Are sexual prohibitions mixing religion and the law?

bkelly responds to holmes:

quote:

---

If you have sex with as many partners as you can, without haveing yourself and your partners checked, then you are the problem.

---

Incorrect.The risk is not that you have had sex. The risk is the kind of sex you have.I can have sex with every single person on the planet without risking any transmission of any disease, 100% guaranteed, and I don't even need to wear a condom or take anybody's sexual history.That you aren't clever enough to figure out how to do this doesn't mean it can't be done. It simply means that you have an extremely narrow view of what "having sex" means.Sexual activity does not mean intercourse.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

That does not help. We do agree on that. Instead of treating it with common medical sense, we use common moral sense as you move on to do, for example... You couldn't get more wrong. You can have sex with as many people as you want, including people that are HIV infected and not get it.Think I'm lying? No, I am simply not defining my terms just as you are not. I am making the same ridiculous hyperbolic assertion you are but in a way not aimed at reinforcing negative stereotypes regarding sex.You can certainly engage in masturbation with any and all and not get HIV, unless for some reason you have open sores on your hands. Indeed there is some evidence that it is almost impossible to get HIV through oral sex, though it is made more possible by unknown cuts within the mouth (which you can't see or feel as well as on your hands, though you can if you do a careful check before playing). And all of this is aided by making sure genitals do not have lesions of any kind, and with oral sex if one wants to be 100%, use of a condom.My guess is you do not consider mutual masturbation and oral sex, something less than having sex.Your own commentary could be said to show a complete lack of understanding of medicine and morals.Multiple partners and anonymity is not the issue here, though it CAN make worse the true underlying problems. It can IF and WHEN it is combined with risky PENETRATIVE sexual acts (or any other where body fluids are allowed exposure to the circulatory system), AND someone that is infected.Those ifs and whens are serious and do not allow the moralizing you have conducted. There are vectors within sex, but not all sex. Any increase in contact an infected individual has with others does increase the degree of spread, but does not make increased contacts by everybody an issue.I gave you a very nice counter example using a new flu strain and you totally ignored it and its obvious implications, to essentially restate your false premise.I am in full agreement that the best way to be having any sexual contact, is to know the status (frankly of all STDs) before having sex. But that is NOT necessary to remove or drastically reduce risk, and sex without such precautions is not itself an immoral act as it is not necessarily itself an ACTUAL RISK.Most human activity involves unknown risk, including potentially fatal unknown risk. We don't normally get full tests and map out everything before taking such acts so as to be blameless. How many kids die of meningitis simply by going to school with others that are infected. Indeed do you NEVER eat food from places you do not have the food and the cooks fully tested? And do you refuse to hand people objects you may have used, or cook food for others until you have been fully tested for everything?HIV has been the greatest thing to happen for prudes in ages. It was the greatest way to make SEX look really scary, despite the fact that SEX isn't the cause. And for those that like sex but not promiscuity, they get to blame PROMISCUOUS SEX... but that is not a cause either.The first and foremost problem is that we have a fatal contagion, it is a virus, which is transferred through bodily fluids with a potentially long gestation period which masks its spread and WE DO NOT TAKE STEPS AS A SOCIETY to CONTAIN the virus. We have the ability and we still don't.The answer, for some reason, is to make everyone act differently with regard to their sex lives, so as not to disrupt the full lives of those few (percentage wise) who have the disease and don't want to know. Congratulations everybody.Promiscuity doesn't mean anything. It is NOT the problem. As ever in history it is IGNORANCE, and WILLFUL IGNORANCE being used to support moral beliefs. This is no different than back in long past plague times where people refused to see possible routes of staving off the disease or curing it, because it interfered with their believing what moral problems caused it and desiring to maintain that fear.I guess it looks to me like people are more afraid of a world where people can return to having sex in a safe, though more promiscuous, fashion, than a world where they might catch a known fatal illness through several different vectors (including sex) and the illness spreads more each day.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I want to nitpick once again on this. You say any transmission of any disease and that is not correct. After all you can catch many diseases, even fatal ones, without direct skin contact.Its more accurate to say transmission of any STDs.And I want to ask why in an earlier post you agreed that indiscriminate sex was a problem. It did surprise me when you said that since I knew you had said the above before. Unless you were meaning indiscriminate includes choice of partner and activity.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Biblical morals, so far as I have tested, are absolute.
Whether you choose to take on these morals as your own, is up to you

---

This is exactly the opposite of what you said. In fact, you have been largely inconsistent. First, morals = law is something you supported. Then morals change with time. Now, morals are absolute.Then why is science an issue for morals at all to you if Biblical morals are absolute?

quote:

---

For believers, it affects how we translate the morals of the bible. Just look at how many religions there are, and how the morals can vary slightly for religion to religion.

