Condoms NOT the Answer...

[PrincessErin]

.....

 

[amicus]

keyword search: catholic priests hiv aids...

Hundreds of Roman Catholic priests across the United States have died of AIDS-related illnesses, and hundreds more are living with HIV, the virus that causes the disease.

The actual number of AIDS deaths is difficult to determine. But it appears priests are dying of AIDS at a rate at least four times that of the general U.S. population, according to estimates from medical experts and priests and an analysis of health statistics by The Kansas City Star.

~~~

So perhaps the call for abstinence among the clergy is not so far off the mark?

What does same sex marriage have to do with anything?

Amicus...

 

[PrincessErin]

.....

 

[Guest]

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/features/?id=31048

one cannot deny the substantial increase in sexually transmitted diseases and out of wedlock births in the United States at least, and many attribute that to the more, 'liberal' attitude towards promiscuity, infidelity and same sex encounters.

And many attribute it to the fact that we're coming off eight years of Bush-funded "abstinence-only" sex "education" in the schools. Don't know if you missed it, but the verdict is in on abstinence-only programs and the jury voted to convict. Abstinence-only programs don't work:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=6981558&page=1

"Experts place the blame on federal programs that teach abstinence alone, in lieu of a variety of birth control options. That's created a backlash in many states, half of which no longer accept federal money because they do not want to be restricted to abstinence-only education."

So, is the rise in teen births coincidence? I highly doubt it. In fact, if you look at the teen birth statistics from 1991-2006, you'll see that teen birth rates rose for the first time in 2006. The CDC has some interesting figures to share.

 

[amicus]

Y'know...I thought about saying that parents might have some input to your advocating teaching basically, 'recreational sex', in the school system, beginning in the very early years, but...with four out of ten children being born to unwed mothers, there are no, 'parents', anymore now, are there?

Raised by schools, day care facilities and baby-sitters, it is no wonder these young adults turn to each other for companionship and comfort, they sure as hell do not get it at home.

Fifty years of experimenting with gender identity, family structure and the role of government in society and produced a rather nasty mix of ingredients, wouldn't you say?

Whatever moral and ethical standards you envision to have replaced the conventional and traditional ones, if you can even define them, seem sadly lacking in educating new human beings on how to live their lives as they mature and become adults.

Happy now?

Amicus...

 

[Pure]

ami blather

ami //your advocating teaching basically, 'recreational sex', in the school system, beginning in the very early years, //

ami has no concept of evidence or its relevance.

please cite some school districts teaching 'recreational sex'. give sources.

with four out of ten children being born to unwed mothers,

the US has one of the worst rates in Western nations. ways to decrease teenage pregnancy are known and proven. education; measures to retain kids in high school, access to birth control information.

 

[Pure]

portia di rossi apologizes for her gay marriage

to cheer up ami:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsvRXXSEgXs

 

[Safe_Bet]

to cheer up ami:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsvRXXSEgXs

Too cool! But I think what Ami REALLY wants to see is:

Why Gay Marriage is WRONG!

 

[Guest]

Y'know...I thought about saying that parents might have some input to your advocating teaching basically, 'recreational sex', in the school system, beginning in the very early years, but...with four out of ten children being born to unwed mothers, there are no, 'parents', anymore now, are there?

Raised by schools, day care facilities and baby-sitters, it is no wonder these young adults turn to each other for companionship and comfort, they sure as hell do not get it at home.

Fifty years of experimenting with gender identity, family structure and the role of government in society and produced a rather nasty mix of ingredients, wouldn't you say?

Whatever moral and ethical standards you envision to have replaced the conventional and traditional ones, if you can even define them, seem sadly lacking in educating new human beings on how to live their lives as they mature and become adults.

Happy now?

Amicus...

Youd DO know that the highest recorded U.S. teen birth rate occurred in 1957, don't you?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Youd DO know that the highest recorded U.S. teen birth rate occurred in 1957, don't you?

I have read this before, and I have always asked the same question: Do those births include married 18 and 19 year old women or do they include only unmarried teenagers? If it's the former, it's a big so what. If it's the latter, I don't believe it without proof, such as statistics from the census bureau.

 

[Guest]

I have read this before, and I have always asked the same question: Do those births include married 18 and 19 year old women or do they include only unmarried teenagers? If it's the former, it's a big so what. If it's the latter, I don't believe it without proof, such as statistics from the census bureau.

OK... here. From 2000: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_10.pdf

Most teenage births are to unmarried women
