Part of the reason why the American experiment has worked so well is because we started with some basic assertions that everyone is endowed with the freedom to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (happiness meant personal property to the founders). It is why the American revolution didn’t turn into a blood bath while the French revolution did – they had no defined ultimate principals.

Humans are sexual beings but that doesn’t mean that they have to always have sex. You can say no or you are just an animal that can talk and use tools. We have never been in the position where there was an absolute necessity to abstain so we have used NFP initially to try and get pregnant (for the first two years of our marriage we thought we weren’t going to be able to have kids) and then simply to know when the baby was due.

We have friends who have used NFP over long periods of time and I can say honestly that it is a sacrifice and can be hard but the couples who have used it and not approached it as a burden and denial of personal pleasure, have said that it helped them communicate more and actually learn more about each other. If you know you aren’t going to be having sex, you find other things to fill your time.

I agree that NFP isn’t as effective in regular use as pills or condoms but that speaks to those using it, not to the method itself. It certainly takes more responsibility and self control to use NFP properly and that is hard for everyone, Catholic or not.

To your other questions which I didn’t see before due to the moderation delay:

1) Masturbation outside of the context of intercourse whether it is self or mutual is wrong because you are taking an act that is meant to be unifying and bonding and turning it into an act of selfish personal pleasure. Stimulating each other leading up to or following intercourse is not wrong. Self stimulation during intercourse is not wrong per se but you have to consider why you are doing it. If you feel the need to excite yourself, it seems there is a little bit of a communications problem where you can’t express your needs / wants to your spouse.

2) Abstinence is not birth control in the same way that proper dieting is not bolemia. When I diet, I don’t eat things that will increase my weight. When I am bolemic, I eat anyway and then force myself to throw up to avoid the consequences of eating. Abstaining from sex for the right reasons is the same. You avoid the action to avoid the consequences instead of doing the action while preventing the consequences. Abstinence / NFP CAN be used as birth control and when you have no real reason to prevent conception, that is what you are doing.

3) It depends on why the guy goes hot tubbing. In the Catholic view, there are three things that are required for something to be considered a “mortal” sin. 1) The action has to be premeditated. 2) The person has to know that the action is sinful (rationalizing yourself into believing that it isn’t sinful FOR ME doesn’t remove moral culpability) 3) You have to carry out the action.

So in this case, if the guy is aware that hot tubbing can kill sperm and he intentionally gets in a hot tub prior to sex with that intention and then has sex, yes, he is sinning. There is some question about how effective this method of birth control is and I certainly wouldn’t want to be teaching that as a “safe” method.

4) Abstinence for the right reasons is acceptable because sex is not the defining sign of a marriage. What happens if you get older and lose the ability to have sex either through health problems or an accident? That doesn’t make you any less married. Now it is true that a marriage has to be consummated because sex is a PART of marriage but since there is more to a marriage than sex, abstinence is not a denial of marriage.

Your argument about abstinence being a denial of fully giving yourself to your spouse would work if the only way to give yourself would be to have sex all the time. As great as this sounds for most guys, it isn’t possible. You can’t have sex all the time so you are always abstaining – sometimes it is just for longer periods than others.

Having sex is like any other physical interaction you have with others – it means something. You can shake someone’s hand and it will mean many different things. Hopefully, a handshake means either the closing of an honest deal or a polite greeting. If I knew that someone wanted to make a deal with me that I couldn’t agree to or follow through on, I certainly wouldn’t want to shake on it because that would be a lie about what the handshake means. It is possible that we could redefine what a handshake means but do you think either party would shake hands if we redefined a handshake to mean that “we both agree to this agreement unless we really secretly don’t”?

In the same way, sex is a sign that points to a few basic things by its very nature (leaving aside any religious significance). 1) Pleasure 2) Health 3) Bonding 4) reproduction.

What the Catholic Church has said is that because these things are all natural effects of sex, they are all an essential part of sex and that to try to remove any of these aspects makes sex mean something other than what is natural. We can certainly try to do it but we have to redefine what sex is in order to do so. Unfortunately, the physical realities of sex have done a pretty good job of thwarting a total reinterpretation.

5) If you have decided that for the right reasons you shouldn’t have more children, you just need to make sure that you use NFP properly. It’s a simple matter of taking responsibility for your actions and decisions. The Church isn’t going to come to your house and tell you that you have to keep having kids. It is your decision you just have to take responsibility for it just as you have to stay on a certain dietary regiment if you have and want to control diabetes. You could certainly ignore the proper diet but you get the consequences for doing so.

6) Canon Law is more of a how-to manual of the governance of the Church than a compendium of moral and dogmatic teaching. For example, it states that you can’t get married if you are married to someone else but doesn’t get into the moral issues behind that.

The marriage vows you take as a Catholic include the following question:

“Will you accept children lovingly form God
and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?”

If you don’t want children and won’t accept them if given, then you can’t get married as a Catholic.

All official statements from the Church, since there was an understanding of fertility cycles and NFP have said the same thing – using periodic abstinence to avoid pregnancy when such a pregnancy would be a health risk or be a true financial devastation to a family is morally acceptable. Before that you have 2000 years of teaching that contraception is wrong. In order for a future pope to change Church teaching on NFP and contraception, he would have to somehow explain why the past 2000 years of Church teaching (and all of the various branches of Christianity’s teaching) on the topic were wrong. As much as people wish that would happen (with or without the explanation), they can’t live with the assumption that the teaching will change in the future.

On your tangent about rich preachers, I can’t speak to other denominations. The Catholic Church on Earth is run by – get ready for this – people. Just because they are Catholic, or even because they are popes and cardinals doesn’t make them any less susceptible to the temptations of the world than you and me. In fact, because of their position, they are probably more inundated with temptations. Some give in and think that they deserve to live in palaces and get big salaries. You will routinely find that such people are condemned by members of the Church who in many cases end up being declared saints while those who believe they have a right to opulence are rightly condemned both within and without the Church. Does this mean that the Church should give away all its churches and money? No. It would not be able to help the poor and needy without money and churches are built to give glory to God, not to take money away from the poor. Christ set the example when he rebuked Judas for complaining about the “waste” of precious oils on Jesus’ feet and said that the money used to buy the oil should have been given to the poor.

Dave – By your rational, those who are open and free about sex should be having fewer out of wedlock births, more stable relationships and fewer STDs. Unfortunately, the data doesn’t bear that out. I’m not advocating Victorian silence on the topic but the notion that inundating people with sex talk will somehow lead to fewer pregnancies, fewer STDs and better relationships isn’t shown in any data.

I am also curious where you get your stats on the hypocrisy of those who advocate abstinence and that those who advocate the loudest are proportionally more likely to be engaging in it improperly. Apart from a few high-profile cases (Ted Haggart comes to mind), I don’t know of any real data that backs you up.

Even if you could find this to be the case, proving hypocrisy doesn’t prove the argument wrong, it just proves that some people are hypocrites.

Their “don’t ask don’t tell” approach almost guarantees more underage pregnancies, disease and (last but not least) marriages where the partners can’t even feel comfortable discussing their sex life!

What’s really scary about this whole “movement” is the fact that it has been proven over and over that those that scream the loudest about the “sin of sex” are the ones that are doing it every chance they get and with anyone they can find.

Maybe some day people will wake up and remember that war and hate are a hell of a lot worse than sex!

So why it’s so "dirty" to talk about sex openly? Why are we so dependent on prejudices, fears, stereotypes?

People lets be honest. Sex is a part of our life. The sweetest one, by the way. Life starts with sex. For instance: LOVE, SEX, KIDS. How kids can be born without sex? How can love be fully shown without a hot, sweaty dance under the sheets – sex?

SEX IS. And we should deal with it, make it better by talking about it, sharing and having it.

Let me repeat: TALKing leads to the good.

BUT. In no circumstances, I’m not denying the fact that there should be some limits, restrictions and even bans, concerning those kinky types of sex, some of the sex vids, etc.

Just my opinion.

Dan and Jenn, you’re the best. Thanks for the hot potato

Concerning comparing premarital sex to robbing a store or suicide, in the Catholic view where such behavior can all damn you, they all can be on the same plain. So I’m not going to be telling my teenager to wear condoms anymore than I would tell her to be sure and wear a mask while robbing the store to keep herself “safe”.

The comment about “icky consequences” wasn’t directed at you personally and I apologize for not making that clear. It was directed at people who are promiscuous in general who see abortion as the second line of birth control defense when nature makes its way through the chemicals and plastic.

If your wife were injured or sick and you weren’t able to have sex, would you be able to control yourself? If you can’t handle ten days a month without sex, then I question the long-term stability of your marriage.

