DescentBB

Let me be clear: in my \"ideal\" society, people explicitly opt in and covenant to live by certain laws, including the moral ones.

\"Married\" means what you actually have is a state-sanctioned civil union which is presumptively labelled \"marriage.\"

And I think there is more than a grain of truth to what Wright is reputed to have said.

shaktazuki wrote:Having laws governing sexual morality is not about enforcement - there is no point to invading the bedroom - but about suppressing its public display and hence limiting its transmission to others

The problem here is that this only seems good as long as they are pushing rules that you agree with. What makes the government qualified to determine what is moral and what is unmoral sexual behavior between consenting adults? OBVIOUSLY the government can interfere in issues of consent, but within the bounds of consent, the question of sexual morality is an inherently religious one. And would be decided differently by different religions. Catholics would use this principle to ban birth control. Don't forget that the sodomy laws have been applied to the behavior of married couples in their own marriage bed. It's the exact same idea.

What happens when we start applying this rule beyond sexual behavior? If making casual fornication illegal on the grounds that this is good for society because it limits the transmission of this behavior to others, then why shouldn't we outlaw Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, or Atheism because the transmission of THOSE ideals are bad for society?

The problem with having the Government defend religious ideals is that eventually the religion in charge no longer resembles your own and you find your OWN ideals and behaviors being outlawed. Conservative Christians have a very narrow margin in America right now. Dawkins has said repeatedly that raising a child Christian is child abuse. Should his faction get in charge and apply the same principle we Christians could find ourselves in BIG trouble.

I am a conservative Christian. And I believe that my right to believe as I want, to raise my child as I believe right, and to preach what I think is the truth, is BEST defended when the government stays OUT of religion. Government morality should not extend beyond "don't harm others" and "keep your agreements". Anything more complicated than that and they almost ALWAYS mess it up.

Christianity does not NEED the support of the government in order to spread it's ideals. We are better off without them. If what we preach is true, then it is fit to compete in the free marketplace of ideals.

Kilarin wrote:

shaktazuki wrote:Having laws governing sexual morality is not about enforcement - there is no point to invading the bedroom - but about suppressing its public display and hence limiting its transmission to others

The problem here is that this only seems good as long as they are pushing rules that you agree with. What makes the government qualified to determine what is moral and what is unmoral sexual behavior between consenting adults?

The government isn't. No man is. The notion, as you know, does not arise from fallen man, who, no doubt, would prefer these laws had never existed (which, FYI, is a rather good argument for their divine origin).

OBVIOUSLY the government can interfere in issues of consent, but within the bounds of consent, the question of sexual morality is an inherently religious one. And would be decided differently by different religions. Catholics would use this principle to ban birth control. Don't forget that the sodomy laws have been applied to the behavior of married couples in their own marriage bed. It's the exact same idea.

It is, indeed.

What happens when we start applying this rule beyond sexual behavior? If making casual fornication illegal on the grounds that this is good for society because it limits the transmission of this behavior to others, then why shouldn't we outlaw Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, or Atheism because the transmission of THOSE ideals are bad for society?

That's a good question. If you were of my faith, you would already know the answer; suffice it to say, God has declared men should not be persecuted nor prosecuted for their beliefs, neither the proclaiming thereof, nor compelled in matters of personal conscience.

The problem with having the Government defend religious ideals is that eventually the religion in charge no longer resembles your own and you find your OWN ideals and behaviors being outlawed.

The problem is, ALL ideals are religious in nature. It is just a question of whose ideals are going to be enforced.

Conservative Christians have a very narrow margin in America right now. Dawkins has said repeatedly that raising a child Christian is child abuse. Should his faction get in charge and apply the same principle we Christians could find ourselves in BIG trouble.

I know this well. This is a common view among atheists.

I am a conservative Christian. And I believe that my right to believe as I want, to raise my child as I believe right, and to preach what I think is the truth, is BEST defended when the government stays OUT of religion. Government morality should not extend beyond "don't harm others" and "keep your agreements". Anything more complicated than that and they almost ALWAYS mess it up.

I think I have the right to interfere where a person's conduct is disruptive of peace and good order. Therefore, I feel I can delegate this right to representatives to execute my will in this matter on my behalf. Marriage is an agreement, no?

Christianity does not NEED the support of the government in order to spread it's ideals. We are better off without them. If what we preach is true, then it is fit to compete in the free marketplace of ideals.

It's not a free market. Or hadn't you noticed? Take the debate over intelligent design. For those who have the mathematical acumen to appreciate its statistical underpinnings, as well as formal training in the art of proof construction, it is correct, being in strict accord with normal induction - which is the way science is supposed to operate. But the Darwinian side has the force of government at its side, and the battle is virtually over: truth has lost in the PR wars.

