|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,485 Year: 3,742/9,624 Month: 613/974 Week: 226/276 Day: 2/64 Hour: 1/1 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Are sexual prohibitions mixing religion and the law? | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Phat Member  Posts: 18310 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
randman writes: 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. 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. 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? 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: 
Websters writes: mo”ral”i”ty \m-"ra-l-t\ n, pl -ties : moral conduct : virtue1mor”al \"mr-l\ adj 1 : of or relating to principles of right and wrong 2 : conforming to a standard of right behavior; also : capable of right and wrong action 3 : probable but not proved 4 : having the effects of such on the mind, confidence, or will syn virtuous, righteous, noble, ethical, principled ” mor”al”ly adv 2moral n 1 : the practical meaning (as of a story) 2 pl : moral practices or teachings amor”al\-"mr-l\ adj 1 : neither moral nor immoral; esp : being outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply 2 : lacking moral sensibility ” amor”al”ly adv law \"l\ n 1 : a rule of conduct or action established by custom or laid down and enforced by a governing authority; also : the whole body of such rules 2 : the control brought about by enforcing rules 3 cap : the revelation of the divine will set forth in the Old Testament; also : the first part of the Jewish scriptures 4 : a rule or principle of construction or procedure 5 : the science that deals with laws and their interpretation and application 6 : the profession of a lawyer 7 : a rule or principle stating something that always works in the same way under the same conditions 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 approval2consent 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: Jesus seems to be rebuking teachers of the law.
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.NIV writes:
Jesus may well imply that anyone in a position of authority is a teacher and a role model. 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." 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: Marriage is the legal definition of mutual consent in contract form.
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. Crashfrog writes: I would not say "legal compromise". I would say "established by custom."
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. nwr writes: 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? Scientists have relatively little influence on cultural trends. The entertainment industry is far more influential than is science. 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 practicephi”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 Mick writes:
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? 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.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: Good point. 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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Phat Member Posts: 18310 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Phat Member Posts: 18310 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