All of our children have been planned in that we were quite aware when my wife was fertile and that she could end up pregnant. We discussed financially, physically and emotionally if we could have more children and so far have said yes. The only government assistance we get is our tax refund. Are we rich? Not by a long shot. We just choose family over stuff. That wasn’t directed at you, just at society in general that has moved stuff above family in importance.

It appears that we have pretty much discussed our main argument as far as it is going and have wandered off into quite a few tangents.

I appreciate your persistence in continuing the discussion and in spite of Jeff, think it was worthwhile.

Again, you don’t read. I’ve said over and over again that many things are wrong. Just because I don’t believe there is a god mandated set of absolutes doesn’t mean I don’t believe there are wrongs and rights. As I mentioned in so many posts above, they can be explained logically. So, before you continue to put words in my mouth about not believing murder is wrong, re-read the earlier posts.

Now, on to your other rants. When you changed / clarified your statement to attacking Dan and Jennifer for saying consentual premarital sex is wrong, and not so much things that a married couple might do consensualy, I backed off my attack. You and I will never agree on premarital sex. We’ve each argued our points, it’s pointless to sit here and debate every argument for hours on end. You believe it’s wrong, I think that’s a simplistic view. I believe that responsible adults can have sex without negative consequences, and irresponsible adults staying virgins will have negative consequences regardless of what the preacher says. It’s a person to person thing. There are negatives to those who practice sex before marriage irresponsibly, just as there are negatives to virgin catholics who marry too early just so they can have sex! It’s not all black and white as you like to think it is.

HOLOCAUST –
This being the fourth time I’ve made my point on the holocaust known. It was wrong!!! any further questions on this, please read earlier posts.

SWIFT REPRISALS IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM -
The first link you gave is for Canada, but the second link showed some pattern of cover-ups in the school system. Point taken, however, does that give any excuse for the catholic church’s actions regarding the same corruption and cover-ups?

ANNULMENTS –
Yes, I still stand by the rich getting more annulments. I know, it’s without reference and I make no actual claims that it’s true (read above posts) but when John Kerry gets an annulment after 16 years of marriage, something is fishy. Now, in your defense, you admitted that the annulment system in the US has problems, so I think we’re in agreement here. However, there are too many interpretations for the rules of canon law regarding an annulment for me to give any credibility to the system.

NFP-
Yes, I still stand by it being a policy to guarantee future church members. Are you claiming that the catholic church didn’t look at world domination? History of corruption isn’t just a claim, 600 years ago, they did some very bad things!
You said – “Why do we expect people to do their jobs correctly 99% of the time but when it comes to sex, you think that people lose self control? We always can say no.” -
Because of the chemicals that are released when it comes to sex. (read YOUR earlier posts) They’re not just released during sex, men especially, have completely different “personalities” (couldn’t come up with a better word, but people will commonly say men think with two different heads) before and immediately after ejaculation. So, yes we can always say no, but we’re all human and prone to emotional responses that might not be logical or in our best interest.
You said – “Yes, the failure rate of NFP can be 20% when used by people who aren’t serious about it”
Nope, YOUR study said TYPICAL usage was as high as 20%, and perfect usage could be as low as below 1%. I’ll say again, that’s a huge difference. So, you’re out of commission for 14 days a month for the first year, then after keeping accurate records for this year, you can cut that down to 10 days in a row of abstinence per month. You claim you can be almost 100%, (I thought birth control was a sin, yes, even NFP) I stand by my claim that NFP is nowhere as effective as traditional scientific methods of BC.
YOUR DAUGHTER –
I’m having a hard time commenting on this because it’s a personal thing, and I don’t know you or your daughter. You said – “While I would prefer my daughter not to be doing something that can send her to Hell, if she is going to do that then I would prefer she do what she could to avoid further temporal consequences. If she did end up pregnant, I would do everything I could to keep the baby from getting killed.” Nothing personal, but who the hell said anything about a baby getting killed?? I’m not sure what you mean by temporal consequences?

You said – “I would never say “If you’re going to have sex, use a condom.” as that would be condoning the sex in the first place. In the same way I wouldn’t tell my kids “if you are going to rob a store, please don’t kill anyone.”” Again, I really don’t know where you get these analogies. Earlier you compared sex to suicide, now it’s compared to robbing a bank. I don’t think the large majority of people rob banks, however, the large majority of people have sex prior to marriage, so playing the odds, safe sex practices are very valuable for all to know.
YOUR FAMILY –
I’m surprised how many kids you have considering the effectiveness of NFP. I know that’s a smartass comment, just trying to keep the board light. I’m sure they were all planned. Now, let me say, I have no problem with you having a huge family, that’s your choice. However, if you’re depending on the government for assistance because you’re unable to provide for all the kids, I’ve got a problem. If your newest addition on the way (Congratulations by the way) comes at a late point in your life, meaning you’re going to be too old to really be there for the child as they grow, then I’ve got a problem with that as I think it’s a selfish attitude to have. Speaking of that problem, do you and your wife just continue to pro-create as long as your bodies will allow. Don’t you realize how older women become a much higher-risk pregnancy just from age? Isn’t this a selfish attitude to continue to push her body to the risk and detrament to the child and the mother?
However, the only reason I brought up disowning your kids is when you made the statement comparing your children commiting suicide and not caring about a dirty needle, when I asked about a child of yours having pre-marital sex if you’d prefer they use a condom to prevent STDs. So, from you statement, it sounded like they were as good as dead to you. Maybe I read it too harshly.
PETER’S COMMENT- To Peter. As much as I hate to say this considering how Ian has condoned me over and over again, but he’s entitled to his opinion and his beliefs. I do believe that he believes what he’s saying. I don’t agree, but I do respect his confidence in what he believes. Many people search for that kind of absoluteness in life, I’m glad he’s found it. The computer, friends, purpose and get a life comments are not really helpful. Maybe they were directed at me as well, but we’re all here to read and debate, so as much as I’ve made mistakes on here as well, I think it’s best if we all refrain from personal attacks that have nothing to do with the topic. Yes, I’m even writing this after he attacks me as being ridiculous.

DIRECTED STRAIGHT TO IAN, FROM AN EARLIER POST – I MISSED THIS COMMENT FROM YOU – “they seem to believe in the absolute of personal pleasure as long as it is consensual and you can avoid all the icky results like kids that can come from it.”
What part of not buying into absolutes don’t you understand? I don’t believe in the absolute of personal pleasure, but when two consenting adults choose to do something with their bodies in private, I don’t care and neither should you. Now, regarding your remarkably vicious comment about the “icky results like kids”, how dare you pretend to know me. I’ve told you before, I have three kids and one last one on the way. I love my children, and I don’t see kids as an icky result, and just because I don’t see pre-marrital sex as a sin doesn’t mean I’m a horrible child hating satanist! You continue to show your true colors that anyone who doesn’t believe as you do is a bad person! That was a very shitty comment and you owe myself and many other readers who might disagree with you on the topic at hand an apology!

I didn’t realize you were a mind reader. Which assertions of mine don’t I believe?

And what if I have a purpose – to sit here on this forum and drive you nuts. Who are you to judge my purpose?

I have been making about the corruption charges and mass murder because RR is VERY insistent that there is nothing that is always wrong. I think mass murder is wrong. I also think corruption is wrong. I don’t understand why he thinks it is wrong when he insists that there are no absolutes.

If you want to talk about being ridiculous, he is the one you need to be addressing.

You’re being ridiculous just to continue blathering. You don’t even believe your own assertions as none of us do either.
Get off your computer. Get some friends, find a purpose and get a life.
Everyone here knows what corruption is and what mass murder is. Just because those in charge have been known to be corrupted absolutely doesn’t and has never made what they do “right”.

Further, I don’t understand how you can say that the Church has a history of corruption when corruption in your world view is really whatever a particular society deems it to be at a particular time. You can’t impose your contemporary view of corruption on the Church any more than you can call the slaughter of thousands by the Aztecs to keep the sun in the sky wrong.

ON THE INITIAL ARGUMENT THAT SEX BETWEEN UNMARRIED ADULTS IS WRONG
Before continuing on this rant of yours against the Church, do you have anything else to add in rebuttal to the initial proposition I made?

Apart from number eight where you overlook the various other chemical occurrences during sex and focus only on the pleasure ones, I don’t see much of a rebuttal.

ON WHETHER OR NOT THE HOLOCAUST WAS WRONG
Did you ever state whether the Holocaust was absolutely wrong or not?