---

But you said Biblical morals are absolute. They cannot vary slightly from religion to religion...that means all but one religion is wrong..which one is the absolute one?

quote:

---

You see, I don't have a problem with what is, but I do have a problem with the study of what is

---

So you would prefer that we remain ignorant? That is an interesting position...how do you justify ignorance morally?

quote:

---

I never said it was the study of religion. But the study of religion and the things accociated with it, can be part of science. How many scientifical studies are there out there regarding prayer? You need to retract that statement.

---

I do not retract my statement. You phrased it in such a way that religion is somehow intrinsic to science. It is not. And by the way, the fraction of scientific articles on prayer is miniscule compared to just about any subject...and probably to your chagrin...the studies I have read have actually shown an increase in negative outcomes for those who pray than those who don't...maybe this is why you have a problem with studying what is?

quote:

---

i.e. Take a scientist from 300 years ago, and bring him into the present. He would have to change his morals mighty fast, based on what he would learn. So we will have to change our morals in the future, as well learn more about ourselves, and the earth. It just keeps changing, so when is it ever right?

​

Religious morals do not change, and they hold up.

---

What a load of horsecrap. Religious morals change like night and day...300 years ago you could have owned slaves as is allowed in the "absolute" moral bible. Your wife would be your property. So religious morals do not hold up...they shift with the times dramatically...so much for absolute morals.

quote:

---

No, your wrong, it would have been a moral choice, because he has to decide if he is going to live or die. That is a moral decsion.

---

You ignored half my question.

quote:

---

I am not going to stick up for God, but he can do what he wants with his creation.

---

That is an interesting position...so you admit your god may be immoral but that by following its rules, you are moral...rather schizophrenic.

quote:

---

Where do you get your morals from?

---

From myself and from my interactions with my environment...just like everyone else.

quote:

---

What does Jesus think of you?

---

Since I am an atheist..why would I care? But getting back to fundie Xians...which teachings of Jesus do they follow? Taking money from the poor, capital punishment, establishing a theocracy in the US, waging offensive wars....what would Jesus think of American Xians?

quote:

---

But if you walk through a hospital ward, and pray for people to be healed, it is a good thing according to biblical morals

---

If you get a medical degree and treat people who are sick that is a good thing by my morals. Yours is wasting valuable time.

quote:

---

Science studys would agree that showing love to sick people can help them heal.

---

Science also shows that poeple who don't pray have a better prognosis after heart surgery than those who do....thems the breaks

Is morality founded within religious creeds and edicts? Is morality purely subjective? You address the concepts of law and religion in your opening topic, Randman. As I attempt to grasp the issue, I need the help of my buddy, Noah: By definition, law is either a rule, a revelation, a principle, a science and consequently a profession or actions and behaviors established by custom. (Customary and usual procedures)

​

mick writes:

​

There is no scientific reason, and frankly if everybody involved is willing and capable of making a judgement for themselves, there's no moral or ethical reason either.

​

Thus, it appears as if Mick is an advocate of relativism and subjectivity. Am I correct in assuming this?

​

Mick writes:

​

The age at which somebody can give consent is decided by law. There is no reason to think that homosexuality, adultery or fornication involves a lack of consent of one party. All of those proclivities involve consenting adults, whereas pedophilia is strictly the same as rape (because no consent was or can be given, by law).

​

Websters writes:

​

1con”sent \kn-"sent\ vb : to give assent or approval
2consent n : approval or acceptance of something done or proposed by another

​

Thus, concerning consensual issues, the legal view is that only an adult who has reached the "age of consent" is responsible for the actions and behaviors within a relationship with a minor.
The minor is absolved of responsibility and the Guardians of the minor are responsible for the well being of them. That is what is mean't for teachers, Pastors, and adults who are placed in positions of "trust". An adult who is in a superior position is responsible for guarding and maintaining the interests of those whom he or she is in charge of. The Bible has something to say about this issue as well:

NIV writes:

​

Matt 23:13-15-- "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

​

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

Jesus seems to be rebuking teachers of the law.