Frankly, it was a literal miracle that Prop. 8 won in CA, since gay "rights" activists have won the PR wars - there were virtually NO positive references to the passage of Prop. 8; I am aware of no California newspaper which did not oppose Prop. 8.

Truth does not win in a popularity contest with lies, so long as the lies are: 1. credible enough to be believed without much effort; 2. close enough to what you want to believe to overcome what effort is required to believe them; 3. consistent with what you would rather be doing.

Or, to put it another way: if a child was given the choice between a doctor and a pastry chef who prescribed nothing but dessert, which would the child choose?

In the end, truth will win, but not through a popularity contest.

Christianity does not NEED the support of the government in order to spread it's ideals.

I forgot to mention: government is not to be the pusher of ideas but simply the enforcer of peace and order. I am saying that extramarital sexual conduct which the zeitgeist would have us all believe is \"harmless\" is, in fact, profoundly harmful to healthy human relationships and societal order, and hence falls under the proper scope of government.

Consider this example; examples can be multiplied ad nauseam.

shaktazuki wrote:

Kilarin wrote:The problem here is that this only seems good as long as they are pushing rules that you agree with. What makes the government qualified to determine what is moral and what is unmoral sexual behavior between consenting adults?

The government isn't. No man is. The notion, as you know, does not arise from fallen man, who, no doubt, would prefer these laws had never existed (which, FYI, is a rather good argument for their divine origin).

I certainly agree that morality derives it's source from God. But that doesn't actually address the question I posed. Who interprets the morality handed down to us by divinity? A brief study of history shows that even within a sampling size as small as Christianity, opinions have varied WIDELY on ethics. The only thing that everyone seems to agree upon is what C. S. Lewis called the "Tao" of morality. The very simplest most basic postulates of ethics. And those boil down to "don't harm others" and "keep your agreements". This is the minimum required to build a society. The further you step beyond it, the wider the disagreements will grow.

shaktazuki wrote:God has declared men should not be persecuted nor prosecuted for their beliefs, neither the proclaiming thereof, nor compelled in matters of personal conscience.

I'm glad we agree on this point! But I find it in contradiction of your other points of view. For example, unless I am misinterpreting your comments, you seem to imply that the government has a right to regulate what kinds of sexual activity are appropriate within the marriage bed. How can you justify such intense interference in matters of individual choice while also stating that people must not be compelled in matters of personal conscience?

shaktazuki wrote:government is not to be the pusher of ideas but simply the enforcer of peace and order. I am saying that extramarital sexual conduct which the zeitgeist would have us all believe is "harmless" is, in fact, profoundly harmful to healthy human relationships and societal order, and hence falls under the proper scope of government.

I agree that extramarital sexual conduct is harmful. I also believe (and can easily support with evidence) that alcohol is harmful to society. I believe that Pornography is harmful. I believe that games that encourage immoral behavior are harmful. I believe that many books are harmful. I believe that many religions are harmful. I bet a lot of our lists of what things were harmful would overlap. But there would be some important discrepancies. I have a good friend who disagrees with me strongly on what is harmful. She would include all works of fiction as harmful. This list could go on and on. Most people can present evidence (of varying quality) for why their list of things that harm society, or "peace and good order" is correct. There are as many different lists as there are humans.

So, if the government enforces our rules against all these harmful things, who's list would they use, your's or mine? It's very important, because near the top of MY list of harmful things is "people who believe they must protect society from itself by force of government".

I don't WANT to live in the kind of society that attempts to enforce these kinds of rules. Not even if *I* got to make the list. It's a draconian nightmare that can not help but end up causing far more damage than good.

shaktazuki wrote:The problem is, ALL ideals are religious in nature. It is just a question of whose ideals are going to be enforced.

You want YOUR ideals enforced (Your interpretation of God's ideals). I think we are all better off if we limit the government to the simplest possible ethics that everyone except for psychopaths agree on. Then I have the minimum possible governmental interference in my freedom of thought and action.

MY freedom to say that homosexual behavior is a sin without being put in jail is the exact SAME freedom that allows homosexuals to have a "gay pride" parade. My right to publish Protestant tracts that are offensive to Catholics is IDENTICAL to pornographers right to publish material that is offensive to me. My right to teach my child that he should study the Bible, pray, attend church and pay tithe is dependant upon the right of an Atheist to teach their child that there is no God, that Christians are fools, and that this life is all there is so enjoy it.

