Happy Atheist Forum

My motto is:

"If it's fun, feels good, enjoyable, or makes you feel better about yourself then it has to be offensive to Christians soon enough."

i think you have to moderate the pleasures which you take in this life, otherwise there is a danger you risk placing too much importance on them. that can be unhealthy or even self-destructive. take for example drug abuse, gluttony, rampant abortion and so on.

"rampant abortion"?  Does that actually take place?  And how many would be considered rampant, 2 in 10 years, 2 in 5 years, 3 in 7, or is 1 too many?

Quote from: "easytrak"i think you have to moderate the pleasures which you take in this life, otherwise there is a danger you risk placing too much importance on them. that can be unhealthy or even self-destructive. take for example drug abuse, gluttony, rampant abortion and so on.

I understand it being good to moderate use of drugs (personally I just refrain completely other than the legal type), I understand it is good to moderate food intake because eating too much will make a person fat which leads to numerous health issues...what I don't get is how you think sex leads to rampant abortion.  

Have you ever heard of birth control?  We may not have ways to control the unwanted affects of drugs or eating too much but we certainly have ways to prevent the unwanted effects of sex:  use condoms and take the pill.  There really isn't a reason to have sex in moderation when it is practiced safely.  If everyone did this the abortion rate would be so low that there would be no room to call it rampant...it would also lead to fewer unwanted babies and thus fewer kids needing to be adopted which might make those few who get pregnant despite being on the pill more likely to consider adoption as an option.

I say seek pleasure in abundance but realize that some things which bring pleasure should be avoided or only enjoyed on occasion.  Life is what we make it, might as well try to make it fun.

My motto is:

Drugs are bad because they mess you up.
Beer is okay because it wears off.

Seriously, the moderation thing is important, I drink like 2 beers a day, unless I'm at a hockey game, and I don't go to all that many.  My liver being a little longer than average doesn't bother me.  If it curls up and falls out, well that would bother me (but at least not for too long because I'd perish shortly thereafter  :wink:  )

Quote from: "laetusatheos"I say seek pleasure in abundance but realize that some things which bring pleasure should be avoided or only enjoyed on occasion.

Yeah, once I bought a pipe from the tobacco store.  I enjoyed smoking it tremendously, especially if I smoked it while reading.  In fact, I quit entirely because I became afraid I would want to do it all the time and then suffer a lot of health consequences.

I think abortions are morally allowable (esp. 1st trimester).  I just can't understand how forcing people to go through with unwanted pregnancies is somehow less cruel than aborting a senseless embryo.  We treat people medically for "quality of life" issues all the time.  How is forcing someone to be a parent when they don't want to be, and then sentencing a child to be born to an unwilling parent, doing anything but degrading the "life quality" of the people involved?  Or, what if the mother is older, in a happy family with children, and she and her husband are proactively using birth control because they don't want any more children, then the birth control fails.  Who feels justified telling them it's too bad that happened but they're just going to have to suck it up and raise another child?

i see some problems in both condoms and the pill. the problem with condoms is that it just seems like masturbation anyway. the problem with the pill is that you are messing up your body. the other method which is to just not have intercourse when the wife is in her fertile period avoids both issues.

the way i see it, sex has three aspects: pleasure, love and procreation. if you try to isolate the pleasure aspect you must try to get rid of love and procreation. that means trying to avoid the responsibilities associated with sex. but you don't get nothing for nothing. so yes, seek pleasure, but make sure you can pay the price for it.

unrestrained sex does not only lead to unwanted pregnancy. there is also STDs, which plague africa. people can get broken hearts too because they get used. there is sex addictions, such as to pornography. and what can merely condoms and the pill do against all these?

i think abortion could be considered rampant because it occurs in the millions worldwide. in some countries the population is becoming old and dying out. and what about governments giving cash bonuses to people who decide to have children?

i think back in the past there were more adoption agencies around so when an unwanted pregnancy came along, people had a place to go. it is weird that we have both IVF clinics and abortion clinics these days. maybe the people who go to the IVF clinic should instead just go to the people who have unwanted pregnancy?

at any rate, i am sure you can agree that sex is very addictive. and anything which is addictive should never be underestimated, because it will control you.

