Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A personal question
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 193 (20607)
10-23-2002 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by gene90
10-23-2002 4:32 PM


Originally posted by gene90:
There's our Strawman of the Day.
So, you're off to see the wizard. I wonder what he'll have to give you?
I suppose he is partly correct, some sects have claimed in the past that sex is dirty...the Shakers for one.
Some? How about most. Christianity sees sex for pleasure as immoral.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 4:32 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 7:08 PM nos482 has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 193 (20608)
10-23-2002 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Delshad
10-23-2002 5:29 PM


Originally posted by Delshad:
My intentions in my previos posts was not to insult anyone, and I have never stated that it would be harmfull in the way you are emplying.
Perhaps I could explain my perspective with this analogy: Someone offers you a key, but you havent seen anyone before and you do not know where it goes.
(This is like the bunny, hold out your foot infront of it and it yould try to have sexual intercourse with it, because of ignorance).
If you ask the giver, where does this key go to and he says, to that door, then you will use it in the right way.
(As the man, who can learn from others that the organs have a purpose.)
However , I dont despite the same sex relationships and who am I to stop them from doing what they want.
Im simply stating that man and woman relationships is the moral norm that leads society and deviations should be accepted but not embraced.
Sincerely Delshad
Morality is subjective. No one is telling you to embrace anything either. What consenting persons do is their own business. Love is not just sex. You have no choice in who you love.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Delshad, posted 10-23-2002 5:29 PM Delshad has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 193 (20609)
10-23-2002 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by gene90
10-23-2002 4:25 PM


You know that isn't true. I'm about to get very un-pc by pointing this out but where was HIV first discovered?
HIV is a primarily heterosexual disease. Unless you believe that the vast majority of Africa is gay? HIV first appear, in the West, by way of drug users. Anyways sex is not the problem, it is ignorance of sex that is the real tragedy here.
Anytime you exchange bodily fluids you have potential for disease transmission. Homosexual sex, just like hetero sex, can kill you. And it won't make babies. It's an evolutionary hazard with no immediate evolutionary reward, unlike heterosexual sex, that sometimes produces pregnancy.
As was stated somewhere else homosexuality may serve the purpose of limiting population growth when a popultion either grows too fast or too much. BTW, only 2 out of every 100 heterosexual acts result in a pregnancy.
Also, I thought that you said that life was more than proving one's fitness to reproduce?
[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-23-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 4:25 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 7:06 PM nos482 has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 193 (20624)
10-23-2002 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by gene90
10-23-2002 7:08 PM


Originally posted by gene90:
I disagree. If you're married, most don't care.
Even in marriage if it wasn't for reproduction it was discouraged.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 7:08 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by nator, posted 10-23-2002 11:11 PM nos482 has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 193 (20626)
10-23-2002 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by gene90
10-23-2002 7:18 PM


Originally posted by gene90:
Should be.
Rarely are things as some would like them to be.
But if the sexes were created for a reason by a creator, don't you think that giving in to the temptation to go after the wrong sex is contrary to the will of the creator?
That's a big if concidering that you ca't even prove that your god actually exists. Wrong sex?
You said homosexuality was harmless. No sex is necessarily
harmless.
Nor is it necessarily harmful either. You are confusing ignorance about sex with sex itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 7:18 PM gene90 has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 193 (20627)
10-23-2002 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by gene90
10-23-2002 7:40 PM


Originally posted by gene90:
I don't agree that breathing air is the 'right' way to go, but I'm not saying that they should be denied their choice.
Like breathing air being gay is not a choice. If you were gay would you have chosen to be so if you knew how you would be treated by others?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 7:40 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by nator, posted 10-23-2002 10:16 PM nos482 has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 193 (20687)
10-24-2002 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by nator
10-23-2002 11:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
Originally posted by gene90:
I disagree. If you're married, most don't care.
Even in marriage if it wasn't for reproduction it was discouraged.

Coming from a Catholic background, I could tell you some things about what they told the young kids about contraception and other birth control, and about sex in general.
A lot of us (especially the girls) end up with terrible guilt and repressed sexual expression.

