Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,470 Year: 3,727/9,624 Month: 598/974 Week: 211/276 Day: 51/34 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are sexual prohibitions mixing religion and the law?
Theus
Inactive Member


Message 206 of 206 (273484)
12-28-2005 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Silent H
12-19-2005 4:22 PM


History
It would be rather odd to say that you are doing theoretical physics with your sex organ.
Obviously, you guys haven't been hanging out with the right physisists.
Seriously though, a division needs to be made between the physical act of sex and the reproductive benefits of such activity. In the former, it requires the abscense of the mind (bada-bump), in the latter it involve's intensive involvment over long periods of time.
And speaking about long periods of time, I do think we are taking a very limited view of sexuality here (What? You mean there are other sexual norms besides those in America!). The length of time now used to increase one's reproductive success have dramatically changed over the past thousands of years.
Earlier, individuals such as Randman and Holmes were debating the age of sexual participation, and how the legal age corresponds to the religious age, etc. Bear in mind folks, we come from a long line of child-marriages by our legal definitions. In the medival, Rennasaince, hell, even Enlightenment periods the accepted age of marriage was very, very low, in the low teens. Hell, a unmarried woman at the age of 19 was already thought of as a spinster. 13 was perfectly acceptable to be a mother. That's all of our ancestors. They were kids with limited information and limited opportunities in the world, and made stupid decisions that make even today's teenage parents look like savants.
Going further back to the nascense of Western Civilization, we head down to Athens where homoerotic pedophilia wasn't just common, it was the norm. To the same minds that developed concepts such as Democracy and atom, it was the moral imperative that a young boy have his first experience with an older man. Why? Because as mentioned by this discussion's participants, the first sexual act can be traumatizing and have serious consequences. To the Athenians, it was best that a young boy have a mentor in that there would be no resultant pregnancy and that they would be with someone experienced who wouldn't try to use them for all they're worth.
I don't necessarily aggree either extreme of the Athenians or medival ages, but I do think that we need to be less prosteletized by the idea of sex. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that we should do our best to make sure our children have their first sexual experiences in High School.
Why?
Because it's important to have a means of support when one begins to have sex. Instead of sending our kids to college or marriage to learn about sex with it's social and biological ramifications, we should give them a safe environment free from our own moral insecurities where they can learn. And, if things go bad, they have a family to support them, as opposed to a young family that they have to support. I am morally against waiting for sex until marriage, because the same questions and struggles must be dealt with. And today, with more knowledge and luxuries than ever seen before on the Earth, it's a shame to be holding our children to such antiquated moral standards... and from the spread of HIV and other STDS it's obvious our current policies aren't appropriate.
I myself come from a small, conservative midwest town with very strong messages of abstinence taught. And what happened? Many girls dropped out of college because they were pregnant at the age of 19, if it hadn't hit them when they were in High School. In a High school with an enrollment of about 300 men and women, 6 women were pregnant... and that's just the women who chose to have the child, not taking into account those that had abortions.
The larger issue is not whether we are comfortable with our next-door neighbors having anal sex... the question is how do we allow people to be who they are while minimizing sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies?
But aside from that, everyone's opinions on sex are absolutely correct... so long as you hold only yourself to that standard and no on else. And, as such, are yourself responsible for your own decisions, no one elses. But for the love of whatever deity you have choosen to believe in, allow kids to be who they are, whether you are a lib or con.
‘’‘’
Theus

Those that can make you believe absurdaties can make you commit atrocities - Voltaire

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Silent H, posted 12-19-2005 4:22 PM Silent H 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