home
RSS
Condoms on campus? No thanks, we're Catholic, college says
Distributing condoms on campus "is not in concert with the mission of Boston College," some students were told.
March 29th, 2013
08:43 AM ET

Condoms on campus? No thanks, we're Catholic, college says

By Pauline Kim, CNN

(CNN) - The letter is signed "cordially" but students who received the instruction to stop handing out condoms on campus say they were taken aback by demands they feel could go as far as threatening their rights.

Various dorm rooms at Boston College in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, have a "Safe Site" symbol on their door. That signifies that inside are male and female condoms, personal lubricant and safer sex information, according to BC Students for Sexual Health. "If you are in need of condoms, you may knock (on) one of these doors and just ask!" the group's website says.

Lizzie Jekanowski, chair of BCSSH, told CNN that the college has always been aware of the group's activities. "We've had a positive and open relationship with the administration up to this point," she said.

But earlier this month, college administrators sent letters to students whose dorm room doors have the logo saying that distributing condoms on campus "is not in concert with the mission of Boston College as a Catholic and Jesuit university."

FULL STORY
- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Catholic Church

soundoff (281 Responses)
  1. Ken Margo

    This is one of the reasons why the Christianity is becoming obsolete, ridiculous arguments against birth control. Sadly these same religious people give support to the republican party that is trying roll women's rights back to the 1950's. You want to cut the church influence, stop giving money to the church. Picket churches the same way religious groups picket people they don't like. Once the money dries up, the church will shut up. Then these religious "rules" that you see in schools and businesses will stop.

    March 29, 2013 at 5:11 pm |
    • Saraswati

      I'd be interested to see how hard core Catholics (let's say the 20% who oppose "artifical" birth contol) vote in comparison to the other 80%. The vote is fairly evenly split usually, with the typical gener and ethic group trends. But I'd guess there's a big difference within the hard core believers.

      March 29, 2013 at 5:16 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      Of those 20% that oppose "artificial birth control" I bet 99% are men. Women whose men want to reduce/eliminate birth control or abortion should do this. Tell the their men to have a vasectomy. No vasectomy, no s3x. If a woman can't have control of her uterus, then she should take control of his balls.

      March 29, 2013 at 5:26 pm |
  2. Alias

    I agree with Topher.

    The bible thumpers have used everything in their means to stop behaviors that they see as sins. They don't want people to have casual s e x, so they want to get rid of all birth control and make it a riskier behavior.
    It wasn't too long ago that renting an apartment or a hotel room with someone of the opposite s e x was not allowed.
    Thank GOD society is waking up and shaking off the repressive shackles of religion. (excuse the pun)

    March 29, 2013 at 2:37 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Alias : Thank GOD society is waking up and shaking off the repressive shackles of religion.

      What does it benefit a person to sleep with others who just want to satisfy a selfish desire? The end result is that the person feels used and worthless – a reject. Next, lets take the opposite view. What does it benefit a person to sleep with a life-long spouse who shows him/her through the relationship that he/she is very important?

      So, in short, we find that following God's teachings will build up a person. Meanwhile 'shaking off the repressive shackles of religion' devalues and ultimately destroys a person. Of the two choices, I'll take the former any day.

      March 29, 2013 at 3:37 pm |
    • The real Tom

      You'd take the former if anyone ever wanted to bump uglies with you, you mean. You'd be lucky if you ever got lucky, regardless of the circ umstances, Lie4ever

      March 29, 2013 at 3:46 pm |
    • JMEF

      L4H
      You do not seem to get the concept of two people equally enjoying recreational s8x, why do you feel that one people needs to feel used? Most married people have regular s8x without trying to conceive a child. What kind of mind screwing beliefs were you brought up on? Really.

      March 29, 2013 at 3:46 pm |
    • JMEF

      person not people

      March 29, 2013 at 3:48 pm |
    • The real Tom

      "others who just want to satisfy a selfish desire?"

      What "selfish desire"? What's wrong with having s3xual desires? What's wrong with engaging in s3x without intending to do anything other than enjoy it? What would make you imagine that one partner "must" be somehow demeaned in an relationship just because it doesn't involve a lifelong commitment?

      March 29, 2013 at 3:50 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Reading this dummy's posts about s3x always makes me think of the set of Victorian "instructional" texts I found in my grandmother's attic: "What a Young Girl Ought to Know".

      Assuming that women are being "used" by men when they engage in consensual s3x is laughable. Does Lie4ever not recognize the fact that women are independent and capable of earning a living? That they're not stuck at home, pregnant and barefoot any longer?

      What kind of idiot thinks birth control is the cause of inequality?

      March 29, 2013 at 4:18 pm |
    • Chilipepper

      Is Live4Him and Douglas the same peron? Both take a dim view on what is a purely natural thing: sex.

      I don't think something as natural as sex to be a "selfish desire". If our bodies were meant to be made purely for progeny, women would go into heat like others in the animal world...instead, we are blessed with bodies that are capable of giving, and recieving, pleasure.
      If it goes against one's religious tenets to have sex, then one should not have it. Projecting one's own beliefs to society at large, even going so far as to make up false resons that cannot be backed up by fact, "women are seen as objects", as to why others should do the same, is just plain odd.

      March 29, 2013 at 4:20 pm |
    • Cherries

      "What does it benefit a person to sleep with others who just want to satisfy a selfish desire? The end result is that the person feels used and worthless – a reject."

      Are you speaking from personal experience?
      Although there are some women who equate sex with love, these women are disturbed in other ways and would benefit from therapy. These women have been damaged in other ways from external forces that likely caused them to feel this way.
      This view of yours, however, isn't the norm. This sounds uniquely personal to you, ansd isn't a valid reason to prevent others from engaging in an activity that they enjoy.
      Your beliefs are also religious-based. Again, good for YOU, but not for people who do not share your view.
      It appears you view sex as a weapon. Most women are much, MUCH smarter than you give them credit for.
      Making women out to be clingy, brainless sex twits is rather chauvinistic. You seem to suffer from a Madonna complex. Good girls CAN, and DO.

      March 29, 2013 at 5:37 pm |
    • Akira

      "Meanwhile ‘shaking off the repressive shackles of religion’ devalues and ultimately destroys a person."
      Citations, please.

      March 29, 2013 at 6:12 pm |
    • rick

      "What does it benefit a person to sleep with others who just want to satisfy a selfish desire? "

      It feels good. If it doesn't, you are doing something wrong.

      L4H....tell the truth...no one wants to plow that secret weedpatch of yours?

      March 29, 2013 at 8:01 pm |
  3. Bootyfunk

    Condoms on campus? No thanks, we're Catholic - we prefer to live in the Dark Ages. Bring the leeches! Huzzah!!!

    March 29, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
    • Bill

      The leading cause of abortion is unwanted pregnancy.

      The best way to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and thus abortion, is readily accessible birth control.

      Common sense would tell you that in order to reduce abortion you would do everything you can to spread the use of birth control.

      Unless you are the RCC, then you just do the dumbest thing you can think of and say god told us to do it.

      Maybe god is in fact an idiot after all.

      March 29, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Bill : The leading cause of abortion is unwanted pregnancy. The best way to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and thus abortion, is readily accessible birth control.

      The leading cause of unwanted pregnancy is men treating women like sex objects to satisfy their lusts. So, the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancies is to abstain from sex until you're ready for children and are in a committed relationship that will last 25+ years.

      March 29, 2013 at 1:54 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Your opinion, Lie, doesn't equal fact. Women who are married have abortions when they choose not to continue an unplanned pregnancy for any number of reasons.

      You are wrong. Again. As usual. But do please continue my membership on the famous Lie4ever Ignore List. I consider it validation.

      March 29, 2013 at 2:01 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Poor Lie4Ever/Paul. It must just give you ulcers to have to pretend you're ignoring posters when they tell you you're wrong. The fact is that more than 90% –that's MORE THAN NINETY PERCENT of all women use contraception at some point in their lives. That's because they don't believe your sort of nonsense. They know that contraception is the surest route to economic security and better education. It's a fact that countries in which women are able to plan their families and prevent unwanted pregnancy are healthier and wealthier than ANY nations in which women are powerless to prevent pregnancy.

      You are so stupid it's amusing to watch you twist in the wind, unable to answer because you're a wuss.

      March 29, 2013 at 2:09 pm |
    • Cherries

      Abstaining from sex in not an option for most people. If it is for you, L4H, fine. However, you do not get to legislate your religios opinions into secular law, and so Roe v. Wade shall stand the test of time.
      Please cite your citation for your assertion that women today are being treated as anything except someone who is having consensual relations.

      March 29, 2013 at 2:21 pm |
    • Randall

      "So, the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancies is to abstain from s-ex until you're ready for children"

      Live4Him must have an extensive toy collection.

      March 29, 2013 at 2:28 pm |
    • The real Tom

      No kidding. Suppose I'm NEVER ready for children? Suppose I don't want kids at all? Am I to simply remain celibate forever? As IF.

      March 29, 2013 at 2:34 pm |
    • Saraswati

      L4H wrote

      "So, the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancies is to abstain from se’x until you're ready for children and are in a committed relationship that will last 25+ years."

      I love this. You've got a couple that get married but don't want to have kids. Let's say, just for the heck of it, they are both carriers of gene that has a high probability of producing a child that wouldn't make it to his or her first birthday. So, they get married and...no se’x. EVER. Despite all the bountiful evidence that an active se’x life leads to happier and healthier relationships.