The rythm method has a high failure rate compared to other forms of birth control.  I don't advise using it.  Rx companies need to make the IUD less expensive, I've talked to women who use them currently and apparently the issues with cramping aren't nearly as bad now as they use to be...the IUD doesn't necessarily have to be medicated.

The side effects of the pill really aren't any worse than any number of medications people take daily.  Pregnancy surely does mess with your body.

I wouldn't use a dying population for a reason not to have abortions or consider it rampent....the world population has been skyrocketing.  Some projections indicate we will be populated past our resources within our lifetimes.

There are still plenty of adoption agencies...i've never heard of a woman wanting to put a kid up for adoption and being turned away.  Not everyone thinks adoption is good for a child and not everyone wants to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months...pregnancy isn't easy.  Some people want to have a baby that is genetically theirs, who are we to say the woman can't have IVF done to her own body and force her to adopts?  

No, I really wouldn't consider sex addictive.  I like it, but, unlike an addiction, I can refrain easily.  If sex were truly addictive spouses could not get angry if their spouse goes on a buisness trip, cheats, then claims s/he simply couldn't stop him/herself.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"not everyone wants to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months...pregnancy isn't easy

Too true - my wife developed Preeclampsia during her first pregnancy.  The condition is potentially life threatening (it sure made me nervous).

Quote from: "laetusatheos"No, I really wouldn't consider sex addictive. I like it, but, unlike an addiction, I can refrain easily. If sex were truly addictive spouses could not get angry if their spouse goes on a buisness trip, cheats, then claims s/he simply couldn't stop him/herself.

Lol - couldn't agree more.  I travel frequently, and I've never had a probelm where I just had to get laid!  If I did cheat, my wife would have every right to be completely pissed at me (as would I be at her if, when I got home, I found she slept with somebody and used "I just couldn't wait any longer" as an excuse - give me a break).

Just a general note about pornography and masturbation --- why should I care?  I mean, if that's what someone wants to do with their free time, then they should have fun (just spare me the gory details, I'm not interested).

I'll back you up on that one.  I can testify to the way curtailing your thought life works in a positive way.  Basically, I see hot women and the automatic chemical reaction brings lustful thoughts to my mind.  But as I've practiced diverting it to more wholesome thoughts I've found my ability to relate to women as more than sexual objects has increased tremendously.  I think if all men strove for this kind of discipline in their thought-lives we would have a much more civil society much friendlier to women and their needs.  

To propose that any and every thought or fantasy is harmless is to undercut any notion of mental discipline.  Think of the ramifications for countless people who struggle with specific issues in their lives like obesity, (Go ahead, fantasize about eating ho-hos all day long!) drugs, (Go ahead, fantasize about how much fun you could be having if you were high!) gangs, (Go ahead, fantasize about how great it would be to kill your enemies!) adulterers, (Go ahead, fantasize about sex with another woman!) and the list could go on and on.  Clearly, these are thoughts that can and do cause individuals and society at large big, big problems.

Quote from: "Scrybe"Clearly, these are thoughts that can and do cause individuals and society at large big, big problems.

So, are you saying that fantasizing about stuff rather than actually doing it is a bad thing?  'Cuz that's just plain dumb.

Quote from: "Scrybe"To propose that any and every thought or fantasy is harmless is to undercut any notion of mental discipline.

I believe the opposite.  The inability to separate fantasy from reality, and in your case supressing fantasy completely, is undercutting mental discipline.  In essence you are saying, "I can't control myself, so I'll just run away."  Another example, it's easy, relatively, to get clean in a rehab facility.  It's when that eight ball is sitting right in front of you that you need mental discipline.