If I attempt to suppress THEIR ideas, someday that same principle will be used against me to suppress MY ideas. Let everyone have their say, and each person can make their own decision.

shaktazuki wrote:I think I have the right to interfere where a person's conduct is disruptive of peace and good order.

"disruptive of peace" usually fits under "don't harm others". If my neighbor is playing his music way too loudly at 2am, he is stepping on MY right to a good nights sleep. But what exactly do you mean by "good order"? A dictatorship promotes the most order in society. Have you ever read "A Wrinkle in Time"? I'm not a big fan of governments trying to keep the people in "good order".

shaktazuki wrote:It's not a free market. Or hadn't you noticed?

Free market does NOT mean Fair market. We should attempt to make it as fair as possible, of course, but if we take that too far, what ends up happening is whatever side is loosing declares that the battle wasn't fair and the government should help them.

So yes, even though the deck is stacked against us, I would rather see Christianity compete for peoples hearts and minds on it's own then have it backed by the force of the government.

Kilarin wrote:

shaktazuki wrote:

Kilarin wrote:The problem here is that this only seems good as long as they are pushing rules that you agree with. What makes the government qualified to determine what is moral and what is unmoral sexual behavior between consenting adults?

The government isn't. No man is. The notion, as you know, does not arise from fallen man, who, no doubt, would prefer these laws had never existed (which, FYI, is a rather good argument for their divine origin).

I certainly agree that morality derives it's source from God. But that doesn't actually address the question I posed. Who interprets the morality handed down to us by divinity? A brief study of history shows that even within a sampling size as small as Christianity, opinions have varied WIDELY on ethics. The only thing that everyone seems to agree upon is what C. S. Lewis called the "Tao" of morality. The very simplest most basic postulates of ethics. And those boil down to "don't harm others" and "keep your agreements". This is the minimum required to build a society. The further you step beyond it, the wider the disagreements will grow.

It isn't the minimum. Nonmarital sexual conduct leads to people harming others permanently and breaking their agreements.

Incorporate sexual morality - non-marital sexual conduct should be legally suppressed - and then you might have a minimum.

shaktazuki wrote:God has declared men should not be persecuted nor prosecuted for their beliefs, neither the proclaiming thereof, nor compelled in matters of personal conscience.

I'm glad we agree on this point! But I find it in contradiction of your other points of view. For example, unless I am misinterpreting your comments, you seem to imply that the government has a right to regulate what kinds of sexual activity are appropriate within the marriage bed.

I didn't say that, though I have reason to be sympathetic to the Catholic position on birth control, but, by its nature, I can't see that it should find its way into the law. Abortion is not something I consider a form of birth control, as the pill would be, to be clear.

shaktazuki wrote:government is not to be the pusher of ideas but simply the enforcer of peace and order. I am saying that extramarital sexual conduct which the zeitgeist would have us all believe is "harmless" is, in fact, profoundly harmful to healthy human relationships and societal order, and hence falls under the proper scope of government.

I agree that extramarital sexual conduct is harmful. I also believe (and can easily support with evidence) that alcohol is harmful to society. I believe that Pornography is harmful. I believe that games that encourage immoral behavior are harmful. I believe that many books are harmful. I believe that many religions are harmful. I bet a lot of our lists of what things were harmful would overlap. But there would be some important discrepancies. I have a good friend who disagrees with me strongly on what is harmful. She would include all works of fiction as harmful. This list could go on and on. Most people can present evidence (of varying quality) for why their list of things that harm society, or "peace and good order" is correct. There are as many different lists as there are humans.

Since we already agree men should not be persecuted nor prosecuted for their beliefs, and that they should be free to speak their beliefs, that kind of settles that dispute, doesn't it?

So, if the government enforces our rules against all these harmful things, who's list would they use, your's or mine? It's very important, because near the top of MY list of harmful things is "people who believe they must protect society from itself by force of government".

And yet, that is precisely the purpose of government, if it has any purpose beyond acquiring power and gain for its practictitioners. Thorne brought up Paul on gov't; it seems you have some explaining to do there. In my own lifetime, I have seen compelling evidence that nonmarital sexual conduct has been universally harmful. Therefore, such things should be publicly supressed, so that people have a disincentive to attempt to proselyte others to their "lifestyle," or advertise their participation therein.

I don't WANT to live in the kind of society that attempts to enforce these kinds of rules. Not even if *I* got to make the list. It's a draconian nightmare that can not help but end up causing far more damage than good.

That's fine. You don't opt in. You don't join the society. You need to explain Old Testament Israel.

shaktazuki wrote:The problem is, ALL ideals are religious in nature. It is just a question of whose ideals are going to be enforced.