      I don't know...maybe L4H doesn't mean something quite this nutty...hard to say and given that I'm on today's ignore list (yes, it's real!) I'll only have to guess.

      Maybe L4H is a fan of mutual masturbation? Se'x toys? Hard to say. I guess since he/she thinks that women don't enjoy most of their se'x (he/she has admitted they can enjoy some) he/she probably has a pretty crappy se’x life which might account for a lot of these wacky opinions. All those European countries with more liberal se’xual atti.tudes and lower unwanted pregnancy rates...well they are just a mystery if L4H is right. And then I wonder if a large number of my straight female friends are lying about enjoying their premarital se’x? The friend who dumped the boyfriend who wouldn't have se’x with her ... what was her deal?

      March 29, 2013 at 2:46 pm |
    • Answer

      Lie4's hole is dry. Too much religion does that, poor miserable thing.

      March 29, 2013 at 2:49 pm |
    • The real Tom

      I seem to recall that Lie4Ever stated that women who don't want children should get themselves sterilized. Somehow or another in that tangle of misfiring synapses Lie calls a brain, that's preferable to other means of artificial bc.

      Nuts.

      March 29, 2013 at 2:49 pm |
    • Saraswati

      "I seem to recall that Lie4Ever stated that women who don't want children should get themselves sterilized. "

      Awesome – I guess one could have all the premarital se'x one wanted once sterilized. And of course lesbian se'x is always pretty safe that way.

      March 29, 2013 at 3:08 pm |
    • JMEF

      L4H
      So did you mommy walk in on you when you were span-king the monkey slap you up the side of the head, tell you that you were a dirty boy and you would go blind. Is that how it got you to where you are at now and how is your eyesight?

      March 29, 2013 at 4:13 pm |
  4. Qwerty Elemeno

    Sexually repressed and hung-up Christians. Who ever would have thought it?

    March 29, 2013 at 12:07 pm |
    • Science

      The question should be ......................creationists and se-x education does it work ?

      March 29, 2013 at 12:24 pm |
    • Alias

      Science –
      Something of a Straw Man arguemen? You know it does.

      March 29, 2013 at 2:30 pm |
  5. ME II

    This is a tough call, I think.

    While BC is a private college and should have some control over its policies, I also wonder if a Christian Science college would be allowed to ban medical practices/devices from its campus.

    March 29, 2013 at 11:44 am |
    • Saraswati

      A good question is whether a Christian Science college, after allowing non-Christian scientists to enroll, could ask paramedics to withhold certain treatments from those students in an emergency situation.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:50 am |
    • ME II

      @Saraswati,
      Interesting scenario, but I don't think an emergency is quite the same. Mainly because, despite claims to the contrary, se.x is not an emergency.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:53 am |
    • ME II

      In other words, I think it is illegal to withhold medical treatment in life threatening situations.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:54 am |
    • Saraswati

      @ME II,

      lol, ok not exactly the same but it is a medical condition. Pregnancy causes far more medical problems than it helps prevent (although there a short list it does help with). Perhaps a better comparison would be emergency contraception. And to modify the other side, let's say the EMS personal are going to provide medical care that would prevent extreme facial disfigurement that would impact life but not cause death, such as a person having the end of their nose torn off in an accident.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:57 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Ummmm.... S3x could be an emergency if it's been too long.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:03 pm |
    • ME II

      @Saraswati,
      I don't think you even need to stretch that far.
      Can the CS college ban antibiotics being sold, or even just handed out, on campus?

      March 29, 2013 at 12:04 pm |
    • ME II

      @HotAirAce
      "Ummmm.... S3x could be an emergency if it's been too long."

      lol, If that's the case they may need to worry more about being arrested for indecent exposure or public lewdness.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:06 pm |
    • Chuckles

      Honestly, I think the college has every right to ban whatever they deem necessary and even if it's contrary to logic and reason, it's their call. When it starts getting into science however and they choose not to teach facts about science, I'd be hardpressed to believe that a student who was seriously looking to go into medicine would choose a place that doesn't teach it correctly, and even more, I don't think many hospital would want students from a college that didn't teach medicine. I think the market would work itself out all without having to infringe on anyones rights.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:17 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Chuckles,

      "I think the market would work itself out all without having to infringe on anyones rights."

      The markets have some ability to work things out but they aren't a miracle answer that solves all problems. We've even had problems simply with the ethical exemptions for emergency contraception where people have been turned away at pharmacies. The only reason they work at all is that biased laws allow pharmacies require pharmacies to hire Christian fundamentalists while turning away vegan pharmacists who would essentially refuse to hand out any medication.

      If you went strictly on the market with no regulation you'd end up in a scenario where people couldn't exist as a minority in a community with different standards. If a large group of people of a certain belief moved into your area becoming the majority they could take over the hospitals essentially denying you services (as is the case in much of the south for abortion). The market alone really only works things out if you are in a large city or are part of the majority.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:22 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chuckles,
      Let the market decide? Not unreasonable.

      Would the ability to ban things extend to a student's Asthma inhaler?

      March 29, 2013 at 12:23 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Saraswait and ME II

      Don't get me wrong, I agree the market is far from perfect and my idea is a little callous because people would first have to suffer in order for it to right itself. In this specific instance regulation is necessary only to a certain extent. If something is private (say, a hospital, or a school) they should be allowed to conduct whatever they think is right and necessary, but because of that they might both take a hit on the bottomline. Once hospitals stop taking any graduate from a school becaues of an incomplete education or people stop going to a hospital because they aren't getting the care they need, these businesses will soon learn that you can't conduct business on a strict christian morality and still make money.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:33 pm |
    • Saraswati

      Except that there are a ton of hospitals that would be happy to hire someone who hadn't learned about birth control or how to perform an abortion. The market is only as "smart" as it's conscious members. People buy crap, and that extends to hospitals that are willing to pay for unqualified personnel and citizens who will visit them.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:35 pm |
    • Saraswati

      If the market's "worked" there would be no foods sold with hydrogenated fats. People are stupid enough to buy them and so in most parts of the US, where it isn't regulated, you have a damned hard time avoiding them and no idea what you're getting at a restaurant. The markets suck because we're a dumb species, and those of us who aren't in the majority market are always going to lose out.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:37 pm |
    • ME II

      @Saraswati,
      "The market is only as "smart" as it's conscious members."
      Not that I think a completely free market is the way to go, but aren't the "members" or the market the same people who would be regulating the market? In other words, why suspect that a committee is always going to be smarter than the market?

      March 29, 2013 at 12:39 pm |
    • ME II

      @Saraswati'
      "If the market's 'worked' there would be no foods sold with hydrogenated fats."
      Weren't they an alternative to lard?

      "...you have a damned hard time avoiding them and no idea what you're getting at a restaurant."
      I disagree, the markets are actually driving healthier choices now. It's not perfect, but a free market is not the devil that people make it out to be.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:45 pm |
    • ME II

      Sorry. I didn't mean to side track the discussion into the other religion, economics.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:47 pm |
    • ME II

      "Trans fats were developed during the backlash against saturated fat - the artery-clogging animal fats found in butter, cream, and meats. Then food manufacturers realized that trans fats lasted longer than butter without going rancid. The result: Today trans fats are found in 40% of the products on your supermarket shelves."
      (http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/trans-fats-science-and-risks)

      Not sure a regulated market would have prevented this.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:50 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Saraswati

      I don't know what kind of hospitals you go to, but having worked in one for a bit I know they are terrified of the liability of having an untrained person working in a particular field. Not only would it give the hospital a horrible reputation, but would land it straight in court for malpractice.

      And like ME II I think an unregulated market would be anarchy, but an overregulated supresses competi.tion and innovation. Clearly we need to find a sweet spot (which is always moving) but more regulation doesn't necassarily fix everything. The foods we get right now in restuarants might not be the healthiest, but then again look at how things have changed only within the past couple of years. Subway has overtaken McDonalds in overall stores because they're the "healthier" option and to combat this, McDonalds is also trying to give itself a healthy image and work towards regaining lost market share. Instead of the government stepping in and saying how healthy a place has to be, the restaurants are doing it for them because they understand the market shift.

      But back to this article specifically running a hosptial or a school with a strict christian moral guideline. Hospitals are very wary about who the hire and very rigorous about who can do what. Hospitals, both public and private, have every right to reject a candidate who does not have the requisite experience. If a person went to school and got a degree from say, BC, and it's well known that they are jesuit and don't believe in birth control, all the hospital needs to do is reject them based on experience and not religion and they'll find a more qualified candidate for the job.

      The flip side to this is two fold though. One is if BC starts getting a bad reputation for not having students get hired after graduation, they'll see a decline in applications. Two, and I think more importantly is that if people go to BC speicifcally because they are christian and against birth control, they wouldn't apply to work in that field to begin with right?

      March 29, 2013 at 1:04 pm |
    • Saraswati

      "Two, and I think more importantly is that if people go to BC speicifcally because they are christian and against birth control, they wouldn't apply to work in that field to begin with right?"

      The problem is that they do. That's why we have the same problem with pharmacists who are unwilling to hand out certain medications. And if the hiring manager and organization agree, why do they care if you are trained in that medication or procedure? You won't be practicing it anyway. Sure a secular hospital cares if you are trained in the various methods of birth control, but why would a Catholic hospital require as rigorous training? Why would you need to be trained to insert an IUD, for instance? We don't expect doctors here to know how to perform FGM, but in countries that have tried to require hospitals to perform the procedure (to prevent back street operations) they would certainly expect such training.

