Free condom distribution

Don't worry; it won't hurt a bit!

tmontyb wrote:

2xy wrote:Sex has long been recognized as a physiological need of human beings.

I do not believe for one second that offering free condoms makes people behave promiscuously.

Co-sign.

I was talking to my cousin about it yesterday and he said that he gets free condoms all of the time and hasn't had sex in months. I'm sure that applies to many people, so that theory of it promoting promiscuity really has no basis.

Anyway, if an individual is promiscuous, who am I to sit back and judge them especially if they are trying to be safe about it.

Thank you. I once attended a night club that was passing out gift baskets with condoms inside; about a year later, I look on my closet shelf and saw the those condoms, and they were now expired. So much for encouraging promiscuity. I forgot I had them, but if I had been in such a haste to have sex, I would have remembered.

Just cause something promotes something doesn't mean it will produce said result in all people, or even in most people. The very nature of the object is to encourage promiscuity.

But of course, the fact that people are admitting to not even using these free condoms just proves how useless the practice really is. So the point remains: Free condoms = pointless. If you want something, buy it.

The point of passing out free condoms is to give people a way to be safe while having sex.

And really, if you're being safe, I find nothing wrong with promiscuity.

FREE CONDOMS FOR EVERYONE !!! Even those sad self conscious ANNOYING socially repressed sexless wannabe Hannity types destined to be a 40 y/o virgin but have an opinion about everybody else's sex life. "" Be SURE to give them one so they can throw it in the trash knowing the chances of them being lucky enough to use it b4 the expir. date is slim to none.

free condoms!

^^^^^Name-calling. Ah, the signs of mature adults.

Rockbird wrote:The point of passing out free condoms is to give people a way to be safe while having sex.

And really, if you're being safe, I find nothing wrong with promiscuity.

A way to FEEL safe. Feelings are what it's all about afterall.

Then you'd find nothing wrong with saying that condoms promote promiscuity!

RobbieFTW wrote:FREE CONDOMS FOR EVERYONE !!! Even those sad self conscious ANNOYING socially repressed sexless wannabe Hannity types destined to be a 40 y/o virgin but have an opinion about everybody else's sex life. "" Be SURE to give them one so they can throw it in the trash knowing the chances of them being lucky enough to use it b4 the expir. date is slim to none.

free condoms!

Seems like you may be hinting about someone there, but I'm...not...quite...sure...who...

Forgiveness Man wrote:Don't worry; it won't hurt a bit!

2xy wrote:
How many priests have you spoken to about their sexual lives? Unless you have some sort of source with which to back your assertion, your assertion is meaningless.

I don't think that lifelong abstinence is healthy, in general, and seriously doubt that most priests aren't pleasuring themselves from time to time.

As for "nuff said," I agree. Once religion finds its way in to a discussion, the discussion is pretty much over.

Forgiveness Man wrote:^^^^^Name-calling. Ah, the signs of mature adults.

Rockbird wrote:The point of passing out free condoms is to give people a way to be safe while having sex.

And really, if you're being safe, I find nothing wrong with promiscuity.

A way to FEEL safe. Feelings are what it's all about afterall.

Then you'd find nothing wrong with saying that condoms promote promiscuity!

But I don't think they do. I think they help prevent it, if anything.

RobbieFTW wrote:FREE CONDOMS FOR EVERYONE !!! Even those sad self conscious ANNOYING socially repressed sexless wannabe Hannity types destined to be a 40 y/o virgin but have an opinion about everybody else's sex life. "" Be SURE to give them one so they can throw it in the trash knowing the chances of them being lucky enough to use it b4 the expir. date is slim to none.

free condoms!

I second FREE CONDOMS FOR EVERYONE !!!

Even though a condom is a terrible thing to waste, it's better to have & never use than to need & not have.

Forgiveness Man wrote:The entire thread is also meaningless. Who cares what the Pope says if you are not Catholic?

I care what the Pope says when he attempts to intrude upon aspects of life that affect all of society. If you don't want free condoms, fine; don't take any. Leave the rest of us alone.

As for how many priests I've spoken to, I've actually heard quite a few talk on the issue. Frankly I find it funny how people make all these assumptions about priests, ALSO, without talking to them.

Well your assertion about what priests do from time to time is also meaningless.

I made no assertions. I expressed doubts in the form of an opinion. I did not state them as fact.

If the church is so sexually healthy, I wonder why so many priests have felt the need to discuss their sexuality with you and/or their congregation.

Well, I guess I could say the same thing about anti-religious attitudes. Once secularism finds it's way into a discussion, it's already over.

Secularism is based on knowledge rather than belief. Belief doesn't hold any water in a discussion because belief isn't backed by evidence.

I do find it hard to believe that people get indignant about religion being talked about in a thread that begins with a mention of the pope. Even more proof that the entire discussion is worthless.

