Should condoms be handed out

Komori · Aug 17, 2019

Polymath257 said:
But for the vast majority, to be a healthy romantic relationship does, in fact, require the type of intimacy that sex brings about. And it is the specialness of the romantic relationship that does, in fact, introduce that need for most people.

You haven't proven anything these are just empty statements.

ADigitalArtist said:
Social species can and often do have sex even where procreation is impossible, showing that sex has use beyond reproductivity.

This is a non-sequitur. Just because something is sometimes not used for its intended purposes does not mean those other purposes fall under the intended purposes. Invoking animal behaviour as a justification is also a hilariously bad argument.

ADigitalArtist said:
Suggesting the healthy thing to do isn't to keep at this tired old, outdated mode of restriction and accept it isn't working, then switch to something working better.

You don't just get rid of the rules because people refuse to follow them. That's not how any stable society was created.

ADigitalArtist said:
-Healthy does, in fact, = good

You've provided literally no justification for this belief.

ADigitalArtist said:
If there is a God, which I highly doubt, I would hope that it would appreciate the use of the brain it built, rather than blind subservience.

That argument's not gonna work when you meet your Lord. No amount of mental gymnastics can logically justify disobeying the moral commands of a perfect being.

Polymath257 said:
I'd say that in past ages, people had an unhealthy attitude towards sex as being immoral.

There was no such attitude. It's fornication that they believed to be immoral, and rightfully so. This is so basic that you're clearly just being intellectually dishonest.

Polymath257 said:
A much more important aspect is the bonding it creates between people.

Without people, there is no possibility for that. That's obviously not the more important purpose.

Polymath257 said:
Health is *a* good.

Obviously, but my point was that it does not logically follow that something is good simply because it is healthy.

Polymath257 said:
But all morality is based on compassion and a sense of fairness.

Morality is based on right and wrong, which you can't objectively define. You're just assuming compassion and fairness are moral goods, as well as the baseless assumption that something can only be moral/immoral if it affects others.

Polymath257 said:
If God declares that something healthy and providing happiness is immoral, then that, to me, shows the immorality of God. That is because, ultimately, what God wants and what is moral may not be the same thing.

And you've come to this ridiculous conclusion because you have a preconceived, baseless assumption that health and happiness are inherent goods.

ADigitalArtist · Aug 17, 2019

Komori said:
This is a non-sequitur. Just because something is sometimes not used for its intended purposes does not mean those other purposes fall under the intended purposes. Invoking animal behaviour as a justification is also a hilariously bad argument.

Neverminding that calling it 'purpose' is a misnomer when I have no good reason to believe in design, purpose is defined by the user, not the creator. If I have a straw next to a inkwell and paper, someone may ask me the straw's purpose, because they are not familiar with the use, and I would explain that its purpose is for blowing ink across the page for ink blown art.
And anyway there isn't a biologist worth their salt who will say 'kissing is against the tongue's purpose' or 'having sex when you're infertile is against the purpose of sexual organs.' That is purely your supposition.

Komori said:
You don't just get rid of the rules because people refuse to follow them. That's not how any stable society was created.

You don't keep around rules when the affect is having more negative effect than not having them. Re: prohibition.

Komori said:
You've provided literally no justification for this belief.

Neither have you for yours, yet here we are.

Komori said:
That argument's not gonna work when you meet your Lord. No amount of mental gymnastics can logically justify disobeying the moral commands of a perfect being.

I don't believe the god of the bible exists, is perfect, or is moral, or that the bible is an authentic inspired document of such a being.
Making appeals to Abrahamic truisms to me as an authority for life and living make about as much sense as appealing to Santa Clause.

But when I meet Odin I'll let him know you also believed he was fictitious and not worthy of following.

Saint Frankenstein · Aug 17, 2019

Komori said:
That argument's not gonna work when you meet your Lord. No amount of mental gymnastics can logically justify disobeying the moral commands of a perfect being.

Childish threat-based arguments about non-existent scenarios don't work on nonbelievers.

Saint Frankenstein · Aug 17, 2019

ADigitalArtist said:
But when I meet Odin I'll let him know you also believed he was fictitious and not worthy of following.