      March 29, 2013 at 2:33 pm |
  6. Over 40,000 denominations of insanity

    Some believe the Pope is the Anti-Christ. Some believe Obama is the Anti-Christ.

    Some believe that celibacy is appropriate for certain people, or for certain positions. It's ridiculous. Celibacy is unnatural and will continue to cause problems for the religious institutions that employ it.

    Many of the people from these same institutions advocate against abortion, but don't understand the realistic benefit of the morning after pill or even basic contraception; their unrealistic wishful thinking is causing the death of many at the hands of disease. Realistically, many abortions could be avoided if a morning-after pill were not viewed as such an evil option. Many of these same people bring children into the world at a high pace, and then would prefer that the rest of society take over and educate their children in their particular brand of religion when they don't plan well.

    In the U.S. recently we learned of the head of Lutheran CMS chastising a minister of that church for participating in a joint service for the victims of the Newtown school shooting.

    One sect calls homosexuality an abomination while the next one in the same denomination is already performing gay marriage.

    One sect, the Westboro Baptist Church believes Americans are being killed at war because America is too kind to "fags".

    One sect believes that Jesus and Satan were brothers and that Christ will return to Jerusalem AND Jackson County, Missouri.

    One sect believes women to be subservient, while another sect in the same denomination promotes equality between the sexes.

    Conflicted and unfounded right from the very beginning, Christianity continues to splinter and create divisions and more extremism as time goes by.

    March 29, 2013 at 11:18 am |
    • Oh

      sh-it as it hits the fan here today ?

      March 29, 2013 at 11:28 am |
  7. Live4Him

    Am I am sinner because I just had a fully loaded hotdog on Good Friday?

    March 29, 2013 at 11:18 am |
    • Lola Bunch

      I suppose it depends on your definition of "fully loaded" and "hot dog".

      March 29, 2013 at 11:29 am |
    • ME II

      ... or "had" for that matter.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:07 pm |
    • Donna

      I'm having lamb on Sunday, what does that make me? 🙂

      March 29, 2013 at 12:12 pm |
    • The real Tom

      A carnivore.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:17 pm |
    • ME II

      @Donna,
      A blasphemer in the eyes of the god of lambs.

      (What would the lamb of god for the god of lambs be called?)

      March 29, 2013 at 12:32 pm |
    • Donna

      I thought Jesus was the god of lambs? I find the "good shepherd" label kinda ironic. I grew up on a farm. Shepherds may protect their flocks, but that's only so that they can fleece them regularly, and eat them when they're not otherwise useful. Maybe Jesus has a nice mint sauce waiting for Christians in heaven?

      March 29, 2013 at 12:59 pm |
    • Live4Him

      Reported: copy-cat

      March 29, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
    • ME II

      @Live4Him,
      I think most people assumed this wasn't the original Live4Him, the original would never indulge in such fleshy things.

      March 29, 2013 at 1:48 pm |
    • Chilipepper

      "Reported: copy-cat."
      I know you are, but what am I? Sounds just as juvenile as copy-cat. And CNN does nothing, you know that Grow up. They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, in which case your enormous ego should be lapping this up.

      March 29, 2013 at 2:28 pm |
  8. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things

    March 29, 2013 at 11:04 am |
    • MUST SEE Creatard Pwnage Par Excellence

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QIrfxj02pQ&feature=player_embedded

      March 29, 2013 at 11:14 am |
    • Jesus

      Prayer does not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.

      An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.

      The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!

      March 29, 2013 at 5:10 pm |
    • Really?

      "Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things"

      That's why the data, has shown that atheists have happier and healthier lives than conservative Christians. Your post is built on a lie!

      March 29, 2013 at 5:12 pm |
  9. Reality

    Bill Gates is quite aware of the health issues. From today's news: "Gates will give a $100,000 grant to whoever can invent the “next generation condom” through The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s Grand Challenges in Global Health. The estimated 80 grant recipients can then apply for a follow-up grant worth up to $1 million."

    "Is it possible to develop a product without this stigma, or better, one that is felt to enhance pleasure?” the Grand Challenge prompt asks. ”If so, would such a product lead to substantial benefits for global health, both in terms of reducing the incidence of unplanned pregnancies and in prevention of infection with HIV or other STIs [se-xually transmitted infections]?”

    The GOP and BC would be wise to support these kind of projects.

    March 29, 2013 at 10:59 am |
    • The real Tom

      Do you ever post anything original?

      March 29, 2013 at 11:00 am |
  10. Reality

    Dear Boston College students,

    – from a guy who enjoys intelligent se-x-

    Note: Some words hyphenated to defeat an obvious word filter. ...

    The Brutal Effects of Stupidity:

    : The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill ( 8.7% failure rate) and male con-dom (17.4% failure rate) have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or co-ndoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.- Failure rate statistics provided by the Gut-tmacher Inst-itute. Unfortunately they do not give the statistics for doubling up i.e. using a combination of the Pill and a condom.

    The most effective forms of contraception, ranked by "Perfect use":

    1a. (Abstinence, 0% failure rate)
    1b. (Masturbation, mono or mutual, 0% failure rate)

    Followed by:
    One-month injectable and Implant (both at 0.05 percent)
    Vasectomy and IUD (Mirena) (both at 0.1 percent)
    The Pill, Three-month injectable, and the Patch (all at 0.3 percent)
    Tubal sterilization (at 0.5 percent)
    IUD (Copper-T) (0.6 percent)
    Periodic abstinence (Post-ovulation) (1.0 percent)
    Periodic abstinence (Symptothermal) and Male condom (both at 2.0 percent)
    Periodic abstinence (Ovulation method) (3.0 percent)

    Every other method ranks below these, including Withdrawal (4.0), Female condom (5.0), Diaphragm (6.0), Periodic abstinence (calendar) (9.0), the Sponge (9.0-20.0, depending on whether the woman using it has had a child in the past), Cervical cap (9.0-26.0, with the same caveat as the Sponge), and Spermicides (18.0).

    March 29, 2013 at 10:58 am |
  11. Bob

    In other words, "No reason or facts, please. We're religious idiots."

    March 29, 2013 at 10:53 am |
  12. Topher

    I know the Catholics have a particular stance on birth control ... But shouldn't they really be saying, 'As Christians, you shouldn't be having pre-marital se.x. Thus we will not be assisting you in sinning and will not be providing you with a means to do that."?

    March 29, 2013 at 10:24 am |
    • JMEF

      Topher
      Pre-marital s8x is something even you nutters can not stop, right? The s8x is going to happen whether you like it or not; would safe s8x not be better than unprotected s8x?

      March 29, 2013 at 10:30 am |
    • rick

      anyone who thinks that consentual s-e-x is a sin is an imbecile

      March 29, 2013 at 10:38 am |
    • clarity

      You have to remember, JMEF, for Topher, pre-marital sex is when you're at a church function and a man makes eye contact with a woman for more than 1/2 second.

      March 29, 2013 at 10:45 am |
    • Topher

      JMEF

      " Pre-marital s8x is something even you nutters can not stop, right?"

      What do you mean? Every person has a choice to not act when given this option.

      "The s8x is going to happen whether you like it or not; would safe s8x not be better than unprotected s8x?"

      Sure, even Christians can be overcome by temptation and sin. And yes, physically, safety is better than not, but we all should be more concerned with spirituality and not allow ourselves to be in the situation where we are tempted.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:02 am |
    • Lola Bunch

      Topher, are you aware that being Christian isn't a requirement for admission into Boston College?

      March 29, 2013 at 11:11 am |
    • Topher

      Lola Bunch

      Yes, I realize that. But if I as a Christian decided to go to BYU, I can't really complain that they are teaching Mormonism now can I?

      March 29, 2013 at 11:16 am |
    • JMEF

      Topher
      Where you got the idea that s8x is a sin and not a basic human instinct could be your problem. Consenting adults that have s8x are not the problem; the problem is with those that want to restrict those desires like you. S8x as an enjoyable activity never entered your mind?

      March 29, 2013 at 11:20 am |
    • Lola Bunch

      No, Toper, you can't, that's true.
      Handing out condoms isn't teaching Moromonism, either.
      And they're not handing condoms out, either. They are available to students who want to utilize them.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:21 am |
    • HotAirAce

      BC can make the statement Topher suggested above but the real question is can they or should they attempt to prevent others from providing birth control, and is it right to threaten disciplinary actions against those that do not agree?

      March 29, 2013 at 11:21 am |
    • Topher

      JMEF

      " Where you got the idea that s8x is a sin and not a basic human instinct could be your problem."

      Oh, I agree it's a "basic human instinct." But that doesn't mean I can't control myself. And se.x isn't a sin if done within the confines of marriage as God designed it to be.

      "Consenting adults that have s8x are not the problem; the problem is with those that want to restrict those desires like you."

      I don't want to restrict anything. It's your choice if you engage in it before marriage. I'm just saying if you do, you've sinned and need to repent.

      "S8x as an enjoyable activity never entered your mind?"

      Of course it has. I'm male. But I'm also married.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:25 am |
    • Topher

      Lola Bunch

      My point is that a school, especially one with moral standards such as these, is allowed to have its beliefs and if you are opposed to those beliefs, don't go there. If you want birth control, go by some yourself. Don't complain the school isn't going to help you break with its morality.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:28 am |
    • rick

      topher: physicality trumps spirituality.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:35 am |
    • Topher

      rick

      Why?

