That is simply ignorance of human nature and the attempt to dictate authoritarian control of sex. It is also the propagation of lies based the idea that prophylactics need be opposed, they don't have an actual logical or rational reason to oppose prophylactics so they instead lie and try to encourage fear of them instead.
it is in human nature to be jealous of something one doesnt have.
Human nature can be described along any lengths of behavior humans participate in, including socially cooperative behaviors.
does that mean that laws against stealing should be removed due to 'ignorance of human nature?'
The analogy is obviously different, theft is inevitably having a harmful effect on someone else and the very definition of theft implies that something is being taken from someone else against their will.
The condemnation of prophylactics has no similar correlation or association to the analogy. It is used in an action between consenting parties rather then one party enacting their will against another non-participating party. In fact, the actual condemnation of prophylactics has nothing to do with human ethics itself, the only way it could possibly be claimed to be part of human ethics is to insist from an authoritarian position that it need be believed as if it is so.
the case is this, it is our job to rise above our natures and selfish wants, not just accept them as part of our nature and move on.
It doesn't relate to anything I've stated or the situation being described.
there is logical reasoning against the use of prophylactics, and the best way to show this is by the fruit prophylactics and premarital sex reap. first off, sex is to make love and reproduce, its in its nature, and we cannot isolate one from the other simply because it suits us and our pleasures.
Irrelevant. Why would you dictate from an baseless authoritarian position that we can't separate love and reproduction?
You just stated that there is a logical reason, then you went about simply making up assertions that you offer no explanation for.
tell me, do you honestly see prophylactics as a good thing? can you say with completel honesty that you support premarital sex?
Sex is sex. Marriage is irrelevant.
This is simply a special pleading appeal, you didn't make a case in the first few statements then you simply make this appeal that has no more explanation then the prior.
Where did this logical reasoning go? When did you even start?!?
The inevitable conclusion is the spread of human suffering and disease, to people who engage in sex and those that are entirely non-participatory such as children.
there would be no suffering or disesae if the people obeyed the laws against premarital sex in the first place.
False. STD's can easily spread with or without sexual intercourse and even to your children. They can also spread with or without marriage since marriage is nothing more then a subjective social contract and not a magical shield. You also have no ability to make this assertion in itself, since you have absolutely nothing to base it upon.
Not to mention that your entire reasoning would be moot if there were no disease. Are you saying that you'd be ok with pre-marital sex in a disease free world?
why should the church 'accept human nature' and deem abortion and prophylactics as good and allowed, simply because the majority will do it anyway?
Begging the question; since when was it bad?
Again, as I've stated before, you're arguing from a presuppositional authoritarian position. When asked to justify or validate your claim, you inevitably make statements and appeals as if anything you claimed was presumed to be true to any/all parties.
I must also, lovingly, point out that the manner in which the church condemns prophylactics involves actually lying about prophylactics in order to inspire fear/terror in a populace. Irregardless if you think something is acceptable or not, even if it is a baseless authoritarian position - when did it become ok to lie?
When did it become ok to contribute to actions to further human suffering?
meaningless. the church does not further human suffering. humans further human suffering
And the tautology begins.
It doesn't matter if the church had a stance saying torture human beings for not believing or lie about prophylactics, in either case you could always respond by saying,"The church does not further human suffering. Humans further human suffering..
The church is human, humans are the church.
and then want annulment for their actions that caused the problems in the first place.
Annulment for commandments that have nothing to do with human ethics, that only further human suffering, and generally are so baseless that they need not even be believed before hand. Its a convenient place to be, dictating what is right or wrong but never being responsible when it doesn't work.
When did it become ok to lie about something in order to encourage fear?
'to lie about something in order to encourage fear'...
what did the church lie about? that premarital sex is wrong?
Religious organizations frequently lie to further political goals; whether it is lying about homosexuals, prophylactics, gay marriage, abortions, or non-christians ( or non religious people of whatever religion ). It was common practice to lie about prophylactics by understating their potential at reducing pregnancies, insisting that they don't stop disease at all, or were the evil conspiracy of white men throughout africa.