The difference is that Odin isn't a petty child with an ego problem who demands that a species of apes on a little dirtball in the boondocks of one galaxy out of billions bend the knee or be punished.

Mudramoksha · Aug 17, 2019

My only word on the matter is that sex obsession is not healthy yet so many people seem to think that it is a good thing. Sex serves a role, relationships and marriages should be based around more valuable things.
This is not even a religious opinion, it's basic nature. However, the karmic debt of placing such importance on sex never does render positive results, nor positive social ethics.

Saint Frankenstein · Aug 17, 2019

Mudramoksha said:
My only word on the matter is that sex obsession is not healthy yet so many people seem to think that it is a good thing. Sex serves a role, relationships and marriages should be based around more valuable things.
This is not even a religious opinion, it's basic nature. However, the karmic debt of placing such importance on sex never does render positive results, nor positive social ethics.

No one said "sex obsession" is healthy. We're not encouraging impulsive behaviors or dependency on anything. But sex is very important to having a happy healthy relationship and life to most people. Sexuality is very important to most people, what with it being one of our most basic drives and instincts (along with eating and drinking, it's one of the most basic pleasures we have) and I don't understand these so-called religions that devalue, shame and repress it. They sound like the products of lunatics who have no clue about things.

Mudramoksha · Aug 17, 2019

Saint Frankenstein said:
But sex is very important to having a happy healthy relationship and life to most people. Sexuality is very important to most people and I don't understand these so-called religions that shame it and repress it.

Ok, lets move on to your opening statement:

Saint Frankenstein said:
No one said "sex obsession" is healthy.

Well, you just did above, not only that but you blame the calling out of sex obsession on religion rather than your own pathology. This is exactly what we should expect in a world flooded over with porn culture.

Saint Frankenstein · Aug 17, 2019

Mudramoksha said:
Ok, lets move on to your opening statement:

Well, you just did above, not only that but you blame the calling out of sex obsession on religion rather than your own pathology. This is exactly what we should expect in a world flooded over with porn culture.

Except that no one is talking about an obsession. You're misrepresenting what people are saying and putting words in our mouths, and insulting me by claiming I have some "pathology" just because I don't hate sexuality. Porn is not popular all over the world, or even legal everywhere so no idea what this scary global "porn culture" you're referring to is. Sorry, but some of us don't like living in repression and shame. Been there, done that, healed (and am still healing) and moved on.

Mudramoksha · Aug 17, 2019

Saint Frankenstein said:
Except that no one is talking about an obsession.

Correct, they're giving examples of it.

Saint Frankenstein said:
and insulting me by claiming I have some "pathology" just because I don't hate sexuality.

I never mentioned loving or hating sexuality, now you're putting words in my mouth.

Saint Frankenstein said:
so no idea what this scary global "porn culture" you're referring to is.

It's rather more than self evident, you must live out in the amazon jungle if you haven't seen it all around you by this point.

Saint Frankenstein said:
Sorry, but some of us don't like living in repression and shame.

Even if you were arguing with a Christian this comment would still be a non-sequitur. An appeal to emotion of emotion over rationality? yes, that is what you are doing here.

The extent you go to defend sex obsession is amazing. Like a pot smoker, lmao. Study psychology, then learn to train your mind to value more useful things. Life is short enough as it is, sex is very insignificant (aside from procreation). The fact that so many of you people are obsessed so much with it is telling.

Saint Frankenstein · Aug 17, 2019

Mudramoksha said:
Correct, they're giving examples of it.

I never mentioned loving or hating sexuality, now you're putting words in my mouth.

It's rather more than self evident, you must live out in the amazon jungle if you haven't seen it all around you by this point.

Even if you were arguing with a Christian this comment would still be a non-sequitur. An appeal to emotion of emotion over rationality? yes, that is what you are doing here.

The extent you go to defend sex obsession is amazing. Like a pot smoker, lmao.

Again, you're misrepresenting what people are saying. No one is supporting any sort of obsession and if you claim it again, I'll report you for purposely lying about people's posts.

