"just tuck it under" doesn't always work?

---

In reply to: Nothing like rolling over on "yourself" to wake you up in the morning... Oh, I think it feels great to wake up with a boner. It's not just stiff, but arroused and feeling good.It's great to be a male, even if it is a "challenge" to tame the wild penis, with its propensity to sometimes get untimely boners. Just because one may get hard, is no reason one can't still abstain from sex until marriage. But what reward do we have for doing that? Having to bother with awkward anti-life "birth control," after marriage? And still go against nature? I don't think so. God never required or suggested that, but rather to take care of our children. Once I find somebody I want to spend my life with as a wife, I should welcome getting her pregnant and helping with the children. I do hope I can find somebody, who also would like to have a big family if we can.I also like wearing boxers, because they are unrestrictive, and just let the penis be hard whenever it wants, without it being uncomfortable or having to wake up.And when I get married, I have no intention of using any form of anti-life "birth control," because I believe God designed sex to be natural, and would love to have a big family if God allows. Human populations should be welcome to expand naturally, because all the more people would be glad to be born and live anyways. For people to welcome big families, and eagerly make their contributions to the population growth, contrary to the sensationalistic rhetoric of a few anti-life, self-appointed "experts," does in fact much benefit "the many" people who couldn't be born otherwise.The most natural and healthy outlet for our powerful reproductive urges, after marriage of course, is of course, reproduction. If babies come, they come. The most "natural" form of "birth control," is an already occupied womb. The body (or God) already sort of "knows" when to get pregnant, even without our "help."

Your anti-contraception tirade should be another topic but I will make an exception here before I move your post to the contraception forum. Do you really think this planet can support an unrestricted population explosion as you are suggesting? Humans have no "natural" predators (except ourselves) to maitain a sustainable level. Even advances in medicine have made it so that weak, sick and genetically defective can live longer and reproduce. (Sorry don't get offended. I'm not trying to insult anyone ..it's just the truth.) Just look at all the famine, poverty and hardships people are going through where they have "large" families in this world. Sure having a large family where it is properly supportable may be great but in the bigger global picture, it's just not good thing.

In reply to: Your anti-contraception tirade should be another topic but I will make an exception here before I move your post to the contraception forum. Do you really think this planet can support an unrestricted population explosion as you are suggesting? Humans have no "natural" predators (except ourselves) to maitain a sustainable level. Even advances in medicine have made it so that weak, sick and genetically defective can live longer and reproduce. (Sorry don't get offended. I'm not trying to insult anyone ..it's just the truth.) Just look at all the famine, poverty and hardships people are going through where they have "large" families in this world. Sure having a large family where it is properly supportable may be great but in the bigger global picture, it's just not good thing. Sure, the planet may not "need" more population, but what about what people need? The planet could hold a lot more people if ever need be. Adding more people, adds to our ability to accomodate more people. People can work and build up the infrastructure to support their growing families. What people need is good government, leadership, and freedom, not "family planning."In the bigger global picture, it would be great for all the more people to be able to live and enjoy being alive. The world can more easily withstand our population increases, than humans can be expected to struggle with awkward "birth control," especially for those who might have been willing to have more children.Genetically inferior? I don't believe in eugenics, that in that sense, most all humans are much the same. We all have handicaps, only some are more obvious than others. Those best suited for having the biggest families, are already probably those who end up having big families. Those who love and care for their children enough to welcome more, would seem good candidates for having more of the world's children. It shouldn't be just the poor having big families, but what about the rich too, who would seemingly be most able to "afford" big families? Why is it the opposite. The more money people have, the less? able they are to "afford" children? Must be selfishness or misplaced priorities.Baby booms are cool, and cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. Sure, there is yet room for "population explosions" or whatever one may call them? But humans breed slower than other animals, and I do not believe God made people too fertile. Humans should value life, so our populations should only go up. And God commanded people to multiply and fill the earth. Perhaps that has something to do with how nature can't seem to keep our numbers in check? Because humans were meant to have dominion over nature, and to grow to be among the most populous of large mammals. It's our God-given destiny.

WOW... I'm going to move this to the General Topics forum.