You want YOUR ideals enforced (Your interpretation of God's ideals). I think we are all better off if we limit the government to the simplest possible ethics that everyone except for psychopaths agree on. Then I have the minimum possible governmental interference in my freedom of thought and action.

I agree - as I have defined a possible minimum, which is your notion of the minimum plus the repression of non-marital sexual conduct.

MY freedom to say that homosexual behavior is a sin without being put in jail is the exact SAME freedom that allows homosexuals to have a "gay pride" parade.

Teaching our children to do good and serve God and our fellow man is the same as others advertising their participation in psychologically damaging and addictive interpersonal relationships while seeking to offend?

My right to publish Protestant tracts that are offensive to Catholics is IDENTICAL to pornographers right to publish material that is offensive to me.

Proselytizing is identical to debasing males by perverting their sexuality by exploiting female sexuality for money?

My right to teach my child that he should study the Bible, pray, attend church and pay tithe is dependant upon the right of an Atheist to teach their child that there is no God, that Christians are fools, and that this life is all there is so enjoy it.

Perhaps.

If I attempt to suppress THEIR ideas, someday that same principle will be used against me to suppress MY ideas. Let everyone have their say, and each person can make their own decision.

Agreed. As indicated already. Certain behaviors, however, should be suppressed, as, no doubt, if pressed sufficiently, you would agree.

shaktazuki wrote:I think I have the right to interfere where a person's conduct is disruptive of peace and good order.

"disruptive of peace" usually fits under "don't harm others". If my neighbor is playing his music way too loudly at 2am, he is stepping on MY right to a good nights sleep. But what exactly do you mean by "good order"? A dictatorship promotes the most order in society. Have you ever read "A Wrinkle in Time"? I'm not a big fan of governments trying to keep the people in "good order".

I have read it. By good order, I mean of the type that says you can exist from day to day without having to have a gun in your hand to defend you and yours. Like that family that the Santa visited in that article I linked to.

shaktazuki wrote:It's not a free market. Or hadn't you noticed?

Free market does NOT mean Fair market. We should attempt to make it as fair as possible, of course, but if we take that too far, what ends up happening is whatever side is loosing declares that the battle wasn't fair and the government should help them.

It's not a free market. In both examples I mentioned, the force of the state is behind one of the sides. It isn't ours.

So yes, even though the deck is stacked against us, I would rather see Christianity compete for peoples hearts and minds on it's own then have it backed by the force of the government.

I have nowhere disagreed.

You know, depending on the length of one's post, the board software crashes when you try to edit it, 100% of the time.

In my own lifetime, I have seen compelling evidence that nonmarital sexual conduct has been universally harmful. Therefore, such things should be publicly supressed

Wow. I'm impressed that ppl in this thread are even bothering to debate statements like that. When someone's point of view is couched so far to the extreme, what do you hope to acheive by arguing? You can't make someone grow up unless they want to.

Indeed; prime case in point: your post.

But seriously, let's hear your counter-evidence. Or is the sum of your contribution just a simple dismissal?

Evidence? Because when you finally get the argument presented the 'correct' way, you'll cave on your position and see things differently?

Believing this would require a lot of faith, even more than you have!

It would at least signify a contribution to the conversation on your part.

shaktazuki wrote:It isn't the minimum. Nonmarital sexual conduct leads to people harming others permanently and breaking their agreements.

We need a clarification of terms here. When you say that nonmarital sexual conduct leads people to breaking their agreements, I assume you are speaking of adultery. There I agree with you 100%. If you make a legally binding agreement to restrict sexual activity to one other individual, the government certainly has an interest in dealing with penalties when the agreement is broken. Personally, I think the government goes much to light on adultery. If you don't mean to keep the agreement, don't make those vows.

shaktazuki wrote:non-marital sexual conduct should be legally suppressed - and then you might have a minimum.

BUT, "Nonmarital sexual conduct" would also, I assume, include fornication. (I'm limiting this to sexual conduct that involves at least two individuals for simplicity's sake) And its on the issue of sexual contact between unmarried consenting adults that we have the problem. Again, I AGREE with you on this point. I think I've made my view quite clear in the past. Where we disagree is on whether fornication is an ethical postulate, so clear that everyone but a psychopath agrees upon the general concept, or whether it is on another level. The level that rational people can disagree on.

I think it obvious that you can get general agreement on the principle that government should prevent people from harming each other. Also that a government must enforce people keeping their agreements. This is the foundation of government. Anything less than this and you have anarchy. But you aren't going to get hardly any agreement at all on outlawing sexual contact between unmarried consenting adults.