Also, you're discussing more of wanting to do something rather than fantasizing about it.  If you want to cheat on your spouse, or kill your enemies or get high(what's wrong with that?), you're going to do it, no amount of fantasy or supression of fantasy will make a bit of difference.

donkeyhoty,

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"The inability to separate fantasy from reality

I was reading this thinking almost exactly the same thing.  If I load up a satisfyingly violent video game and play it, am I:

1) Indulging in a dangerous fantasy that will make it more likely for me to behave in a like fashion "in reality"

or

2) Finding a safe outlet, in fantasy, for some base inner instincts that have been left hanging around by evolution (we've all got that nasty old crocodile brain inside us)

Personally, I'm going with number 2.  I just don't get that confused between "make believe" and "for real".

Couldn't fantacising about certain things bring a person to choose not to do what they originally thought they wanted to do?  For instance, over eating... a quick thought about all those yummy treats may lead to temptation but if the person stops to fantacise about eating those treats he/she will also have more time to remember that the taste is short lived and fat is a pain to get rid of.  that's actually how I get over cravings, I think about what I want, decide what it is i'm really craving, think about it for a bit...fantacising about being able to eat a off the list food usually makes the craving go away...if it doesn't, enjoy in moderation.

It's when we suppress our urges that they come back to bite us later.

laetusatheos, I will just go back to what we were talking about earlier. I do not have any objections to the fact that things like the pill and condoms can stop pregnancy. Maybe they can do so even better than the rhythm method. I do not attempt to dispute these matters. I am more interested in the mentality behind the use of these procedures, in other words, how does it influence what we perceive to be right or wrong in our daily life?

condoms seem to justify the practice of non-sexual intercourse, in other words, no longer does intercourse have to be about the union of male and female genitals. climax could be attained some other way. the male genital, with a condom over it, becomes simply a pleasure instrument.

the pill justifies tampering with your own body. whether or not the pill is serious enough to worry about I don't really know. there are other drugs out there which tamper with people's bodies and the effects are serious. pill-popping is not something which should be taken lightly. and anything which interferes with natural bodily function is bound to have harmful consequences. incidentally the pill also apparently can be abortive.

okay, i agree the world population is increasing. i was just referring to the developed countries.

when it comes to abortion, I am pretty much zero tolerance. I believe the unborn child is a human being, and I don't believe anyone has a right to cause harm to another human being, whether it be theft, rape, murder, scandal or otherwise. if we allow people to harm each other, there is chaos in society.

the mentality behind IVF is that artificial conception is ok - playing with embryos in a dish. it breeds irreverence for human life.

you say sex is easy to refrain from, but i would just simply say again don't underestimate the power of the sex appetite.

steveS, sure people can masturbate if they want to. but while we can allow them their free-will (provided they do not impinge upon the rights of others) we cannot condone their actions if they are wrong.

---

so now we are talking about temptations and how to overcome them. To me, temptations, in whatever shape or form, are a challenge for me to think about the meaning of life and whether or not i am on the right track. struggles are good because you grow through them, into either greater good or greater evil.

Man, this statement

Quote from: "easytrak"steveS, sure people can masturbate if they want to. but while we can allow them their free-will (provided they do not impinge upon the rights of others) we cannot condone their actions if they are wrong.

plays exactly into the consequentialist / absolutist morality discussion I was having in another thread.  To me, easytrak, if a person is not impinging upon the rights of others, than how can I judge their action as immoral?  To me morality is how we interact with other people (and to some extent animals).  If a person decides to masturbate, all by themselves, how are they hurting anyone else?  So, what makes this action wrong?  Nothing, in my atheistic opinion.  You'll probably argue that god has laid down laws about certain sexual practices.  But ...

Here's a funny thing - why is god so concerned with sexuality?  I mean, evolution has given us a terrific and practical explanation of why people are so sexual (finding sex pleasurable led to lots of sex, which led to lots of children, who also found sex pleasurable through heredity; after a while the population is going to be mostly composed of people that want to have a lot of sex).  But here's the funny part, god doesn't reproduce sexually, right?  There's only one god, he doesn't lust after other gods.  So why would god be so obsessed with sexual behavior (masturbation, homosexuality, all the weird OT laws)?  The obvious answer to me, of course, is that people are sexually obsessed and god was an idea created by people.  So, people conceptualized a sexually obsessed god.  Who they claim is telling people not to masturbate (Remember "Real Genius"?  And from now on, stop playing with yourself.  It is God! :lol: ).

