Are sexual prohibitions mixing religion and the law?

Here again is a problem I have noted a few times. What is the definition of moral. (and ethical) The definition of moral is relating to right and wrong. Religious beliefs are not required for standards of morality.Are there any laws that are not created for the concept of right and wrong?In order to keep this thread focused, there seems to be a few basic categories of laws. There are laws concerning what you can do, what you cannot do, and laws on how to do things. Laws about accounting and taxes are laws about how to do things. Laws about things you can do would include such things as corporate law (creating corporations), trust law (creating trusts) and things of that nature. In this thread, we are more interested in laws prohibiting specific activities.To ensure we catagorize properly, this thread has a concentration in laws about sexual activity. These laws all seem to be laws about what you cannot do. That clarified, back to my core question.It is possible to create a law about sex that is not based on morality? (keep the definition of the word moral in mind)To answer the question of the OP, I think that religion plays far too much of a role in our laws concerning sex.

To AllBack in the 1980s, the progenitor of AIDS was found to be a homesexual flight attendant. This person was referred to as a sexual athlete as he wanted and often engaged in sex many times a day. While I agree with the statement that AIDS is not a homosexual disease, it gained its foothold in that community. This person engaged in very frequent indiscrimate sex. His list of partners was legion. His "advantage" as a flight attendant was no small matter in the initial spread of the disease.The problem is that the lower colon was not designed for sex and is subject to micro-tears that increase the probability to transmission of the virus. The virus is not hearty in that it cannot remain viable outside the blood stream. In my estimation, when one has sex with so many so often, it will tend to be, shall we say, more enthusiastic with stronger motions and tend to cause more microtears than sex with fewer and maybe a single partner.This person was told he had this disease and was causing people to die of the virus. He seems to have been rather resistant to the virus and was a carrier. He was asked to refrain from so much indiscrimiate sex. Obviously he refused.The virus gained a foothold in the homosexual community and mutated in multiple directions. It became more communicable and is now a world wide problem. No one can pretend it is limited to any single community.The core problem now with HIV is indescrimate sex. It is not a religious issue, it is sex with multiple partners in an age in which that spreads a deadly disease. I suppose this can be said to be a moral issue. After all, when one deliberately exposes others to a disease then that person has a lacking in morals. I suspects atheists and believers can agree on this point.If there had been laws where people who have a sexually spread disease and do not limit their sexual activity, this guy and others like him could have been locked up and isolated. AIDS would not have spread nearly as rapidly as it did. But we did not. And in all honesty, it probably would have eventually become the same problem it is now. Here is a law that could have saved many millions of lives.However, back to the thread topic.Do you think sexual prohibitions are mixing religion and the law?I hold there is no single answer. Mostly yes. Most of our sexual laws are based on religion and are imposing religion beliefs and restrictions on the public. I think that is wrong.I hold there nothing morally wrong with prostitution. I never visited a prostitute and in this day and age of AIDS would never have sex with a prostitute. Indeed, while not on the market now, if I am, I will not have sex with anyone until we both have a test for sexually transmited diseases, in particular the viral diseases such as HIV and herpes.On the other hand, laws controlling the activities of people spreading sexualy distributed diseases are indeed needed. The dividing line is difficult to draw. Because of sexually transmitted diseases, prostutution (for example) must have some significant controls.My final answer to the OP, Yes.

Hello Holmes,
We agree in several places and disagree in others.RE: I'm getting pretty sick and tired of people trying to connect sexual morality to health problems like HIV.Did you get the impression that I link sexual morality to HIV? I link it not specifically to sexual morals, but in morality in general. Because this a sexualy transmitted disease, we (the world) is not treating it as we would (and should) other problems. I think we agree on that.RE: Horseshit. You can have as much sex as you want with as many partners as you want.I assume you mean with no medical test before sexual contact. If not, then this paragraph is not directed at you. If so:That attitude is common and shows a complete lack of understand of medicine and maybe even morals. If you have sex with as many partners as you can, without haveing yourself and your partners checked, then you are the problem. You are deliberately and knowingly exposing yourself to HIV and deliberately and knowlingly exposing others to it. HIV is a medical problem. But when people engage in that kind of activity, it becomes a moral problem. Indiscrimate sexual activity is the primary cause of the spread of HIV.