You are free to talk about religion all you want, and so can the Pope. And I am free to think it's bullshit and to say so. Isn't America great?

^^^^^The pope ain't doing anything to you. He ain't intruding. He ain't stopping you from taking free condoms. The only reason I can possibly think of for you to consider what he says to be intrusive is if you actually give some amount of credence to his words.

The priests haven't had to discuss their "sexuality." They merely dispel the petty stereotypes of the media. Priests as a whole are comfortable with the celibacy they've willfully embraced. People just can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that some people have more self control than they do. I guess weakness hates to acknowledge the existence of strength.

Secularism isn't based on knowledge either. It's based on feelings, "want," and emotional blackmail. It's about as empirical as Buddha.

You are free to think what you want. But if you feel the need to harp on bullshit, it makes your claims about it seem more like trying to convince yourself. People waste too much time worrying about what religious leaders of other faiths think. Unless they secretly believe that the pope has authority, they really got no reason to think twice about what he says. For a guy everybody thinks is wrong, he sure gets people listening to him.

Forgiveness Man wrote:^^^^^The pope ain't doing anything to you. He ain't intruding. He ain't stopping you from taking free condoms. The only reason I can possibly think of for you to consider what he says to be intrusive is if you actually give some amount of credence to his words.

The priests haven't had to discuss their "sexuality." They merely dispel the petty stereotypes of the media. Priests as a whole are comfortable with the celibacy they've willfully embraced. People just can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that some people have more self control than they do. I guess weakness hates to acknowledge the existence of strength.

Secularism isn't based on knowledge either. It's based on feelings, "want," and emotional blackmail. It's about as empirical as Buddha.

You are free to think what you want. But if you feel the need to harp on bullshit, it makes your claims about it seem more like trying to convince yourself. People waste too much time worrying about what religious leaders of other faiths think. Unless they secretly believe that the pope has authority, they really got no reason to think twice about what he says. For a guy everybody thinks is wrong, he sure gets people listening to him.

1) Seeing as a large number of people look to the Pope as an authority figure for their faith of choice, he does have authority. When large groups of people attempt to enact certain legislation, based on their religious beliefs that are reinforced by their figurehead, it does affect me and others. Of course we listen to him; you can't bury your head in the sand if you care at all about what's going on in the world.

2) I have no idea what you mean by "as empirical as Buddha."

3) I've noticed on other threads that you dig at people for name-calling, yet you insinuate negative things about other posters frequently. It's the same thing as name-calling, only sneakier and with less in the way of a spine. Personally, I don't see refraining from sex as a sign of strength....any more than I see refraining from eating or breathing as a sign of strength. I don't believe that engaging in sex makes me a weak person. If your god does not want us to enjoy sex, why did he make it pleasurable?

4)Four months ago, Pope Benedict retracted his statement regarding condoms.

I guess next a certain someone will argue that cars shouldn't have seat belts because they just encourage reckless driving and may not be 100% effective against injury in an accident.

@ 2xy & Cat

2xy, you joined a week ago, and I'm already in love with your posts.

CatEyes10736 wrote:I guess next a certain someone will argue that cars shouldn't have seat belts because they just encourage reckless driving and may not be 100% effective against injury in an accident.

^5 Cat!!!

Forgiveness Man wrote:Everything is screwed up (in part) because people are promiscuous. And they think condoms are going to save them from the folly of promiscuity. If they had the faith in God that they had in unreliable pieces of rubber, the world might not be so screwed up. lol

First of all, never use a sentence like "EVERYTHING is screwed up IN PART" because it is self contradictory. Secondly, I don't think that most people are promiscuous (and the most promiscuous people are more likely going to be the most irresponible ones who don't even use condoms). Your religious views notwithstanding, that is NOT a scientific argument. Most things in the world are not "screwed up" because people are promiscuous. I would even venture to say that way MORE things are screwed up BECAUSE of religion!

Forgiveness Man wrote:Very few Catholic priests have had a scandal, so yeah, most priests are content with celibacy. People just run with the extreme minority of cases and try to stereotype all priests with them. It's kinda pathetic actually.

Regardless of whether it is the minority or not, the fact is a significant number of sex scandals (all very similar) have stemmed from the Catholic church's position on sex/marriage as it pertains to preists. Either way, the church CAUSED it's own problem by creating such unrealistic, illogical (and I dare say non-biblical) "rules".

Forgiveness Man wrote:I say you are going to stop it by preaching it right(more than just "Don't do it."). I've seen it done well.

And what exactly is "preaching it right" according to YOU?

Forgiveness Man wrote:People have drives to do all kinds of things that aren't good for them. People are just stubborn and want their will to be paramount. I've never been one to be a slave to drives. People don't see anything to they do or want to do as wrong. We live in the world of "ME."