Quote from: "easytrak"condoms seem to justify the practice of non-sexual intercourse, in other words, no longer does intercourse have to be about the union of male and female genitals. climax could be attained some other way. the male genital, with a condom over it, becomes simply a pleasure instrument.

Are you concerned about the condom preventing pregnancy or that in some way a thin piece of rubber somehow makes the penis into a sex toy?  I don't see how skin not directly touching skin in just that area would take away any of the union part of sex...there's a whole body attached to the penis.  To explain why I don't find a difference worth noting would require going into detail describing what people feel during sex.

Quotethe pill justifies tampering with your own body. whether or not the pill is serious enough to worry about I don't really know. there are other drugs out there which tamper with people's bodies and the effects are serious. pill-popping is not something which should be taken lightly. and anything which interferes with natural bodily function is bound to have harmful consequences.

That's why we weight the advantages/risks associated with taking a medication before deciding to use it.  The pill is associated with a mild risk of stroke (especially in women over the age of 35 who smoke).  The pill can be used to regulate an abnormal period (advantage).  It serves as a preventative measure against unwanted pregnancy (advantage which avoids all risks associated with pregnancy).

Quoteincidentally the pill also apparently can be abortive.

Those who are concerned about that can take a pill that prevents the release of the egg.  I'm pretty sure the most common forms of birth control pills work that way...I don't care if a recently fertilized egg is spontaneously aborted (happens all the time naturally).

Quoteokay, i agree the world population is increasing. i was just referring to the developed countries.

Would your views on abortion change if the world was overpopulated...where abortion would prevent further harm to those who are already alive by preventing more people being added to the population and further draining non-renewable resources and scare food supplies?  This may be the case soon if population growth continues in the same pattern, so it's something to think about.

Quotewhen it comes to abortion, I am pretty much zero tolerance. I believe the unborn child is a human being, and I don't believe anyone has a right to cause harm to another human being, whether it be theft, rape, murder, scandal or otherwise. if we allow people to harm each other, there is chaos in society.

I agree that harming others leads to chaos.  What I don't agree with is that a fertilized egg deserves person-hood.  There is nothing special about it other than an egg and a sperm combined...it isn't until much later on into development that it becomes something with the attributes we typically apply to being a person.  

Quotethe mentality behind IVF is that artificial conception is ok - playing with embryos in a dish. it breeds irreverence for human life.

Well the whole point behind IVF is to create human life...so I don't see how that leads to irreverence of life; those who have a successful IVF arguably will appreciate that baby more simply because they waited so long to be able to have one.

Quoteyou say sex is easy to refrain from, but i would just simply say again don't underestimate the power of the sex appetite.

Of course the desire is always there (that's natural) but all you have to do to refrain is get busy doing something else and the urge will pass.  But, since I find no reason to refrain (other than refraining from sex with someone other than my fiance...when I'm in a relationship my desire for others naturally turns off) I don't have to worry about controlling urges.

Quotesure people can masturbate if they want to. but while we can allow them their free-will (provided they do not impinge upon the rights of others) we cannot condone their actions if they are wrong.

Masturbation done in private has no bad effects on others and also serves as a stress reliever (just like sex does...sex is also a good cardio workout, btw).  If masturbation has any affect on others it is that it allows that person to be less stressed and less tense so that they will be more agreeable to be around.  How can masturbation be wrong if it doesn't hurt anyone?  Do you think wasting sperm is wrong?  If you don't masturbate it will be naturally expelled (wasted) eventually anyway.

Quoteso now we are talking about temptations and how to overcome them.

I don't think we are quite there yet.  We don't agree on what is a temptation that should be avoided and what is simply a pleasurable experience.

Quote from: "easytrak"condoms seem to justify the practice of non-sexual intercourse, in other words, no longer does intercourse have to be about the union of male and female genitals. climax could be attained some other way. the male genital, with a condom over it, becomes simply a pleasure instrument.

