Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are sexual prohibitions mixing religion and the law?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 1 of 206 (261337)
11-19-2005 6:25 PM


Not sure how to express this, but I believe sexual taboos, such as multiple wives, homosexuality, multiple partners, even sex with minors, etc,...(but not rape), are more the result of moral judgments, and that a large part of morality is founded in religious beliefs though that's not the only source.
In other words, I don't think there is a very good scientific explanation why a man should remain monogamous, or why willing people, should not engage in sex. Keep in mind that I disgree with fornication, adultery, homosexuality, pedophilia and the whole she-bang. I am married and enjoy a healthy sex life, but it doesn't seem that there are but so many scientific reasons to limit willing sexual involvement, except perhaps they lead to sexual addictions.
So, for example, when we prosecute a 30 year old teacher for having sex with teen-age boys, are we imposing our religion on them?
How about if a 30 year old man sleeps with a 15 year old girl?
When we personally disdain a man for cheating on his wife, are we imposing our religious attitude in the situation? Even if we say the man has covenant with his wife, perhaps she and he would not mind it if they based their beliefs on science?
And here is the kicker. If so, does science inherently lead to amorality in terms of sexual behaviour that is non-violent?
This message has been edited by randman, 11-19-2005 06:26 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by mick, posted 11-19-2005 7:01 PM randman has replied
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2005 7:04 PM randman has replied
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 11-19-2005 7:08 PM randman has replied
 Message 6 by nwr, posted 11-19-2005 7:24 PM randman has not replied
 Message 13 by jar, posted 11-19-2005 8:24 PM randman has not replied
 Message 15 by berberry, posted 11-19-2005 8:28 PM randman has not replied
 Message 22 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2005 11:43 AM randman has replied
 Message 50 by Dr Jack, posted 11-21-2005 10:21 AM randman has not replied
 Message 140 by Phat, posted 12-05-2005 7:58 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 8 of 206 (261362)
11-19-2005 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by mick
11-19-2005 7:01 PM


ethical?
Hmmmn. That's a strange list.
Fornication is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, "Voluntary sexual intercourse between a man (in restricted use, an unmarried man) and an unmarried woman". Well, you already said there's no reason to think there's anything wrong with that. Certainly no scientific reason, and I would argue no moral or ethical reason either.
Just for your clarity, I create the list to make it clear where I am coming from relative to biblical morality and ethics versus amorality or other ethics. It's meant only to make sure people know where I am coming from, not as the subject of the OP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by mick, posted 11-19-2005 7:01 PM mick has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 9 of 206 (261363)
11-19-2005 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by mick
11-19-2005 7:01 PM


so science is irrevalent
We're also imposing a view of the teacher-child relationship that was developed for centuries. There are certainly people who disagree with the idea that teachers can't sleep with their students. But I guess teachers have to work within the consensus view.
Now we're getting somewhere. You seem here to be admitting that the law should reflect the consensus view, and that our ethics then are very much dependant on subjective beliefs and values not determined by science.
Correct?
Considering a great deal of those ethics stem from religion, are we not imposing religious values into the law and on everyone else?
In Spain, the age of consent is 13. In Saudi Arabia it is any age as long as you are married. In Tunisia it is 20.
So this would argue that we are only speaking of cultural norms, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by mick, posted 11-19-2005 7:01 PM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2005 8:25 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 11 of 206 (261365)
11-19-2005 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
11-19-2005 7:04 PM


Holmes argues from science, right?
Yeah, we're mostly imposing religion on them. Holmes has put forward a pretty strong case that these relationships are not inherently damaging or harmful for any of the participants.
OK. But then you say you have trouble seeing how science can lead to sexual amorality. Holmes, if I remember, argued based on science, and you admit we are mostly imposing religion on people.
So, in fact, isn't reasonable to claim that science leads to amorality from your perspective at least. I think there are those that argue science indicates monogamous marriage is best for children, people, etc....so maybe science does not.'
But that's the point of the thread, and also to illustrate that perhaps some here have beliefs they are willing to impose on people based on the influence of religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2005 7:04 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Omnivorous, posted 11-19-2005 9:09 PM randman has not replied
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2005 10:37 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 12 of 206 (261366)
11-19-2005 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Chiroptera
11-19-2005 7:08 PM


