T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,962
100K a year if it prevents hurt and pain and ignorance and pregnancy has surely got to be worth that.
The mind boggles.
Its a massive leap of faith to assume that information set out on a website will stamp out unwanted pregnancies and the other ill-effects of irresponsible sexual behaviour. 25-30 years ago, Hot Press covered all such topics in great detail (and highlighted the scourge of child abuse when the mainstream media didn't want to know) but all their efforts didn't end unwanted pregnancies either.
To repeat my earlier point, she never said that.
That’s the definition of fornication, as far as I know.
Personally I think it's an absurd and outmoded phrase to use in this day and age.
I'm confused, you don't think that young people should be informed about any sex that is not vanilla sex?
So she never said fornication is the main cause of pregnancy instead she said
“fornication, I would say, is probably the single most likely cause of unwanted pregnancies in this country”.
that's from the article you linked. What is your point.
I hadn't read the article but my goodness who talks like that, it's an extremely strange way of expression.
And she mentions fornication as sin. Does she mean all sex that is not between married people or what? What is sinful about sex?
Well you know 25 years ago some of us were so ignorant we didn't know what Hot Press was, or we lived where we couldn't get it, or we couldn't afford it, or we didn't have any sex information whatsoever, or we were told Hot Press was evil, or we couldn't get contraception, or we could only get the pill if we were married, and then only if we had a cycle problem and if it were the right doctor etc.
Come on!! Every 1980s Irish teenager knew what Hot Press was. It was for sale in every village in the country. As were the Sunday World and the News of the World, with their sex "advice" and associated tittle tattle.
Your use of the term "all possible sexual liasons" is what puzzles me. I presume this doesn't include anything illegal or unethical, in which case your use of the word "all" is rather misleading? (and I'm picking my words carefully here).
And she mentions fornication as sin. Does she mean all sex that is not between married people or what? What is sinful about sex?
That said Mrs Mulherin is 100% entitled to her views and to express those views..
Why are you picking your words carefully? Are you censoring yourself.
Consensual sex between and involving minors is illegal. As are certain other practices.What is illegal in relation to sex (consensual), actually I don't know, the only thing I can think of is (someone else will have to say this before me) and I don't know any other. I doubt if the website mentions that.
I do think though that teenagers are young and vulnerable and having a first relationship with someone, whether sexual or not is fraught with difficulty and they need to experience that first before experimenting any further with threesomes.
Fully agree with you. And by that measure she should call for the website to be banned outright and any other HSE sponsored sex education that includes any information on non marital sex, on condoms, on abortion, on divorce, on gay sex, should surely also be mentined by her. Why pick on threesomes. Why pick on Spun out. If your message is the Roman Catholic Church message than she should be clear and consistant. Otherwise to me she's being a hypocrite. (is that a sin?)
If you are a Catolic you must agree with her. If you don't then you're not a Catholic. The same goes for the other Christian Churches as well as Islam and Jewish teachings.
This is clearly untrue.
Why?
The RC Church has specific teachings on sex and sexuality which are all well grounded in the New Testament.
But you can be a member of the RC Church and still disagree with some or perhaps even all of its teachings. The same goes for other prominent Churches. I haven't seen any of them excommunicate millions of their followers en masse in modern times even though there is widespread non-compliance with certain teachings. There are also regular and often contentious policy-based debates within specific Churches. I don't see mass excommunications or expulsions there either.
You can be a member of the RC Church but you are not a RC Christian. The two are not the same thing.But you can be a member of the RC Church and still disagree with some or perhaps even all of its teachings. The same goes for other prominent Churches. I haven't seen any of them excommunicate millions of their followers en masse in modern times even though there is widespread non-compliance with certain teachings. There are also regular and often contentious policy-based debates within specific Churches. I don't see mass excommunications or expulsions there either.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?