      March 29, 2013 at 11:40 am |
    • JMEF

      Topher
      Not being a biblical scholar but I do tend to remember a whole lot of begetting going on, with both young and old, married or not, and the ra-pes and the h00kers. Marriage in my view belongs more to religious dogma not so much a biblical teaching, educate me.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:41 am |
    • rick

      topher: neither you nor the people who wrote the bible have any authority to speak for god

      if you want to stick your pious nose up in the air and call consentual s-e-x between unmarried people a sin, have at it.

      you are an imbecile

      March 29, 2013 at 11:42 am |
    • rick

      topher: because physicality is demonstrably real. top down spirituality is not

      March 29, 2013 at 11:44 am |
    • Topher

      JMEF

      Sure there was a lot of that going on ... but that doesn't mean God is OK with it. I agree marriage is a religious thing, which is why I'm opposed to gay marriage (though that's probably a conversation for a different message board.)

      March 29, 2013 at 11:46 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Re: physicality trumps spirituality, because people continue to boink despite their cult's imaginary friend's wishes.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:48 am |
    • rick

      again, topher, you have no authority to speak for god

      March 29, 2013 at 11:50 am |
    • Topher

      rick

      "topher: neither you nor the people who wrote the bible have any authority to speak for god"

      The people who wrote the Bible were inspired by God ... thus God wrote it and He very much has the authority to speak for Himself.

      "if you want to stick your pious nose up in the air and call consentual s-e-x between unmarried people a sin, have at it."

      I will. Thank you. 😉

      "you are an imbecile"

      Ad hominim fallacy. Basically this means you lose the argument.

      "because physicality is demonstrably real. top down spirituality is not"

      But are you sure it isn't? Because if you can't demonstrate it to be false, you're taking a big risk, aren't you?

      March 29, 2013 at 11:50 am |
    • rick

      topher: oppose gay marriage all you want. it is coming. the demographics are not on your side.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:52 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Read carefully Topher: Marriage is not a religious thing! As an example, I am married – I am not the least bit religious.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:52 am |
    • Lola Bunch

      I suppose so, Topher. I am just wondering why, all of a sudden, they decided to prevent something they formerly had no problem with. I hope it doesn't come back to bite them in the wallet in the form of fewer students and loss of Federal grants.
      I rather wonder why BC considers disease prevention such a bad thing.
      Shrug.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:53 am |
    • Topher

      rick

      "topher: oppose gay marriage all you want. it is coming. the demographics are not on your side."

      Now this I agree with.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:53 am |
    • Saraswati

      @Topher,

      @Rick: "you are an imbecile"

      @Topher: "Ad hominim fallacy. Basically this means you lose the argument."

      No, it doesn't. Unless Rick had written "and given that you are an idiot we can conclude..." the statement was just irrelevant. At worst it was rude, at best an aside observation of fact.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:53 am |
    • rick

      i am taking a risk.

      so are you by denying all the other gods man has developed

      March 29, 2013 at 11:54 am |
    • rick

      topher: inspired by god? how about those who founded all the other religions? were they not "inspired by god"?

      March 29, 2013 at 11:56 am |
    • Topher

      Lola Bunch

      I have no idea, either. I disagree with the Catholics on, well, a LOT. Perhaps those in charge of the school were feeling convicted about it and decided to finally align themselves more with their beliefs.

      If the students would restrain themselves then diseases wouldn't need to be prevented.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:56 am |
    • The real Tom

      "I agree marriage is a religious thing,"

      Well, you're agreeing to something that's not the case. Marriage is a legal thing. It's not required that anyone have a religious marriage at all.

      Nobody needs the church to approve.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:57 am |
    • ME II

      @Topher,
      "Don't complain the school isn't going to help you break with its morality."

      But the school wasn't involved this was students only. It wasn't even a recognized organization, simply students handing out condoms on their own.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:00 pm |
    • The real Tom

      "If the students would restrain themselves then diseases wouldn't need to be prevented."

      Yeah, sure, Gopher. And if morons who have the flu would stay home we wouldn't need a vaccine to prevent it. The fact is that abstinence has NEVER been effective. Never. People are going to have s3x. They're going to do it no matter what your babble says. They're going to do it no matter what BU says.

      And so what? Do you really think in the scheme of things it matters? Why?

      March 29, 2013 at 12:00 pm |
    • JMEF

      Topher
      How do you know what your God thinks about marriage? Jesus never married, gay or straight, that anyone knows about. Paul, in 1 Corn 7:27 Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. Weddings are a big money maker for the religions even in biblical times.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:02 pm |
    • Topher

      rick

      "so are you by denying all the other gods man has developed"

      Not really, due to the Law of Non-Contradiction. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me." So if Jesus is who He claims to be, none of the other religions can be true. Also, Christianity was not developed by man, so to speak.

      "topher: inspired by god? how about those who founded all the other religions? were they not "inspired by god"?"

      Of course not. They don't even make that claim.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:03 pm |
    • Science

      Hey topher poof goes the magic fairy .........................it would be fun to play with someday?

      Engineering 'Ghost' Objects: Breakthrough in Scattering Illusion
      Feb. 19, 2013 — A team at the NUS Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering led by Dr Qiu Cheng-Wei has come out with an optical device to "engineer" ghosts.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130219090643.htm

      March 29, 2013 at 12:03 pm |
    • Topher

      The real Tom

      "Nobody needs the church to approve."

      I agree. According to (man's) laws of the land, it is a legal agreement. That doesn't change a thing when it comes to God, though.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:05 pm |
    • Topher

      ME II

      Was it on school property?

      March 29, 2013 at 12:06 pm |
    • The real Tom

      That's nothing but opinion, Gopher. My sister was married in a civil ceremony. She's just as legally married as I am. Your beliefs are meaningless to me and to anyone else who doesn't share them.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:08 pm |
    • Topher

      The real Tom

      Please be respectful and don't call it "the babble"

      "The fact is that abstinence has NEVER been effective. Never."

      Abstinence works perfectly if you actually commit to it. No one who practiced abstinence ever got pregnant or got a disease.

      "People are going to have s3x."

      I know. But that doesn't make it right.

      "And so what? Do you really think in the scheme of things it matters? Why?"

      Which part? The premarital part? I do think it matters. It's a sin. And if you've sinned, because God is just, He must punish lawbreakers. I don't want to see anyone have to go through that punishment. Especially considering what God did for us.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:10 pm |
    • Donna

      Only a fool would believe that simply saying that kids shouldn't have pre-marital s3x will prevent them from doing so.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
    • The real Tom

      "Please be respectful and don't call it "the babble""

      I will call it whatever the fvck I choose, Gopher. You don't respect the rights of women. I have no reason to be respectful of your beliefs.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:12 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Topher

      Question, if se.x was designed to be only between a married man and woman, were Adam and Eve ever married? I don't recall ever reading about a ceremony and even if you want to as.sume one, you would think if it was so important it would added in there right?

      Since I read about no marriage ceremony, doesn't that mean Cain, Abel and Seth were all born out of wedlock?

      Heck of a way to start off a species right?

      March 29, 2013 at 12:13 pm |
    • Topher

      JMEF

      " How do you know what your God thinks about marriage?"

      Because we have God's word in the Bible. We know what He thinks on marriage.

      "Jesus never married, gay or straight, that anyone knows about."

      True, the Bible doesn't say one way or the other if Jesus was married. I tend to lean no, because He already had a bride.

      "Paul, in 1 Corn 7:27 Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife."

      Paul actually says it's better not to be married because it allows for even more focus on the things of God. But He says that it is not for everyone because some cannot control themselves se.xually and thus should marry.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:14 pm |
    • Qwerty Elemeno

      "Abstinence" gave Catholicism it's pedophilia scandal, and it gave Utah the highest rate of rape and porn consumption in the nation.

      Unnaturally oppressing a strong natural urge only causes perverse undesirable outcomes.

      Abstinence and celibacy are totally unnatural, and they are absurd non-solutions to a non-problem that religion invented by its ignorance.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:14 pm |
    • ME II

      @Topher,
      "Was it on school property?"

      My point was that the school was not supporting the activity in any direct manner.

      Furthermore, students do not abdicate all rights upon enrolling in, or attending, a school.
      Can the school ban the possession of legal items on campus? I don't know.
      Can they ban say possession of alcohol in the dorms, even for 21+ students? I'm not sure.

      I would guess that if BC can ban the possession of condoms on campus, then they can ban this activity, but otherwise, it seems like a tough case to make since it is just students handing other students a legal item. The advertisement, I think, would be immaterial, but I could be wrong.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:15 pm |
    • Topher

      The real Tom

      "My sister was married in a civil ceremony. She's just as legally married as I am"

      I agree.

      "Your beliefs are meaningless to me and to anyone else who doesn't share them."

      For now, maybe.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:16 pm |
    • JMEF

      Topher
      You ignored my question, how do you know what your God thinks about marriage especially in the NT?

      March 29, 2013 at 12:16 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Qwerty Elemeno,

      "Abstinence and celibacy .... are absurd non-solutions to a non-problem that religion invented by its ignorance."

      This is really the core issue that the Catholic church needs to understand.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:17 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Topher, Re: The Babble, please think critically and don't call it the inerrant word of some unproven god, and especially don't argue for laws or to deny others their rights based upon it.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:18 pm |
    • The real Tom

      "For now, maybe."

      Oh, sure. More proxy threats from the Gopher.

      Our laws aren't based on your beliefs, Gopher. Billions of people don't believe what you do. Your religious convictions are no more valid than those of people who are Buddhists, Shintoists, or worshippers of any other god.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:20 pm |
    • Topher

      JMEF

      " You ignored my question, how do you know what your God thinks about marriage especially in the NT?"