religion vs science
I think I answered this in response to crash. let me know if you think otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 11-19-2005 7:08 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Chiroptera, posted 11-19-2005 10:29 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 27 of 206 (261602)
11-20-2005 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by berberry
11-20-2005 8:36 AM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
Rand thinks that science is out to destroy everyone's morality, which demonstrates admirably the conundrum science poses for religious fundamentalists.
That's not what I think. The purpose of this thread, for me, was to raise an interesting issue, namely that many believe sexual mores are just moral impositions and cite scientific studies to back that up. I think Holmes goes as far as to claim certain situations now classified as pedophilia are shown not to be harmful scientifically. I am not sure if I agree with that, but there was a recent story I noticed where a woman had married her first love when she was 30. He was a 20 year old teacher, and she 15, and she thought it was just fine.
Now, I don't want my girls dating some older guys or teachers, but that's getting off-topic. The point is the science may not indicate that the sexual mores of the evos here are scientifically based stances.
That's what I wanted to get at. That whereas you guys slam religious people for wanting their values reflected in the law instead of just pure reason and science from your perpective.
Most of you here do the exact same thing you claim religious people do. You want your values reflected in the law, and want to impose your morals and values independent of real science.
Not all I might add. Holmes seems to be a little more ideological pure in this regard, but perhaps it is right after all to believe morals exist, period, and that we should have a sense of sexual morality, and if that's the case, then why bash religious people for wanting to impose their religion for wanting porn limited, or gay marriage or whatever.
In other words, let's look in the mirror. Most here would be pretty upset if their 14 year old was having sex with a 50 year old neighbor, and I think it's wrong too. But at least I can admit this is a values and morals judgement.
I don't see the anti-religionist side being willing to admit they are doing the same thing, minus a few that actually disagree and see no problem with such things as teens having sex with older people.
It's not the nicest subject to talk about, but on the other hand, maybe rethinking what we are doing is a good thing. If you want to normalize homosexual relations, fine, but don't pretend you are doing anything different than the religious right when you don't want 13 year olds having sex with adults, or multiple wives, or whatever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by berberry, posted 11-20-2005 8:36 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Chiroptera, posted 11-20-2005 6:04 PM randman has replied
 Message 41 by berberry, posted 11-21-2005 9:32 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 28 of 206 (261603)
11-20-2005 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by ohnhai
11-20-2005 5:06 PM


Re: Look for the embarassing admission down at the end
I know a couple where one was 15 and the other was the art teacher and now the 15 yo is in their late 30s and they are still together and happily married.
I hadn't read your post when I posted mine above, but that sounds like the story I read recently.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ohnhai, posted 11-20-2005 5:06 PM ohnhai has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 30 of 206 (261608)
11-20-2005 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by crashfrog
11-20-2005 11:17 AM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
I'm concerned that, to a fair extent, we're all conflating sexual amorality with sexual immorality; Rand's not asking if science turns normal people into sexual offenders and deviants and rapists (immorality) - he's asking if science leads to a culture of non-judgementality about sexual acts.
That's right....but with a twist. I am not really saying science per se leads to a culture of non-judgementality about sexual acts. I am saying that it seems that, at present, it should if you assume that moral judgements should not be based on religion or personal values, but on scientific ones, and my point is most that bash the religious right are doing the exact same thing as the religious right is doing, but they don't admit that.
I think more understanding could be acheived if there was a little more honesty about what people are doing in the area of morals and ethics, and instead of trying to demonize a group on principle, the argument can shift to specifics. For example, there is nothing wrong at all with the religious right wanted it's morals and values reflected in the law.
The opposing side is trying to do the exact same thing. There is absolutely no difference on principle. The question is on the specifics, who is right and who is wrong. Is a baby a living human being at some point prior to birth, and if so, at what point? To what degree should society acknowledge homosexual unions? Is porn healthy, unhealthy, or none of the government's business? Same with prostitution? Are ages of consent proper for sexual conduct or not? etc,...
These are issues a civil society needs to address without demonizing the other side, making wild claims like they just don't understand science and natural things, or they want to create a theocracy, etc....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2005 11:17 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 11-20-2005 8:51 PM randman has replied
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2005 9:10 PM randman has replied
 Message 37 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2005 4:53 AM randman has replied
 Message 46 by nator, posted 11-21-2005 10:00 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 31 of 206 (261609)
11-20-2005 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Chiroptera
11-20-2005 6:04 PM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
Maybe, at least in that area, but very few people are total libertarians, and those that think they are often have areas they have different or mixed feelings on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Chiroptera, posted 11-20-2005 6:04 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Chiroptera, posted 11-20-2005 8:40 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 32 of 206 (261613)
11-20-2005 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Silent H
11-20-2005 11:43 AM


