> So, given that we will not stop the long standing > sexual practices of the > men (its moral to try, but its stupid to rely on > sucess), do we say that > the natural result is the death for both the man and > his wife, and that its > wrong to stop it, or that life is so important that > saving the wife is more > important than the possiblity of encouraging more > affairs?
While on an intellectual level I completely agree with this, I would also argue that this is ultimately the purview of the local governments, not the Church. Part of religion's role in society is to teach, encourage, and sometimes uphold morality (and there's a number of ways that can be done, from witholding perks within the congregation to having religious "Moral Hygene" squads to see that its enforced). To take the stance that using codoms to prevent the spread of AIDS is OK, and compromise accepted morality leads to moral laziness. Damon. ===== ------------------------------------------------------------ Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: ------------------------------------------------------------ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