NIV writes:

​

Mark 12:38-40-- As he taught, Jesus said, "Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted in the marketplaces, and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely."

Jesus may well imply that anyone in a position of authority is a teacher and a role model.

NIV writes:

​

Mark 9:42-43-- "And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.

​

Our modern day society seems all to willing to attempt and legally absolve personal responsibility and instead blame a nameless and faceless "system" or "circumstances" instead of taking the responsibility on an individual level.

​

Its not just minors, either. It is anyone who is unable to understand and consent to the actions being imposed upon them. The executives of Enron may well have argued that the employees who took out retirement accounts were in fact adults.

​

Does this mean that these same adult employees were informed enough to consent to their investments being used wantonly?

​

Crashfrog,concerning monogamy writes:

​

We're imposing our own attitudes about what marriage means and the obligations of a spouse. We're free to do that, of course; but we should also defer to the judgement of that man's wife, don't you think? After all it is to her that he is obligated, so it is her who makes the judgement of to what degree, if any, he's violated their relationship.

Marriage is the legal definition of mutual consent in contract form.

​

Crashfrog writes:

​

The legal construct of "age of consent" is a legal compromise, but I don't think that it should be looked at as indicative of some kind of fundamental truth about when a human is "mentally" ready for sex. To be honest with you, I'm not sure that any human is ready for the responsibilities of intercourse until after they've had it. I wasn't, and I was 20.

I would not say "legal compromise". I would say "established by custom."

​

nwr writes:

​

Scientists have relatively little influence on cultural trends. The entertainment industry is far more influential than is science.

Yes, but is an entertainer legally responsible for the behavior of those whom are being entertained/influenced? Did the originators of the popular youth video game, Grand Theft Auto, need to put a legal disclaimer on the packaging material?

​

If a youth who was arrested after stealing a car and causing mayhem in the streets told the authorities that he was obsessed with Grand Theft Auto, does this then make the manufacturer liable in any way?

​

randman,to mick writes:

​

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.

​

Jar writes:

​

... there is a laundry list of items that are a problem only if religion is brought into play. There is no reason other than religion for anyone being bothered or concerned about homosexuality, multiple partners (as long as they are informed participants), multiple wives, adultery, fornication.

​

RAZD brings up the point that ethics and philosophy should be thrown into this stew.

​

Websters writes:

​

eth”ics \"e-thiks\ n sing or pl 1 : a discipline dealing with good and evil and with moral duty 2 : moral principles or practice
phi”los”o”phy \f-"l-s-f\ n, pl -phies 1 : sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology 2 : a critical study of fundamental beliefs and the grounds for them 3 : a system of philosophical concepts 4 : a basic theory concerning a particular subject or sphere of activity 5 : the sum of the ideas and convictions of an individual or group 6 : calmness of temper and judgment ” phil”o”soph”ic \'fi-l-"s-fik\ or phil”o”soph”i”cal \-fi-kl\ adj ” phil”o”soph”i”cal”ly \-k(-)l\ adv

​

Mick writes:

​

In the UK, one can join the army and murder people for a living, shoot sand-niggers in the head for a living, at the age of 16, and indeed it's encouraged through organizations such as the Army Cadets, who recruit young boys from the age of 13 and 14. But you can't see an erect penis on TV no matter how old you are.

First of all, there should be an ability to censor T.V. but I believe that the ability should be exercised by the Parents or legal Guardians and not the state. Why is it that we cannot see a mutilated corpse with guts hanging out of it on T.V. but only on the internet? My point?
Who determines censorship? I argue that the parents and legal guardians should do so....not the government and not the church. The government should establish laws, and the church should suggest customs..but the decision should be on a family level.

Omnivorous writes:

​

One moral bedrock is the familiar, "First, do no harm"--a charge all, not just physicians, might consider. Cited often as evidence of the earliest development of a "moral sense" in children is their response to broken things: toddlers will cry when symmetrical form is broken. To break, to damage, to hurt: these are moral absolutes; what is breaking, what is damaging, what hurts: these are morally relative because they are coherent notions only within a closed system, only between mutual subscribers.

Good point.