      I don't think I did, not intentionally anyway. I know what God thinks about marriage in the NT because Jesus commented on it in Matthew Chapter 19.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:21 pm |
    • JMEF

      Topher
      Apology, you did answer but pretty lame. What did God say in the bible about marriage both OT and NT. Nice spin on what Paul meant by do not seek a wife, did you get that from an apologist site?

      March 29, 2013 at 12:24 pm |
    • Johnny Guitar

      Haven't you guys realized the foolishness of debating a guy who thinks the Bible is absolute truth and everything else is satanic deception?

      Topher believes Noah's Ark definitely happened. He ignores obvious reality in favor of a book of ancient Middle Eastern peasant superstitions. Get real: how do you open such a tightly closed mind?

      Why do you bother?

      March 29, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
    • Topher

      JMEF

      "Apology, you did answer but pretty lame. What did God say in the bible about marriage both OT and NT"

      Like I said, go read Matthew Chapter 19.

      "Nice spin on what Paul meant by do not seek a wife, did you get that from an apologist site?"

      No apologetics needed. It's just what he said.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:29 pm |
    • ME II

      @Topher,
      Matthew 19 is about divorce, right?
      Can Boston College ban divorcees?

      March 29, 2013 at 12:35 pm |
    • Topher

      ME II

      " Matthew 19 is about divorce, right?" Yep.
      "Can Boston College ban divorcees?" I bet they could for some things. For instance, a lot of churches (though not all) won't let you be a pastor if you've been divorced (or at least met the Biblical allowance for it.)

      March 29, 2013 at 12:55 pm |
    • ME II

      @Topher,
      " For instance, a lot of churches "

      Churches are the exception for a great number of laws, and the job of preacher/pastor especially, not a great comparison.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:58 pm |
    • Topher

      ME II

      "Churches are the exception for a great number of laws, and the job of preacher/pastor especially, not a great comparison."

      Fair enough. But, for instance, let's say you have some Catholic classes you need a teacher for ... would you really hire someone you know to be breaking your moral code to teach your belief system?

      March 29, 2013 at 1:05 pm |
    • The real Tom

      I have news for you, Gopher. Catholic schools, and I don't mean just colleges and universities, do it ALL the time.

      March 29, 2013 at 1:08 pm |
    • ME II

      @Topher,
      "But, for instance, let's say you have some Catholic classes you need a teacher for ... "

      We were talking about students. Of course, the school can select qualified teachers for their classes, and I would imagine that the school would be within its rights to ban those teachers from handing out condoms in class, too. That's not the issue.

      March 29, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
    • rick

      "Not really, due to the Law of Non-Contradiction. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me." So if Jesus is who He claims to be, none of the other religions can be true."

      So, you are denying all the other gods man had made

      "Also, Christianity was not developed by man, so to speak."

      Christianity is ENTIRELY man made

      March 29, 2013 at 3:10 pm |
  13. Over 40,000 denominations of insanity

    Some believe that celibacy is appropriate for certain people, or for certain positions. It's ridiculous. Celibacy is unnatural and will continue to cause problems for the religious institutions that employ it.

    Many of the people from these same institutions advocate against abortion, but don't understand the realistic benefit of the morning after pill or even basic contraception; their unrealistic wishful thinking is causing the death of many at the hands of disease. Realistically, many abortions could be avoided if a morning-after pill were not viewed as such an evil option. Many of these same people bring children into the world at a high pace, and then would prefer that the rest of society take over and educate their children in their particular brand of religion when they don't plan well.

    Some believe the Pope is the Anti-Christ. Some believe Obama is the Anti-Christ.

    In the U.S. recently we learned of the head of Lutheran CMS chastising a minister of that church for participating in a joint service for the victims of the Newtown school shooting.

    One sect calls homosexuality an abomination while the next one in the same denomination is already performing gay marriage.

    One sect, the Westboro Baptist Church believes Americans are being killed at war because America is too kind to "fags".

    One sect believes that Jesus and Satan were brothers and that Christ will return to Jerusalem AND Jackson County, Missouri.

    One sect believes women to be subservient, while another sect in the same denomination promotes equality between the sexes.

    Conflicted right from the very beginning, Christianity continues to splinter and create divisions and more extremism as time goes by.

    March 29, 2013 at 9:18 am |
  14. Tom, Tom, the Other One

    So the Jesuits running this little school are opposed to public health measures that are as sound and reasonable as indoor plumbing? This is inconsistent with having public health and pre-medicine programs. Perhaps federal funding of research by faculty and departments affiliated with these programs, along with federal funding of scholarships etc. should be reviewed. Why provide funding when they don't believe in the most ordinary practices in public health and medicine?

    March 29, 2013 at 9:17 am |
    • Thoth

      Now that I agree with. No public funds should be granted to any religiously affliated inst.itution. I know folks will bring up any number of 'great' schools that were born of this, or that religion – I say 'so what?'. That was then, this is now. There are plenty of non-religious affliated schools that could benefit from, and possibly provide better results than the traditional name-brand schools. See how well these schools of 'morality' fair without any public funding, tax breaks, etc....

      March 29, 2013 at 9:25 am |
    • The Demon Deacon

      TTTOO
      Bill Deacon will be wetting himself with joy on reading this story. Making the laity, especially the young, toe the dogma line is Bill's mission in life. BTW Billy is an obsequious papal apologist troll.

      March 29, 2013 at 9:29 am |
    • Saraswati

      Yeah, this will make Bill pretty happy. What's actually going to be kind of sad is the position "good" Catholics will be in when the church reverses itself on birth control.

      March 29, 2013 at 9:31 am |
    • Science

      BIG money in birth control Sara ........................................ sort of surprised the church is still fighting the issue ?

      Are they missing a profit center maybe ?

      March 29, 2013 at 9:38 am |
    • Saraswati

      @Science,

      I think when decisions are being made by a bunch of old guys who gave up se'x they're pretty likely to support policies that require others to give up as much se'x as possible. And if they don't it only increases the birth membership counts.

      Now the Mormons I could picture tweaking their religion to make a profit on something like birth control.

      March 29, 2013 at 9:45 am |
    • Science

      To saar

      It is all about MONEY maybe....................... education works better for children !

      Scientists say they've found a "God particle"

      http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57574247/scientists-say-theyve-found-a-god-particle/

      for all bible thumpers please share at mass today and Easter Sunday

      March 29, 2013 at 9:51 am |
    • Science

      Oops Sara

      By the way I am Irish !

      Peace

      March 29, 2013 at 9:52 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Saraswati : they're pretty likely to support policies that require others to give up as much se'x as possible.

      Sex without commitment treats women like sex objects. The only true commitment is the lifetime commitment called marriage. Needless to say, God teaches that this cavalier attitude towards women is harmful. Inside a marriage with a solid commitment, birth control is almost unneeded. So there is no need to "give up as much sex as possible".

      March 29, 2013 at 10:10 am |
    • ..

      As usual, Gullible4Him yaks some BS from a very narrow self-imposed perspective.

      March 29, 2013 at 10:16 am |
    • Saraswati

      @L4H,

      "Se'x without commitment treats women like se'x objects."

      Really? And how does that apply to, say, lesbian relationships? Relationships where the woman pursues the man? Marriages in which the woman wants s'ex more often than the man?

      A couple of questions you missed at the end of our earlier discussion:

      From March 27, 2013 at 8:07:
      @L4H,
      Saraswati wrote: “Please explain what these ‘special’ rights are because I honestly have no idea.”

      L4H wrote: "1) They want a newly defined tax break for being in a relationship with no intention of having children."

      Saraswati wrote: “We already have a tax break for heterose’xual couples (including the elderly) with no intention of having children (I know several) so no difference.”

      L4H wrote: "2) They want to deny heterose’xual couples in similar relationships (i.e. "open-relationship without children") these same benefits."

      Saraswati wrote: “What the heck is an "open relationship" in this context? And if you just mean married hetero couples without kids, who the heck has said those "special rights" they now get (that I am my spouse do not) should be removed? I'm willing to bet I know a heck of a lot more gay and lesbian couples than you do and I can tell you the answer is no one. We just want the same rights that the heterose’xuals already have as special rights.”

      From March 27, 2013 at 2:02 pm:

      @L4H,

      You answered one of my questions but it looks like you missed this one:

      An elderly couple, one from the US, on from Ja'pan meet while both on holiday in London. If opposite se'x they can live together in the US, if same se'x they cannot ever live together (no longer working so no work visa possible and they will obviously have no kids). That's good with you too?

      Question for you L4H: A couple chooses not to have children (or can't) and the man dies leaving his wife 10 million. She pays nothing in taxes and keeps it all. I die and leave my partner the same amount and pay about 2 million in taxes (best case scenario). This is good with you?

      March 29, 2013 at 10:17 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Lie4Him, what if, horror of horrors, the woman actually likes and wants s3x – is it ok for her to treat a man as an object? Wouldn't you recommend protection in this case?

      March 29, 2013 at 10:20 am |
    • The real Tom

      Paul/Lie4ever: You're so fvcking full of sh!t. Women who are married use contraception to plan the spacing of children and control the size of their families. Nothing more.

      Dumb fvck.

      March 29, 2013 at 10:21 am |
    • JMEF

      L4H
      Do you ever get out of the house and see what is going on in the REAL world or just turn on the TV and see modern culture as it is? Are you so far buried in your Christian apologist web sites, like Chad, that the delusion has consumed your whole life? You are not believable at any level, try and stop.