You, of course, can present piles of evidence in favor that fornication is harmful. That's because you are right, of course. But Dawkins can produce countless examples of where religion has caused people to harm others. The radical Feminist can produce reams of evidence that marriage itself is harmful. What separates fornication from these other issues?

Logically, why should sexual contact between consenting adults be included under the governments area of interest while no other areas of consenting self harm are? For example, you state that birth-control should NOT be an issue of law, but fornication should. Why?

shaktazuki wrote:men should not be persecuted nor prosecuted for their beliefs, and that they should be free to speak their beliefs

shaktazuki wrote:I have seen compelling evidence that nonmarital sexual conduct has been universally harmful. Therefore, such things should be publicly suppressed, so that people have a disincentive to attempt to proselyte others to their "lifestyle," or advertise their participation therein.

These two positions seem to be in conflict to me. They contradict each other.

Kilarin wrote:MY freedom to say that homosexual behavior is a sin without being put in jail is the exact SAME freedom that allows homosexuals to have a "gay pride" parade.

shaktazuki wrote:Teaching our children to do good and serve God and our fellow man is the same as others advertising their participation in psychologically damaging and addictive interpersonal relationships while seeking to offend?

Please note, I did NOT say that these positions were morally equivalent. I said that my RIGHT to freely present my position is the same right that allows them to present theirs. You can not repress either one with the risk of repressing the other. Freedom of speech MUST work both ways, or, sooner or later, you WILL find the censorship turned back upon yourself. The love of free speech inherently requires defending your opponents right to free speech as well.

Kilarin wrote: What separates fornication from these other issues?

The one is harmful action while the other is pure speech - the transmission of ideas.

Logically, why should sexual contact between consenting adults be included under the governments area of interest while no other areas of consenting self harm are? For example, you state that birth-control should NOT be an issue of law, but fornication should. Why?

Because you have the right to destroy yourself; you don't have the right to destroy others, even consensually.

shaktazuki wrote:men should not be persecuted nor prosecuted for their beliefs, and that they should be free to speak their beliefs

shaktazuki wrote:I have seen compelling evidence that nonmarital sexual conduct has been universally harmful. Therefore, such things should be publicly suppressed, so that people have a disincentive to attempt to proselyte others to their "lifestyle," or advertise their participation therein.

These two positions seem to be in conflict to me. They contradict each other.

I don't see it. Saying "I believe I should be able to pork my neighbor's wife" is quite a different beast from saying "I porked my neighbor's wife." Or, consider these two statements, both theoretically uttered when G. H. W. Bush is in office: "I believe G. H. W. Bush should be shot," versus "Shoot G. H. W. Bush."

If the difference is unclear after this, then I am afraid I cannot help you.

Kilarin wrote:MY freedom to say that homosexual behavior is a sin without being put in jail is the exact SAME freedom that allows homosexuals to have a "gay pride" parade.

shaktazuki wrote:Teaching our children to do good and serve God and our fellow man is the same as others advertising their participation in psychologically damaging and addictive interpersonal relationships while seeking to offend?

Please note, I did NOT say that these positions were morally equivalent. I said that my RIGHT to freely present my position is the same right that allows them to present theirs. You can not repress either one with the risk of repressing the other. Freedom of speech MUST work both ways, or, sooner or later, you WILL find the censorship turned back upon yourself. The love of free speech inherently requires defending your opponents right to free speech as well.

I wasn't speaking of their moral qualities. One of them is a confession of a crime - the people are actively harming themselves and others - and the other isn't. It's the same issue you did not catch above.

Back to the original topic - a spirit kindred of TC has written this: http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews ... 27.article

It appears TC is in ... company. Though I cannot say it's good.

shaktazuki wrote:

Kilarin wrote:What separates fornication from these other issues?

The one is harmful action while the other is pure speech - the transmission of ideas.

Alcohol is destructive of both self and others. It's toll on society is documented and undeniable. So lets add alcohol to that list of actions the government should prohibit.
Smoking is poison, it is harmful to yourself and others. Add it to the list.
Let's take it a step further. Fast food is bad for you. This is documented. Well documented. Since we can prove that it's harmful, wouldn't making fast food be an action that should be forbidden by the government? Both the Pope and evangelical Protestant leaders have recently called for a return to Sunday laws. The people need rest and encouraging folks to violate that rest is a harmful action. They can document it, of course. Wouldn't the same principle apply here?

