garra, so there's no objective standard of morality?

But in a roomful of subjective opinions, which one's the right one?

Brazuca
"so there's no objective standard of morality?

But in a roomful of subjective opinions, which one's the right one?"

We've heard this from U ad nauseam, if U Rn't gonna contribute to the debate stop with the philosophic semantics - goes nowhere achieves nothing.

Di: as U say condoms aint perfect however they provide a considerable amount of protection compared to no protection at all.

To those who propose abstinence - U are denying the very basic nature of human behaviour. Fact is we like to bonk. Some people are celibate - that's their choice, but to impose that lifestyle on others is a denial of the humanity of others. Something religion is very good at. While there is a lot of aid done by the Catholic church it is always at a price and that price is about control - the words 'flock' and 'sheep' occur thruout religious speak for a reason

Totally irrelevant to the topic but I found it quite amusing to think of all those anti-gay cardinals sitting under the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and the work of the very gay artist Michaelangelo. LOL.

"t.u.s.": "condoms are not saving lives in africa"

"t.u.s.": "sorry my mistake, it was November 27 not December, out by a few days. Still though you managed to find two articles (one before and one after) that apparently disproved my claim (are you one of those who only reads things which confirm your opinion"

Actually, I did a search at the Lancet site on some obvious keywords & the article to which you very partially refer was deeply buried among the dozens of others - from the same authoritative journal -that proclaim the efficacy of condoms in the battle against HIV/AIDS in Africa. These include the editorial to which I refer above.

If "t.u.s." is a journalist, as he claims, then this is an indictment upon his training and a blight on his worldview. Clearly, the weight of evidence presented in the very authoritative journal to which he refers us is overwhelmingly in favour of the promotion of condom use to help reduce the spread of HIV in Africa and elsewhere. If he's actually read a few of these articles, I find it quite perverse that he makes the statements quoted above.

Check out http://www.thelancet.com/ and judge for yourselves who is reading selectively.

I suppose he writes this tripe here because it'd never get past his sub-editor. Just as well he likes sport :)

From what I've read the spread of AIDS in Africa is due mainly to unprotected sex. I stand to be corrected if this is not the case. If this is the case then there must be alot of sex taking place outside of marriage. The Vatican says that sex outside of marriage is a sin. It aggressively preaches against it. Using a condom is also a sin which is also aggressively preached against. So people listen to the Church when it says "say NO to condoms", but ignores it when it comes to pre-marital sex? What a load of crap.

The spread of AIDS in Africa has nothing whatsoever to do with the Pope. It's got to do with men not wanting to wear condoms. Go and do your own survey among males you know. The vast majority will say that they don't like using condoms. They do so mainly because they will get no sex if they don't, and males taking responsibility for contraception and their own health is now well and truly a part of our culture. But that doesn't mean that men like using condoms.

I am not defending the Church in any way. I just think that if the problem is to be solved then the real causes need to be addressed. If anyone thinks that the Vaticans blessing of condoms would solve the AIDS problem in Africa then they've got their head well and truly buried in the sand.

Ambo, the reason I keep repeating these questions is because nobody's game enough to provide an answer to them -- including you.

Whassamata -- too philosophically weak-kneed? Too profound and sophisticated for ya? Then stick to talking about sport, mate, rather than issues revolving around people's metaphysic, epistemology and ethics -- you know, philosophical stuff.

You also complain to Di that Catholic teaching regarding promiscuity denies "the very basic nature of human behaviour". So in other words, what you're admitting is that Catholic teaching will have no binding effect on those who do not submit to Catholic teaching.

Which begs the question why y'all are so incensed by the general teaching the obedience of which the overwhelming majority of people who get Aids obviously weren't observing. After all, if everyone limited sex to the confines of holy matrimony, as Catholic teaching prescribes, THEN AIDS WOULD EVENTUALLY DIE OUT!

The Catholic church can't be blamed for the results of promiscuity, because the Catholic church does not condone promiscuity.