ON THE “SWIFT REPRISALS” IN PUBLIC SCHOOL ABUSE
You really believe that the teachers are swiftly dealt with in sex abuse cases?

* Of 225 select cases of teacher sex abuse in New York, although all the accused had admitted to sexually abusing a student, not one was reported to the police and only 1 percent lost their license to teach.

* A 2003 study reports that 159 Washington state coaches were “reprimanded, warned, or let go in the past decade because of sexual misconduct” – and yet, “at least 98 of them continued coaching or teaching afterward.”

* A 2004 study reports that many school districts make confidential agreements with abusers, essentially trading a positive recommendation for a resignation. In one case, a Seattle educator named Luke Markishtum “had two decades of complaints of sex with students and providing alcohol and marijuana to students prior to his arrest for smuggling six tons of marijuana into the state. The district paid Markishtum the remainder of his salary that year, agreed to keep the record secret, and gave him an additional $69,000.”
(source)

Now, I will certainly agree that it is worse in the Church when it happens because we expect a higher standard but you can’t go painting a rosy picture of the public school system.

ON ANNULMENTS
Again, you make claims about the rate of rich getting annulments without anything to back it up except the “history of corruption” you claim the Church has. Would you appreciate it if I started making claims about how non-Catholics commit more crimes than Catholics with only “they aren’t Catholic so they must be bad” as a defense for my claims? The Church has corruption in its history as does every institution managed by people. It also has a history of reform and renewal following such periods. You will also find that while individuals within the Church have been corrupt and downright evil, the Church as an institution has never said such behavior was good.

ON NFP
The Church has had its theology concerning contraceptives for its entire history. Since you seem to think that its primary purpose is to outbreed everyone else, what was its purpose for the ~600 years when all of Europe was Catholic? Do you really think that the Church concocted its theological and philosophical backing for its position as a way to take over the world? Have you actually read anything on the theology and philosophy behind its teaching or are you so jaded about the Church’s “history of corruption” that it doesn’t matter?

Why do we expect people to do their jobs correctly 99% of the time but when it comes to sex, you think that people lose self control? We always can say no.

Yes, the failure rate of NFP can be 20% when used by people who aren’t serious about it but that’s not a condemnation of NFP anymore than a failure to properly use anything else condemns its effectiveness. If you keep proper records for a year, you can actually cut down the number of days of abstinence to about ten and be almost 100% sure of when you are fertile. Is going without sex for 10 days too much of a burden for anyone?

ON MY DAUGHTER
While I would prefer my daughter not to be doing something that can send her to Hell, if she is going to do that then I would prefer she do what she could to avoid further temporal consequences. If she did end up pregnant, I would do everything I could to keep the baby from getting killed.

I would never say “If you’re going to have sex, use a condom.” as that would be condoning the sex in the first place. In the same way I wouldn’t tell my kids “if you are going to rob a store, please don’t kill anyone.”

I have nine kids – two in Heaven and one on the way. (I guess we are proof that the Church’s position on contraception is just to outbreed the world.) I would never disown any of them but I would also never condone immoral activity by them.

You said it right, “when applied correctly”. However, it’s left open to interpretation. Even the church / Pope changes the rules. The interpretation of the rules for annulments were just recently ammended. I wasn’t able to find any studies that gave the ratio of wealth to the number of annulments, but it’s just a guess, and probably a good one, although I have no actual facts to back that up, just a base knowledge of the catholic church’s history of corruption.

Regarding your statement that if your daughter had premarital sex, you wouldn’t care either way if a condom was used, does that mean she’s dead to you? Would you then “write her off” so to speak? Would you rather her have a child to then have to raise or just maybe regret the decision of premarital sex? Do you then not believe in forgiveness? Guess what, if she didn’t use a condom and either got pregnant or acquired a STD, all the forgiveness in the world can’t fix that. However, I’m guessing by your answer that either you’re not telling the truth, or you don’t have a daughter. I have two daughters and I’ll tell you why I say that. There is a huge difference between your child committing suicide and having sex, and if you don’t see a difference, you’ve just shown how completely off the deep end you are!
You’ve given three different articles, two of which are based on the same study. The three different articles give three different results varying from less than one percent to 20 percent ineffectiveness of NFP. One major problem with NFP is it relies on people, not science. People make lots of mistakes. I can say, “don’t have sex anytime other than the time you’re on your period”, and run a damn low birth rate if I sepearte the parties, however there’s a pretty good chance that married folk will find a way to “cheat” or “risk it” inbetween, this because mankind is a sexual being. Your NFP relies on people being abstinent for 12 days per month. These are the “hot” days and the days around that are less likely, but remain somewhat risky. So, add 2-4 days onto that 12 day number and you’ve just told couples that they have to refrain from sex 2 of every 4 weeks. And guess what, even that’s a sin if you’re doing it for “selfish” reasons.

When the rules are applied correctly (marriage is assumed unless it can be proven otherwise), very few annulments get granted.

Do you have any statistics proving that rich people who apply for annulments get them more often than poor people?

Let’s pretend that your son decides to OD and kill himself. Are you going to hope that he uses a clean needle?

To a Catholic, premarital sex is sin that can send you to hell so whether she is using a condom or NFP is of little consequence.

If you are going to dismiss various studies showing properly used NFP is as effective as properly used contraceptives, you are going to have to provide a real reason or accept that you have just shown yourself to be basing your comments purely on your own dislike of the Catholic Church.

Not many of us got here without sexual intercourse and I for one am really grateful and hope my parents had a great time conceiving me.

What hogwash to say “The Church” doesn’t permit premarital sex. Is this the same church where popes had kids and way too many priests have abused kids?

Be kind to one another and you won’t have to worry about anything else.

After a while my partner and you both decide that the ventures aren’t working but I and your partner refuse to dissolve the ventures so we get taken to court.

The judge rules that our partnership never existed and that my partner gets everything except the jail term that I get for stealing funds. The judge in your case rules that the partnership exists and then goes about ruling on how to break up the assets.

Would you then argue that we both had partnerships, mine just had a different name than yours? Annulments are declarations that a marriage never existed. They are not supposed to end one that does. Like I said before, here in the States the process has been seriously abused but that doesn’t change the definition or Church teaching on what an annulment is.

On the issue of contraception, the Church teaches that because sex and reproduction are so closely connected, people who aren’t ready for kids aren’t ready for marriage. The Church also teaches that sex is the most complete giving of yourself you can possibly have and that such giving needs to be unselfish. By withholding your ability to create life with the one you are having sex with, you are physically saying “I give myself to you but only part of me.”

The Church is vague on when you can use NFP (just as effective as contraception when used correctly) because the Church doesn’t micromanage every situation. The Church can’t determine when in your individual case your finances / mental state / physical condition outweigh the gift of life.

I apologize for changing the original statement from “everything is okay” to premarital sex. Premarital sex is what I meant. The Church is very liberal about what is allowed sex wise within marriage. Really, the only restrictions are that whatever you do, ejaculation occurs within the vagina, that whatever you do it isn’t degrading to either partner or other people (such as using porn) and that intercourse is between the husband and wife. Now, I don’t know exactly what you mean by taboo, but things such as oral sex and sex toys aren’t objectively wrong to use.

2) Yes I said that personal security is the basis for many logical arguments of what is right and wrong and will agree as stated before a stable society will provide more security than an unstable one.
4) This is what I said in my last post “Sex has many more than three results. I’ll agree on the three that you named however there is also…..” Again, if you read what I said, you’ll save yourself a lot of typing. I never argued your three reasons, I just gave a laundry list of other reasons.
I won’t argue your premise on this one other than saying again that there is a big difference between the poverty line and actually living in poverty. However, yes too large a portion living in poverty can destabalize a society.
9) You said “my hormones, emotions and mind are bonding me to this other person” This sure sounds like your implying a romantic connection. However, again all I’m saying that is all sex doesn’t lead to a psychological attachment. Of course, there are endorphins that are released and a feeling of euphoria can result. I look at this as a benefit, not a detriment.
10) You actually think it’s better for a couple to “stay together for the children”? That’s one of the worst things that has become a norm for people to do. Children see a lot more than we think and children who grow up in a loveless marriage will find themselves in the same situation later in life. Children of happy couples are much more likely to find a happy relationship later in life. Just as children of abusive parents will either find an abusive relationship or become an abuser later in life. Adults are generally most comfortable in the situation they grew up with as children.

More later, I’ve been short on time today.

I have no illusion and truly no wish to convince you either way on this topic.

Our job here is to facilitate discussion, and the mission of this blog is to get people asking questions. Hence our motto “Question Everything!”.