Where do you draw the line? What is the logical argument on what actions the government should and should not regulate under your system?

shaktazuki wrote:you have the right to destroy yourself; you don't have the right to destroy others, even consensually

And, if I am understanding you correctly, this includes the action of teaching others ideas that you consider to be harmful. right?

shaktazuki wrote:Saying "I believe I should be able to pork my neighbor's wife" is quite a different beast from saying "I porked my neighbor's wife."

But you want to regulate both. You have quite explicitly stated:

shaktazuki wrote:I have seen compelling evidence that nonmarital sexual conduct has been universally harmful. Therefore, such things should be publicly suppressed, so that people have a disincentive to attempt to proselyte others to their "lifestyle," or advertise their participation therein.

So no one is allowed to say "I believe its ok to live a gay lifestyle" OR "I live a gay lifestyle". The first would be proselytizing, the second advertising.

shaktazuki wrote:If the difference is unclear after this, then I am afraid I cannot help you.

Yes, I'm afraid we may be at an impasse. Logically, I see nothing to stop us from sliding further down this slippery slope once the government starts regulating sexual contact between consenting adults because it is harmful. There are just so many things that are "harmful" in much the same way, or even worse. It's especially bad when we are willing to destroy the concept of free speech in the process.

I don't actually disagree with you much at all on what things are harmful, except for this one important item: There is, in my opinion, very little more harmful to a free and open society than people who want to use force to protect that society from harming itself.

Kilarin wrote: Where do you draw the line? What is the logical argument on what actions the government should and should not regulate under your system?

Actions which harm others should be suppressed; transmitting ideas and beliefs should not be.

shaktazuki wrote:you have the right to destroy yourself; you don't have the right to destroy others, even consensually

And, if I am understanding you correctly, this includes the action of teaching others ideas that you consider to be harmful. right?

You are deliberately not understanding me correctly, and because of this coy game of yours I tire of the conversation at this point; I explicitly said teaching ideas, even ideas which if followed would lead to harmful actions, should not be penalized.

shaktazuki wrote:Saying "I believe I should be able to pork my neighbor's wife" is quite a different beast from saying "I porked my neighbor's wife."

But you want to regulate both. You have quite explicitly stated:

shaktazuki wrote:I have seen compelling evidence that nonmarital sexual conduct has been universally harmful. Therefore, such things should be publicly suppressed, so that people have a disincentive to attempt to proselyte others to their "lifestyle," or advertise their participation therein.

So no one is allowed to say "I believe its ok to live a gay lifestyle" OR "I live a gay lifestyle". The first would be proselytizing, the second advertising.

The first is allowed, the second is a confession to harming others.

shaktazuki wrote:If the difference is unclear after this, then I am afraid I cannot help you.

Yes, I'm afraid we may be at an impasse. Logically, I see nothing to stop us from sliding further down this slippery slope once the government starts regulating sexual contact between consenting adults because it is harmful.

I repeat, and expect you to avoid again, you must now explain Old Testament Israel - do you think God was wrong? Or do you think consent absolves all parties of all consequences of all possible actions two or more people may choose to undertake?

I don't actually disagree with you much at all on what things are harmful, except for this one important item: There is, in my opinion, very little more harmful to a free and open society than people who want to use force to protect that society from harming itself.

I repeat, and expect you to avoid again, that such is exactly the purpose of legitimate government (using force to protect the innocent against force and fraud), if it has any legitimate purpose other than facilitating the transfer of power and wealth to its practitioners.

To forestall an obvious response, we acknowledge it is appropriate to forcibly prevent people from driving drunk, even though it is not the case that each drunk driver causes mayhem, because it produces a situation in which it is highly likely that mayhem will ensue. This is why suppressing non-marital sexual conduct falls under the aegis of self-defense - it leads universally to harm both for the participants, and through them to their associations, and is why gov'ts are within the rights of the people to enforce it.

Are you actually saying that a single person doesn’t have the right to have sex? Or are you talking about adultery?

Yes, I did skim….

Spidey wrote:Are you actually saying that a single person doesn't have the right to have sex? Or are you talking about adultery

He'll have to clarify for himself of course since I'm not following him completely and I may have misunderstood, but I THINK that is what he is saying. We should outlaw all sexual contact outside of marriage because it is harmful. I agree that it is harmful, I disagree that this is a matter for law.

Attempting to "protect a society from itself" is exactly the argument the liberals use when trying to outlaw sermons that call homosexual behavior sin. Since it is highly likely that the government will switch hands between various powers in a democracy, I prefer a government that simply doesn't try to do this at all. That way, when the other side gets in power, they will not legislate against ME.

shaktazuki wrote:I repeat, and expect you to avoid again, you must now explain Old Testament Israel - do you think God was wrong?