Re: enter holmes...
Homes, don't try to reduce this to a legal issue. For example, parents that would consent to their kids having sex outside of wedlock with adults would have their kids taken away, but this is not about the technicalities of the law, but about whether laws based on morals are acceptable or not.
I get the impression from some of your other posts that your position is they are not appropiate, but I could be wrong and you are free to correct me on that.
But where I do think I am right is that no one that accepts some moral laws are necessary has a right to point the finger at the religious right or anyone else for wanting their values reflected as if that is wrong on principle.
These issues need to be decided by society with a sense of civility and recognizing that asking that the law reflect some morals rather than purely libertarianism is something that will entail religion and other ideologies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2005 11:43 AM Silent H has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 36 of 206 (261756)
11-21-2005 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
11-20-2005 9:10 PM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
The question of who can consent and who cannot doesn't seem to be a moral issue, to me.
So, in fact, you're wrong. The other side is not doing the exact same thing, they're respecting the right of persons to make their own determinations about what they will or will not do.
Actually, you have not then been paying attention. The fact the age of consent beyond mere puberty is considered a viable concern proves my point. If there were no values-based judgements, then people would not claim the age of consent was an issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2005 9:10 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Funkaloyd, posted 11-21-2005 5:20 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 79 of 206 (262144)
11-21-2005 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Silent H
11-21-2005 5:00 PM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
Holmes, I don't know how to respond. I admire your courage in one sense, but the comments on babies, well, it just seems way over on the perverse end of things. Not saying you are perverse or would do such things or anything like that, btw.
I understand the reason and rationale, on paper, but it's too much. Do you think that maybe there is an instinctual sense of morality that lets us know some things are just wrong? You'd probably say it's just cultural conditioning though.
Edit to add I see where shraf originated the line of questioning. It just took me aback for a second to read yur post, but reading Shraf's comments puts it more in perspective.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-21-2005 07:39 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2005 5:00 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Silent H, posted 11-22-2005 4:07 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 80 of 206 (262146)
11-21-2005 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Chiroptera
11-20-2005 8:51 PM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
Obviously, I would oppose such steps. I am not claiming everyone's moral sense is right, just that nearly everyone has a moral sense that want codified into law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 11-20-2005 8:51 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Chiroptera, posted 11-22-2005 8:39 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 81 of 206 (262147)
11-21-2005 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Silent H
11-21-2005 4:53 AM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
Holmes, I knew you'd agree with my basic analysis, although we don't agree on whether it is right or not for moral laws to exist.
What's more, so called liberals who pretend to love science and despise religious bigotry have in fact joined with fundies to demand that science conform (that is must be edited) to support sexual mores... as long as it does not effect gays.
So science can be coopted by ideology? Would you be willing to admit this may have occurred in the case of evolution proponents?
Let me add that I think there is some basis biblically, morally, and certainly historically within our founding documents for a more libertarian society. I think, for example, that drugs as bad as they are should be legal, including all prescription drugs without a prescription. We should be able to decide for ourselves how to treat our own bodies and minds, providing we don't endanger people (such as driving intoxicated).
But dealing with kids under puberty, I really think there is rational, scientific reason to state that sex is off-limits, period, under any laws.
Of course, I am not a full-blown libertarian, and have some mixed feelings on moral laws in certain areas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2005 4:53 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by bkelly, posted 11-21-2005 9:27 PM randman has not replied
 Message 86 by Silent H, posted 11-22-2005 5:01 AM randman 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