​

This message has been edited by Phat, 12-05-2005 06:04 AM

​

---

Nature is an infinite sphere of which the center is everywhere and the circumference nowhere.
Pensées (1670)

​

We arrive at truth, not by reason only, but also by the heart.
Pensées (1670)

​

Heb 4:12-13-- For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
Holy Spirit--speaking through the Apostle Paul

I just get the feeling you have pre-concieved notions about me.You are making the same mistake again.I never said morals=law, show me where I said that.I hope you don't think that I think, that everyones morals should be the same?I see 2 kinds of morals. Social morals, which is like one large gray area, and personal morals. Whats good for soceity, and whats good for us.We make up in our own head, what is acceptable for us as individuals. That is all based on knowledge. i.e. Upbringing, science, bilical, life experiences, and your own personal feelings. But even your own personal feelings are based largely on what you know, the rest is inhereted from your family, or if your religious, sin, or no sin.Social morals are more of a majority thing. I am sure there are some things that everyone would find unacceptable, then there are gray areas, then there are things that no one would find unacceptable. I could be wrong on this. There is no absolute religion. Only Jesus would be able to accomplish that. That is what the bible teaches me. I mean explain to me why one church would accept gay people in leadership, and another would not?Best we could do is to see where we fit in best. That is why I do not have a problem with other religions. If I am to be like Jesus, then Jesus came not to judge the world, but to save it. So I will not judge those other religions, or pretend to know why they would be wrong or right. I really feel it all has a purpose. So where did I say that I prefer to remain ingnorant?
I am instead careful how much science I let into my life. I mean I rellly love science, more than you know. But I am not a scientist, just a hobbyist. I also take a lot of it with a grain of salt, and if it crosses into my "religious" morals, then I have an issue. But so far my religious morals, are no different than the morals I had before I became "religious". God I hate that word. I did not even remotely imply that religion is intrinsic to science. And by your own admission, it is a part of it, no matter the size.Yes, I do have aproblem with the outcomes. This is a good example of where I run into a problem with science. How could we possibly pretend to know all the variables? You see, our knowledge is limited, and that affects our abilities to study things. THIS DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD STOP, but it does mean we should be careful what we claim to know.Your claiming a negative outcome. That couldn't be further from the truth, I don't care how many scientific studys there are about it. This is what I have encountered in my life. Cleary science is wrong, and if I listened to it, it would keep me from spiritual truths, as it might be keeping you from it too.Just so you know, I pray for people daily, I am on a prayer warrior team with my church, and never have I ever heard one bad comment or thing about prayer, or any result of it. Lets not get off topic on prayer now, ok? Night and day? You'll have to provide some more examples before you can prove this night and day theory of yours.But again, you blur the lines of topic in our discussion. Religous morals, and biblical morals are 2 different things. So you ingnored half my statement, and only chose to reply to what you feel like.Where do I say God is immoral? I clearly explained how he knows what is best for his own creation, just like I know what is best for my 68 camaro. It's not our fault that we don't understand it. Ah, from knowledge.
Refer to my explanation at the begining of this post.
We agree, you are just being argumentave with me, for no reason that I can find. I will try to be careful what I say here. I do believe that I will be judged the same way Iam about to judge a whole bunch of people right now.WE could refer to my 80% rule from another thread.I personally don't think Jesus would be happy at all. But he is probably more forgiving than me. To say you believe in Jesus is to follow him.This is where I get angry. I get angry because people like you can clearly see what is wrong with the way people are claiming to be Christian. But instead of fixing it, you choose to destroy it. In other words, I feel you telling me, yea there is nothing wrong with Jesus, and what he taught, but since it never works, then it must be wrong. How lame, and how lazy of you.There is 6 billion people on this earth. 2 billion of them are "Christians". Then why is there over 1 billion starving people? What kind of Christians are we?I don't know about you, but the way I find God is by loving people like you, and feeding people like those starving. Yea I sin, daily, I am a saint who sins. I accept people for the way they are, so I hope Jesus will accept me the same way. I am no better or worse than Paul, or anyone else on this planet.But you didn't answer the quetion. What would Jesus think of you. I didn't ask if you care or not. In the hospital where my wife works, she goes down on her lunch break to pray for people in the ICU, a restricted area. The doctors and nurses there welcome her, and her group with open arms. They say "go ahead in, there is nothing more we can do, prayer is the only thing that will save them now" Many people have "woken up" during prayer. People in comas have responded to prayer. People who can't talk respond with a gentle squeeze of a finger when asked, is it ok if we pray for you.If you just lay down all the scientifical BS, you'll find that it just plain works. It really doesn't matter how. Stop trying to explain it. even if someone is going to die, and no amount of prayer is going to help, it helps them to find peace, and not go out suffering as much.Medical degree equals good morals?
Why don't you go ask someone who lost a loved one to some form of bad medicine, or mal practice.
Getting a medical degree, does not automatically mean you are a good moral person. I have run into to many idiot doctors already, amd was almost killed by them. But on the other hand, I have been saved a few times too. Again, this is the biggest bunch of BS. But yet you take it as fact. How could that study possibly know all the variables?They studied every single person who ever had a heart attack?
Give me a break.Provide a link if your going to make claims like that, so I can comment more specifically on it.