I’m not going to banter back and forth on the merits of one side or the other. However, to further this discussion, I welcome you to post here the statistics you mention so that our readers can make up their own minds.

Have an awesome day!

I based my argument solely on secular arguments without mentioning religion and focused entirely on the societal impact of such behavior, most of which has been proven both scientifically and statistically.

You are of course welcome to dismiss such an argument as irrelevant but I am curious why you dismiss the argument on the grounds that it is emotional and based on religion when religion wasn’t mentioned in the argument at all.

I’m not going to make a logical argument to what is obviously an emotional discussion that is based upon individual beliefs and thus individual choices that we each make only for ourselves.

Sex between unmarried adults could only destabilize a society that is based specifically on that religious belief.

But fact is, not all people or societies follow this religious belief.

And that’s ok, great even. It’s a good thing that we’re all different and bring different viewpoints to the world.

Just make sure your viewpoint comes from your heart, and not blindly following a belief system that was taught to you as a child.

Have an awesome day!

Please, go read something official before making claims about what the Church teaches. I certainly wouldn’t go bashing the Mormons or Baptists based on what I heard some talk show host say on the radio.

I don’t recall arguing that large families are more likely to live in poverty. I argued that single mothers are more likely to live in poverty than married mothers and that poverty leads to societal instability. I realize that there will always be poor people but the larger the number, the greater the impact it has on stability.

Where can you live with a large family? I guess that depends on what you see as necessary for living space in your house. My grandparents raised seven kids in a 2,400 sq. ft. house and most houses being built now are larger with fewer people living in them. Transportation? Buy a van. They are cheaper than SUVs and many small cars.

My problem with Dan and Jen goes back to my original premise – sex between unmarried adults destabilizes society.

I’ll discuss your other post later today.

Here are some links that should help you (and others) out. Once you can coherently present what the Catholic Church really teaches instead of the stereotypical non-Catholic assumptions about what it teaches, I would be happy to have a discussion with you about it. If you would prefer to take that discussion over to my blog instead of running this comment trail into eternity, just let me know. You are of course welcome to post links for assistance in your arguments wherever you want if you are worried about being ganged up on.

Quotes from Catholic Teaching on Birth Control

What an annulment is (and isn’t)

Whether or not annulments are always granted on sound grounds is certainly up for debate and we are probably in agreement that the process in America is frequently abused. However, that doesn’t change Church teaching on the matter.

You said: “There are societies where very large families can be acceptable even beneficial, however moreso (sic) than not, it just creates more problems.” Can you please site some study proving this?

Also, would you mind pointing to some census data showing how many 9-child families are living below the poverty line as compared to the number of single moms (46%) below the poverty line?

In your refutation of my reasoning you question my assertion that poverty is a societal destabilizer and now you are claiming that the influx of poor Mexicans with lots of kids is an enormous destabilizer. So which is it – a societal destabilizer or a way to create strong, self-reliant people as you asserted before? Or is the fact that they are Mexicans the destabilizing part? I’m confused.

Your comment on this “My logic of security being the basis that murder, theft, the holocaust and slavery being wrong is sound. How do you think the first humans formed small groups together, (ie simple societies). They had to have simple agreements that they wouldn’t kill each other.” and “The reason is the Darwinian law of “only the strongest survive” doesn’t fully apply to man after we formed societies and especially after we formed advanced societies. Again, security for people in a society has to exist. If this wasn’t the case, each person, if able, would relocate to a group where they could be the dominant one.” Aren’t you saying here that people formed societies at least partially in order to guarantee personal security and to avoid the tyranny of the powerful?

4) If you want to add improved health as a benefit of sex, that’s fine but it doesn’t change the other three if you add one more.

Poverty has a destabilizing effect on society. Not because people in poverty are bad, but because poverty itself contributes to a drain on societal resources, is a magnet for criminal activity and due to the schools located in poverty-stricken areas, in general, leads to more poorly educated people who are also likely to perpetuate the poverty they live in. I mentioned this because casual sex among unmarried people tends to lead to children which are usually raised by the single mom who ends up in a much worse financial situation in general than if she were married. While poverty can’t be eliminated, the larger the percentage of the population that lives in poverty, the less stability the society has.

9) I never said all bonding was romantic. Psychological attachment doesn’t have to be romantic in nature – just do a search on any relationship site and see how many people obsess about past relationships, whether they were “healthy” relationships or not. I would say that those who can have sex with someone in a utilitarian manner are suppressing natural psychological urges in order to behave this way and avoid any emotional attachment to the person they are using. You can say that you don’t form any emotional / mental bonds all you want but if science says that your body produces chemicals during sex and your brain responds in a specific manner during sex, you seem to be denying something pretty objective.

10) Studies have shown that children are better off in a situation with married parents who aren’t happy together than in a divorce situation. I’m not talking about an abusive situation, just one where the parents tolerate each other “for the sake of the children.” Forced marriages were the norm for centuries and are still the norm in many places. Just because they are forced doesn’t mean they won’t be stable. Statistics show that children living with unmarried couples are much more likely to be abused than in any other situation. I don’t see how your responses to 8 and 9 in some way discount 10.

Concerning the rather odd throw-away statement at the end about Catholic virgins “forced” to stay married, the stats on virgins who marry and non-virgins who marry show that divorce among those who are virgins when they marry is about 70% lower than non-virgins. – The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994) Which would seem to say that people who are virgins when they marry are more likely to provide a stable environment for their kids than non-virgins. If you want to argue that virgin Catholics “forced” to stay married provide a less or equally stable environment than non-virgins who marry, please provide some study, any study proving your assumption.

11) You countered nine by assuming I meant romantic attachment only, which I didn’t. So you need to come up with another response.

12) You are the one who said that people formed societies to guarantee personal security so I assumed that was a valid premise to use. Stable societies are the best way to guarantee personal security but nothing is perfect.

13) I don’t see how you have proved the majority of my premises false.

On your other points, we weren’t discussing the ethics of slavery from the perspective of the Bible, I was attempting to discover if you really meant that there are no absolutes.

The Germans killed 6 million Jews but most of those Jews weren’t from Germany. The total population of Jews in Germany in 1933 was 505,000 out of ~67 million people (.75%) Maybe the US Holocaust Museum got the numbers wrong, it is a government agency, after all. I am guessing that since nothing can really be definitively called wrong, that you aren’t definitively calling the Holocaust wrong. If that is the case then the Nuremberg trials were a real travesty because other societies imposed their own ethical beliefs on the Germans in order to kill them.

My qualification that those who took necessities during Katrina needed to have the intention of somehow paying back the store owners isn’t hot air. It’s a reasonable way of looking at what really constitutes theft.

I would say that what the Eskimos do is always wrong. Forcing the death of an innocent, no matter how dire the straits may seem, is simply a utilitarian way of looking at life. In a world where there is only the here and now and then you die and that’s it, it makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, it also leads to the extermination of the handicapped and other undesirables like the elderly because they are seen as a burden to society. The abortion rate for downs children is over 90%, but in a utilitarian world where everyone’s own personal comfort trumps just about everything, that’s what you get.

I guess my real question about your view on the world is: Whether I base my value system on Catholicism, Hinduism, the Keebler Elf or Hobbesean theories about the base nature of man, why does it bother you? I can certainly understand why Catholics or Hindus and maybe even Keebler Elfians would be disturbed by one group trying to get laws passed that favor another’s world view, but since you don’t believe in any absolutes, why does it bother you when laws you don’t like are passed? If you REALLY believed that nothing is truly right or wrong wouldn’t you just go about your business trying to get the law changed to something you personally like instead of griping about the stupidity of the Elfians? It seems that most who don’t like the Christian world view really do believe in absolutes: they seem to believe in the absolute of personal pleasure as long as it is consensual and you can avoid all the icky results like kids that can come from it.

If a society votes for a Christian world view in its laws, doesn’t it have as much right to its view as a society based completely on Hobbesean beliefs in personal security or your beliefs in personal pleasure has to its view?

Contraception – Catholics don’t believe in contraception. When you talk about stability, how stable is it when a family living below the povery line has 9 children? This creates much more instability than a single woman having 1 or 2 children. Where do you live with that many children? How do you transport that many children? One of the main problems our society has is the influx of catholic immigrants from Mexico. Many of these couples have 5+ children, and a much higher number of these families are on social services, both legally and illegally. This creates tremondous instability!
Catholics also teach that even family planning methods or birth control are also a sin. They teach teenagers knowing the family planning method of birth control since they can’t teach condoms or more traditional birth control methods as these are sinful. But considering teenagers shouldn’t be having sex anyway, just not having it at that prime time of the month is easy. So, is it more acceptable for a teenager to use a condom during sex or have a child? Scary!
How do people not see that this concept of no birth control was created to ensure future catholic church members, not for any biblical reason? It’s a dangerous policy to promote to all families. There are societies where very large families can be acceptable even beneficial, however moreso than not, it just creates more problems.