      March 29, 2013 at 10:21 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Saraswati : And how does that apply to, say, lesbian relationships?

      There's no difference – no commitment means no commitment.

      @Saraswati : Relationships where the woman pursues the man? Marriages in which the woman wants s'ex more often than the man?

      What do people want more than anything else? To be loved. Women often trade sex to get affection, which subsititutes for love. If they were really just wanting sex, they would be advertising on the streets. But, they don't. So, their intent is to be loved by the man they want the sex from. They want to be held close so that they feel loved by him.

      @Saraswati : We already have a tax break for heterose’xual couples (including the elderly) with no intention of having children (I know several) so no difference.

      It's difficult to determine at the time of marriage which couples will and will not have children. Some will start off thinking they won't have children and a few years later change their minds. Others do the opposite scenario. However, if you have some means to predict which will and won't have children, then let us have it and I'll support your efforts to change the laws to exclude these couples from the tax breaks.

      @Saraswati : What the heck is an "open relationship" in this context?

      An open relationship (almost always existing in gay relationships lasting more than 2 years), is one where the partners are free to have relationships with external partners. This "openness" inherently causes instablity in the relationship. This kind of relationship is closer to heteros in a "dating-around" relationship. So, if we strive for true equality, any and all relationships should be eligible for this marriage tax break. Yet, if this occurs, then there is no encouragement from the government for people to raise children in a stable environment. This implies that the tax breaks should be reserved for those in a relationship that is stable and that is capable of having children.

      @Saraswati : You answered one of my questions but it looks like you missed this one:

      I only address questions that are pertinent to the Bible or Christianity. Your questions were targeted to American law.

      March 29, 2013 at 10:46 am |
    • JMEF

      L4H
      The only reality in your delusional life is defined by the babble and christianity. You think anybody would buy into your beliefs and faith, good luck with that.

      March 29, 2013 at 10:53 am |
    • Saraswati

      L4H,

      "I only address questions that are pertinent to the Bible or Christianity. Your questions were targeted to American law."

      You've continually skipped any question that is remotely hard to answer and you don't even seem to care how obvious it is. So, lesbians are just having se'x with each other to exchange se'x for love with other women who also just want love? All women are doing this and never really want se’x at all (sad statement on your life, btw)? 80 year olds who get married might suddenly decide to have kids? Inheritance law is irrelevant?

      You're both astoundingly self-centered and a complete idiot and you're nasty enough you don't even care. You're blinding arrogance is truly stunning.

      March 29, 2013 at 10:55 am |
    • The real Tom

      Well, then, Paul/Lie: you must be thrilled with the prospect that gay marriage may be legal in every state someday soon.

      March 29, 2013 at 10:55 am |
    • Live4Him

      @JMEF : Do you ever get out of the house and see what is going on in the REAL world or just turn on the TV and see modern culture as it is?

      Just because I see some pigs wallowing in the mud, doesn't mean that I need to jump in the mud too.

      March 29, 2013 at 10:57 am |
    • The real Tom

      Nah. You're just a hypocrite, Paul. You choose what questions to answer based only on your limited capability. Your beliefs are no different–you pick and choose what suits you and ignore the rest.

      March 29, 2013 at 10:59 am |
    • Saraswati

      The problem, Live4Him, is that you don't see the beauty in the world. Even those pigs you are condemning are beautiful creatures you should be caring for. You see nothing but the negative in the world which is why you have to grasp at a thin strand of hope from a god that makes you babble illogically like an idiot. You're like a drug addict who can't handle the world and survives by leaving a needle in your arm with a continual flow of heroin.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:01 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Saraswati : You've continually skipped any question that is remotely hard to answer and you don't even seem to care how obvious it is.

      As I've said previously, I skip personal attacks (i.e. kill the messenger) and anything not related to the Bible. My moniker should have given you THAT clue.

      @Saraswati : So, lesbians are just having se'x with each other to exchange se'x for love with other women who also just want love? All women are doing this and never really want se’x at all ...?

      Of course women enjoy sex (thank you God!). But the primary purpose to sex is to feel close to the other person (i.e. to feel loved).

      @Saraswati : Inheritance law is irrelevant?

      How does it apply to the teachings of Christ?

      @Saraswati : You're both astoundingly self-centered and a complete idiot and you're nasty enough you don't even care. You're blinding arrogance is truly stunning.

      So, you've decided to wallow in the mud like the other pigs.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:07 am |
    • JMEF

      L4H
      Well, I see you as a dour, humorless, judgemental troll whose sole joy, entertainment in life is proselytizing on blogs. Pigs wallowing in the mud, what an unforgiving bigot you are, you are not even close to having Christian values, you are a hypocrite.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:08 am |
    • The real Tom

      "So, you've decided to wallow in the mud like the other pigs."

      In other words, he/she disagrees with you. Why don't you put him/her on your famous "ignore list," you sanctimonious twit? Do you really think for a moment that anyone reads your jackazzery here and takes it to heart? You are so vain you probably do. What a dick.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:13 am |
    • Saraswati

      Here's the deal, L4H. You came out a couple of days ago on this whole rant about how banning same se’x marriage was a practical issue related to child rearing and taxes and all sorts of civil, secular issues. You went along in that vein until you couldn't hack it anymore up against tough questions and now you're falling back on "I only address questions that are pertinent to the Bible or Christianity." You're a total hypocrite and you either don't see it or are being dishonest. In addition, you refuse to address questions about lesbians and the elderly repeatedly and start claiming they are personal attacks. The only "personal attack" anywhere is where I call you an idiot, which I would argue is a simple statement of fact. I'm probably a bit of a fool myself for thinking you might actually be listening and have a hope to recognize your own ignorance.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:14 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Lie4Him will now admit that she has been most un- jesus like, will confess her sins to a religious shaman or her unproven god, and declare that all is forgiven. Repeat ad nauseum. . .

      March 29, 2013 at 11:14 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Saraswati : The problem, Live4Him, is that you don't see the beauty in the world.

      Of course I do! I see a lot of beauty in God's creation.

      @Saraswati : Even those pigs you are condemning are beautiful creatures you should be caring for.

      Another person who doesn't understand animals and wants to humanize them.

      @Saraswati : You see nothing but the negative in the world which is why you have to grasp at a thin strand of hope from a god that makes you babble illogically like an idiot.

      Talking about 'babbling illogically like an idiot', that is exactly what a personal attack is all about. If one has the facts, then the person can debate those facts. When one has nothing but an opinion, then the person is reduced to personal attacks.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:16 am |
    • Saraswati

      @L4H,

      "Another person who doesn't understand animals and wants to humanize them."

      Another person who has so poor an understanding of biology s/he doesn't know s/he's an animal. Since you supposedly see beauty in god's creations and not in these animals I can only imagine the twisted logic you have for how these animals fit into your creation scheme. You live in a sad, sick little world.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:20 am |
    • The real Tom

      "Another person who doesn't understand animals and wants to humanize them

      Oh, that's rich. You are implying that YOU "understand animals"? Based on what? What qualifications do you have that show you "understand animals"?

      Again, what a dick you are.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:26 am |
    • The real Tom

      "Talking about 'babbling illogically like an idiot', that is exactly what a personal attack is all about. If one has the facts, then the person can debate those facts. When one has nothing but an opinion, then the person is reduced to personal attacks."

      Then you condemn yourself. All you have is YOUR personal opinion, you witless wonder. You have an opinion about what animals are all about and what god thinks. That is all you have. It's no more valuable than the opinion pigs have of you.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:28 am |
    • JMEF

      L4H
      You are not a Christian, not even close, you are at best a deluded hypocrite that can see the sins in others but deny the utter arrogance in yourself. Time for Gandhi....
      I like your Christ but I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
      Gandhi is referring to you L4H and your ilk.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:29 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Saraswati : You went along in that vein until you couldn't hack it anymore up against tough questions

      None of your questions was addressing the same-sex marriage issue.

      @Saraswati : you refuse to address questions about lesbians and the elderly repeatedly

      1) I did address the lesbian issue.
      2) I cannot see where the elderly issue has anything to do with same-sex marriage. Perhaps you should modify your non-sequitor into a logical argument for me to address?

      @Saraswati : The only "personal attack" anywhere is where I call you an idiot, which I would argue is a simple statement of fact.

      An 'idiot' is one with an IQ below 85, which I'm definitely not (since I've gone to college and seminary). So, this is a blatant personal attack and NOT based upon facts. Second, lets assume that I didn't go to college – could you prove beyond doubt my IQ level? No. You cannot even prove who I am, much less my IQ level. So, this (i.e. claiming it is a "statement of fact") is a blatant lie. Furthermore, since you persisted in these personal attacks, I've moved you to the ignore list for the rest of the day. Perhaps when you've cooled down, you can engage in mature and rational debates again. Good bye

      March 29, 2013 at 11:40 am |
    • The real Tom

      AHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAH(inhale)HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!AHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAH(inhale)HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!AHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAH(inhale)HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!AHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAH(inhale)HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

      Oooooh, "Good bye!"

      Wave that hankie, Lie4ever. You've been PWND.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:43 am |
    • Saraswati

      OED definition of idiot:

      noun
      informal
      a stupid person.
      • Medicine, *archaic* a mentally handicapped person.

      You're definition is a footnote on archaic usage. Mine is the mainstream common use.