RiverRat, lets focus on the issues and not on the person...be it ourselves or others. If they want to fling mud at you, turn the other cheek and shut up! If you do not respond, it makes a stronger case for your morality than if you DO respond.

---

I was not refering to any particular brand of sex, just a fact. Being logical, you should aprecciate that. But you assume too much, which makes you illogical.Sticking you dinky is someones anus is healthy or unhealthy? Answer please.Next topic. I disagree. I think it is a percentage thing. A more logical answer. A simple question, yet you feel the need to include gays....again...get off it.My point was that it was once rumored to have come from apes, or gorillas, or whatever. More unclean sex. I did not, you did, next. I bet you there are more heterosexual people having anal intercourse than gay people. Tell us how you really feel, but this time don't hold anything back.
So much for intelligent conversation.
I really can't see how anyone could ever think you are logical. I wasn't even talking about AIDS when mentioning anal sex. I was merelt pointing out that anal sex is unhealthy, and I am right. But you in your infinate logical wisdom can't see this. Your focus is limited. Lets try to pretend that gays, and Aids aren't the only thing we are talking about here. I wonder how many lesbians have yeast infections on their tongues? This right here should be made into its own topic. You will have to explain to the rest of this community how you pulled the word gay out of my comment.The topic here is broader than that, and that is what the rest of us are talking about. I didn't say that, and that would be impossible. Maybe they are not phobias, or neuroses. At least I don't have a web-site to try and stop people from doing what they think is right.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
Now there is a moral nightmare for ya.

quote:

---

I just get the feeling you have pre-concieved notions about me.

---

No, this is not something personal. I just disagree with your points and don't see consistent logic in your posts.

quote:

---

There is no absolute religion. Only Jesus would be able to accomplish that. That is what the bible teaches me. I mean explain to me why one church would accept gay people in leadership, and another would not?

---

Exactly, there is no absolute religion because there are no absolute morals. Those who proclaim that they follow absolute morals are only using it as a political device to separate themselves from others and to proclaim themselves better in some way. It is a justification for other actions which may sometimes be abhorrent. Xians are certainly not the only religious group guilty of this practice.

quote:

---

So where did I say that I prefer to remain ingnorant?

---

those who prefer to cling to preconcieved notions based on mythology and reject real world observations prefer to remain ignorant. You cannot like science because it tells you what you want to hear. This is actually indicating a profound dislike of science.

quote:

---

And by your own admission, it is a part of it, no matter the size.

---

I do not admit any such thing.

quote:

---

Yes, I do have aproblem with the outcomes. This is a good example of where I run into a problem with science. How could we possibly pretend to know all the variables? You see, our knowledge is limited, and that affects our abilities to study things. THIS DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD STOP, but it does mean we should be careful what we claim to know.

---

Not knowing all the variables does not mean one can just decide to claim science knows nothing. We don't know all that much about how gravity works yet people fly in airplanes. One cannot equate not knowing all the variables with knowing nothing.

quote:

---

Cleary science is wrong, and if I listened to it, it would keep me from spiritual truths, as it might be keeping you from it too.

---

Denying outcomes you don't like is a childish response. It is like the bible claiming there are cud chewing rabbits and therefore rabbits must chew cud...all nonsense. You see the difference between science and religion is that science proceeds from a hypothesis that is testable and falsifiable i.e. it may be wrong. The hypothesis is tested and if found wanting it is modified. The process is continued and refined. It has been the most effective endeavor of our species. Religion starts from the stance that it is the truth. If any evidence contradicts this position, it is ignored or suppressed and thus never progresses.

quote:

---

Lets not get off topic on prayer now, ok?