1) I never said that personal security was an absolute good, I said it’s a good basis for a logical argument. It can be taken too far and violate other’s personal security at the same time. But for the sake of argument, lets say that personal security is primary.

2) I said Slavery isn’t an absolute wrong, this being because I don’t believe there are absolute wrongs. Again, how do you defend calling slavery an absolute wrong and yet it being condoned all through the bible? I definately never said the holocaust was not wrong. Btw, 43 million people in Germany at the time, killing 6 million is 14%, not .75%. That doesn’t even include the 1/4 million non jews (political prisoners, homosexuals, jehovah’s witness, communists etc.) I don’t know where you’re getting your numbers.

So, to sum up. We can somewhat agree on number one since personal sercurity in generally is a must, but not an absolute. Number two is completely incorrect.

You start again with 1 and 2.

1) Same as above #1.

2) No society can guarantee personal security, stable or not. So, this one is out completely. Secondly, you then follow up with unstable societies can sometimes guarantee security, but not always. How is this different than a stable society providing security?

3) I will agree with most of this one however, economys rise and fall, so a growing economy wouldn’t be a mark of a stable society. How do you define psychologically sound? There can be many different ways to interpret that definition. The rest of this premise I’ll agree on.

4) Sex has many more than three results. I’ll agree on the three that you named however there is also stress or tension relief. For men, ejaculation has been proven to help with prostate health. For these two, you could argue that masturbation will give the same results. I however am not sure how you feel or the bible speaks about self pleasure. Sex also helps with increased blood flow, lower cholesterol, stress relief (said earlier, but this for sex not masturbation), better sleep (both stress relief and better sleep also add to increased overall health), sex acts as a pain reliever, those who engage in regular sex live longer and live healthier longer. Sex also boosts testosterone and estrogen, also reduces the rate of heart disease, reduced depression, less colds and flu, better teeth, improved posture, improved immune system etc, etc, etc. Do I need to go further? So, I think we can call this one bunk.

5) Bonding does occur during sex, but is not always going to happen. Many people have sex buddies they call for sex only. However, I will give you that there is bonding from sex. I will not agree that this is bad. Even among people that are not married, and even among people that aren’t romantically involved, why is increased human bonding a bad thing?

6) This one is true.

7) Children are better off raised in a stable environment. However, define stable environment. Is an unhappy marriage where there is physical abuse stable? How about cheating spouses where they can’t leave? A forced marriage or couple forced to stay together can not result in a stable home. Is there stability in just your standard unhappy marriage where people stay together because there is a biblical rule about divorce? Does that give children a good view on relationships for when they’re older, or does that let them know that unhappiness in a relationship acceptable? A stable environment can be living with the grandparents, living in a homosexual relationship, living in a relationship where the parties aren’t married, living in a single parent home. There is any number of cases that can provide a stable environment for children. This being said, I will agree with the simplist form of your premise which states children raised by a happy couple which consists of their natural parents is the ideal stable environment. Again, what number of catholic (forced to stay married, virgins before marriage) couples fall into this category? Probably no more than non catholic couples who slept around prior to marriage. So, we’re back to square one on this one.

8.) Single mothers are most likely to live in poverty. Now, why does poverty automatically mean unstable. Do you realize how children are raised just as happy in poor homes vs wealthy homes. Problems exist in all financial situations. Many will say growing up in poorer homes actually benefits society later as the children are raised with more self-reliance. Why does poverty atribute to societal instability? Every society has poverty regardless of how wealthy. Poverty is a scale ratio where the lower end, regardless of how high that low end might be will be “poverty”. This however doesn’t apply to a communist system where everyone in the civilian society is basically financially equal. So unless you’re promoting communism, # 8 is dead.

9) #5 is true, but you’re taking extreme liberties with your premise. You’re assuming all consentual sex among unmarried people leads to a romantic bond. The studies don’t say all bonding is romantic in nature. Of course many people will take it that way and this will occur with couples in romantic relationships. So your premise here actually promotes sexual relationships like one night stands as this limits the romantic bonding.

10) 7 and 8 have both been taken care of, therefore 10 can’t have any validation. However, married couples that continue having children beyond their means are just as likely to be in an unstable home.

11) 9 is untrue, therefore 11 can’t be true.

12) Again, personal security can’t be guaranteed in any society. The rest of your premise is just talking with many liberties you assume from your earlier incorrect premises.

13) If most of the premises that lead to your conclusion are untrue, you’re conclusion is also untrue.

I have a bit more to discuss in another post for you regarding your premises and catholicism.

Peter, unless there are some absolutes, your conscience is just your own personal opinion. Maybe my conscience tells me that enslaving others is okay. Sure, I don’t want to be a slave but I sure want to be the slave owner so I will do whatever is necessary to keep myself in a position of power.

The golden rule is useless in a Hobbesean world because doing unto others as you would have them do unto you only works as long as someone doesn’t think he can amass enough power to seize control of the society for his own personal interests.

Machiavelli did a good job of proving this in The Prince and Stalin and Hitler put it into practice.

In a world with no absolutes, everything is based on the whim of the most powerful in society – a pretty scary way to live.

I would also say that the intentional killing of an innocent human being is always wrong.

I don’t know why asking if a stable society was a good thing is a “trick”. It seems to follow directly from your Hobsean absolute that people feeling secure is an absolute good. Which then contradicts your later statement that slavery isn’t always wrong. I’m confused.

Okay, so this is where we are.

1) We have concluded that personal security is always a good thing (I think).

2) We have concluded that, contrary to proposition 1, slavery isn’t always wrong and that because the German government thought it was in its best interest to intern / kill .75% (not 14% as you asserted earlier) of its population, the Holocaust wasn’t wrong either.

Since the two propositions can’t be logically reconciled despite your claims otherwise, I will start with proposition 1 and go from there.

1) Personal security is always a good thing. I am stating this since it seems to be the one common thread you come back to even though you contradict yourself several times.

2) Personal security can only be guaranteed in one way: living in a stable society. Unstable societies may sometimes be able to guarantee personal security but can’t always; therefore a stable society is best.

3) A society is stable when a) its economy is growing b) when the great majority of its members are psychologically sound c) when those in the society can trust the other members of society in the various agreements they enter into d) when the population age distribution is in a pyramid form so that there are enough younger people to i) keep the population from collapsing ii) support the higher costs required for care of the elderly and sick e) when its members accept and defend the premise the society was founded on f) when the society is strong enough to defend itself against foreign influence and occupation.

There may be some I have missed but I think this pretty well covers it.

4) Sex has three results a) pleasure b) bonding between those having sex c) reproduction.

5) The bonding aspect of sex has been shown to be a scientific reality. The release of various hormones during sex leads to the creation of bonds between those involved.

6) The reproductive aspect of sex is essential to the stability of society. If the society isn’t reproducing, a), d) and f) of 3) are threatened, leading to societal instability.

7) Children are most psychologically sound when they are raised in a stable environment. There are plenty of studies that show that daycare, multiple marriages or no marriage at all lead to psychological and economical problems that lead to societal stability problems.

Single mothers and their children are most likely to live in poverty. This also contributes to the decline of societal stability.

9) If 5) is true, then consensual sex between unmarried people leads to a psychological contradiction – my hormones, emotions and mind are bonding me to this other person but I also know that this person can leave at anytime. Such a discrepancy can lead to two things: a) a suppression of natural mental responses to sex in order to continue such behavior and or b) a general distrust of anyone who the person has sex with. Either result is bad and leads to the instability of b) and c) in 3).

10) As is frequently the case, sex leads to reproduction. If the child is born to unmarried people, the consequences of 7) and kick in and lead to an unstable society.

11) Even if reproduction in the unmarried population could somehow be completely eliminated, either through forced abortions or perfect contraception, the problems resulting in 9) would still be occurring.

12) As I have stated in 2), a stable society is the only way to guarantee personal security if individuals plan on living in society. Therefore, it is in the best interest of society that its members engage in sex only within the context of permanent marriage otherwise the consequences resulting in sex between any consenting unmarried individuals, if performed by a large enough portion of the population, will result in the instability and collapse of the society resulting in the loss of personal security of its members.

13) Therefore, consensual sex between unmarried people is always wrong as it leads to the instability of society and the loss of personal security which was asserted as the greatest good in 1).

