I'm using common sense, in listening to his words. 7 year old children are taught to make inferences when they are in second grade. It appears you can't do this. I know exactly what he said, and he's wrong. All sex causes need for contraception. I know that and most everyone else here except you knows that as well. I believe even Ron Paul knows that. You can disagree with me. But if that isn't what Ron Paul knows then he's complete idiot and has no business serving our nation in anyway as part of the government. Or do you agree with him that it isn't all sex that creates a need for the pill, only immoral sex? Either you agree with him, or you agree with me.
I think college is a good idea. If your faith can't withstand a freshman philosophy class, it likely wasn't very strong or mature to begin with.
Franchiseblade, did you see Ron Paul's interviews where he addresses this matter in detail? No disrespect to you at all but even I had questions about this before listening to his interviews, after listening to it, I believe I can say I agree with what he is saying at attacking where this problem comes from rather then what consequences of the problem. If you'd like I can try and pull it up for you.
Divide "all sex" into moral and immoral. He was specifically talking about immorality, and its cause. He was not speaking about all sex. "“But sort of along the line of the pills creating immorality, I don’t see it that way." "the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills." "the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills." "the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills." "the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills." "the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills." "the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills." "the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills." "the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills." "the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills." "the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills." "the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills." "the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills." "the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills."
Paul's anti birth control stance obviously is due to his desire to deliver more babies and rake in more medicare $$$ to augment his stash of gold bars in the basement. Speaking of which, can you imagine allowing that old coot to deliver your kids? God no thank you.....
Then he's either a liar or an idiot. Because it is all sex that creates the need for the pill. Do you disagree with that? Do you agree that all sex that isn't done for procreation creates a need for the pill? Can you answer that question? It's pretty simple. I know exactly what Paul said, and because I know why there's a need for the pill, I can realize that Paul was either an idiot and truly believes: 1. only immorality creates a need for the pill and that moral people having sex without wanting to have children don't need contraception. 2. Paul believes any sex that isn't for procreation is immoral. Or Paul is lying. If I accept Paul's words those are the conclusions that can be made. Which one of those conclusions do you believe?
I think you're leaving out the gray areas in between. Don't just have sex carelessly, this will bring a need for the pill. There was a time with contraception didn't exist, and sure enough the sex-crave among everyone (not just the teenagers) wasn't so intense as it is now.
Not all sex but I get what you are saying. But he was specifically talking about immoral sex, not moral. Because he was addressing the cause of immoral sex and he said that the pills are not to blame. (which you would think liberals would agree with) I don't know how many ways and times I can try to explain it to you. Would a puppet show help? And He never says "only immorality" creates the need for the pill. He never says "only immorality" creates the need for the pill. He never says "only immorality" creates the need for the pill. He never says "only immorality" creates the need for the pill. He never says "only immorality" creates the need for the pill. He never says "only immorality" creates the need for the pill. It would be really super if you stopped lying and putting words in his mouth. Here is a image for you that might help you out some: Ron Paul was specifically talking about the bottom word, not the top one.
Since the line that separates morality and immorality is subjective, aren't you guys just wasting all of our time with this sidebar conversation?
Who are you to say what the cravings of teenagers were from generations past? I don't care what decade we're in, if I throw a bunch of 19 year olds in a beach house, they're bangin'.
Politicians should limit themselves to legality since it is more clearly definable and changes slowly with reasoned debate. Morality is only in the eye of the beholder and changes sporadically with the public mood.
Your response indicates you missed my point. Without getting too detailed the point of birth control really isn't to stop people from going too far during sex, it's purpose is mainly to prevent pregnancy from happening just in case you go to far. If I'm having a sex with my wife and am doing it for the purpose of enjoyment then I'm doing it with boundaries on how far I go. If birth control has a success rate of 99%, then it's possible to have a 99% success rate if the guy's could stop themselves before the "oops" moment. It's one of those things where you need to know and be educated on the risk and how that one little moment could impact your entire future.
This is an absurd statement. When was this time? Just because people have only recently had access to live cam shows on the Internet doesn't mean previous generations were less randy. How far back do you want to go? Aristophanes? Suetonius? Shakespeare? How about Kinsey? You can't go back far enough. Here's how the author of "The Nature of Paleolithic Art" describes one set of ancient cave drawings: The only difference between now and then (whenever "then" was) is that now there are many fewer societal controls on women's sexuality than there used to be (hence the early marriage of girls anywhere from 13 on up... the only way to have sex was to be married). Guys could always visit the whorehouse or look at p*rn (Google "Victorian p*rn") or rape some gal who was below them in social status. Now, women have a fair amount of power (when they choose to use it) and that pisses off insecure guys. If men were the ones that got pregnant, we'd have pills passed out at church and abortion clinics would be on every corner and serve wings and have big screen TVs so you could eat and watch sports while waiting to be helped by the "naughty" nurses. And by the way, there has always been contraception. Lemon juice-soaked sponges are mentioned in the Talmud, one of the first writings on contraception is from 1850BC, and the Greeks used all kinds of plants. Other well-used methods were induced abortions and infanticide. I don't really care to go back to that time, thank you.
If he missed your point, I also missed your point. Perhaps you need to make your point better? As to this, I think the purpose of birth control is, you know, birth control. With birth control, there's no "going too far." If you're having pleasurable sex with your wife and you don't want a baby out of the deal and the means you use to make sure you don't have a baby is to pull out early, my guess is it is not effective birth control and not as pleasurable for you or the missus as it could be if you used legitimate birth control. OK, I guess I don't know what your point is here either. Are you seriously advocating we all practice coitus interruptus? (I can't believe we're arguing over this crap in 2012.)