---

Fine..but for the record..you brought up prayers studies.

quote:

---

Where do I say God is immoral? I clearly explained how he knows what is best for his own creation, just like I know what is best for my 68 camaro. It's not our fault that we don't understand it.

---

If your god encourages keeping of slaves (in the bible), killed off women and children...then why should you believe "thou shalt not kill"? Why is that a moral from your god when your god does not practice this belief itself? And if you decide that what is best with your 68 Camaro is to run over kindergarten children? Why is it moral or immoral in your opinion if "you know best" what to do with it?

quote:

---

This is where I get angry. I get angry because people like you can clearly see what is wrong with the way people are claiming to be Christian. But instead of fixing it, you choose to destroy it. In other words, I feel you telling me, yea there is nothing wrong with Jesus, and what he taught, but since it never works, then it must be wrong. How lame, and how lazy of you.

---

No, that is not the problem as I see it. I think those people are acting fully consistently with what they see as Christianity. You are as well. It is as flexible as having no beliefs. That is my point. Xians effectively sell themselves as the only source of morality. So do Muslims, Hindus and everybody else. There are no absolutes.

quote:

---

But you didn't answer the quetion. What would Jesus think of you. I didn't ask if you care or not

---

Since I don't believe he was divine and since I am not even convinced that a single person named jesus ever existed, your question is irrelevant. I don't think about what Santa claus or the great pink unicorn that I don't believe exist think either.

quote:

---

If you just lay down all the scientifical BS, you'll find that it just plain works. It really doesn't matter how. Stop trying to explain it. even if someone is going to die, and no amount of prayer is going to help, it helps them to find peace, and not go out suffering as much.

---

So if believe that sticking a live frog in their butts and playing Mozart on the banjo will make them feel better even if it is scientifically shown to do otherwise, I should ignore that scientific BS? How about gravity, I would prefer to be able to fly...I guess it is scientific BS that gravity crap...I must therefore be able to fly. Praying is fine if it floats your boat. But I will take my chances with a professional doctor any day over a bunch of people praying that I recover from the flu.

quote:

---

Medical degree equals good morals?

---

No, my point was that I find it more compelling and useful if someone trains to heal other people by going through the expense and rigors of a medical education than someone who goes around praying. I also know plenty of doctors who are jackasses...and have been successfully treated by them i.e. they did something positive for me...I know lots of total jackasses who pray...they certainly have not alleviated any condition I have or made my life more pleasant.

quote:

---

They studied every single person who ever had a heart attack?

---

Then gravity does not work either since not every single peson who ever lived has jumped off the Empire State Building...you also might want to avoid every medicine or medical procedure ever invented not to mention cars, boats or airplanes since not every variable has been studied on every individual..LOLI thought you did not want to talk about prayer and that it is all scientific BS anyway ?

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.