So, let’s look at the fact that this board isn’t just you and I, but that there are other people reading this. You say that you can explain anything to me because you think I have a warped sense of right and wrong and can’t explain any of my beliefs logically. Although, I’ve tried to do so for the past 7 posts. So, for the sake of all the other people out there reading our discussion. Why don’t you explain to them why any type of sex between consenting adults is wrong. The only absolute I really see is that you absolutely refuse to answer any question posed to you. So, maybe you’re right, there do seem to be some absolutes.

Now, point by point. The only religion I’m bringing up is trying to give an example of what you might consider as an absolute by using the ten commandments. This is only because you REFUSE to give me even one example of absolutes you seem to claim exist.

Next, you claim that I don’t use logic in my argument. My logic of security being the basis that murder, theft, the holocaust and slavery being wrong is sound. How do you think the first humans formed small groups together, (ie simple societies). They had to have simple agreements that they wouldn’t kill each other. So, to help you understand this, for example, if there were no laws regarding murder or theft, would you live alone somewhere in the wild where you might have some resemblace of security or would you just take your chances living in a society where the person walking down the street could just kill you on a whim? Or might you actually form a small group of people where you had an agreement that murder would be wrong, and hope everyone followed this. So, this is a very logical reason for murder to be wrong.

You are in some way right in your Darwinian argument regarding slavery and the strengh of man argument. However, only slightly. The reason is the Darwinian law of “only the strongest survive” doesn’t fully apply to man after we formed societies and especially after we formed advanced societies. Again, security for people in a society has to exist. If this wasn’t the case, each person, if able, would relocate to a group where they could be the dominant one. This would be a problem for the smaller weaker of the species. There would be no security that a stronger person wouldn’t come and enslave or kill you. This theory is also non-applicable after man invented weapons where anyone can kill or enslave another via weapon. My view that no man is greater than another comes from our society. However, if you actually read the other posts, you’ll see where I said that I don’t see slavery as being an absolute wrong. Again, how you make any argument of slavery when the bible condones slavery throughout ABSOLUTELY amazes me! (quick point on the darwinian argument. Many scientists will point out that the weakening of the human species is a result of the weaker of the species pro-creating over and over again. This doesn’t happen in nature, and we’re now paying the price)

1. Wrong means anything that can be explained with logic why it isn’t acceptable, why it can’t exist in any society. Again, what’s wrong in our society might vary in another society.

2. Don’t think I don’t know what you’re doing here. You’ve been laying this trap for 4 posts now. You’re trying to lock me into an answer about stability so you can claim that unmarried sex destabalizes a society. Poor argument, but I believe that’s what your trying for here, so here goes.
Of course societal stability is a good thing, but not the only thing. For example, war greatly de-stabalizes a society, and yet in many cases it is needed, so while important, stability isn’t the only standard for right or wrong.

So, now let’s see how you’re going to side step all the questions at hand this time. I said it before, but if you again dodge every question at hand and just again prove you’ve got no defense for your premise, this will be my last post directed at you. I’ll no longer respond to what you have to say. Again and again, I respond and try to answer the questions you’ve posed to me and again and again, you just play games. So, this is your last chance to make any point. I’ll give you a quick review of the topics at hand.

1. Why is consensual sex between adults in the privacy of their home wrong?
2. What is or are examples of an Absolute right or wrong?
3. How do you defend the Katrina argument about the absoluteness of “thou shalt not steal”?

Let’s see what happens now.

You also talk about “Bible thumping Christians” and how they won’t make a logical argument, just keep saying it’s God’s will. I have heard just as vague and mysterious (one could say religious) statements coming from atheist / agnostic scientists concerning many unexplained things in science such as “How did the universe begin?” “What caused the “Big Bang”?” “Where did the matter come from to start the universe?” “What is gravity?” “What is “dark matter” and how does it create a gravitational pull to keep the universe from flying apart?” Scientists can’t answer these questions but they still hold that everything can be scientifically explained even though the “Big Bang” contradicts laws of physics.

I said I could make a logical argument about why consensual between unmarried adults was wrong. The problem we have here is that you first, refuse to use logic. Telling me that people need security is not a logical argument to explain why the holocaust was wrong, it is simply your opinion. Why is personal security an absolute? Does the freedom from fear trump what a society deems to be in its best interest?

With slavery, you say that no man is greater than another. Why is that an absolute? If I am stronger than another man and can make him do what I want him to, doesn’t that make me greater? It seems that in a world without religion, the only logical assumption, based on Darwinian principles of science, is that the strongest genes should win out. Where does your “all men are equal” belief come from? It certainly isn’t from nature.

In order for me to make a logical argument without using the Bible or religion that “Consensual sex between unmarried adults is wrong.” we HAVE GOT to first establish two things:

1) What does “wrong” mean?
2) Is societal stability a “good” thing?

Without establishing some concrete answer to these two questions, making any defense of my proposition is like you asking me to paint you a blue house but refusing to tell me what shade of blue to paint it.

I’m not anti-semitic. I have Jewish friends, but I also know that there are anti-zionist Jews as well, because they realize that the forceful eviction of the Palestinians from their land by the Brits/Americans 60 years ago was.. well. A load of sh*t.

But then they are US allies, and hence Canadian allies – where to draw the line of what is fair vs who’s side we take?? I don’t take sides. I just look at what is fair, and what is rightfully theirs. The land of Israel belongs to the Palestinians. If they can’t fight it back then so be it, but if they can, then they have every right to do so.

“A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw-man argument” is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent’s actual argument has not been refuted”

Ian has made an argument that consenting adults doing something in the privacy of their own bedroom is wrong if it’s at odds with his view of “theology of the body” which is Pope John Paul 11th’s view of how sex should be from the bible. So, Ian makes this premise and, in 7+ posts has refused to give any reason for his premise. All he has done is create a “straw man argument” about absolute right and wrong, which could have some relivance if he chose to use them in his defense of his argument, but he’s yet to put up any rhyme or reason for his argument. The holocaust and slavery arguments are really nothing but trying to get an emotional reaction from emotional topics. In all this he can’t even give me one absolute right or wrong, which is his argument to begin with.
I’ve said things are wrong, murder, theft, slavery and have defended them all logically and given logical reasons for why they are wrong. I’m yet to get one reason or explanation for Ian’s positions.
And Ian, I haven’t said specifically “unmarried adults” you have since brought in that term. You said:
“Your approach of everything is okay as long as it is consensual is the problem.”
So, that’s my problem with you. Consensual sex between adults is fine. Wheteher married or not, whether it falls into something you consider “taboo” or not. You seem to think only what you do in the bedroom is Ok, I think it’s Ok as long as it’s consensual. That’s the argument at hand.

Now, Jeff Kee.
I appreciate you defending some of my positions, however, after your last post, I’m going to have to distance myself from you. I don’t want to drag in a discussion on the middle east here and won’t get into that argument here. Now, I’m not at all and Israel defender or even supporter, but, when you defend the PLO and Hezbollah as freedom fighters and then make the statement that Israel must be razed to the ground. You just took a dive off the deep end my friend! Just lost a lot of credibility. Again, this is a dating, sex and relationship board and I won’t get into a middle east discussion.

In order for me to do that, we first have to establish what “wrong” is and what “logical” is.

RR has said that slavery is wrong but also that there isn’t any absolute determination of right and wrong. That doesn’t make any sense and makes it impossible for me to say anything since we can’t even establish whether or not some things are always wrong.

The person you should be pissed off at is RR for continuing to set up a strawman and refusing to come to terms with his inconsistency.

It’s like he pulled out some board game, told me there are no rules but then asked me to play against him by some rules that he refuses to define.

It was the Jewish who viewd the Arabs as the enemy, and the British/USA who capitalized it by using it as an excuse to install a pro-western regime of Israel in the Middle East.

Israel’s very existence is not justified – it is the one country that SHOULD burn and be razed to the ground. It is part of the Balfour Declaration which is a completely biased and unfair view of how the Middle East should be.

Once again. Israel MUST be razed to the ground by Hezbollah and PLO in order to restore balance in the Middle East. This may sound extreme but it is true.

When Korea was taken over by the Japanese, who was in alliance with Hitler, we had several activists organizing bombings and assassinations. We called them freedom fighters, whereas the Japanese called them terrorists. Thats how I view Hezbollah and the PLO- they are freedom fighters, fighting for what is right.

Israel must be gone.

I can see why RR is getting pissed off cause I certainliy am. And I’m in agreement with RR’s view on social rights and wrongs.

The Gods never change. Religion does because people change.

I would be happy to provide you with a logical argument concerning sex but we have yet to establish what logical is to you.

