Douglas J. Bender

Not necessarily. It might simply be an intuitive discernment of the way things truly are. In that case, the Bible would simply confirm the intuition. However, at least in the case of Biblical support (not a "book of ancient myths", by the way), there actually is some, rather than just the opinionated speculation which is all that is offered in support of "free (or not so free) love".

Indeed. And I thought that's what I had done. However, does mere opinionated speculation (probably motivated, perhaps unconsciously, by a desire to justify things which would satisfy one's need for instant gratification) count as "deeper consideration"?

As did I.

I know. Because we're human, and we are all sinners and gravitate to the easy, pleasing, and expedient, rather than to the honorable, noble, and righteous.

Ouch.

I know that. But I was not contrasting the Biblical view of sex with an "evolutionary view" - rather, I was contrasting the view that sex is intended to be more than mere physical gratification with the view that sex is just that, though sometimes combined with emotional connections.

"First principles"? How does that enter into an "evolutionary" type of argument, anyway? Besides, if humans are created in the image of God, then a "first principle" would be that humans are intended to reflect God's love and glory, which treating sex as mere physical gratification would not do, and would actually serve to devalue the giving and receiving of physical pleasure in the eyes of those who give and receive it without commitment.

So?

Stop caricaturing my views, please. The point I have been trying to make is that sex without a lifelong commitment devalues sex and the individuals involved - marriage does not guarantee that sex will meet the ideal, but outside of marriage guarantees that it won't, and will thus harm those involved.

<snip remaining "Dear Abby" analysis by Arrowman >

Yep.

That's why I said "basically". But even so, it is little more than masturbation.

"Handle"? Like whether someone can "handle" drinking poison?

I'm sure they don't. And I imagine there are those who think cyanide makes an excellent cocktail.


In Christ,

Douglas

Glory

Douglas Bender,

I fail to see how you can compare sex without marraige to suicide with a straight face. You have admitted to engaging in it and you are clearly not dead.

Whose perception do you really expect us to trust? Yours which is based entirely on your notions of right and wrong, which you read in a book which has been resoundly rejected by the majority of people here, or our own which are based on our experiences and knowledge?

I, personally, appreciate your sharing your views of prostitution but I do not appreciate your taking the opportunity to preach at us. You don't like prostitution. We get it. Are tyou done? Would you like to delve a little deeper into the issue? How do you address the fact that the sex industry is thriving under the current laws and that the current laws actually discourage safe sex practices? Do you have any notions about solving some of the problems facing our society or do you prefer to simply condemn all people as sinners? Do you have any thoughts on why the sex industry is doing such huge business while you percieve the sanctity of sex as a fact that is obvious to all?

Try thinking instead of preaching.

Glory

CuriosityKills

Just as marriage does not guarantee that "sex will meet the ideal", marriage does not "guarantee" a "lifelong commitment". So I don't really understand how a "lifelong commitment" can "guarnatee" that sex won't "harm those involved".

ELECTROGOD

If prostitution is the exchange of money for sex, then what is money?

If I exchanged some sea shells for sex would that be prostitution? Some people don't use "money" as we know it.
What if you don't use money at all (as of course Utopia would be). People exchange food, lodging, drugs, cars, grades, attention, security, protection, babies...love...and of course salvation for sex.
I get a kick out of those who think that love and sex are so entwined that you can only love one person and have sex with that one person and that it must be so pure and...blah, blah, blah...marriage...blah, blah, blah. I can understand that but that isn't all there is.
Marriage is the exhange of many things for sex.
The idea of marriage is a long term committment, sex is a short act.
Prostitution is around for many reasons and marriage is undeniably one of those reasons.

Is a person who is trying to lead a "proper" religious life waits to have sex, gets married because that is what "god" wants them to do, has sex in accordance with that religious union, has babies because that is what their religion expects of them (even if there is love involved for the other person & babies), actually exhanging their sex life for a ticket into heaven?
If they deviate at all from the confines of their marriage then they sin which is enough to send them to hell, right?
Is that as good as money or even better?

Maybe humans are just supposed to have sex and the exchange of different things for it is a completely normal part of it. It would certainly make sense if you understand that survival is our strongest most basic tendency and day to day life is a complex exhange of goods and services.


Did Forrest Gump's mother prostitute herself and was it a bad thing?

ELECTROGOD

I'M not a sinner. That's your fabrication. You may consider yourself and others to be a sinner but what does that say about your self-esteem and your view of people?


If "god" meant us to only have sex in the religious union of marriage then why didn't it she just make it so our sex organs only sprout after we have gone through the ceremony?...and then disappear again if we "leave the union". But wait, some religions believe that the union is never broken and those leaving will just go to hell. SO, maybe it would have been better for "god" to just make it so our sex organs only appeared/worked when engaging in sex with the partner of the union...kind of like a genetically coded lock that some type of foreplay would open to reveal or grow the organs.
Hmmmm, but what if the husband gave the wife 20 bucks to have sex when she wasn't feeling like it or better yet a shopping spree at the store or a new car. Then the organs would have to be designed to correlate with currency and other exchanges to keep the specter of prostitution from ever happening...or would that even be prostitution? Seems like I remember the pope saying that it was a sin for a man to lust after his own wife so I'll be it would be. Of course, many say that sex without the intention of making babies is a sin too so now we got some real big problems...

galiel

Fundies are so silly.

All over the world, people starve to death, die agonizing deaths from AIDs, blow themselves up in order to kill innocent children, torture political dissidents, rape babies in order to gain immunity from disease, drag young men behind pick-up trucks to reinforce their sexual insecurities, make millions while frittering away people's retirement money, snipe strangers from a cowardly distance, knock over Jewish gravestones and mark them with swastikas, torture animals for sick pleasure, etc.,etc.

MOST of these people are deeply religious and believe they do what they do, if not under direct orders from their god, at least with his sanction.

And fundies can find nothing better to do than to worry about men's penises and women's vaginas and under which sanctioned circumstances they may or may not interact.

[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

himynameisPwn

Douglas, no unsupportable assertions please. PROVE sex without love is bad.

Don't mock masturbation, its sex with someone I love very much.

I fail to see how prostitution and masturbation are equal, and even if they are, SO WHAT. Can I then get arrested for paying myself money to have sexual relations with myself?

Without any sort of divine influence Doug, can you tell me that prostitution is immoral?

excreationist

Douglas J. Bender:

This is what I asked you on the previous page:

What if either of a married couple is known to be infertile - e.g. the woman might be over 60 or one could genetically be totally infertile (I think hermaphrodites usually are). - is it immoral for them to have sex?

sentinel00

I need to find a way to put that on a bumper sticker...

Douglas J. Bender

himynameisPWN,

First, PROVE that sex without love is not bad. (Then I can prove that you're wrong. ) Otherwise, it's just your "unsupportable assertions" versus mine.

In Christ,

Douglas

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>