I remember, on another board, when this topic came up someone posted a set of guidelines from the 19th century for newlyweds on how the bride could avoid having sex with her new husband. It would have been quite funny if they weren't truly serious about it. I've been trying to find this list so I could post it here so you could see what I mean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by nator, posted 10-23-2002 11:11 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by gene90, posted 10-24-2002 5:25 PM nos482 has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 193 (20731)
10-24-2002 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by gene90
10-24-2002 3:50 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
I think parents should raise their children, not the government. That includes raising them however they want.
What if the family believes that siblings should marry to "keep the bloodline pure"? Incest is a problem. Just recently there was a major kiddie porn ring broken up and many of the children were being used by their very own parents. Are you saying that this is ok and the law shouldn't have interfered in them rasing their children their way?
[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by gene90, posted 10-24-2002 3:50 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by gene90, posted 10-24-2002 5:11 PM nos482 has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 193 (20732)
10-24-2002 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by gene90
10-24-2002 3:52 PM


Originally posted by gene90:
I've seen Catholic fliers about contraception.
But the brutal fact of the matter is that frankly I don't care what the Catholic stance is, they don't speak for non-Catholics.
But they do speak for the vast majority of Christians since most Christians are RC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by gene90, posted 10-24-2002 3:52 PM gene90 has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 193 (20738)
10-24-2002 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by gene90
10-24-2002 5:09 PM


Originally posted by gene90:
Which is patently false. Sex, whether hetero or homo, can very well be harmful.
here you are quite wrong yourself. It is not sex which is the problem, but as I keep saying, it is ignorance about sex.
So then do you have a right to harrass Mormons on the street? Or wouldn't that be religious intolerance? Would you drive up to a gas station, and if you saw a Christian fish on a vehicle there, confront the driver about his religious preferences and tell him about how unreasonable he is?
Why not, they harrass us when they come to our doors.
Then what right have you to criticize my moral values?
Because they are based on ignorance in this case.
Only if you presuppose there is no God, just as I presuppose there is.
What imperical evidence do you have that your god actually exists? The difference is that he isn't trying to impose his non-belief on all if given half a chance as many theists would and do.
"There's no transitional fossils!"
"There's no evidence of God!"
Show me god's fossils.
[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by gene90, posted 10-24-2002 5:09 PM gene90 has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 193 (20739)
10-24-2002 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by gene90
10-24-2002 5:11 PM


Originally posted by gene90:
If they are of legal age, what's the problem?
I see that you know nothing of genetics.
No, I never said that existing abuse laws should be nulled. But I think that gov't shouldn't require teaching of logic or interfere with parent's teaching their kids whatever religion they want.
Many religions teach "spare the rod and spoil the child" to mean that children should be beatened to keep them moral and obedient. Existing anti-abuse laws "interfer" with their right to practice thier beliefs in this regard. Plus, there are so-called Christian "scientists" who let their children die horrible deaths because they believe that all they need to do is pray to their god to heal them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by gene90, posted 10-24-2002 5:11 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 8:41 PM nos482 has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 193 (20740)
10-24-2002 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by gene90
10-24-2002 5:25 PM


Originally posted by gene90:
What's wrong with it? If your wife doesn't want to have sex and you force her into, that's rape. It's not different from if you did that to your next-door neighbor.
That isn't the issue here. It is not about rape or force, it is about discouraging sex for pleasure. The bride is being told to hate sex and only to have it in order to reproduce and not take any pleasure in it at all. If they had artifical insemination back then it would have probably been the standard required practice so they wouldn't have to actually touch each other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by gene90, posted 10-24-2002 5:25 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 8:37 PM nos482 has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 193 (20850)
10-25-2002 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by gene90
10-25-2002 8:37 PM


Originally posted by gene90:

Your message implied it only told the bride how to avoid having sex if she did not want to have sex.
You did not say it discouraged sex.
It is basically the same thing in this context and I have a feeling that you knew that and like John you are becoming contrary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 8:37 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 9:06 PM nos482 has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 193 (20852)
10-25-2002 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by gene90
10-25-2002 8:41 PM


Originally posted by gene90:
I didn't say that inbreeding does not have negative consequences, I said that people have a right to marry whoever they want.
No, they don't have the right to marry whomever they want. It is a privilege that is why you have to get a licence to make it legal. You can't legally marry your pet, your close blood relations, etc...
I personally don't have an opinion on that so this comment has fallen upon deaf ears.
So, you approve of beating children as a form of "discipline"? Just recently an elderly woman, from a local Christian cult, was convicted of using excessive force on 5 children in their group when she beat them with the "rod" (Wooden paddle).
That's legal in Canada?
Of course not, that is why they are arrested for this crime against their children. You would have the government (law) mind its own business in this sort of situation.
Here in the US I believe that would fall under our child neglect laws.
What and let the evil government interfer in how they want to raise their own children? Those evil interfering laws should be repealed at once. (Note: Sarcasm)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 8:41 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 9:27 PM nos482 has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 193 (20853)
10-25-2002 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by gene90
10-25-2002 9:06 PM


Originally posted by gene90:
I think there is a significant difference in teaching a woman ways to avoid being raped and trying to convince her that sex is bad.
If it is the same in that context then you have failed to convey it.
No, you are obviously being contrary. It was perfectly clear from the context that it was to avoid having sex for pleasure. I would have said to avoid having sex forced on her. This discussion is over.
[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-25-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 9:06 PM gene90 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024