You keep saying that slavery is wrong but instead of explaining why, you launch into a tirade against the Christian understanding of slavery. That’s called avoiding the question.

Concerning the Holocaust, was it only wrong because it, in your opinion, upset the stability of German society? That’s all you come back to. Germany seemed to think that killing all the Jews would actually improve the health of its society.

I can’t even begin to have a rational discussion with you about this until we establish what I asked in my original questions: Is there any absolute morality or is it based on the whim of the government / people? You say that there are no absolutes but then say that slavery and the Holocaust were wrong. You can’t have it both ways.

If it is based on the whim of the people can we at least start by saying that a stable society is a “good” thing?

One other point. Since I’m guessing you’re going to argue forever about the meaning of thou shalt not kill. So, lets change slightly to something you can’t argue. How about thow shalt not steal? Is that an absolute? How about for the folks in New Orleans after Katrina. The grocery stores have no power and are flooded. You’ve got no food or clean water for you or your family. The government isn’t coming in right away, is it Ok then to steal food and water from the grocery stores? Or is it still wrong and you just go ask for forgivenes and say a few heavenly fathers or hail marys and you’re good? Have you ever thought about that, when talking about your absolute right or wrong? Your argument is that you can do what you want, kill, mame, steal, rape whatever. Ask for forgiveness and you’re good. I don’t really see it that way.

Also, you were talking about thou shalt not kill actually meaning murder. However you attacked me and said I was condoning the holocaust by saying that courts determine what’s acceptable killing. Aren’t you saying the same thing? Who determines the difference between killing and murder? At least while we’re here on earth, it’s the courts and legislature. So, you’re arguing against your own argument!!

When you put the samples into a petri dish and start the nurturing process, it’s more or less a given that a lot of the specimen will be killed off throughout the process.

Imagine God being the lab researcher, and us as the cells. The researcher is much more of a greater being who set up the environmental variables in order to make the whole cultivation a success, and couldnt’ care less about the 1.5 million out of 10 millino specimens that were killed off in the process.

That’s how I view God vs. human relations (and I don’t even believe that humans on this planet are the only intellectual beings – God made it possible, by law of physics for some planets to be habitable with living organisms that proactively create chemical reactions – we are one of the 0.0000000000000001% chances).

I don’t think the Bush administration is exactly proof that God doesn’t care.

Why was slavery wrong? You say it was but you also say there are no absolutes. You can’t have it both ways.

The holocaust didn’t cause societal chaos for Germany as a whole. The war did. In fact, if Hitler had just kept to himself instead of invading Europe, her probably would have been able to kill all the Jews in Germany without any other government lifting a finger. Again I ask, if Germany saw the Holocaust as being in its best interest, why was it wrong? Everything was voted into law and the German courts didn’t disagree so you can’t even really call it murder since it was legal.

Back to your original question, would you consider the stability of a society a general “good” that we could agree upon?

It’s a far better explanation than some mystical God who flooded the world while tipping off one guy about it. It’s a far better perception than some God who wrote out 10 rules on a piece of stone.

It’s a far better explanation than some God who claims to bless all human beings yet allow a free-for-all economic imperialism by the Bush administration to allow the invasion of Iraq, and allow globalization to reap the wealth from the 3rd world countries and pour them into the 1st world countries, hence creating places like South East Asia or Africa (and what a joke, we set up charities from North America for these people – it’s like raping, and then cuddling to say sorry).

I have those theories (and a lot of intellectuals do) after observing different parts of the world, learning more about other religions and cultures, and after studying science and quantum physics as well as human psychology with a deep level of understanding.

I’ve lived in 3 different countries across 2 continents, I’ve been through polical turmoil of all sorts and seen religious conflicts and the ideas. I have a very deep understanding of those things – theology, culture, science, human nature, etc.

I’m not some kid who grew up in rural Arkansas going to Church every sunday, being preached at about the "American Way of Life" and "God’s Will" while not knowing what is beyond the borders.

That’s why I have that perception of what the universe is made of. I’m not saying I’m 100% right – but it’s a better explanation than from any religious standpoint.

The way any religion interprets God is far below the greatness of this universe, and every religion tries to humanize God to such a low level it’s disgusting.

I find it incredibly disrespectful for people to think that God is petty enough to bless or condemn individuals for their own actions – that this God figure even gives a damn about it.

God, if it exists, is much more than a humanized being – it is the ultimate being that created the quantum physics of this universe, created the rules of chemistry, created every law of nature that permits a balanced world to exist, and gave every living being the power and the potential to have free will.

If you think God concerns itself with whether you takle it up your ass or not, you must be referring to some tribal leader of an ancient wizard of some sort, because God is much greater in scope than that.

I’m not saying there’s no wise teachings in the Bible – every bible or myth does, just like the Koran, Greek Myths, ancient Egyption myths – they’re all on a parallel, and equal to each other. But you must realize they are all man-made, and artificial.

When I see somebody quoting the Bible like it is the words from God that never changes and is the only law to follow, I feel like I’m looking at a 3 year old arguing about nothing.

To you, it seems that morality is based on what keeps society from destroying itself and what is “necessary” for survival.

If I understand you correctly, there wasn’t anything wrong with the holocaust because it was a decision made by a government, backed by the court system and didn’t lead to societal chaos.

There also wasn’t anything wrong with slavery in the US because, again, it was agreed on by the legislature and backed by the courts.

I’m asking these questions not to put off your initial question but to clarify if you really mean that there are no absolutes. If you truly don’t believe that there are absolutes, then nothing I can say will mean anything to you.

If that is the case, then I certainly don’t want to live in a country run by people like you because then you could legalize or ban anything for any reason. At least in a Muslim country, as repressive as it is, I know where I would stand and what I could and couldn’t do.

Well, I’m not sure you really want to discuss this. I asked you a very simple direct question. You didn’t answer it and leave me with three questions you want answered. I’m going to answer them as best I can in good faith, hoping you then return with an answer and not just more questions.

1) Absolute right or wrong? I’m guessing you’re talking about moral relativism. Do I believe that there is an absolute right or wrong with no grey areas? No, and neither do you. The bible says "thou shalt not kill". Is that an absolute? What if someone is trying to kill you? What if someone is trying to kill your family? What if someone is trying to kill a friend or a neighbor? Is it Ok to kill that person in these situations? Would that not be a relativist attitude? What if you came onto a situation where one person was trying to kill another? Do you act, who’s the good guy / bad guy? Do you let the attacker prevail? Do you step in and help, and possibly assist the "bad guy"? Everything isn’t black and white as you might think it is. I know you think the bible will tell you all, but it’s not black and white either.

Another scenario, Eskimos in the frozen tundra have been known to put an infant or elderly person outside in the harshness of the winter to die. We look at this and say what an atrocity. However, in that situation, they only have a limited amount of food for the winter and a hundred generations of past experiences and learning tells them they don’t have enough food to make it through the winter and have everyone survive. The then face the dilema of letting the "weaker non producing" member of the family die in the winter, vs having the entire family run short of food and everyone die. Maybe you’d just have faith that god would allow a shorter winter so you could all survive, but then you might have just killed your entire family if your wrong. Maybe you’re Ok with that and will say it’s god’s plan. But, the rest of the world might see if differently.

There are rights and wrongs that can be explained with logic. Murder is wrong. Logically you can’t have a society where people can go around killing others, there would be no security. So for a society to exist, Murder has to be illegal. However, as pointed out earlier, there are grey areas, which is why we have courts and judges. Logic can help determine what is right and what is wrong. Even in the bible, right and wrong changes. Just look at the differences between the old and new testaments. What about the differences between the bible and the Koran? Muslims will tell you that Sharia Law is the only absolute right and wrong. Why are they wrong and you’re right? Every religion has their own text that will defend their actions and beliefs. Why is yours correct? So, to answer your question. I’d say there is no absolute right and wrong, there are shades of grey in everything. This being said, there is right and wrong, and all can be explained logically. Your questions 2 and 3 are both answered in this statement as well.

Now, please answer my earlier question about why something between consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedroom should be of your concern or should be wrong. And why is it wrong for Dan and Jennifer to tell consenting adults that as long as they’re consenting it’s Ok?

1) Is it possible to say that something is absolutely right or wrong?
2) If so, what criteria determines that and what is to say that the criteria is absolute?
3) If there is no such things as absolute right or wrong, what is the best way to determine what we arbitrarily decide is right and wrong?

