Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

thank you for pointing that out. i'll change that right now.



um...because its spreading HIV... and studys have shown that when u have sex for the first time you develop a mental connection to your partner...



you have some very interesting points there...i'm interested to see what u think of the Bible verse I posted earlier about that guy who pulled out from his wife and spilt the sperm, or "wasted the seed" as i think God said in some versions... arent condoms wrong then? isnt catching everything just the same as pulling out and spilling it on the ground? I do agree with you though on the point that if you arent ready to handle a kid,then you shouldnt be having sex. i'm interested to read your next post...

_________________

Here's where I jump in.



Lots of things spread HIV, not just sex. Needles, bad blood transfusions, lots of things. I agree that since AIDS came on the scene, you need to be more careful, but it's not like sex causes HIV. In fact, contraceptives can actually prevent diseases. They're not flawless, but they're more effective than telling hormone-filled teenagers that they're forbidden from having sex. That is not going to work most of the time.

And as for the Onan thing, StrongCanada summed up my beliefs beautifully, and probably answered any questions you might have.

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

First of all, I think that it is fairly obvious that the scripture you've sited is a situation specific. The man in this example was being selfish. Furthermore, having a child in this day is so different than having a child in bible times... even very different than 80 years ago. If you don't have insurance, the odds of you affording the pregnacy on your own is slim. My son was born 6 weeks early and cost over 100 thousand dollars, if we weren't covered by insurance then the bill would have to have been paid by either the government or some charitable agency, and we would have been in debt from it. I don't believe that that is what God would want. We need to be very mature and responsible about procreation. If you are unable to afford or support another person, you should not have a baby. With that said, intimacy between a man and wife is something wonderful and an important part of a marriage, to not have that intimacy because of financial strain not be wise IMO. But like I said before, in a marriage it is a personal issue, and one that should be taken very seriously. In a Christian marriage, a husband and wife should make sure they are including the Lord in this decision, and no one else should have the right to put undo pressure on them to have childeren.



I would mildly disagree with you. For the most part, what you said is true. But when you say lots of things I don't think that it is entirely accurate. Promiscuity and needle use make up 99% of the cases of HIV (<---made up statistic... you get the idea). The odds of a bad blood is almost negligible. If intravenous drug use continued as it is and promiscuity was ended, you would see a major decrease and eventual eradication of HIV and many other STD's. Abstinence is a healthy and mature practice to strongly urge young people to follow. Granted that there would always be many that will not apply the self restraint to abstain from sex, but it would be better than what we have now. Wouldn't you agree?

_________________

I completely understand what you're saying! I never really looked at it that way...this is gunna take some thinking on my part, cause i'm not quite sure if I agree or not...

There is something called "family planning" or sumthing like that that i heard about... its where the female keeps track of her temperatures and you can tell when ovulation is so that you can have "unprotected" sex and still not get the woman pregnant. As I have not looked into this very far(I am not married, nor do i plan on being so until I finish school) I dont know all the details, but I do think that it is a great non-sinning alternative to contraceptive use.

And to your response to Tiny Cowboy is completely correct, and i was just about to type sumthing similar until i noticed that you already had.

I find your veiws very interesting!

_________________

What? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Because you encourage people to punch their neighbours in the face, and that's wrong, encouraging people to do anything is wrong? That pays no attention to the weight or content of the argument.



That's really an opinion more than anything. And "opinions" shouldn't really be encouraged any more than specific religion should.

_________________
CLOCK

I agree that it'd probably be better if more people had self-control like that, but I don't think it's a realistic goal.

I think abstinence should be taught, but not as the only safe option. Teachers should say "You really shouldn't be having sex just yet, but if you must, here's how to be as safe as possible."

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

Opinions other than yours is what you mean.

No Rosalie, what I said about abstinace is true, it is not an opion. Abstinance is healthy. It is healthy like eating vegitables is healthy. Promiscutity is unhealthy... this is true. There is a chemical bond that happens when you first engage in procreation with another person. And the decision of when to have a baby is a bigger decision than one you may make in regards to yourself. All three are true.

And as far as the "encouraging" issue, you expain what you mean by what you said and I'll respond to that.