If you can't present an example of this "porn culture", it probably doesn't exist. There's nothing wrong with using marijuana, either, and medical science is is learning more and more about its benefits all the time.

What else are you against that are not harmful or are part of being human?

Saint Frankenstein · Aug 17, 2019

@Mudramoksha

Nothing I said was funny and using the "laugh" reaction to troll is actually against the rules. But thanks for increasing my number of "likes". It moves me up in the poster ranks.

Subduction Zone · Aug 17, 2019

Saint Frankenstein said:
Except that no one is talking about an obsession. You're misrepresenting what people are saying and putting words in our mouths, and insulting me by claiming I have some "pathology" just because I don't hate sexuality. Porn is not popular all over the world, or even legal everywhere so no idea what this scary global "porn culture" you're referring to is. Sorry, but some of us don't like living in repression and shame. Been there, done that, healed (and am still healing) and moved on.

Apparently somee Christians are not the only ones with a strange anti-sex belief system.

Saint Frankenstein · Aug 17, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
Apparently somee Christians are not the only ones with a strange anti-sex belief system.

I've noticed. If he's South Asian, it's probably due to the British dumping their sexually repressive views in their colonies because those cultures weren't as uptight before then.

Mudramoksha · Aug 17, 2019

Saint Frankenstein said:
If he's South Asian

Tells a lot about you that you're so willing to guess my ethnicity, which was a very far-off assumption by the way.

Saint Frankenstein said:
What else are you against that are not harmful or are part of being human?

Non-sequitur.

Saint Frankenstein said:
Nothing I said was funny

Well I thank you for informing me of your opinions but the rating buttons are subjective aren't they?

Dan From Smithville · Aug 17, 2019

Messianic Israelite said:
The Bible teaches against illicit sex, but nowadays sex education in schools makes no distinction between sex within and without marriage. I understand that the reasoning behind handing out condoms is the argument that young people are going to have sex anyway outside of marriage, so why not ensure they are having sex "safely", but is that necessarily true. Is it true that young people would have sex anyway. I'm certain that this isn't the case for all young people, even though in this generation sex outside wedlock is commonplace. The Messiah constantly referred to his generation as an 'evil and adulterous generation' (Mark 8:38) but today people are committing adultery to the point that it isn't even considered to be sin anymore.

Yesterday, a news article came out which stated that a new scheme in Brighton is being initiated to hand out free condoms to under 25 year olds. The C-Card scheme - as it is known - which was launched last month is designed to encourage young people to become 'clued up on safer sex'. All you need is a C-card and you can pick up free condoms, lube and femidoms.

Some would argue, myself included, that handing out condoms for free is encouraging people to break the commandments, especially to have sex outside of marriage. Historically, the term coined used to describe people who were cohabitating and having sex not within the confines of marriage is 'living in sin' and this is true.

What are your thoughts about handing out condoms?

It depends on what you have in mind.

I support it. If they are going to have sex, then it should be safe and unproductive. At least until they choose to make it productive. But always safe.

For non-Judeo-Christians, there are no commandments to break. So the commandments would not be a barrier to them.

If you do not want to have sex outside of marriage or cohabitate with a sex partner, then don't.

Polymath257 · Aug 18, 2019

Komori said:
You haven't proven anything these are just empty statements.

Look around you.

You don't just get rid of the rules because people refuse to follow them. That's not how any stable society was created.

We don't get rid of rules simply because people don't follow them. We get rid of rules because they cause more harm than good. And that is certainly the case when it comes to religious prohibitions concerning sex.

You've provided literally no justification for this belief.

And what justifications have you given for yours?

That argument's not gonna work when you meet your Lord. No amount of mental gymnastics can logically justify disobeying the moral commands of a perfect being.

Once again, this argument only works for those believing in some particular interpretation of some particular religions. I don't believe there *is* a 'Lord' to meet, so veiled threats are not scary to me.

There was no such attitude. It's fornication that they believed to be immoral, and rightfully so. This is so basic that you're clearly just being intellectually dishonest.

No, they were wrong in this.

Without people, there is no possibility for that. That's obviously not the more important purpose.

