Posted on 02/03/2005 6:02:48 AM PST by Tax-chick
However, if "the one" has also waited, the risk should be greatly reduced, I would think.
Another reason for abstinence ping.
If people can control themselves from doing it in public whenever the urge overtakes them, they can also do it in private. We're not animals rutting in the barnyard, unable to control our instincts. This reckless behavior is bad for everyone.
It is perfectly realistic to expect people to wait until marriage. We did so in the many centuries leading up to the late 60's after all, and it worked great. Finding virgins to date has never been a problem for me, so I don't see why it would be a problem for others.
The best ones and the only ones really worth having. Of course my standards for my daughter are so high that I couldn't meet them when I was that age. But I didn't have the advantage of knowing Jesus Christ as my Savior back then. The young men whom my daughter will associate with will all be saved. (or bleeding to death on my front steps)
[ok so maybe I'm just slightly overportective]
I have a work acquaintance who is in his late fifties, a devote Catholic, and married with children and grandchildren. He has unprotected sexual liaisons with multiple younger women from work. I asked him if he had heard of AIDS. His answer shocked me. He said, “AIDS takes at least ten years to develop and I will be ready to die by then.” I said, “What about the women?” He said, “They will be gone by then.”
The younger women see him leaving his wife and family to marry them and take care of them comfortably for the rest of their lives. Without his money and status, these younger women would not give him a second glance.
He tells me that he doesn’t care for his wife of thirty-five years who is an ex-nun. He says he will never divorce her because they are Catholic and it is not possible. He thinks he has a lock on going to heaven because of his religion.
You are wrong. At no time in any culture have men ever been held up to the same standards of purity that women have. WOMEN were expected to be virgins till they were married. You must be a man to say what you are saying.
That's exactly what I'm talking about when I say getting married offers no protection against STDs for a young woman UNLESS both partners are faithful.
A man can be a christian and not be a virgin. He could be celibate and still give a girl HPV. That's why it's unrealistic to say get married and you won't ever have to worry about disease.
Sounds like he's simply a sicko, not to mention being totally ignorant of what he *claims* is his religion.
true
He could be celibate and still give a girl HPV.
Not if he's celibate until he gets married and remainsd faithful after that. CAn't catch an STD if you're not having sex
That's why it's unrealistic to say get married and you won't ever have to worry about disease.
It's very realistic if you insist on staying a chaste virgin until the wedding night and demand the same from your future spouse.
Wrong. In America since its founding, in ancient Israel, the early Christian church as well as in Europe under the Roman Catholic Church men were always expected to wait until they were married. I'd really like to see any evidence you can present to the contrary though.
Unfortunately, even well-intentioned men who were chaste until marriage aren't always faithful afterward, and no amount of "demanding" will eliminate the possibility of adultery.
Of course, many people are faithful, and are never exposed to STD's. But the only way to be *sure* you're not exposed is to be celibate for life ... and even then, there are still some freak non-sexual transmissions of HIV and Hepatitis-C.
Not if you are her 'the one' too.
People are not animals, no matter how many of them choose to behave that way.
Of course, the flip side is that you don't have to wait until you are forty years old to get married.
We do it today because we are so immature that the responsibility of marriage is not something we are prepared to handle until half our lives are gone. Yet we think we can cheat God by screwing around. HPV is just a reminder that God is not mocked.
You can't have it both ways. If your reality is promiscuity, then your reality include the strong possibility of an early death.
I am referring to society in general, NOT to the christian church.
Very unrealistic view of people... not everyone is a christian since the day they are born.
Christianity was a major social force from about 600 - 1950. Obviously the big societies before that, as well as the development of society afterward have certainly moved away from the idea of male chastity (and female, now).
Personally I couldn't care less if non-Christians want to have sex outside of marriage. It's the usurpation of parental authority to teach Christian morals to their children and the undermining of that authority that is irresponsible. Sexual education is not a matter for the government.
The doctor ia not discussing a "guarantee". He is discussing probability. You changed it to a guarantee and are now wrestling with an opponent you created.
I agree.
So you must be making some other argument. Indeed, the only possible point you might be making is that there are SOME people who will have sex in spite of the fear of death. Uh, ok.
Nobody on the thread has disputed that at all. I don't think you know what the subject of the article actually is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.