Losing your religion

Actually, I'll bet you and Hasbeen don't but you and I do. That is all I am going to say about that on this forum. :xyzthumbs

 

Don't be so sure, Barry.

 

Please make the bad visions go away. Please make the bad visions go away.

 

:xyzthumbs

 

So please enlighten me. I'm listening.

I suspect laws against prostitution are as much morally motivated as anything else, but spread of disease is a genuine societal concern. I still think it should be legal with some strict health requirements.

Incest carries a serious risk of bearing children with severe genetic defects. Further, the type of incest that USUALLY occurs is not between consenting adults--it's an adult molesting a child, which causes the child both physical and psychological harm. I'm not sure how I'd ideally want to deal with this legally. I DO want children protected. But if I found out some (adult) guy was boffing his (adult) sister, & they weren't bringing forth children from the union, I'd find the idea offensive, but I don't think I'd butt in.

I think that's what laws are for, or should be: to protect the rights of individuals. I don't think there's any "ideal" government or legal system. There will always be situations that call for tough choices. But as a rule, I think the less the STATE interferes with individual choice, the better. Make only what laws are truly necessary to protect individual rights.

 

This is one of the parts of the bible that I just don't understand. Adam & Eve had 2 sons. Cain & Abel. and then it tells of Cain killing Abel. Then it talks about Cain and his wife. Where did she come from. Who was she?

 

i see these two statements as excluding each other. perhaps i'm just not reading them correctly. the first statement says the bible addresses the "sexual action" and let's use oral sex as an example of such.

the next statement says, in essence, that oral sex (the action) is only acceptable if between a man and a woman. this statement nullifies (for me) the fact that the bible does not address sexual orientation, as you said in the first statement. either the action is okay or it's not regardless of who's performing it.

i'm so confused at this point i'll totally understand if you don't get what i'm saying.

 

i'd have to do a lot of digging (but i will if you'd like) to find an article i read in the early 80s in OMNI magazine that talked about the development of the brain in hetero and homosexual children. the article clearly showed that the brain of a gay man developed much like the brain of a straight woman, a lesbian's much as a straight man's. the emotional and physical state of the mother while pregnant influenced brain development.

all i know is that when i was preschool age, the little girls made me feel funny. i was never physically, emotionally, or verbally abused. it's just who i was, and still am, on the inside.

 

This was pretty much the "official position" of the last Christian church I belonged to. They acknowledged that sexual orientation was not a choice, but held to the Bible teaching that homosexual BEHAVIOR was wrong. They compared it to being born with a disease or birth defect--not your fault, but you gotta live with it . . . in this case by lifelong denial of your basic desire--choosing celibacy.

This seems pretty damn cruel to me. Sexual orientation isn't JUST about sex. It's about love & romance, the basic human drive to form an intimate partnership with someone.

 

Following my drug addiction analogy. A small child or even a new born can be addicted to drugs and it not be their fault. I think this can happen with homosexuality too. Certain things can happen during childhood to push someone along that path. I do not believe that there is an absolute biological reason for homosexuality. I have never seen any solid science to prove that.