Here is what you said... in case you forgot.

Isn't it funny that you seem to have the right to take something somebody says anyway you want, but when you make a comment not fully explained, its up to us to decifer what you mean?

_________________

well i agree that it should be taught in school as an option, but I dont think that its the right option to take... many people who have no religious beliefs will be making love like mad, and theres no reason for them not to except for STDs, which they generally dont think about. they need condoms to protect themselves, because no matter what you say to them, there is no stopping some people.

_________________

Well, I pretty much agree... Im just on the more conservative end of the answer. A question for you... do you think that Sex education should be taught in public schools at all? Just curious.

_________________

Well, yeah.

I think talking about abstinence would be even less effective to most people if you just said "Don't have sex," without explaining the basics at least.

It should probably not be its own course, though, just as a chapter in a health class, perhaps.

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

"Religious beliefs" stop people from having sex the whole time? Not necessarily. My beliefs are earth based and I view abstainance as unnatural.

I do think people should take better care of what they do with their bodies. But abstaining isn't healthy for the mind at all and ends up causing a lot of built up hormonage.

_________________
CLOCK

It's ok... you can ignore the rest of my posts.

I should have clarified, Abstinance before marriage is what I'm saying should be encouraged, I thought it was obvious.... Is "built up hormonage" a technical term?

_________________

The problem is, that doesn't always work.

And I think you've probably read what I said about the Onan thing. That had nothing to do with birth control.

_________________

Technically, it's similar to contraceptive use.. You're doing something to not get the person pregnant...

with that said, I have no objections to it, except that the particular method you've described spreads STD's, as it amounts to unprotected sex, which is a REALLY bad idea..

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

First off, encouraging Abstinance before marriage means you're discouraging homosexual intercourse(this is pretty obvious).

Abstinance before marriage is very obviously and utterly a religious thing. There is no reason for it in the least. Sexual intercourse is very pleasurable to have with your partner and it's probably worth the tiny amount of your health that you claim it takes(you still haven't given me anything on that, btw).

I don't think a lot of people can have a fully functioning relationship without intercourse.

And yes, the whole "checking temperatures" thing is the exact same as contraception as it destroys sperm(as does... not having sex, interestingly), except for the fact that it's nowhere near as effective.

_________________
CLOCK

I have disproven many of your claims, you have no response to them?

It is not an "utterly" religious thing. It is healthy. If you need verification of this look it up yourself. The virtual immunity to STD's (given you do not indulge in other risky behaviors) is enough reason for me. You claim that there is no reason for abstenance, will you back up that claim? I don't expect a teenager that apperantly hasn't been taught better to understand that waiting to have sex until after marriage is good, so if you don't want to admit to it, that is fine.

I believe that it is worth it to wait for marriage to engage in sexual activities. I did, and that has made intimacy a very important and special thing in me and my wife's relationship. I know many people who have as well. I also know many people who don't, and all of them that Ive had this conversation with (all who are past their promiscuous stage in life anyway) would practice more restraint if they had it to do over again.

_________________

Me?

I believe sex BREAKS bonds, not MAKES them. If you are in a romantic relationship, I believe sex is the absolute worst thing you can do. But hey, that's just me.

Anyway, it would be far better, from my point of view, if you just HAD to have sex, to do it out of wedlock. I mean, once that bond is broken, there's no going back- and I believe it would be far worse to break the bond between married people than to break it between a boyfriend and girlfriend.

That said, if you are to do so, pregnancy is a good option. If you're to ruin things by having sex, having a child may make it a bit better.

And from a spiritual point of view, contraceptives are equal to abortions- removing from this world a potential life. How is that morally right?

_________________

Not quite. The problem people usually have with abortions is that they believe that the fetus is alive, and that therefore, abortion is murder.

Why do you think sex breaks bonds, though?

_________________

Well, the fetus is alive, but not quite experiencing the joy of life. Still, it's the same basic concept... it will never get to live a real life on this earth.

I just feel as if sex is so... I'm not sure. It feels as if sex isn't a romantic moment, and it's just a line you're crossing that you can't go back over. That you're violating your partner, and that's just something that shouldn't happen between people who are TRULY in love.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with couples having children; I enjoy the prospect of having a child with a husband someday, except through artificial impregnation.