The overall teenage birth rate has fallen steadily since 1991, and the birth rate for unmarried teenagers has declined since 1994 (table 1). Nevertheless, the proportion of births to teenagers that are to unmarried teenagers has continued to increase, essentially without interruption, rising from 13.9 percent in 1957 to 78.7 percent in 1999 and 2000 (figure 1). These proportions have risen for both younger and older teenagers (12). The steady upward climb in the percent unmarried reflects the fact that very few teenagers are marrying and the birth rate for married teenagers has dropped (table 1). In fact, major changes in marriage and in marital and nonmarital childbearing occurred in the last half of the twentieth century and these changes are not unique to teenagers. Thus, while the proportion of teenage births that are to unmarried women continues to rise, teenagers do not account for the majority of all births to unmarried women (table B). In 2000, 72 percent were to women aged 20 years and over compared with about half in the mid-1970s (1,12). [Emphases added]

Those 1957 numbers include 18 and 19 year-olds who didn't want to get married but "had to" because it was the done thing. You won't find that in the vital statistics reports. Remember, the stigma of "illegitimate" pregancy was HUGE and families didn't move that much in 1957. Abortions were illegal kitchen table/back room affairs that put the life of the mother at risk of infection, sterilization, and death. Oh, and let's not forget imprisonment.

What the data show is that in 1957, teens ages 15-19--whether unmarried, involuntarily married, or happily married--were having sex and producing babies at the highest rate ever recorded. However, an apples-to-apples comparison with the current rate of births to unmarried women isn't going to happen because there's no way to tell how many of those 1957 marriages were involuntary.

The report has lots of interesting info.

 

[PrincessErin]

.....

 

[amicus]

Difficult sometime to relate generational differences, but in the 1950's, if a girl was not married in her teen years, there was something wrong with her and she probably was sent off to become a school teacher or a librarian.

Let that soak in; take two amicus and call me in the morning.



ami

 

[Boxlicker101]

OK... here. From 2000: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_10.pdf

Most teenage births are to unmarried women
The overall teenage birth rate has fallen steadily since 1991, and the birth rate for unmarried teenagers has declined since 1994 (table 1). Nevertheless, the proportion of births to teenagers that are to unmarried teenagers has continued to increase, essentially without interruption, rising from 13.9 percent in 1957 to 78.7 percent in 1999 and 2000 (figure 1). These proportions have risen for both younger and older teenagers (12). The steady upward climb in the percent unmarried reflects the fact that very few teenagers are marrying and the birth rate for married teenagers has dropped (table 1). In fact, major changes in marriage and in marital and nonmarital childbearing occurred in the last half of the twentieth century and these changes are not unique to teenagers. Thus, while the proportion of teenage births that are to unmarried women continues to rise, teenagers do not account for the majority of all births to unmarried women (table B). In 2000, 72 percent were to women aged 20 years and over compared with about half in the mid-1970s (1,12). [Emphases added]

Those 1957 numbers include 18 and 19 year-olds who didn't want to get married but "had to" because it was the done thing. You won't find that in the vital statistics reports. Remember, the stigma of "illegitimate" pregancy was HUGE and families didn't move that much in 1957. Abortions were illegal kitchen table/back room affairs that put the life of the mother at risk of infection, sterilization, and death. Oh, and let's not forget imprisonment.

What the data show is that in 1957, teens ages 15-19--whether unmarried, involuntarily married, or happily married--were having sex and producing babies at the highest rate ever recorded. However, an apples-to-apples comparison with the current rate of births to unmarried women isn't going to happen because there's no way to tell how many of those 1957 marriages were involuntary.

The report has lots of interesting info.

I am well aware of the situation in 1957. I turned 18 years old that year, and I lived in a small town in Wisconsin. What I am saying is that only a small percentage of the births to teenagers were to unmarried teenagers, while that percentage is much higher now. For one thing, it was quite common for a 17 or 18 year old woman to get married right after finishing high school.

Even in 1957, nobody "had to" get married. There was a great deal of pressure on expectant parents to marry, but they couldn't be forced. I don't know how many got maried because of the pressure and how many would have gotten married anyhow, but maybe not so soon.

I do know it was quite easy to learn whether or not a bride was pregnant, and some people with nothing better to do learned it. Count the time from the wedding date to the birth of the first child. If it was eight months or less, it was a shotgun wedding. Otherwise it wasn't. I say eight months because the girl wouldn't know she was pregnant until after at least a month.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Difficult sometime to relate generational differences, but in the 1950's, if a girl was not married in her teen years, there was something wrong with her and she probably was sent off to become a school teacher or a librarian.

Let that soak in; take two amicus and call me in the morning.



ami

Yeah, bet you miss those days. Gawd forbid they go to college and get an education... need to keep the little Misses barefoot and pregnant, right? ...oh, and subservient, too. Don't wanting them getting all "uppity" and questioning their "man."

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
Difficult sometime to relate generational differences, but in the 1950's, if a girl was not married in her teen years, there was something wrong with her and she probably was sent off to become a school teacher or a librarian.

Let that soak in; take two amicus and call me in the morning.