Actually, I wrote up a response to this last time, then cut it because the message was getting really long and I was trying to remove anything that seemed headed off on a tangent. No attempt to avoid, just trimming.

I do NOT think God was wrong, but I DO think He expected us to look at the results of Old Testament Israel's government and learn an important lesson: Theocracies do NOT work on this earth. Except for a VERY few and brief periods, whether under the judges or under the kings, Israel's attempt at a theocracy was a failure. Theocracies only work when people follow God. Sinful humanity is simply not willing to do this. In Israel, God interfered the most He has EVER been willing to interfere in any government, and no matter how bad the punishments, or how tempting the rewards, people just wouldn't do what they were told.

shaktazuki wrote:You are deliberately not understanding me correctly, and because of this coy game of yours I tire of the conversation at this point

Never ascribe to hostility what is adequately explained by stupidity. Any misunderstand was certainly not deliberate on my part. I'm sorry we've had trouble communicating. As I said before, I think we are at an impasse on this topic.

How is sex outside of marriage harmful?

Now if you are refering to reproduction, then I would have to agree, because of this silly little notion that I have where a child has a right to two parents.

Are you are refering to behavior relating to sex, or sex itself? Please explain, because if the act of sex is indeed harmful to society, then I would like to know how.

Spidey wrote:How is sex outside of marriage harmful?

My views on the advantages of confining sex to monogamous relationships is expressed
<In This Thread>.
Do note though, I am quite vocal about spreading my point of view, but I am NOT interested in legislating it.

I read your opening comments in that thread, but failed to see anything that fleshed out the notion that sex outside of marriage is harmful, only the benefits to monogamy, which I happen to agree with. I was hoping you could expand on the harmful affects of sex outside of marriage.

But if you don’t want to explain it again, that’s ok, I will just say, It’s people’s poor behavior that is harmful to society, not the act of sex in and of itself. IE: single parents, the spread of std’s, etc…

Back in the day eating pork was considered evil…why? Because when you ate it chances were you would get sick, and possibly die, we now understand that is because pork contains a bacteria that causes sickness, and in the 21st century we can now eat pork safely. Same kind of thing applies to sex.

BTW, thanks for that thread link, I actually saw Jeff use a dictionary reference…made my day!

MehYam wrote:

In my own lifetime, I have seen compelling evidence that nonmarital sexual conduct has been universally harmful. Therefore, such things should be publicly supressed

Wow. I'm impressed that ppl in this thread are even bothering to debate statements like that. When someone's point of view is couched so far to the extreme, what do you hope to acheive by arguing? You can't make someone grow up unless they want to.

If we liberally define marriage as any two people who would stay together long enough to raise a child, whom may be the product of the premarital sex. Then overall I tend to agree with his statement.

Single parent kids tend to not do as well, they tend to be a larger burdan on society. STD’s would be greatly reduced using my definition, and almost eliminated using shaktazuki’s.

People’s liberty is worth suffering these societal woes, but I don’t think the statement that it is universally harmful is at all objectionable.

I wouldn't outlaw it anymore then I would outlaw McDonalds, which is also universally harmful.

Spidey wrote:I read your opening comments in that thread, but failed to see anything that fleshed out the notion that sex outside of marriage is harmful, only the benefits to monogamy, which I happen to agree with. I was hoping you could expand on the harmful affects of sex outside of marriage

Sex with multiple partners is, in my opinion, harmful because it limits your ability to bond with a single partner in a monogamous relationship.

Sex outside of marriage is also harmful because each relationship that is started and then aborted does emotional damage. Metaphorically, it rips your psyche a bit. It's like cutting off little parts of yourself over and over until there is nothing left. This position has a lot of evidence to support it, but it is much more subjective than the previous one.

Then there are, as you pointed out, the purely physical risks associated with sex outside of marriage. Pregnancy and STD's. Modern birth control reduces the risk of pregnancy somewhat, but certainly does not eliminate it, especially in the haphazard way it is usually used. In the same way, condoms reduce the risk of STD's, but they certainly don't make sex actually SAFE. When having premarital sex with a single partner, you should think about how many partners THEY have had previously. And how many partners each of THOSE people had previously. Tracing the chain back even just a few levels results in you exchanging intimate bodily fluids with a surprisingly large number of strangers. yikes!

Of course, if you are coming from the Christian point of view, we hit the entire "sin" aspect. THIS position is rock solid when defended from the Bible, but that is meaningless to anyone who does not accept the Bible as a voice of authority.

I think these points all add up to an entirely rational argument that sex outside the bonds of marriage is harmful. I also acknowledge that rational people can disagree with me on this point, or even agree but think that getting their jollies is worth the risks.

