I've seen more inherited guilt because of this edict of the Church than I care to admit, and mine is a somewhat limited experience compared to the whole of religious sexual repression.
And while each individual case may not be super tragic, if you took the collective suffering that's been created perpetrated as a result of such backward views on sex, it's almost sickening to think of.
This is like Exhibit A of my problem with religious dogma. There are harmful acts of pre-marital sex, and plenty of people not "ready" for it. But in a mutually amicable relationship where the emotional, physical, and even spiritual well-beings of the people are enhanced, and no evil comes out of it, I've never had anyone show me, objectively, where the harm/evil/suffering is. Philosophical musings on God's Will or saving oneself for even greater joy are worthless if they don't stack up to reality. And I think it exposes the fundamental flaw in following rigid doctrines.
Originally posted by Digi
But in a mutually amicable relationship where the emotional, physical, and even spiritual well-beings of the people are enhanced, and no evil comes out of it,
This depends on what you consider "evil". I, for one, think that the mass amount of unwanted pregnancies, divorce, STDs and the like paint plenty of pictures as to why sex is something you are suppose to take very seriously, and in no way is waiting for marriage/only having one partner a bad goal to shoot for.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Obesity, heart disease and diabetes should also paint a picture of why eating should be taken seriously.It's about moderation, not about absolute abstinence.
I never said absolute abstinence. And the difference between those two examples is that, in terms of sex, the risks are there even with people who practice "moderation".
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Besides, I think God is a lot bigger than a trivial things like premarital sex. In other words, I do not think he cares or would ever care.
I suppose that's up to your personal religious views. I, being Christian, don't see it the same way. The Bible is pretty clear on this point.
Originally posted by TacDavey
This depends on what you consider "evil". I, for one, think that the mass amount of unwanted pregnancies, divorce, STDs and the like paint plenty of pictures as to why sex is something you are suppose to take very seriously, and in no way is waiting for marriage/only having one partner a bad goal to shoot for.
This doesn't address my point(s) at all.
Originally posted by TacDavey
My point was that there are "evils" that can be associated with sex outside of marriage. It isn't a form of sexual repression, it's a smart decision if you ask me.
Ok, let's break this down.
You say this:
Originally posted by TacDavey
My point was that there are "evils" that can be associated with sex outside of marriage.
Here is me saying essentially the same thing:
Originally posted by Digi
There are harmful acts of pre-marital sex, and plenty of people not "ready" for it.
So, we both understand this point, though the fact that I admit this went unacknowledged in your replies.
However, my point doesn't end there.
Originally posted by Digi
But in a mutually amicable relationship where the emotional, physical, and even spiritual well-beings of the people are enhanced, and no evil comes out of it, I've never had anyone show me, objectively, where the harm/evil/suffering is.
This is the much larger point. Your response was this:
Originally posted by TacDavey
This depends on what you consider "evil". I, for one, think that the mass amount of unwanted pregnancies, divorce, STDs and the like paint plenty of pictures as to why sex is something you are suppose to take very seriously, and in no way is waiting for marriage/only having one partner a bad goal to shoot for.
This post is entirely a strawman in relation to my post. Because, one, it paints a picture of only bad results of premarital sex. Which is selective bias in order to try to make a point. It fails. And two, in saying "in no way is waiting for marriage/only having one partner a bad goal to shoot for," you're asserting something that is a tangent to the central point. I don't disagree with that statement. Of course it's not a bad goal. But neither is it the only "good" goal.
You also ignore entirely the vast amounts of guilt that the Church's views create. People try to repress sexual thoughts, desires, and actions, often in personally destructive ways. If we're listing potential evils, you have to turn it both ways. Obviously this isn't always the case, but to ignore it is willful ignorance of an avoidable evil.
So let's recap:
- You haven't addressed the problems with repressing sexual desires.
- You haven't provided evidence that premarital sex is always bad, or even usually bad.
- Or where the inherent bad is in the many, many cases where no discernible harm comes of mutually amicable premarital sex.
- You haven't conceded that abstaining can be good or bad for some, or that being more sexually permissive can be both good or bad depending on the situation, a point that should be blatantly obvious from a common sense perspective, and only becomes obscured when you try to adhere to an inflexible dogma.
So, I know what your point is. But if you're going to engage me, address mine as well.