Posted on 10/09/2007 3:56:14 PM PDT by wagglebee
No problem for me.
Let tham smoke some pot and get cotton mouth.
They'll drink like fishes.
;^)
I just puked on my keyboard.
If you think I’m clicking on that link, you’re crazy. I don’t want to catch anything.
Since you like "statistical tricks," here's another one for you. Couples who practice natural family planning, rather than using artificially induced sterility, enjoy a divorce rate of less than 5%. (Marital duration and natural family planning)
So basically, this "statistical trick" proves that couples who do not live together before marriage, and who joyfully welcome children into life, walmost never divorce.
This "statistical trick" used to be called common sense.
*Mandell, Bennett, & Dolin: Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 6th ed., 2005.
Human Papilloma Virus infection can be eradicated in many cases using topical agents
I’m not disputing that, I’m merely pointing out that there is no empirical cure for them.
Irreplaceable, eh?
Golly, you're so much better than me since you're NATURAL!
What a sanctimonious statement.
You've missed the important question: Is it a true statement? And the answer is yes, because, at the very least, cohabitation represents a public scandal.
Can you provide a scenario where cohabitation would not be wrong? I can think of one or two where, for example, your small plane crashes in Alaska near an abandoned house. To survive the cold, you must sleep together with another survivor of the crash, a member of the opposite sex, in the cabin overnight.
But that isn't the usual case.
I'm glad I wasn't drinking coffee when I read that!
I can easily see this argument being put forward as a reason why cohabitation is right in all cases. After all, it makes just as much sense as the argument that 1.3 MILLION children a year should be butchered because a few thousand rape victims become pregnant.
Yes. The graces that come naturally with natural parenthood come no other way. It seems so obvious that it shouldn't require proof. But if you want empirical data, there's tons of it out there.
If you want biblical evidence, here it is, in Jesus' rhetorical question:
Luke 11:11Golly, you're so much better than me since you're NATURAL!"Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead?"
The graces that come naturally with parenthood are not the only graces dispensed by God (!). Clearly, grace is working through anyone who adopts a child. This is why adoptive parents can be great parents --even better than natural parents.
But adoptive parents never get the same graces that come through natural parenthood. And this is why, statistically, stepfathers and live-in boyfriends tend to abuse children at a higher rate than the children's natural parents.
Because you seem to find Luke 11:11 far more compelling than I do, please note that Jesus doesn't say NATURAL fathers. "Fathers" is good enough for him, but I guess you think you know better, and that making distinctions that demean parents unlike yourself is a good idea.
I also notice that you skipped over including adoptive fathers in your incest/abuse stats. I suppose that's because they don't fit your agenda, in that they don't have higher rates than the NATURAL.
And this concerns you, how? Did it ever occur to these folks that many of those who cohabit do so knowing that "all good things must come to an end?"
I think they are just saying that cohabitating is NOT a committment and therefore not a relationship built on solid ground. Something happens in a marriage ceremony that I truly never expected; I was stunned. I have asked others, they confirm. It is DIFFERENT.
I think it's reasonable to assume that Jesus was speaking of natural fathers. But it's certainly possible that He was including adoptive fathers in his rhetorical question, since the care of widows and orphans was considered the highest form of charity among Jews, and the act of adoption obviously reflects the operation of grace.
I also notice that you skipped over including adoptive fathers in your incest/abuse stats.
There's a logical reason for this, since adoptive fathers are categorically different from stepfathers and, obviously, live-in boyfriends. Adoptive parents almost always choose to have adopted children, whereas the same cannot be assumed for stepfathers, and especially live-in boyfriends.
I suppose that's because they don't fit your agenda, in that they don't have higher rates than the NATURAL.
I don't know what the rates are, but presumably the abuse rate would be much closer to that of natural fathers than stepfathers and live-in boyfriends, for the aforementioned reason.
You don't need to live together to learn what day to day life is like.
Anyone in a serious relationship should keep their own residence. Its 10 times harder if you end up breaking up and don't have a place of your own.
Yeah, maybe He was including His unnatural father, Joseph.
You assume so much, and create so many distinctions, that you offend. You've been told that before, but you obviously don't have respect for the opinions offered you, so I'm sure you'll shoulder on. The only other person I've encountered here that was so demeaning regarding this topic was another uber-Catholic, non-adoptive parent, askel5. I'm not sure what exactly it is in your culture that fosters this kind of arrogance, but it does more harm than good.
If you were an adoptive parent you'd know that.
Would you support laws banning room-mates of the opposite sex?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
