New Zealand Conservative

I mentioned this on another forum and thought I'd do a post here on it as well. When it comes to the subject of sex, many people consider that what the Bible has to say on the subject is very old fashioned; and perhaps it is, but there is wisdom in following the laws of God. These days having sex with another person to whom you are not married is commonplace; so common that it isn't thought of as a sin any more where once it would have been scandalous. You don't even have to love each other now; just find someone willing on a Friday night. The Bible calls it "fornication". The Bible also has something to say about homosexual sex - Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for...

This is a pretty typical accusation: Catholicism is directly responsible for hundreds of thousands (millions?) of deaths due to the spread of AIDS in Africa by discouraging condom use. [ LudditeJourno on the Hand Mirror ] That seems to me a particularly silly thing to say. Aside from the fact that the DIRECT causes are something far more obvious, I fail to understand how the Church advocating not using condoms would make ANY difference to non-Catholics. Q1. Does anyone seriously think non-Catholics will "obey" this suggestion? And for Catholics, this suggestion is part of a larger list. It is taken out of that list, breaking the context, by the media. The full message is: 1. No sex before marriage. 2. No condoms (be open to life) 3. No adultery Q2. Do you think Catholics are going to follow the second directive whilst they are actively ignoring the first and third? The whole contraception thing comes off as an overly simplistic way of playing the blame gam...

In the secular and liberal world, the concept of consent is the cornerstone of a liberal's approach to moral issues. Beyond consent though is a more fundamental human desire - the wish for public endorsement of a person's actions. For example, things that were originally only an issue in the "privacy of the bedroom between consenting adults" now require not just state endorsement but full acceptance from the Church. Whilst liberals say they tolerate anything with appropriate consent, they tend not to tolerate wildly different opinions. So we fall back to the issue of consent, which isn't a bad place to fall back to. An extremely important event then, was the recent ruling that failure of one party to disclose AIDS to their sexual partner could be treated as a crime tantamount to rape , because the partner cannot provide fully informed consent. There are groups that oppose this move. The AIDS foundation is worried: The Aids Foundation says that a Court...

As the financial catastrophe that threatens to lead the whole world into depression and quite possibly engulf it in war comes ever closer the elites of Europe continue on their merry way The item that caugtht my eye 22. Calls on the Commission and Council to ensure access to high-quality, comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services, information and supplies; takes the view that this should cover, inter alia, confidential and voluntary counselling, testing and treatment for HIV and all sexually transmitted infections; prevention of unintended pregnancies; equitable and affordable access to contraceptives, including access to emergency contraception; safe and legal abortion, including post-abortion care; and care and treatment to prevent vertical transmission of HIV, including to partners and children; Just how killing the unborn will prevent transmission of AIDS a rare disease primarily found in homosexual males will lower its incidence remains a mystery. Is child sa...

Ok, so I don't want this to come across like a 'conspiracy theory' post or something like that but it probably will. Like (I suppose) most people, I had the idea that the AIDS disease starts with someone contracting the HIV virus which then leads to AIDS; however, I stumbled across a website by accident yesterday which documents a different view, that - There is no proof that the HIV virus is the cause of, or leads to AIDS. In fact, HIV is a retrovirus ('an incomplete "side" of a DNA spiral ladder'). According to what I read "Viruses are larger and more complete replicable strands. Generally, the ones that can hurt us get into our cells and replicate themselves, and destroy the cells they get into. This has never been observed with a retrovirus, and certainly not with HIV". This is not just a theory proposed by crackpots, but by many actual scientists, including Dr. Peter Duesberg, professor of molecular biology and one of the world’s leading au...