Okay I get that people have limited time and may not hit everything. However, to restate the points you did required acting as if a challenge had not been brought to them. A challenge had been raised within that example.Its possible you didn't fully read through the example, or did not understand that in fact impacted your premise. Okay. But that's why I said what I said. Kind of a prod to get you to go back and look if you hadn't before.It had important ramifications on your premise. There are some here who do purposefully ignore counterevidence. It becomes clear over time whether that is what a person does. I have no idea if you are that time and I would say from what I have read so far you don't seem that type. But I gave you a verbal prod either way. That was part of stream of conscious writing and it came out wrong. I was anticipating what you might have thought about what I had said in the paragraph before. I guess I should have said "Would that sound like I was lying?" But to others it may be perfectly satisfying. And indeed perhaps part of the problem is that most societies are so fixated on penetrative sex as the best form of enjoyment, that they engage in risky behaviors rather than having safe fun.In any case if we made laws as you suggested, using "sex" as the active term, masturbation would of course get covered. When telling people sex is risky most would assume all sexual acts and include masturbation.If I jerk off 5 guys at a local bar, do I get to go home to my girlfriend and say I didn't have sex with anyone? Would fundies be all right as long as people just masturbated out of wedlock? As it stands a surgeon general of the US was driven from her office after suggesting that PERSONAL masturbation be discussed as alternatives to having sex with someone else, because that counted as teaching children to have sex. There is more than one case of oral tranference on record. However, they are extremely small and have without exception involved people with more than just a microscopic bit of blood in their mouth. And you will note then that this means just kissing can transfer the virus... yet we publicly say kissing should not be considered a risk activity.The risk from oral sex in a person without real damage to their mouth, including conditions like bleeding gums, remains theoretical.You are correct that engaging in any activity which will rip open the skin will increase the risk. That is why there is a caution that one should not have oral sex within two hours of brushing teeth. I'd also say one shouldn't if one has bitten one's tongue or cheek, or burned the heck out of their mouth with some hot pizza or something.But these cautions are precautions. They make sense but so far have not been shown to be necessary, beyond making sure you do not have real open sores or cuts where blood is flowing within the mouth.As it is saliva has been shown to have agents which kill HIV, and some preventative lubricants are being researched to protect vaginal and anal sex in the same way that researchers acknowledge that the mouth is being protected.I did not say the risk is nothing. I said the risk is extremely small. That is true. For all practical purposes, with care, none. I should mention not swallowing also helps immensely toward that end. If the person does not cum in the mouth at all that is all the better. With condom and precautions, then there simply is no chance.You are more likely to be killed by lightning while giving or receiving that blow job.I will mention that I am only discussing HIV. There are OTHER STDs which certainly can be transferred orally. I'm sorry what? It only takes one what? It takes one UNIT of HIV. That's why people aren't supposed to be afraid of smashing mosquitos and getting tainted blood, even if it is on an open cut.If you are suggesting that coating your cut hands in cum and rubbing it might result in an infection, you are right. Yeah, common sense would be that you don't do it if you have open cuts or sores, and you don't try to rub the cum into skin which may have recently had cuts and not be healed.If one is this frightened, one can always wear gloves. Then there will be no chance. Or anyway, squirt AWAY from yourself.You say you hold the risk is much higher from masturbation. Give me the evidence you are using to suggest there is a risk from this activity, and what that level of risk would be. Then explain how people are not supposed to be afraid of catching HIV from smacking mosquitos and sitting on toilet seats. Hey look at what is contained in the middle of your statement. Ignoring for a second that your claim is bogus as sex is not the only vector of HIV and so would not be stopped cold, part of you premis is known health status.Hahaha, in fact you just essentially restated the criticism I made of modern society's reaction to HIV as if it was something correct and reasonable.IF we have the ability to discover health status, why on earth would it be reasonable to have everyone curb their normal activity, rather than just determining the health status and removing the threat?Your argument is that everyone must change their behavior, so that people can choose not to know if they pose a threat. We are avidly protecting the health threat, by curbing normal behavior. Rather than protecting normal behavior by identifying and removing the threat.Don't you see how counter to reason your position is?And now I will bring back my example... if a strain of flu surfaced would you actually believe that everyone should always be forced to wear masks and never touch or deal with anyone personally but family, and end all international travel, rather than just identifying and isolating those with the flu so as to stop the spread?I agree that until humans get it together and actually respond to this health crisis, one of the better methods is restricting onesself to those of known health status as they themselves can deal with it personally (nothing like pitting individuals against the plague). But that is not the only way to deal with the risk. The first two sentences show a problem that you have. Sex certainly does NOT have to be full body to be fun. I do agree that condoms suck. However they are useful in situations where a risk MAY be present. I use them. Despite a reduction in fun it is better than no fun.I do agree that some engage in more risky behaviors than others. They don't restrict themselves to mutual masturbation, or oral, and do engage in unprotected penetrative sex with others of unknown status. That is their personal risk.Other than my suggesting that they not do that, and my not participating in that myself, what else do I need to do? Their personal activity cannot directly effect me.I should say though that plenty do restrict themselves in exactly the way I suggest. I'm not sure if you are hanging out in sex theaters, clubs, and the like but I am. I see risky behavior to be sure. And I see a lot more realistic behavior.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I think you are misunderstanding a lot of my posts, that is why I think you have preconceived notions about my, and my beliefs. I don't see it that way. There may be absolute morals, but we will never know them. There are absolute morals amoung religions. But I guess it can vary from religion to religion. Usually if you want to be a part of that religion, you must subscribe to their morals. I don't see this as a problem, unless you are being forced to subscribe to something you don't want to. Better in some way? I really don't think that is the case, and it sounds like to me, you have a problem with it.But I do see your point, because I have a problem with 80-90% of it also. To clear some things up.My morals have been the same for the most part my whole life. I only recently became a believer.What I don't like about science is that we live thinking things are a certain way for so long, using that knowledge to help us go through life, then science has the right to just say we were wrong, and this is how it really is based on new discoverys.So thats what science is, thats ok. But it now plays a different role in my life. Science is right until its proven wrong. So is my religion, for me. Even the OP here is trying to use science to justify things.

quote:

---

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.