Hello Rrhain,Regarding the progenitor, I was recalling a documentary that was aired in the early '80s. It may have been wrong and I certainly do not have perfect recall. Just because something can be done, does not mean it should be done or was designed to do that. As I noted a bit earlier, in the documentary the medical community confronted this person and discussed that people were getting sick and dying. That person made it clear he had no concern and was not about to change his ways. I did not say studs. And I did say in my estimation rather than putting this out as a fact. From watching the homesexual community and reading books and articles by members of that community, I do hold that they tend to be more violent that the average hetro. You may dislike that as you choose, but thirty plus years of observation and reading has formed that opinion. Again, much of that reading was first person accounts of those participating, not second hand opinion.During these early days of AIDS, there was much discussion about the use of condomes. Many user comlained of breakage and wanted tougher condoms. Lubricants were blamed on breakage. There was never this level of problem in the hetrosexual community. My statement stands. As I recall from the early and mid '80s, the homosexual community had far more cases of AIDS than did the hetrosexual community. I am not certain where to search for that information, but from being there as a married adult and with a child who had a future to worry about, I am relatively confident in that opinion. There are always degrees of behavior. The articles and literature of that time from the homesexual community spoke often of how they would visit selected restrooms and have sex with a dozen or more strangers that walked in and agreed. These were first person accounts. The use of "now" was not intended to exclude the past but to emphasize the present in that regardless of how we arrived at this condition, we must deal with it. I do not agree with that statement at all. Any sexual contact with a person that has the HIV virus exposes you to risk of infection. I see what you said about condoms, but just for the record, something like 10% of condom users get pregnant. The sperm cell is far larger than any virus. Any hole the sperm cell can get trough is a highway for a virus.If you think you can have indiscrimate sex without condoms and never contract HIV, please let the world know.You may note that while there are places where I disagree with your position just as strongly as you do mine, I responded to you with more respect and civility that you gave me.

Hello Holmes, I don't mean to ignore and don't pretend to be right when I do. Many posts cover so much ground that covering all the points creates overly long posts. I was and will continue to try to concentrate on the more important issues. (Yeah, I know, I need to take my own advice but I am working on it.) I disagree but never thought you were lying and I hope I did not convey that position.As I have said in other posts, we have a definition problem. I find mutual masturbation quite lacking in the satisfaction department. It is better than masturbating alone, but with regards to sex, just does not cut it. At least one case has been found of lesbians in a monagomous releationship where one partner contracted HIV from her partner. If you brush your teeth, you mouth will have numerous micro cuts and abrasions that can be an entry point to the HIV. Giving a blow job will definately expose one to HIV.Regarding mutual masturbation, HIV is quite small and can get through even the tinest break in the skin. It only takes one. I hold the risk is much higher that you suspect.Given out disagreement on the definition of sex, I think that clarifies several of our disparate positions. For that reason, I feel that comment on each item is not needed. (but I did not ignore them)We also disagree on the problem of promiscuity. I would far rather see a world in which we could have sex with whom we please and when we please. However, in the face of reality, and given my defintion of sex, promiscuity is a major part of the problem. If we, all of us, restricted ourselves to sex with partners of known health status, the spread of HIV would be stopped cold. New cases would drop to almost zero. So would the spread of almost all the SIDs.Sex is a full body contact sport. Condoms just don't cut it. And I suspect if you poll both the homosexual and hetrosexual communities, you will find damn few that restrict themselves to mutual masturbation.That may not be fact, but it is my opinion.Again, please forgive me for not addressing every point, but some of these posts (including mine) are getting too long.

Hello Holmes,
You do seem to spend quite a bit of time in this forum. There are many intelligent people here and the conversations can be quite enjoyable. I enjoy this forum, but maybe not as much as you. I have that problem often. My brain thinks, my fingers type, and later when I read it, that is not exactly what I meant. Even when it is what I meant, it can be interpreted differently.Before going on, in this particular thread, most of what I say is my feelings and what I believe. I do not claim it to be fact. Discussions such as this are to a great extent one belief compared to another. I have a different take on that. The purpose of sex is to propagrate the species. The best way to do that is not to spray it about but to inject the sperm into the female. It only follows that penetration and internal ejaculation is the most enjoyable. Where would we be if the best of our breed was just as happy jacking off rather than impregnating.In defense of penetratings sex and as a personal note: I find the orgasm from getting a good blow job is quite a bit more intense than from vaginal sex. However, something is missing. I find that vaginal sex is much more satisfying than oral. If I had to give up one or the other, the blow job would go. Nothing again this is my opinion, I suspect that by far the majority of people prefer penetration in their sex. Do you? I remember that clearly, it was a knee jerk reaction by a bunch of jerks. I forget her name right now, but most of the gripers ignored the fact that she said it might be a possibility. One person at work did not like what she said because he did not want to schools talking about sex at all, much less jerking off. He wasn't worried about sex, just didn't want his kids to know about jerking off. It was clear to me that he didn't teach his kids squat about sex, but she had damn well better not. HIV stands for Human Immunodeficiency Virus. While the temptation is strong, to say HIV virus is redundant. Viruses come in individual entities. To say one HIV, while awkward, should be correct. Two points in here. First, there is a quantitive assessment, how much riskier. If someon were to dip my hand in cum, I would not be pleased at all and would want to wash up immediately, but I would not be particularily worried about getting HIV. If the, ummm, doners, were infected that would bother me quite a bit, but it would not be time for panic. I would in all probability not become infected. Still, I believe that playing with someone's jism does indeed expose one to significantly more risk. You can take significantly as you care to, this is an opinion and a judgement call.Regarding mosquitos and toilet seats, the virus does not stay viable for very long outside of the human body and our of human blood. Those are known to not be problems.I need to quite this and go to bed, but I feel obligated to address a few more points. Either I wrote something wrong or I have been misunderstood. I don't have time to review but to recap: HIV / AIDS would be stopped cold if we were to take more care in selecting our partners. Not for religious type morals, just for medical reasons. In general, the only people that should be subject to laws in this area are those that know or should know they may be carriers and who participate in risky behavior. We have differing opinions here and I don't see that as a problem at all. I very much prefer sex as a "full body contact" sport. (I do use the term rather loosly and with a bit of tongue in cheek humor) I would rather restrict my participation rathern than use condoms and play don't touch here.My perespective is different from many. We have been married for something around 30 years, monogamous, and we still average close to daily sex. I recognize that this makes it easy for me to be more critical of others.I am rather tired, but regarding the flue virus, we must breath in public, but not have sex. If flu were empidemic, we would probably benific from wearing masks in public and washing out hands every hour or more. But i think some of out differences may be reconciled in my earlier paragraph where I commented on being mis-understood.And not, I must appologize for taking my leave and not proof-reading all of this post before submitting. I must stop here with some things unsaid.

