheless if the person decided to follow the direction of their true sexuality they would in fact be gay?
By this reasoning if you were kidnapped by a band of crazy doctors who gave you a sex change and then you escaped and returned to your wife, you would be commiting a sin by having sex with her? Is that correct?
Furthermore, is it a sin for an infertile married couple to have sex or a post-menopausal married woman? If you think so I believe your out of step with the catholic church.
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
These folks are criticized no matter what they say so you can bet they have plenty to back up their statement. An anti-Catholic news blurb is hardly scientific.
And you are hardly worth the effort given by our members to reason with you. If I am not mistaken, one of the replies in your formidable arsenal of logic includes what can be best described as... "I know you are, but what am I." You know, if you say that with a bit of Shakespearean flair, it even sounds kind of legitimate.
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
Your biggotry is nothing short of astounding.
Bigotry and no. Those who wish to believe in fairy tales aren't the most logical breed. I'm not surprised that an illogical person such as yourself confuses correlation with causation.
Of course, you didn't respond on point to the rebuttal of your convenient little misuse of terms. Instead you called me a bigot and ignored it.
Originally posted by bunge
I've asked you to post some scientific evidence to support your claim.
You are the one making the startling claim that someone falsified their research. The onus is on you to prove that claim, not me.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Ok let me understand this, in the case of indeterminate genitalia you are conceding that the doctor could make the wrong decision about a human being's true sexuality, but nevertheless if the person decided to follow the direction of their true sexuality they would in fact be gay?
By this reasoning if you were kidnapped by a band of crazy doctors who gave you a sex change and then you escaped and returned to your wife, you would be commiting a sin by having sex with her? Is that correct?
I see your point. This was another man's mistake. But there is nothing new about a victim suffering for the sins of another person.
Furthermore, is it a sin for an infertile married couple to have sex or a post-menopausal married woman? If you think so I believe your out of step with the catholic church.
No. In this case it is God's will to not have children.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
And you are hardly worth the effort given by our members to reason with you. If I am not mistaken, one of the replies in your formidable arsenal of logic includes what can be best described as... "I know you are, but what am I." You know, if you say that with a bit of Shakespearean flair, it even sounds kind of legitimate.
I don't believe I did that. But I am guilty of responding in kind with the response given to me. You treat me badly, I give you a taste of your own medicine. You can dish it but you can't take it, fine.
Originally posted by BR
Bigotry and no. Those who wish to believe in fairy tales aren't the most logical breed. I'm not surprised that an illogical person such as yourself confuses correlation with causation.
Of course, you didn't respond on point to the rebuttal of your convenient little misuse of terms. Instead you called me a bigot and ignored it.
bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
There is nothing inherent about Catholicism that would cause someone to hate gays, yet you cast all Catholics as gay haters. There is nothing disprovable or illogical in Catholic doctrine, yet you take a news blurb at face value without any research. I have done virtually no research on the particular issue of "holes in condoms", but I have done extensive research on numerous other Catholic doctrines and I find them to be a credible source. If you find Catholicism illogical it is because you haven't taken the time to really understand the point of view.
As for the misues of terms - as I recall it was a symantec game. Ok, great. I misued a term. Or maybe I didn't. Who cares?
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
There is nothing inherent about Catholicism that would cause someone to hate gays, yet you cast all Catholics as gay haters. There is nothing disprovable or illogical in Catholic doctrine, yet you take a news blurb at face value without any research. I have done virtually no research on the particular issue of "holes in condoms", but I have done extensive research on numerous other Catholic doctrines and I find them to be a credible source. If you find Catholicism illogical it is because you haven't taken the time to really understand the point of view.
As for the misues of terms - as I recall it was a symantec game. Ok, great. I misued a term. Or maybe I didn't. Who cares?
semantic
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
I see your point. This was another man's mistake. But there is nothing new about a victim suffering for the sins of another person.
You lost me a bit here? Are you answering yes, it is a sin to have sex in either of the examples I mentioned (someone with indeterminate genitalia being "corrected" to the "wrong" sex or you after being forced to have a sex change operation)? It sounds like your saying yes it's still a sin even though someone else imposed this on them/you.
No. In this case it is God's will to not have children.
Clearly most birth defects fall under "God's will" so the indeterminate genitalia qualify. If you concede it's ok for an infertile couple to have sex then why is it not ok for those with indeterminate genetalia?
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
I see your point. This was another man's mistake. But there is nothing new about a victim suffering for the sins of another person.
No. In this case it is God's will to not have children.
Eight die in church bus crash in Louisiana
I guess it was god's will that several kids had seen enough of their grandparents.
"It was god's will, Johnny."
"What do you mean?"
"Well, god decided it was time to kill Grandma and Grandpa. You'll see them in 50 years though, as long as you don't use condoms."
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
There is nothing disprovable or illogical in Catholic doctrine,
Like the earth being the center of the universe? They nearly burned a guy, forced him to backtrack on a perfectly valid claim - but I guess that was not doctrine, because most likely no papal correspondence on the matter will ever surface.
It's so easy with you religious types: everything not disproven is true. If it is disproven, it was not doctrine, but a mere mortal who made an error. This way, it is completely impossible to prove you wrong.
Someone kills a gay? Hey, it's in the bible. State says killing gays is no longer a thing they'll let you get away with? No problem, it was in the old testament, we have version 2.0 now. State gives gays the right to marry? Church still cries foul murder (happened over here in Germany - good thing we have a leftist government that did not falter). Of course the sneaky bastards will not let gays live their life and admit they have been murderously wrong for a couple of centuries, oh no. Still trying to block the road to progress by every means they have.
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
No. In this case it is God's will to not have children. [/B]
It's His will to blight my existence and my marriage? As I don't believe in Him but until now was polite to his followers , may i say **** you. You sir, are a git.