I'm no environmentalist but your thinking goes against what's happening to this Earth with deforestation, global warming, energy issues, natural resources, etc... I guess you're saying we should just keep on expanding until theres nothing left. I just read not to long ago how climate changes are causing land to become more arid with deserts encroaching on arable(sp?) land, eventually forcing people to migrate to other areas which in itself will cause problems.

How old are you? You obviously are stronly religeous too. May I ask what faith you are?

In reply to: I'm no environmentalist but your thinking goes against what's happening to this Earth with deforestation, global warming, energy issues, natural resources, etc... I guess you're saying we should just keep on expanding until theres nothing left. I just read not to long ago how climate changes are causing land to become more arid with deserts encroaching on arable(sp?) land, eventually forcing people to migrate to other areas which in itself will cause problems.How old are you? You obviously are stronly religeous too. May I ask what faith you are? My thinking goes against the all-too-popular "earth worship" and pantheism, yes.Deforestation? What's this I hear about us having more forests than before, due to more forest management and forest fire suppression? Do we need forests to expand "until there's nothing left" but forests? How much forests do we need anyways?Global warming? Popular hoax. No conclusive evidence to support it. Nothing but hearsay and "manufactured" news. The weather is always thought to be strange. Perhaps that's why we live in houses?Energy issues? Natural resources? Well if the "environmental" extremists would let us develop and harvest resources we already have, wouldn't that help? They don't like nuclear, because they don't understand the technology and think it must necessarily be risky. They don't like hydro-electric dams, about as "clean" as clean could be?, because they block the "natural" migration of fish. In fact, they don't seem to like anything beneficial to humans. They don't like anything that even sounds like "logging." Well people don't cut down trees for no reason. That's too much work. They must be serving some demand for furniture, affordable housing, or hardwood floors. Sure, I wouldn't mind using substitutes, where they prove to be better and AFFORDABLE. But I hardly think my home should be made of crumbly particle board, so that more wood can be left in the vast forests to burn "naturally" in the inevitable forest fires. What resources man doesn't harvest, nature soon wastes.We should keep on expanding until there's nothing left? Huh? If the world had 30 billion people someday, there would still be much left. There still would be forests and natural places. Maybe they would be a little less secluded or more crowded with tourists, but so what? I mainly go on such outings, carpooling and all, to meet people. So what do I care if people pass by every few minutes on the hiking trails, because of the nearby growing cities or rising overall population densities? And with more people, comes more campgrounds and more hiking trails, so it balances out anyways. So which people are unnecessary then? How can we pick and choose who is worthy of having been born, and who isn't, or who shouldn't have many children? To do that, is to usurp the jurisdiction of God, in matters that humans aren't qualified to decide. I don't like the idea of eugenics, picking and choosing who may reproduce, so possibly large population, is the obvious, pro-life, pro-population alternative. Yes, big families should be welcome in the "crowded" big cities, in the countryside with more room to grow into, or wherever people happen to live. In the unlikely event humans ever manage to "fill" the planet, well what about Mars and the moon? Not practical to colonize now, with present technology, but in a hypothetical world with 100s of billions of humans, trillions, or whatever number of people, wouldn't the technology have improved by then, with all those minds needing something to do? I know of no humane or practical means by which I should want to interfere with human populations expanding. Or what basis could justify ranting against human population expansion. The "choice" is not really between a more or less "crowded" world, but rather as to whether there were enough births for you and I to have been born. How many people other people have, of course affects you and I and society, but I believe the effect largely positive, and not negative. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, that they could, at least potentially, contribute more to society than they consume, thus a rising population should help improve things, over the long-term. Whether my or your children should be welcomed into this world, has little to do with the large numbers of people here already. Wouldn't they still want to be welcomed? Wouldn't they still much want to live, regardless? Yes, I would rather people consider stacking the people up into highrises to make room for more and more people, than dissing human life, and being afraid to procreate. Babies and children don't care how many people there are already living in the world, but want to enjoy life and have parents who love and care about them. Children often want to have brothers and sisters. If we could colonize other planets, we probably should, although I don't think it will come to that, nor will we have the opportunity before the Biblical endtimes.Human migration? It's part of being free, and a mechanism to better accomodate expanding populations. The example of spreading out to accomodate rising population, can be found way back in Genesis with Abraham's and Lot's expanding tribes. Sure, people should spread from populous regions to less populous regions, and keep on having just as many children as ever in both places, filling more regions by "natural increase" and migration, so that the highly populous regions spread and grow in size, and encompass more of the globe. Or move from the sparsely populated countryside to the cities, in search of opportunity, as they see fit. Sure, it doesn't appear human population can expand "forever," but certainly for the "forseeable future." The world is nowhere near "full" yet.My faith? I am Protestant, neither Catholic nor Mormon. But I have read my KJV Bible from cover to cover a few times, and it appears far more pro-population, than many of today's liberal Churches. An expanding human population, is no "problem" at all for God, who can sustain and bless any size population that would live by his ways. And I am not just young person who doesn't know much about the issues. I have done much reading on both sides of the population issue. And found that the pessimism of the population gloom-and-doomers, is hardly "scientific" nor justified, and reeks of Nazi-like eugenics and that the history of "birth control" is very morally embarrassing. The people who promoted it, were quite often of poor moral character, and thus, especially early on, contraception was associated with "dirty sex," promiscuity, abortion, considered experimental and anti-family, and anti-religious values.Procreation is a great beautiful aspect of sex, which should sometimes be mentioned in a discussion relating to sex, as the world tries to profane sex, and turn it into something "dirty" or vulgar.

