Comment 16 by ukantic :

“Prudes,” they would argue, should be upheld as exemplary role models because a sexually repressive society is also a society with fewer unplanned pregnancies and fewer sexually transmitted diseases.

What they really mean is that they have a religious based objection (all this, "sinning" rubbish) against other people's private sexual activity, which they then try to legitimise/rationalise by cherry picking out any negative consequences they can get their hands on.

Other examples of such failed and back to front religious logic are:

Creationists, who start with a biblical based conclusion of a young earth and then interpret (i.e. mutilate) all the available evidence to support it.

Jehovah's Witnesses, who start with the conclusion that blood transfusions are prohibited by the Bible and then list the possible complications of the procedure to support it.

What a dreadful thing to happen just because of having a religious delusion.

Incidentally, Jehovah's Witlesses (sic) are , in my experience, creationists too.

I once had the misfortune of opening my door to go out and running slap bang into a pair of them. I criticised their beliefs to them and discovered thet were also creationists, "Evolution is only a theory." I called them illiterate because of that, that didn't seem to phase them. Apparently this cult discourages education! It is OK to be ignorant of basic biology. What did get through to them was telling them to read The God Delusion and particularly that they had an imaginary friend! It rather annoyed them.

This bunch are only a bit worse. Not having blood transfusions is not much nuttier than believing that a wafer turns into the flesh of a 2000 year old jew!

You are right about chery picking. All these religions do it. They even chery pick from the Bible.