So what? If someone chooses not to have children, then the secondary purposes become the primary ones.

And, again, the 'purpose' is defined by the person doing the act, not by society or some imagined deity.

Obviously, but my point was that it does not logically follow that something is good simply because it is healthy.

Morality is based on right and wrong, which you can't objectively define. You're just assuming compassion and fairness are moral goods, as well as the baseless assumption that something can only be moral/immoral if it affects others.

Yes, compassion and fairness are moral values. In fact, they are the most fundamental moral values.

And yes, something can be moral or immoral only if it affects others. If I am alone on an island with nobody else around, then there is no morality for me.

And you've come to this ridiculous conclusion because you have a preconceived, baseless assumption that health and happiness are inherent goods.

No, I have come to that sensible conclusion because I believe that health and happiness are inherent goods. Any religion or belief system that goes against those is immoral. And belief system that doesn't have compassion and fairness at its core is ultimately evil. That is how I see it and it picks out the evil societies and evil belief systems reliably.

Polymath257 · Aug 18, 2019

Mudramoksha said:
Saint Frankenstein said: ↑
But sex is very important to having a happy healthy relationship and life to most people. Sexuality is very important to most people and I don't understand these so-called religions that shame it and repress it.

Click to expand...

Ok, lets move on to your opening statement:

No one said "sex obsession" is healthy.

Click to expand...

Well, you just did above, not only that but you blame the calling out of sex obsession on religion rather than your own pathology. This is exactly what we should expect in a world flooded over with porn culture.

There is a HUGE difference between saying something is important to a happy, healthy relationship and being 'obsessed' with it. That you fail to see this is, perhaps, part of your religion's strange obsession with sexuality.

Saint Frankenstein · Aug 18, 2019

Mudramoksha said:
Tells a lot about you that you're so willing to guess my ethnicity, which was a very far-off assumption by the way.

Non-sequitur.

Well I thank you for informing me of your opinions but the rating buttons are subjective aren't they?

Well, I don't know where you're from and I don't care. I just notice you're Buddhist and I know the British introduced their sexual repression into the cultures they colonized, such as spreading homophobia by having anti-gay laws. If you're not, it doesn't really matter. You still have very strange views.

Abuse of the "Funny" Rating

Komori · Aug 18, 2019

ADigitalArtist said:
there isn't a biologist worth their salt who will say 'kissing is against the tongue's purpose' or 'having sex when you're infertile is against the purpose of sexual organs.'

The job of biologists isn't to make value judgments.

ADigitalArtist said:
You don't keep around rules when the affect is having more negative effect than not having them. Re: prohibition.

Polymath257 said:
We get rid of rules because they cause more harm than good.

Yeah, if you're fine with compromising on your morals. I'm not.

ADigitalArtist said:
I don't believe the god of the bible exists, is perfect, or is moral

The only reason you believe that is because the text hurts your feelings, not because you have any objective basis for making moral judgments.

Polymath257 said:
If I am alone on an island with nobody else around, then there is no morality for me.

Why? Atheists never give a reason why they believe this. According to this "everything's fine as long as it doesn't hurt anyone" reasoning, there's nothing wrong with necrophilia. Do you believe a person only has moral responsibility towards others, and no responsibility towards themselves? Then self-harm and suicide is fine if no one else gets sad because of it.

Polymath257 said:
I have come to that sensible conclusion because I believe that health and happiness are inherent goods.

And you believe this because ..?

ChristineM · Aug 18, 2019

This weekend is the village fete starting friday, ending monday. The culmination is Sunday with a big parade, and a concert. The parade has just ended (for now, it will return around 9 depending on how drunk participants get)

One of the floats entitled "le plastique est fantastique" was promoting safe sex and handing out condoms.

Should condoms be handed out

Member

Veteran Member

Wanderer From Afar

Wanderer From Afar

Member

Wanderer From Afar

Member

Wanderer From Afar

Member

Wanderer From Afar

Wanderer From Afar

Veteran Member

Wanderer From Afar

Member

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Think & Care

Think & Care

Wanderer From Afar

Member

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.