      And apparently used correctly.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:43 am |
    • The real Tom

      Don't you just love it? Now the dishonest azzhole has a time limit on his/her famous ignore list–you're only on it for the rest of the day! Ahahahhhahahaa! Really, Paul/Lie4ever, you're too funny. You ran into an argument you couldn't win and now you're running off to cry your eyes out in your boudoir. Wanna cookie?

      March 29, 2013 at 11:48 am |
    • Saraswati

      I feel like I should make some use of my ignore list time...strip naked and dance around a bonfire outside L4H's church or something. I actually thought the ignore list was a joke every time people mentioned it. Seems too good to be true. 🙂

      March 29, 2013 at 11:48 am |
    • The real Tom

      "Perhaps when you've cooled down, you can engage in mature and rational debates again.'

      Funny, funny, funny. The only one who seems to be all het up here is you, Paul/Lie. You're all worked up about someone calling you an idiot after having proven that's exactly what you are. You're all bent out of shape and butt-hurt because you were soundly beaten and you now are too embarrassed to own up to your defeat.

      Wow, talk about immature.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:52 am |
    • The real Tom

      "which I'm definitely not (since I've gone to college and seminary)."

      This is supremely funny! As if there are no idiots in college and seminary–what kind of a boob are you, Paul? There are idiots everywhere. You're one of many.

      March 29, 2013 at 11:54 am |
    • HotAirAce

      I am very proud of being on the original ignore list.

      I apologize for incorrectly forecasting that Lie4Him would throw herself upon the mercy of her unproven god. It appears she is even less jesus-like than even I imagined. Or perhaps she is beginning to realize her dead jew zombie ain't listening.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:00 pm |
    • Akira

      EJR17:

      The procreation argument cannot be taken seriously. States do not inquire whether straight couples intend to bear children, or have the capacity to have children, before they are allowed to marry. We permit marriage by the elderly, by prison inmates, and by persons who have no intention of having children.
      There simply is no reason not to allow gay couples the equal rights they deserve under the 14th. No reason not to allow them to be legally wed.

      There is no reason to deny a segment of society the right to marry because of tax considerations, either.
      Give gay marriage the same tax breaks as straight couples.
      The tax codes are not being re-written, only modified, which is done ALL THE TIME.
      After granting gays people the right to marry, denying them the tax breaks would be a form of reverse discrimination...effectively taxing them for BEING gay.
      Reprehensible that in our secular United States, someone would put this theory as a valid reason to deny couples the right to wed based on the unlikely premise that one's own taxes *may* rise, (an infinitesimally small possibility, given that there are nowhere as many gay couples as straight couples wishing to wed).

      March 29, 2013 at 12:14 pm |
    • Peace of Mind

      Get added to Live4Him's list daily!

      We will reply to a Live4Him post under your moniker.
      No derogatory words used. Just the right touch of disagreement to ensure
      that you won't be bothered with senseless meanderings of delusion.

      $4.95/month introductory price! Pay by PayPal at:
      http://www.dontengagethelies.com

      March 29, 2013 at 12:36 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Peace of Mind,

      Thanks for the best laugh of the day. On that note I'd guess I'd better get back to work.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:39 pm |
  15. HotAirAce

    Why do students go to cult affiliated schools and then break the cult's rules?

    March 29, 2013 at 9:04 am |
    • clarity

      Hypocrisy and conflict are at the root of the Christian religion. It's the natural way for them.

      March 29, 2013 at 9:14 am |
    • Saraswati

      In the US most Catholics treat Catholicism as a cultural club more than a religion with over 80% having no issue with "artificial" birth control. Raised by "Catholic" parents who have no issues with it and in communities in which it is the norm it is often a big shock when Catholics are actually faced with the realities of their own religion, when they actually realize that they belong to an anti-gay club that bans birth control.

      I always wonder how fast people would change religions if everyone actually picked the religion that most closely met their own beliefs. From the figures we've see I'd guess Catholicism would lose at least 70% of it's followers overnight.

      What religion are you REALLY:

      http://www.selectsmart.com/RELIGION/

      March 29, 2013 at 9:19 am |
    • JMEF

      HotAirAce
      Mommy or daddy went there and junior and princess will go where they are told if they want the tuition paid for, perhaps?

      March 29, 2013 at 9:23 am |
    • Saraswati

      Last I remember the courts ruled that parents have to pay their kids college tuition. Of course that only extends as far as a cheaper state school.

      March 29, 2013 at 9:28 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Parents *have* to pay their kid's tuition! Get a reference to that law? Maybe the USA is farther down the whacko track than I thought?p.

      March 29, 2013 at 9:32 am |
    • Saraswati

      @HotAir,

      Government scholarships are based on parental income until you reach a certain age. It is actually on of the primary means of redistribution of wealth in the US. If you refuse to pay your "share" as parents they the kid is pretty much screwed.

      March 29, 2013 at 9:34 am |
    • HotAirAce

      You implied it was a right / ent!tlement for kids to go to college and the parents must pay.

      March 29, 2013 at 9:36 am |
    • Saraswati

      @HotAirAce,

      Are you talking to me or someone else? It is a legal right, yes, but most people aren't really familiar with the legal rulings so kids usually just suck it up if their parents don't pay.

      The age of adulthood varies from country to country – in the US it is 18 for most things including voting, but 16 to drive, 21 to drink, 25 to run for sentate, 35 to run for president. In some countries you can vote at 12 or 13. In many western countries 21 was traditionally the age of adulthood. It's really up to each country to decide how long a parent is responsible for their children. In countries like Singapore the reverse is also true, and children are financially responsible for their parents. China has recently imposed similar laws.

      March 29, 2013 at 9:41 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Saraswati, are you really saying that any kid in the USA can say they want to go to college and their parents must find the money?

      March 29, 2013 at 9:49 am |
    • Saraswati

      @HotAirAce,

      It's more complicated than that. In the US people don't usually pay their full tuition. It's paid for by a combination of government grants and loans and a contribution from the "family" determined by a formula. There are also state and insti'tutional grants and loans. After the whole thing gets submitted you are told what your contribution is. If you are poor this is probably a fairly low number. If you are wealthy you could end up paying over $40,000 a year. This is a pretty basic redistribution of wealth which makes up for the otherwise fairly low taxes the wealthy have paid.

      In practice though parents often don't pay for their kids to go to school and few kids hire lawyers to fight it. After a few years the kids age out of the requirement and then the government has to cough up the money. It's basically theft on the part of the parents but no one gets charged.

      March 29, 2013 at 9:56 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Saraswati, I might be having a thick moment.

      Are you really saying a college education is an ent!tlement in the USA, and ignoring specific funding formulas, every kid that wants to go to college will go and their parents must pay. Are you really saying parents cannot decide to not pay for their kid's tuition, as in "Johnny, you can go to any college you like, but (for whatever reason) I (the father) am not contributing one cent to your tuition or other costs."?

      March 29, 2013 at 10:11 am |
    • Science

      A little backfill for a college education

      Fossil record works better than the bible ?

      Strange Spaghetti-Shaped Creature Is Missing Link: Discovery Pushes Fossil Record Back 200 Million Years

      Mar. 13, 2013 — Canada's 505 million year-old Burgess Shale fossil beds, located in Yoho National Park, have yielded yet another major scientific discovery – this time with the unearthing of a strange spaghetti-shaped creature.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130313142526.htm

      March 29, 2013 at 10:17 am |
    • Saraswati

      Yes, I am really saying that. You can say "I'm not paying for you to go to Harvard" but you can't say "I'm not paying for you to go to the local community college or local state school". You have to pay. I'm not sure I can say it another way. If you are in Singapore you have to pay to take care of your parents – is that one confusing as well or just the US college rules?

      March 29, 2013 at 10:19 am |
    • Saraswati

      @HotAir,

      Think of it this way. Since the formulas are based on the parents income if John's parents are rich he has to pay $15,000/year to go to the local state college. Bobby next door has been told he'll pay $2000/year because his parents make less money. So now John's parents say they won't pay. He's still left with a $15,000 bill compared to Bobby's $2000/year.

      March 29, 2013 at 10:24 am |
    • The real Tom

      Not buying it, Sara. Cite the law.

      March 29, 2013 at 10:24 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Saraswati, no it is not confusing. I didn't think the USA had gone so far as to mandate college educations for all. Thanks.

      March 29, 2013 at 10:24 am |
    • Saraswati

      @HotAir,

      A parent *can* say "You're damn well going to the local state uni or I'm not paying".

      March 29, 2013 at 10:25 am |
    • Science

      Sara according to our pocket book it cost us plenty to send our children to college ! in the US

      March 29, 2013 at 10:26 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Saraswati, to be clear, I am not asking about funding formulas. I am asking about ent!tlement – that every kid in the USA is ent!tled by law to a college education.

      March 29, 2013 at 10:27 am |
    • Saraswati

      "I am asking about ent!tlement – that every kid in the USA is ent!tled by law to a college education."

      No, there is no law that says that specifically.

      March 29, 2013 at 10:34 am |
    • Science

      HotAirAce .............ent!tlement

      That is a big part of the RCC .........................................................they think tat way ?

      March 29, 2013 at 10:34 am |
    • Science

      Oops that

      March 29, 2013 at 10:35 am |
    • clarity

      I had never heard of that either, Saraswati, but I think in some states it does come into play if a child is already enrolled and then one of the parents loses custodial rights and winds up becoming by the court financially responsible to pay for the child's education. (There are probably restrictions like the student has to be full-time, etc., but I think some states require that up until the child is 21.)

      March 29, 2013 at 10:37 am |
    • clarity

      But I wouldn't call that ent!tlement – I would call that a responsibility to a commitment already made to the child.