---

So if that isn't a prime example of what I am saying, then I don't know. This person wants to base a moral belief on science, while disregarding religous morals. Trading religion for science. If science is so correct all the time, and we can base how we live on it, then why is it allowed to be wrong? You see my point?So, I don't have any preconceived notions, I was raised liberal, in NYC, surrounded by gay people, and other liberals. That did not stick with me. But I do not really sway one way or the other, I tend to lie in the middle about most things. I see both sides of the story. Science does not know a thing. Science knows no more than the word run. My 40 years of existance tells me different It is right until it is wrong. That was a different time, a different way of life. Maybe things were much harsher than we could ever imagine, and it was what had to be done to set things straight, so that Jesus may come. Not exactly. The bible says there are many ways to live, but only one idea will get you into heaven. Believe in Jesus, Love God, and love others. Its pretty simple. Those are some of the absolutes I live by now that I am a witness. I don't believe you.
You are just avoiding the quetion. You know what Jesus is all about, you've read the bible, what would he think of you? Dam, you saw me. Gravity does not = science.
Gravity is what is, science is the study of what is.
Your bluring the lines agian. This is more evidence to me of what you might have been through regarding religion. It aggravates you, because of something that happened to you regarding religion. I understand that, I was there also. This is really just a big bogus statement and has nothing to do with any of what I am saying. If you were reading and comprehending everything I said, you wouldn't have said that.
Oh well.

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.

Not sure if you mean EvC, or the Coffee House. If you mean the latter it will seem that way as that is really the only place where new material I am interested in discussing gets posted more frequently.I posted in other forums and have interest in material in other forums, but its rare to see anything new. Most of my earlier posts are still awaiting replies. The purpose of sexual reproduction is to reproduce. The purpose of our sexual organs are much more diverse than that. And no it does not follow at all that the "most enjoyable" will be any particular act. One might note that animals hump anything and everything. Dolphins are particularly known to engage in extra-species sex acts which have nothing to do with vaginal intercourse.I am not saying it is not enjoyable, just that one cannot argue which will be most enjoyable based on some teleological principle. Exposure to one virus of that contagion is not enough to become infected. I wondered the same thing, but the science has been pretty consistent about that. Otherwise mosquitos and toilet seats would be an issue. The example is not just of a bare virus on a mosquito or toilet seat. Say someone jerked off on a toilet and there was a residual pool of sperm which you happened to touch, maybe even just a thin film? What if a mosquito with HIV infected blood from someone else lands on you and you smash it smearing that drop of blood into a cut on your hand?Scientists say that a certain quantity is necessary for exposure to be meaningful and that simply is not enough. That is patently incorrect. It would be reduced, not eliminated. There are other vectors.And my argument when on to criticize your position because you are suggesting that individuals take more personal care to quarantine themselves, rather than the community finding the virus and quarantining it.And indeed that it is the selection of partner which is the only valid route, rather than selection of activity with partners. I agree that those of known viral positive status should be held to a greater degree of legal control/responsibility. The problem is that the community should (as it would in any other situation) not allow there to be a lack of knowledge on who has the virus.Instead of putting the onus on individuals to quarantine themselves and develop personal health code schemes, it should be the community stepping in to quarantine those infected from the rest of the population. Not only do they have the legal ability to do that already, I believe they have a duty to do so.Why invent new laws to effect a single vector (and include activities that are not even real vectors), instead of using those laws already available to remove and isolate infected people so the question of vectors is moot?Unlike your solution, which would not stop it cold, we could stop the spread of the virus cold by making sure we knew exactly who had the virus, and letting them know they had the virus, and instituting some form of quarantine. We don't have a difference in opinion, it is a difference in taste. And there is no problem in that. My issue was your positive statement that sex IS something. We do not in any fashion have to breathe in public. It is custom that we do but there is absolutely no reason that we have to. If we can arbitrarily decide that an existing vector may be closed off, rather than protecting the healthy which use that vector, that activity is as valid as any to be closed off.And essentially we do have to have sex at some point with some member of the public. The question is how many members and over how much time?The idea that people can live like monks (theoretically live) or like good monogamous Xians (theoretically live) is as pragmatic as that they can live like people in clean rooms of sterile labs or hospitals.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)