Hello Holmes, I mean EvC in that it includes Coffe House, but that's fine. I find overall the entire forum is good. As I read this, you agree with my position but disagree with my conclusion. Animals including dolphins that try to hump everything are going for penetration. And I think it does follow. Those that don't prefer penetrating sex leave fewer decendants. That indicates a generic based tendancy.Do you prefer to jerk off or be jerked off rather than penetrating sex? I did not ask what you do because of practicality, but what you find more satisfying? I suspect you and the majority of humans (and all animals) would say that penetrating sex is better. How many non humans do you see jerking off in preference to vaginal sex with a female? You say that as fact. I disagree but that is only belief. No, not patently incorrect. But I will gladly concede it won't be stopped cold as I said. But essentialy, it will be stopped. I suspect the rate of infection via other vectors is quite small in comparison.Thats enough quoting and I have other things I need to do. But I will toss this out.If a flu epidemic or pandemic appears to be in the making, and if I have symptoms of flu, do I have the right to go out it public, breath on every one, cough, shake hands, exchange money and the such. I say no.However, to pass a law limiting my activities would be extremely controlling by the government. I do not like that possibility. That would indeed be a slippery slope problem.If this spawns a spirited discussion, I ask that we try to stay with the fundamental concept rather than nitpicking technicalities. In order to brief and concentrate on the core ideas, I prefer to toss out the concept and let the loose ends flap in the breeze.Holmes, I must depart for now but thanks for the conversation.

I don't see that in her response at all. You have distorted and abused her words. Yes, there is a lot of truth in it. You are the one that is behaving absolutist. If female A accepts male B but not male C, although there are receptive females in the vicinity, C may not be able to have sex. Masturbation may be his only outlet. Where do you get that out of schrafinator's response? After chatting with you for a while I must agree with her post. You really are full of yourself.

Analogies abound, I will pick an extreme one. Was the brain designed to stop a bullet? It can do it, so you say it must have been designed to do it.The remainder of the post is not worth bothering with.

As I have read about homosexual men and women over the years, I had a thought as to a possible reason why some (no number specified or inferred) people chose that lifestyle.Some men might choose it (in part or whole) because they don't want to put up with all the crap that many women attach to sex.Some women might choose it because they don't want to put up with all the misogynistic behavior and all that "manly" crap that the men just cannot do without.Obviously I just threw out the concept; you can fill in what ever details you might think appropriate.Any takers on this possibility?

Hello Rrhain, You are rather good at turning a defeat into a victory by distoring words.You are quite intelligent and knowledgable. But I don't care to cary on here and though you certainly don't care, I will briefly tell you why. You work very hard to insult people and tell them how stupid they are and as a result, you get to conclude how bright you are. Look at your posts and see how often your statements can be seen as insuslting.Look at your signature: What you have tried to hide in humor is: You are a real dumb shit. The message is clear.Do you enjoy saying that to people?
What do you gain from the insults you throw?

---

Truth fears no question.bkelly

That part is correct, you were just wrong. Not nearly as bight as you think you are. You haven't figured out that holmes and (I think it was) purpledawn have also blown many of your positions in the weeds. Your first reply contains your signatere, i.e. You are a dumb shit. You start your conversations by talking about how other people are dumb shits. You may not have figured it out, but you do work hard at being insulting.Hopefully, some day you will figure this out. Then you can put your brain to good use.