Which is why I want these kinds of decisions left up to individuals and NOT controlled by the government. As I mentioned previously, based on the exact same logic that outlaws premarital sex "to protect society", we have passed laws that regulated what kinds of sexual contact a married couple can and can not have in the privacy of their own bedroom. The government does not have ANY business in my marriage bed! It makes me furious just thinking about it. In the same way, it doesn't matter how high and noble my motives are, it doesn't even matter if I'm RIGHT, I have no business passing laws about what two unmarried consenting adults can do in THEIR own bedrooms. I can preach, I can advise, I can plead. But I can NOT make the decision for them. You're grown ups, you have to decide for yourself.

Spidey wrote:BTW, thanks for that thread link, I actually saw Jeff use a dictionary reference-made my day!

Ha! You are welcome.

Gooberman wrote:...I don't think the statement that it is universally harmful is at all objectionable. I wouldn't outlaw it anymore then I would outlaw McDonalds, which is also universally harmful.

Exactly. Gotta confess though, I like a MacDonald's shake now and then.

Your assumption that everyone that is not married leads some sort of torrid lifestyle, of bed hopping is flawed, as well as the notion that because a relationship does not reach its pinnacle in a marriage it is harmful, is also flawed.

So, I can draw from what you are saying is that a perfectly normal lifetime of relationships, that never ended in marriage somehow damages society, I accept your opinion, but quite frankly disagree, but I won’t press this issue any further.

Spidey wrote:Your assumption that everyone that is not married leads some sort of torrid lifestyle, of bed hopping is flawed,

NOT my assumption. Although I WOULD say that the more partners one has the more damage it does.

Spidey wrote:as well as the notion that because a relationship does not reach its pinnacle in a marriage it is harmful, is also flawed.

Here we will just have to agree to disagree.

Spidey wrote:So, I can draw from what you are saying is that a perfectly normal lifetime of relationships, that never ended in marriage somehow damages society

Individuals. Society is a very nebulous concept that I don't worry too much about.

Perhaps we should allow multiple marriage partners as seen in Muslim law

Kilarin wrote:

Spidey wrote:Your assumption that everyone that is not married leads some sort of torrid lifestyle, of bed hopping is flawed,

NOT my assumption. Although I WOULD say that the more partners one has the more damage it does.

Was basing my comment on this…Note the final sentence.

Kilarin wrote:Sex outside of marriage is also harmful because each relationship that is started and then aborted does emotional damage. Metaphorically, it rips your psyche a bit. It's like cutting off little parts of yourself over and over until there is nothing left.

Kilarin wrote:

Spidey wrote:So, I can draw from what you are saying is that a perfectly normal lifetime of relationships, that never ended in marriage somehow damages society

Individuals. Society is a very nebulous concept that I don't worry too much about.

Sorry, I thought the issue here was society, so here we can agree, depending on the personality of the individual. And assuming you have some personal experience.

Spidey wrote:Was basing my comment on this…Note the final part of the second sentence.

Sorry, I understand the confusion. I MEANT that each time does some damage, and that the damage is cumulative. The more promiscuous you are, the more damage it does.

Spidey wrote:Sorry, I thought the issue here was society

Society seems to be the issue for shaktazuki. But society is just a collection of individuals, so we may be only arguing semantics here.

woodchip wrote:Perhaps we should allow multiple marriage partners as seen in Muslim law

I question why it's 'not allowed' in the first place.

shaktazuki wrote:Back to the original topic - a spirit kindred of TC has written this: http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews ... 27.article

It appears TC is in ... company. Though I cannot say it's good.

YUP, I'm in ... company. It's 'good' to have dissenting opinions and keep tabs on bigotry and abuse of power, even at the hands of a so-called ..... 'religious leader'.

shaktazuki wrote:You know, depending on the length of one's post, the board software crashes when you try to edit it, 100% of the time.

I noticed that one too, irritating when typing with one hand!

skaktazuki, one other observation. I've been married for over 30 years but never had any children. In Warren's definition of marriage, I wouldn't have been technically 'married' all this time or even be able to GET married because my husband and I have decided not to procreate, that's if he could convince people to legislate what he wants for the definition of marriage in the U.S.

On a similar vein, there's a good series this week on the History Channel that delves into the origins of the Seven Deadly Sins. 'Lust' was on last night and the rest are on consecutive nights this week. They are being repeated. The one on 'lust' was very interesting concerning the history of Christianity, other religions and human sexuality. It applies to this thread and the discussion herein. I recommend people watch it.