Theology of the Body for Beginners

Please tell me again why something that you say is unacceptable, is wrong when agreed on by two consenting adults in the privacty of their own bedroom. Forget the bible, not everyone thinks it’s the word of god. Give me a logical reason. For many of the religious fanatics, I know logic isn’t a word you’re used to hearing, but let’s try a logical argument rather than a faith-based argument.

Lastly Ian, you said that Dan and Jennifer keep dragging christianity into it. I just did a quick re-read of their position and I didn’t see anything about religion. It’s people posting that bring religion into it, and normally it’s the religious folks that first bring it up and reasons why not to do something.

Dan and Jennifer, keep up the good work!

The problem with Dan and Jennifer is not that they talk about sex. More power to them for discussing it. The problem is that they have taken the approach that anything you get someone to consent to is perfectly okay.

I guess it wouldn’t be a big deal if they didn’t keep dragging Christianity into the discussion. No version of Christianity has ever espoused what they promote.

Everything has a proper time and place. Sex is no different.

Why is consentual sex between willing partners the problem, regardless of what they’re doing?
I understand you’re saying “anything”, but again, where is the line of acceptability? What the bible says? What you say? What the government says? What I say? What your neighbor says? Do you see the problem here?
Why is one thing between consenting adults acceptable and not another? I think your attitude that sex between consenting adults has to pass your test of “approval” or it’s not OK, is the problem!

I cannot believe there are religioius zealots like Susan out there still.

From the perespective of somebody who’s lived all over the world, and is very well educated/experienced with politics/cultures/religions, and from sombody who is very spiritual, I cannot hide my awe and shock at the degree of ignorance displayed in people who simply reason their rules by sayign “it says so in the bible.”

Bible was a man-made article, and so is religion. The God(s) never change – people do, and religion does. Take advantage of sex?? No, people have been taking advantage of the Gods to manipulate the learnings of people.

It was in the 4th century when Constantine, the emperor of Rome, who was, from a Christian view, a Pagan (he worshipped the Sun Gods, just like the Egyptions) who converted Rome into a Christian state, only because he realized Christianity was the next big thing, and to not follow the fad would mean a weakened Rome.

At this time the Bible was heaviliy modified, and based on the masculine, chauvinistic views of the panel who reviewed the gnostic scriptures from old who modified Jesus from a happily married Jewish man to some holy being who did not have sex. It is part of a gigantic cover up and a conspiracy which brings sex down, which brings women down as sexual objects shunned beyond the scenes, and used only to reproduce with upon approved marriage, etc.

Hey, Susan, have you ever looked at a dog, trying to get into his dog cage with a large stick across his mouth? The stick is too wide for the door cage, so he cannot get in. He keeps crashing into it. Now, if it were you trying to get a long stick into a door, you’d turn it around the long way, and get it in, right? Well, the dog, unfortunately, does not have that degree of wisdom – to get A into B, he shoves A into B as it is because that’s all he knows. And when you look at the dog, you realize the evident difference in the level of understanding of this world between you and the dog, and you sympathize.

That’s how I feel when I look at you.

The sad part is the only acceptable place for discussing sex for these people is with their preacher / pastor. These are the same people that tell battered women to stay married since divorce is a sin. What kind of rational advice are you going to get from someone who only has one acceptable outcome of any situation. (that outcome they read in the “Human Manual” called the bible)

Check the statistics, the countries that are the most restrictive with sexual discussion and nudity are also the countries with the highest sexual crime rates. Conversly, countries that are more open with the human body and sexuality have much lower rates of sexual violence.

Sex is suppose to be a private matter and everyone wants to portray it as something to do for those who are bored, just to pass the time away. Why don’t people get a real life and stop obsessing about living out fulfilling their own sexual gratification and fantasies!

Children are so over exposed today that they don’t have a chance to be children. It’s part of the way they can grow up to be responsible adults to make good choices in life. The same goes for all the violence, kids aren’t learning how to handle situations, they just react.

People like you who write this garbage are thieves, you are stealing from the younger generation their innocence. For the parents who are doing their best to keep the coruption out they still don’t have a chance. Our society is so permeated with it in everyday life that unless they move to nowhere land and have no tv or radio and never leave the house there isn’t a hope in hell for any of them.

I agree with Dan and Jennifer’s approach to sexuality. The subject needs to be discussed and is neither evil or dirty. We are all born with sexual desires because we are sexual beings. We are not born with a manual, but we learn our behavior from our natural desires and surrounding influences.

God gave us our parents to help understand that which is natural. Unfortunately, our parents in a lot of cases abrogated their responsibility of passing healthy sexual attitudes onto their children, and lately, it has been strict, legalistic, religious, and outside influences that seem to be gaining a foothold of influence on our society. These influences seem to be creating an overwhelming amount of undue anxiety and guilt onto a population that already excercises paranoia and low self esteem. God is the author of neither.

My hope is that none of you act in evil and deviant manners, but that all of you have a healthy sexual relationship with a significant other. The Good News is Jesus died for you so you can, and you can enjoy those relationships free from condemnation and within the love of God. I am convinced, that nothing, no, not principalities, governments, man, angels, or anything, can separate us from the love of God, not even people who want to misquote the Bible to judge us. I thank God that He is the ONLY judge that counts.

Your approach of everything is okay as long as it is consensual is the problem.

Who wrote the bible? Was that God? Have you ever tried to find out how the bible came to be? Was that God compiling the books?
There is more reference material out there, but if the Muslims want to relegate all thought to the Q’uran, the Jews to the Talmut and the Christians to the Bible, than Lord save the world. We’ll never get out of the ancient past.
Did you ever notice, Susan, that the Lord seemed to change his tune from the Old testament to the new? Little less bloodshed and mass killings? Turn the other cheek instead of an eye for an eye? Yeah, things change even for the Almighty.
Move along and don’t bury your mind in an ancient text. There is more.

Yes, Scripture speaks of the sinfulness of sex before marriage, but that is only for Christians. And even then, there is forgiveness in the eyes of God.

The deeper sin, as you well know, is judging others. Calling others out because of their views on sex is judgemental, and contrary to all of Jesus’ teachings.

You speak of the commandments, let’s not forget that the PRIME commandment, the rule above all other rules for Christians, is this:

Jesus said: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

In other words, judge not, lest ye be judged.

Perhaps before you condemn Dan and Jennifer for their openness about sex and sexuality, you should take some time to understand why they are talking about sex. From their mission statement:

“Our mission is to help people create more conscious relationships based on love and acceptance rather than fear, jealousy, anger, and ownership.”

Sounds a lot like what Jesus was talking about, doesn’t it?

And obviously I don’t judge people right away – Dan and Jen are obviously open-minded, well-educated, and are able to see through things pretty darn well.

But i’m wondering about the general sentiment in the southern states when it comes to issues like this.. I remember hearing about this highschool principal banning cheerleading because he felt it was immoral, and I believe that was from texas.

Are traditional and heavily religious views a thickly embedded part of life in a lot of the Southern states? I’m very curious to know what USA is really like..

Last time I was in the states, I was in Las Vegas – last december. It was a blast, met peopel from all over the USA and there was quite a collage of people.. Definitely a different places from vancouver for sure.

“Violence, organized crime, beating people up or shooting them should NOT be a norm in human life.”

EXACTLY. For some reason it’s ok to see someone getting beaten senseless on reality TV. I dread the day that I have to explain that to my son.

Violence, organized crime, beating people up or shooting them should NOT be a norm in human life.

Sex however is a very normal natural thing. I remember reading an article very simliar to this once upon a time. Why violence is OK, yet sex is not? Sex is more natural than violence!!!

Aggression seems to have taken place as a social norm in North America, and that sentiment is spreading throughout. It’s enough that a lot of intellectual people question the government and its underlying bodies of regulations/agencies as the advocates of such propaganda. The message we get is that love, sex, and other normal part of warm human life is a tabooed subject, yet we’d gladly show our kids how to shoot, blow things up, etc., breeding antoehr generation of war-mongering assholes – a perfect blend to keep up wars such as teh Korean War, Vietnam War, and Iraq.

Maybe this theory goes a bit too far as a conspiracy theory. I question whether the authorities have this much say in this, but teh society is rolling itself in that direction, which is even more alarming!!!

Regardless, it is disgusting to see such a great blog with great insights being tabooed as “inappropriate” content.

I can’t believe how many people there are still who don’t enjoy sex for what it should be, cannot keep up a healthy relationship thorugh love and bonding and sex, and they consider it abnormal to do so.

Abstinence is NOT normal, NOT part of the human anatomy. Sex is.

The level of censorship and phobias that exit in today’s business world are astounding – surrounding anything dealing with or even mentioning sex or sexuality.
You may not realize just how much censorship takes place every day that is keeping yo…