Amazing.

a nice huge family...good luck supporting it, with the rising cost of health care, education, and everything else you'd be doing more harm than good

::Deforestation? What's this I hear about us having more forests than before, due to more forest management and forest fire suppression? Do we need forests to expand "until there's nothing left" but forests? How much forests do we need anyways?::Rush Limbaugh said pretty much the same thing in his first book.

pretty much everything that wasn't bare rock, bloody freezing or in a desert used to be forest before people came along and chopped it down. So yeah, we probably need a few more trees.

Well, I do not agree that forests will overgrow everything. They're not weeds. Forest fires are a big problem. We have a severe drought right now and in the past few years, a significant amount of the state has burned.I don't think either that people have turned a huge amount of the earth into a wasteland by deforestation, but enough has been done that we ought to plant some new ones to make up for the ones we use. We are intelligent beings. We can create as much as we destroy.

In reply to: ::Deforestation? What's this I hear about us having more forests than before, due to more forest management and forest fire suppression? Do we need forests to expand "until there's nothing left" but forests? How much forests do we need anyways?::Rush Limbaugh said pretty much the same thing in his first book. Besides, surely people are of far more value than trees. So if we couldn't have both, I would much rather have big human population, than big forests.I would much rather share "crowded" hiking trails with people passing by every few minutes, or "crowded" campgrounds, with others, than to have fewer children or for anybody else to have fewer children than they otherwise could have had.

How do you feel about those who don't want to have more than a certain number of children? I and my husband only want to raise three girls/boys so for now I'm on bc and will have a historectomy after the third.