Yeah, bet you miss those days. Gawd forbid they go to college and get an education... need to keep the little Misses barefoot and pregnant, right? ...oh, and subservient, too. Don't wanting them getting all "uppity" and questioning their "man."

Actually, most people, men or women, didn't go to college back then. I doubt if even ten percent of my graduating high school class did, and we were almost all white, middle class people. There was just no reason to do so, unless one aspired to the "learned professions." As for the females getting married right away back then, that was their choice, although there was a certain amount of indoctrination. The grooms were usually just as young or not much older.

 

[Guest]

Difficult sometime to relate generational differences, but in the 1950's, if a girl was not married in her teen years, there was something wrong with her and she probably was sent off to become a school teacher or a librarian.

Let that soak in; take two amicus and call me in the morning.



ami

Another patented, sweeping, and totally unfounded Amicus generalization.

From the U.S.Census Bureau, the median age of first marriage in 1957 for males was 22.6; for females, 20.3.

And to Safe_Bet's point:

Professor Claudia Goldin, in her book Understanding the Gender Gap: an Economic History of American Women, has charted the age at first marriage of female U.S. college graduates throughout the 20th century. For women graduates born between 1930 and 1950 the median age at first marriage
hovered at around 23.

 

[Guest]

I am well aware of the situation in 1957. I turned 18 years old that year, and I lived in a small town in Wisconsin. What I am saying is that only a small percentage of the births to teenagers were to unmarried teenagers, while that percentage is much higher now. For one thing, it was quite common for a 17 or 18 year old woman to get married right after finishing high school.

You bring up a good point. Teen marriage was relatively common back then; how about now? This is from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1992:

Unmarried childbearing. Even though teen childbearing overall has declined steeply over the last half-century, the proportion of all teen births that are nonmarital has increased equally dramatically, from 13% in 1950 to 79% in 2000 (see chart). Two factors are at play. The first is that marriage in the teen years, which was not uncommon in the 1950s, has by now become quite rare. (By the mid-1990s, the typical age of first marriage in the United States had risen to just over 25 for women and 27 for men.) The second is that this trend has extended to pregnant teens as well: In contrast to the days of the "shotgun marriage," very few teens who become pregnant nowadays marry before their baby is born.

 

[fifty5]

Back to the OP, Radio 4, Any Questions included this issue. According to one of the contributors (listen again via
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/anyanswers) the Vatican has modified what the 'infallible' Pope said.

As this thread - despite provocative and answer-first-think-later posts might imply - indicates, contraceptive and prophylactic use of condoms is different, and both are complex issues.

This really isn't just about fuck-a-prostitute-bareback versus using a condom.

Both genders (or all 4, if you want to put it that way) find sex enjoyable. Some individuals have a higher sex-drive than others. Many will 'take their fun where they find it' (especially if they find too little at home).

Sure it all looks simple if one hypothesises only sex within marriage, but that was never always the case and my guess is that it never will be.

Some may even think it shouldn't be.

Nevertheless, a pragmatic acceptance that it currently isn't, suggests that prophylactic (and also contraceptive) use of condoms - here in the UK, across the Pond in the US and in Africa - seems likely to increase the greater good of the greater number.

Councils of pragmatism might well have more utility than councils of perfection.

My own conscience is most highly regulated by my ambition to keep being a 'clean' blood-donor than by anything any Pope might say, and second to that, by my ambition not to contract ANY sexually transmitted disease.

"Fidelity" is an entirely different issue that I worked out with my wife long ago.

 

[amicus]

Gnome:

"...From the U.S.Census Bureau, the median age of first marriage in 1957 for males was 22.6; for females, 20.3..."

And 20.1 in 1956. 'median', eh, would that mean that half married at under 20.3 years of age I wonder?


Other than challenging an assertion; what was your point?

ami

 

[amicus]

Fiftyfive... "..."

Fidelity" is an entirely different issue that I worked out with my wife long ago..."

~~~

Indeed...and a private matter it should be....however...

In addition to the advocacy of the Church that each life, created by God, is sacred, there is an additional moral factor, usually unspoken.

In the eyes of the Church and the imperative of evolution, sexual intercourse has meaning and value and but one purpose, that of procreation.

Chastity, to ensure lineage, and fidelity, to insure it, far from being an invention of the Catholic Church, has provided a moral and ethical foundation for practically every society with roots in western civilization.

It is also the mainstay in societal controls over the female, who, when she is, 'in season', is apt to find any mongrel available to satisfy her needs, and why one of the largest religions in the world, Islam, still cloisters its females.

I realize it is not politically correct for one to speak of the nature of the female in that manner, still, the truth is, as Gore said, 'inconvenient' at times.



amicus...

 

[Guest]

Gnome:

And 20.1 in 1956. 'median', eh, would that mean that half married at under 20.3 years of age I wonder?


Other than challenging an assertion; what was your point?

ami

You're correct; that means half married under that age and half above.

I think you and I have different goals on these forums, Ami. I'd lke to see where discussion based on facts leads us. What's your goal?