      March 29, 2013 at 10:42 am |
    • Donna

      HAA
      Catholic schools have a reputation for having a high standard of education, so people will often go there for the degree without much serious consideration over the cult rules. One can only assume that people going to Liberty University go there for the opposite reasons.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:07 pm |
    • ME II

      @Saraswati,
      I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but parents are not legally obligated to pay for their children's college. Elementary and Secondary (through high school), but not post-Secondary.

      Now the government's financial aid system, e.g. Pell Grants, is "need based" and assumes a certain contribution from the family, but that is not a requirement, it is only for calculating the supposed "need" of the child. Many students get this "family contribution" from loans or just working. I have never heard of any student suing their parents for college and winning (people can sue for most anything), unless their are extraordinary circ.umstances, e.g. grandparent's inheritance, verbal contracts, etc.

      March 29, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
    • ME II

      "their" should be "there"

      (sheesh, I'm embarrassed.)

      March 29, 2013 at 1:43 pm |
    • clarity

      Yes, ME II, but see what I posted just above about some states and responsibilities for non-custodial parents. Although, as I said, that seems more like a commitment responsibility than an ent!tlement issue, but I'll bet it comes up quite a bit these days with couples that are separated in one way or another in certain states.

      March 29, 2013 at 1:49 pm |
    • ME II

      @clarity,
      Yes, I guessing there are cases like that, but I would think they are not the usual situations and may fall under some form of verbal contract, not a general parental obligation. Although, I could be wrong.

      March 29, 2013 at 1:54 pm |
  16. Science

    BACKWARDS THEY GO................................................ ? The school should now better !

    To all creationists do you have a Y

    Human Y Chromosome Much Older

    Than Previously Thought

    Mar. 4, 2013 — The discovery and analysis of an extremely rare African American Y chromosome pushes back the time of the most recent common ancestor for the Y chromosome lineage tree to 338,000 years ago. This time predates the age of the oldest known anatomically modern human fossils.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130305145821.htm

    March 29, 2013 at 8:57 am |
    • Science

      Oops should KNOW

      March 29, 2013 at 8:59 am |
  17. Thoth

    "Condoms on campus? No thanks, we prefer pregnant students, or cover-ups and backroom abortions"

    Just to clear that up.....

    March 29, 2013 at 8:56 am |
    • Saraswati

      There are some real ways a college can reduce the pregnancy and STD rates on campus. If they don't mind the impact on applications they can limit visitations in dorms to the point inconvenience alone drops the number of se'xual encounters – it may pis's off the students but is very effective. But limiting condom use is just shooting yourself in the foot.

      Making students share rooms also helps reduce pregnancy rates, but given that most of today's applicants have never shared a room in their lives failure to provide singles is a sure fire way to reduce your applicant pool.

      March 29, 2013 at 9:04 am |
    • Thoth

      @Sara – I doubt BC is worried about their applicant pool; and condoms are readily available within walking distance off-campus. It is however a seemingly backwards move from reality. We are talking adults here since most all college students are 18+. Whether you believe our existance is 'chance', or we were created by some diety, hormones/instincts are part of who we are. It's sad that religions choose to make taboo something that is natural and normal amongst all other spieces on earth; and villify those attempting to take some responsible preventative measures.

      March 29, 2013 at 9:19 am |
    • Saraswati

      It's certainly a sad approach to take to life.

      March 29, 2013 at 9:25 am |
    • Saraswati

      It's kind of like telling people they should live on bread and water. It's telling folks that eating spi'ces or chocolate or sleeping in a warm bed is evil.

      I do think they are worried about their applicant pool, though – every college is. There's huge compet'ition to show up well in the rankings and this is an obsession for all competi'tive colleges.

      March 29, 2013 at 9:26 am |
    • Thoth

      @Sara – I'm not saying they shouldn't be worried about it; I'm simply suggesting that they (admin) seem to have taken the att.itude of "this is how it is going to be", ignoring that it runs counter to even the average 'Catholic's" opinion. To me that is taking a position of superiority, and implies they (admin) believe their 'pool' should only be comprised of those willing to follow "their" ideology.

      March 29, 2013 at 9:34 am |
    • Saraswati

      Yeah, I agree it's superiority, or at least over confidence. I think they care, but they are so sure they're right that they don't understand how badly this is going to hurt them.

      March 29, 2013 at 9:37 am |
    • HotAirAce

      It's a cult based school! Of course they should expect attendees to follow their cult's rules. Their expectations may be unrealistic, but they're not unexpected. Do you really expect the school to go to battle with Pope-A-Dope and the vatican?

      March 29, 2013 at 9:40 am |
    • Thoth

      @HotAir – well, in a nutshell, most all well known Universities are rooted in religion. However, most of them have long since admitted students 'not of their faith'. Take for example Duke University – founded by Methodists/Quakers. How many atheist doctors/scientists/researchers do you imagine have 'graced' that school with their presence? How many Catholics? Jesuits? Muslims?

      March 29, 2013 at 9:54 am |
    • HotAirAce

      I'm sure that many nonbelievers have made their way thru cult schools, but that only speaks to reality, not the cult school's (stupid, out of touch, silly, etc.) expectations.

      March 29, 2013 at 10:02 am |
  18. Saraswati

    It's kind of sad when a college which traditionally has a good reputation shoots itself in the foot this way. Unless BC grows and evolves their diplomas will be worth about as much as one from Liberty in a few years.

    March 29, 2013 at 8:54 am |
    • Poltergiest

      Lol their just condoms dude. Students can just go to a gas station. If the only thing standing between the pregnancy was free condoms, it probably would have just happened later with that person anyways. Condoms can't fix risk taking behavior.

      March 29, 2013 at 9:17 am |
    • Saraswati

      It's not going to be a fear of going condom-less that turns students off. Kids today aren't going to want to be seen as affiliated with an insti'tution that supports these kinds of backwards ideas. This kind of media attention has probably already lost them a large chunk of the next applicant pool.

      March 29, 2013 at 9:49 am |
    • Polergiest

      Your over estimating the effect. No ones going to be thinking about this condom story in a few months.

      March 29, 2013 at 12:53 pm |
  19. Reality

    Dear Boston College Administrators,

    – from a guy who enjoys intelligent se-x-

    Note: Some words hyphenated to defeat an obvious word filter. ...

    The Brutal Effects of Stupidity:

    : The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill ( 8.7% failure rate) and male con-dom (17.4% failure rate) have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or co-ndoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.- Failure rate statistics provided by the Gut-tmacher Inst-itute. Unfortunately they do not give the statistics for doubling up i.e. using a combination of the Pill and a condom.

    Added information before making your next move:

    from the CDC-2006

    "Se-xually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psy-ch-ological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

    And from:

    Consumer Reports, January, 2012

    "Yes, or-al se-x is se-x, and it can boost cancer risk-

    Here's a crucial message for teens (and all se-xually active "post-teeners": Or-al se-x carries many of the same risks as va-ginal se-x, including human papilloma virus, or HPV. And HPV may now be overtaking tobacco as the leading cause of or-al cancers in America in people under age 50.

    "Adolescents don’t think or-al se-x is something to worry about," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 's-ex.'" (It should be called the Bill Clinton Syndrome !!)

    Obviously, political leaders in both parties, Planned Parenthood, parents, the "stupid part of the USA" and the educational system have failed miserably on many fronts.

    The most effective forms of contraception, ranked by "Perfect use":

    1a. (Abstinence, 0% failure rate)
    1b. (Masturbation, mono or mutual, 0% failure rate)

    Followed by:
    One-month injectable and Implant (both at 0.05 percent)
    Vasectomy and IUD (Mirena) (both at 0.1 percent)
    The Pill, Three-month injectable, and the Patch (all at 0.3 percent)
    Tubal sterilization (at 0.5 percent)
    IUD (Copper-T) (0.6 percent)
    Periodic abstinence (Post-ovulation) (1.0 percent)
    Periodic abstinence (Symptothermal) and Male condom (both at 2.0 percent)
    Periodic abstinence (Ovulation method) (3.0 percent)

    Every other method ranks below these, including Withdrawal (4.0), Female condom (5.0), Diaphragm (6.0), Periodic abstinence (calendar) (9.0), the Sponge (9.0-20.0, depending on whether the woman using it has had a child in the past), Cervical cap (9.0-26.0, with the same caveat as the Sponge), and Spermicides (18.0).

    March 29, 2013 at 8:51 am |
    • The real Tom

      To "enjoy intelligent s3x", you moron, you'd have to BE intelligent. Posting the same tripe repeatedly is evidence you're not. At all.

      March 29, 2013 at 10:41 am |
  20. Reality

    Some irony:

    IF THE PILL AND MALE CONDOMS WERE USED PROPERLY, ABORTION WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE AND OBAMA WOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT.

    (Added note: Bill Gates is quite aware of the health issues. From today's news: "Gates will give a $100,000 grant to whoever can invent the “next generation condom” through The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s Grand Challenges in Global Health. The estimated 80 grant recipients can then apply for a follow-up grant worth up to $1 million."

    "Is it possible to develop a product without this stigma, or better, one that is felt to enhance pleasure?” the Grand Challenge prompt asks. ”If so, would such a product lead to substantial benefits for global health, both in terms of reducing the incidence of unplanned pregnancies and in prevention of infection with HIV or other STIs [se-xually transmitted infections]?”

    The GOP would be wise to support these kind of projects.

    March 29, 2013 at 8:48 am |
1 2
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.