In reply to:How do you feel about those who don't want to have more than a certain number of children? I and my husband only want to raise three girls/boys so for now I'm on bc and will have a historectomy after the third.Is this a hypothetical scenario, or actual? Because I have never heard of anybody getting a historectomy to not have children. People get those for health problems.My Mom, when I asked her, said I should have all the children God gives me, while others said something boringly predictable about "choice," in response to my informal survey I did years ago. I admire my Mom for giving me the wise, Biblical answer. My Mom had to have a historectomy, although I don't quite understand the medical reason why. She had 4 children.I don't consider that I am worth more, or more worthy of life, than my children. I believe it better communicates to children how much they are worth and "wanted," when they know their parents don't use any means of "birth control" because more children are always welcome if God allows. I believe it best to just leave the door to life open, and leave sex open to the possibility of pregnancy wherever possible. Because I don't want to deny life to future generations, as if we are somehow "more worthy" of life than they are. One of the best things we can do for future generations is to have many children, as how else will they get to be born? I realize that could mean future generations that are much larger and far more populous than today's, but that is nothing new historically. And I hardly think they would mind being more populous if that's what it took for them to be born and exist. Most people seem fairly comfortable with the world population being at least its present size, because of course they don't know which people they would wish wouldn't have been born. "World population is barely large enough for you and I to be born," some poster posted somewhere, criticizing racist, unprovable "over population" theories.It wasn't until very recently in history, that society adopted the idol of "choice" in their reproduction. But what child would have "chosen" not to be born? What about society, which is affected by our reproduction, or lack of? Did society "choose" to miss out on the contributions that future person might have made? What future people would want to be prevented from existing? What ever happened to "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth?" Do we really think we are smarter than God now? How can I possibly know how many children I want, or how many I could love. Most people don't consider enough factors. Given their limited economics, perhaps most people shouldn't have any children at all, and let the human race go extinct? "Unprotected" sex doesn't assure a pregnancy anyway, only the possibility. If we don't have our children while we can, we often find ourselves unable to conceive later, as fertility declines rapidly with age.I consider "choice" a guide for how I might pray for having children, but not as a guide of what experimental contraceptive poison or device to pollute the body (or spouse's) with. The body (or God) already sort of "knows" when to get pregnant. Pregnancy does not normally occur when the womb is already occupied, and is often delayed somewhat by normal breastfeeding. "Choice" is for what color car I drive, or what color clothes I wear. Not for denying life to others. Why most people other than smart entreprenuers, don't even get much "choice" in their jobs. We get a tiny selection among those that will hire us. We "choose" from "choices" of products that others have chosen to put on the store shelves, so most of our "choices" are already pre-rigged, and aren't really "our" choice.Up until the 1950s people generally didn't count the cost of children and just had them. Family size was thought to be "uncontrollable," and besides, why bother, as society hadn't yet devised so many clever ways, such as out-of-control taxation, to make children seem expensive. There weren't so many "working" mothers too busy with careers to be "bothered" with children. And there wasn't so much promiscuity and STDs and divorce, before that magic "pill" unleashed such immorality on society by promising "safe sex," which it has yet to deliver on.In your case, how do you know that having a 4th child would be "bad?" Don't most parents simply grow in their love, to love and care for 4 children? Somebody I once worked with, said his wife wanted 6 children, but he wasn't so sure. Of course I told him to go for it. He probably a much better job by now. So if they had 7 or 8 children, would that be "bad?" Why? The norm for "unplanned" or natural families, is 5 or 6 children, slightly more than the pidly "planned" families of 3 or 4 children. I would much rather end up with a "bonus" child or two, than bother with anti-life contraceptives. I believe if God entrusts so many children to me, he will provide for them somehow. I believe like how a certain politician defined the family as being made up of one man and one woman, and so many children as God would entrust to them.I don't see it so much as an "obligation" to have children, but more like a great blessing and opportunity to have children. I have thought I would like to have 15 children, but I expect God would give me a more "reasonable" number like 11 or 5 children.I would encourage the entire world to abstain from sex before marriage, as who wants to spiritually bonded (sex) to a whore or somebody they wouldn't want to spend their life with, and to abstain from any means of anti-life "birth control" after marriage. Large families are still cool, as they allow more people to live and enjoy life. Birth of precious new human lives, is hardly something that humans should want to prevent. Population growth is great progress for humanity, and something that society should encourage, because society benefits from it. Most people should be able to possibly contribute more than they consume, and more people in society are an asset and help accelerate the rate of technological growth, which I think is largely related to why we have so much technology and modern conveniences now, because the human population is so big. But regardless, more and more people would be glad to be born and live.

Can I go throw up now?

u can do wut ever u like spd

Arghh! Too many children!

If you and your wife/family decide to never use birth control & hae a large family, more power to you. All I ask it that you actually work & support yourlarge family & try not to depend on my tax dollars.As for eeryone else, please don't try and push your beliefs on others. I happen to be an atheist, and that negates alot of your arguement; for me anyway. I support free choice, though I think that a few laws are nessasary to make sure abuse of the system doesn't happen. And yes, I myself will be on the pill til My fiance and I marry. Then I plan to have up to 3 kids, and then go back on Birth Control, or let my husband have a vasectomy. Free choice is good- its what makes us americans- at least thats my opinion.

Does anyone here think the Bible should be rewritten to conform to moderm times? I Do

Also, how old are you and how long have you been brain washed for?

rewrite the Bible? You gotta be kidding. Anyway, SO much of it still applies to this day. How about not conforming to the world and it's decietful ways? Sounds like a good idea to me. It's all good.