_________________

oh no! i meant in marriage! i think its a sin to have sex b4 marriage... and if u and your spouse both never had sex b4 marriage(or IV drugs) then its fine.

and as Mandy said,


so there is still the possibility of it occuring, its just less likely. and to address the "problem" with it, its not a problem within marriage. If you absolutely cannot have a kid, then dont have sex. if you just would rather wait for a while, family planning is good because you have a much lower chance of conception.

_________________

I suppose that is the way it feels for some people, but for others, it can be romantic. It really depends on the couple and on the circumstances.

_________________

I'll be brief, lest this turn into an "is sex bad" discussion. Myrrh - it's fine that you have the opinions on sex that you do. That's your opinion. I do feel that with time, age, and with the help of a wonderful person who loves you wholly and completely that you might change your mind. Sex can be a very wonderful and positive thing, provided both parties involved are in sync with their expectations of what the act entails. Oh yeah - in case anyone missed it and wants to know/cares, I am a Christian (Lutheran to be exact).

Toastpaint - yeah...uh Trogdor, the "rhythm method" (what you were calling "pulling out" and relying on a woman's cycle to predict fertility) is NOT very effective. Just so you know. Here's a chart about how effective certain methods are - including Withdrawl and Rhythm both near the bottom of the chart .

_________________

I've discussed it with my mother and she seems to feel the same way- but I think this feeling is too strong to be changed. It is because of this feeling, in fact, that I will not be having a serious relationship with any guy who doesn't feel the same way about it as me- hence, even if I ever did feel like it, it wouldn't happen anyway.

PS- I was conceived during my mother's cycle. So if that's what family planning means, don't count on it.

_________________

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You've stated something about a "chemical bond" without any cite whatsoever, and that's about it for your "healthiness" argument.

What *is* proven are the positive effects of sex, including improved cardiovascular fitness, stress relief, and release of endorphins, which also help contribute to a stronger immune system and protects against stress-mediated physiological and psychological conditions.

Disease protection is easy, there IS such a thing as safer sex and while monogamy is preferable for health reasons, demarcation between committal, premarital sex and sex between married partners is wholly fanciful and is based on nothing more than a religious ceremony.

You did no such thing. You've provided nothing to back up your argument.



I guarantee you almost definitely that you think this way because of religion, and then went back later and tried ot find reasons to justify it later which weren't near your original thinking.



Links.



You're telling me this, it's your job.



Safe sex is also a virtual immunity to STD. If both people are checked before their "first time" then I don't see the issue.



I don't have to, you're the one proposing this. Not abstaining is perfectly natural and abstenance is doing something different from our normal designers.



Edited out by Stu. Keep the attacks to the pms Using ageism to back up an obviously religious ideal(why else would parents teach that?) doesn't help your case one bit.



Edited out by Stu. Again, keep the attacks to the pms



But those Sperm die anyway, if they're not used. Didn't you know that? They don't stay alive indefinitely. And they don't have "feelings" of any sort. They're just miniature tadpoles, nothing more.



I hate to say it - but you may never find a relationship with a guy if you hold that attitude. You're quite young, AFAIK, so that may change in future.

_________________
CLOCK

The right guy for me is the one who will truly understand and respect my feelings on the matter.

And as I've said, my feelings on the subject are very deeply rooted. This is something that I doubt will be swayed.

_________________

In my experience sex has been the most insignificant part of the relationship, being together was the most important

But, whatever, to each their own.

_________________

I don't mean to be cruel, just truthful. You are pretty young, so it's possible puberty hasn't taken it's full toll on you yet. If you're so repulsed over sex that you won't do it to have a child, then it sounds like a deep seated issue you need to see someone over.

Maybe you will find someone, who knows. But it will be pretty difficult. I myself can't have sex for a long time because of er... complications I'm sure some of you are aware of. So I have to sustain a relationship without outright sex for quite some time; but I'll still be plenty into doing "Other" kinky business with the right guy/girl.

_________________
CLOCK

You seriously deserve a *smack* for that.

_________________
CLOCK