For one thing, sex isn't BAD for you, it's good for you when done responsibly. As far as the rest of your comment goes, I think you are making a gross generalization which suggests that any horny teenager that wants to have sex is doing someting wrong. It's wrong ONLY according to your own opinion, nothing more.

^^^^ You're not one for casual conversation I see!

That is actually not true. There is NO proof that the Church's rules (which are HARDLY unrealistic) caused priests to molest little boys. The logic behind that is just nonexistent. Plenty of married men molest children outside the church, moreso I'd say. The problem would likely be worse if priests could screw around. People wanna blame celibacy but they just aren't standing on solid ground in doing so.

I've said so many times! I don't like repeating myself.

Nobody is saying that sex ITSELF is BAD for you. (Although "bad" is too often measured in physical measurements) And I could also say it's ONLY right in their opinion. Maybe it is a generalization but one I think is true and people are just too prideful to admit IS true. (Even though they practically confess that very thing in their defense of their behavior) People wanna accuse people like me of living in a fantasy land but I think they're the ones in the fantasy land, a land where whatever they want to do, they can do and have it called "right," "good," and "healthy." That's one of the greatest delusions ever, IMO.

To both captainbryce and Forgivenessman: 2xy and Cat kind of won this thread.

Rockbird wrote:To both captainbryce and Forgivenessman: 2xy and Cat kind of won this thread.

The person you most agree with ALWAYS wins. You agree with them, hence you THINK they won. Nothing added to the conversation by announcing that you think they won.


If people want condoms, they should pay for them. Nuff said! If you ain't Catholic, I just gotta honestly say, STFU about the pope. He ain't any of your concern! It's kind of like hearing people whine about what TV shows they don't watch do ad nauseam, only worse.

CatEyes10736 wrote:I guess next a certain someone will argue that cars shouldn't have seat belts because they just encourage reckless driving and may not be 100% effective against injury in an accident.

That is an excellent analogy!

Forgiveness Man wrote:^^^^ You're not one for casual conversation I see!

As far as internet threads goes, this is largely true. What amazes me is that after all this time you've been conversing with me you are just now figuring this out.

Forgiveness Man wrote:That is actually not true. There is NO proof that the Church's rules (which are HARDLY unrealistic) caused priests to molest little boys.

Maybe not directly, but certainly it was influential in most of the cases. And that assessment just goes off of what we know about the psychology of sexual predators. I'm sure there are other factors that turned these particular priests into predators, but the fact that they are priests (which are unable to relieve their sexual frustrations in any other way) certainly influenced their behavior. There really is no doubt about that in my mind.

Forgiveness Man wrote:The logic behind that is just nonexistent.

Actually, there is PLENTY of "logic" behind it. And while it may only be a "theory", the theory does perfectly fit the facts. You choose not to see the logic and therefore choose not to recognize the association with a sexually abnormal psychology and the sexually abnormal rules of the church, but the relationship is there nonetheless. The position of the church with regards to sexuality is psychologically "abnormal" because it is not consistent with biology. Therefore in many cases they turn out to be "unrealistic" and result in devestating consequences (particularly for the priests which can be affected by those rules).

Forgiveness Man wrote:The problem would likely be worse if priests could screw around. People wanna blame celibacy but they just aren't standing on solid ground in doing so.

I don't think you are standing on solid ground by suggesting that distribution of condoms encourages promiscuity. So far you haven't even given one solid reason for why that would be the case. But putting that aside, would you care to explain exactly HOW the problem (sexual scandals) would be WORSE if the rules of celebacy were relaxed in the Catholic Church because I'm not following your logic here?

Forgiveness Man wrote:Nobody is saying that sex ITSELF is BAD for you. (Although "bad" is too often measured in physical measurements) And I could also say it's ONLY right in their opinion.

I know, but you strongly suggested it when you said this, QUOTE: "People have drives to do all kinds of things that aren't good for them." Then followed it up with this: "I've never been one to be a slave to drives." Since the central topic revolves around SEX (promiscuity/condoms/etc) one would naturally assume that this is what you were referencing.

Forgiveness Man wrote:Maybe it is a generalization but one I think is true and people are just too prideful to admit IS true. (Even though they practically confess that very thing in their defense of their behavior) People wanna accuse people like me of living in a fantasy land but I think they're the ones in the fantasy land, a land where whatever they want to do, they can do and have it called "right," "good," and "healthy." That's one of the greatest delusions ever, IMO.

In order for me to respond to this I'd have to know what you are specifically addressing (ie: examples), because I'm not sure where you are going with this now. If it's not about SEX, then what's it about?

CeCe wrote:

CatEyes10736 wrote:I guess next a certain someone will argue that cars shouldn't have seat belts because they just encourage reckless driving and may not be 100% effective against injury in an accident.

That is an excellent analogy!

Yeah, there is pretty much no good comeback for that one.