I don't understand this logic.  Condoms justify non-sexual intercourse?  That's like saying forks justify annorexia  :lol:
There are reasons that humans use the sexual organs for pleasure rather than reproduction alone.  There are many animals that don't get pleasure from sex, because they don't have the same nervous system as us.  Humans have nerves that create pleasure when stimulated on the penis, testicles, vagina, clitoris, anus, even nipples.  If sex was not pleasurable, people would only have it for reproductive purposes, but there is nothing wrong with using what you have to gain pleasure if thats what it was made for.

Quote from: "easytrak"when it comes to abortion, I am pretty much zero tolerance. I believe the unborn child is a human being, and I don't believe anyone has a right to cause harm to another human being, whether it be theft, rape, murder, scandal or otherwise. if we allow people to harm each other, there is chaos in society.

Well, I can't argue with you about an unborn child being a human, because I don't believe life begins at conception.  The mass of cells that will become a person is so small and undeveloped, I don't believe that it is trouble to remove it.  Much like a parasite, for the majority of the pregnancy the fetus leeches off its mother, absorbing food, oxygen, blood, and energy.  In my opinion, it is not a human because it cannot survive on its own once disconnected from its host.  I believe life begins around the third trimester, once the child can think cognatively and can feel and contemplate.
Since 1973, there have been 40 MILLION abortions in the US!  Can you imagine the massive effect all those people would be on our economy, culture, environment, etc if they weren't aborted?  Natural resources would be is shorter supply than they already are.  Not the mention the fact that because they were aborted, we can assume they were unwanted.  It's been statistically proven that the vast majority of children abused by their parents were not planned by the couple.  A large number of those babies, if not aborted, would be likely to be subject to abuse and become burdens upon society.  Not all, of course, but it's more likely for them than wanted pregnancies.
There are over 150 million orphans worldwide.  It's more beneficial to adopt that continue to breed children.

Quote from: "easytrak"the mentality behind IVF is that artificial conception is ok - playing with embryos in a dish. it breeds irreverence for human life.

My best friend was conceived artificially because her mother is gay and chose to have a child with her partner through IVF.  No one sees my friend as any less of a human because of the way she was conceived.  It still involved a human sperm fertilizing a human egg.  I don't see how you could have a problem with that, or think that people will find human life irrevelant by developing new ways to create it.

brainshmain, your middle paragraph,

Quote from: "brainshmain"Well, I can't argue with you about an unborn child being a human, because I don't believe life begins at conception. The mass of cells that will become a person is so small and undeveloped, I don't believe that it is trouble to remove it. Much like a parasite, for the majority of the pregnancy the fetus leeches off its mother, absorbing food, oxygen, blood, and energy. In my opinion, it is not a human because it cannot survive on its own once disconnected from its host. I believe life begins around the third trimester, once the child can think cognatively and can feel and contemplate.
Since 1973, there have been 40 MILLION abortions in the US! Can you imagine the massive effect all those people would be on our economy, culture, environment, etc if they weren't aborted? Natural resources would be is shorter supply than they already are. Not the mention the fact that because they were aborted, we can assume they were unwanted. It's been statistically proven that the vast majority of children abused by their parents were not planned by the couple. A large number of those babies, if not aborted, would be likely to be subject to abuse and become burdens upon society. Not all, of course, but it's more likely for them than wanted pregnancies.

is dead on target (IMHO).  I couldn't agree with these sentiments any more strongly.

For some more really interesting stuff about abortion, here's a great article over at WebMD (http://women.webmd.com/tc/Abortion-Reasons-Women-Choose-Abortion)
I think the facts and stats in the article speak for themselves.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"Do you think wasting sperm is wrong? If you don't masturbate it will be naturally expelled (wasted) eventually anyway.

:lol: This reminded me of Monty Python's Every Sperm is Sacred (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8) :lol:

Not to mention the fact that if there wasn't abortion, I wouldn't be alive!  It sounds kinda weird, but my mom had an abortion in her early twenties after the man who got her pregnant broke her heart.  She didn't feel able to handle a child without a partner, and didn't want her child to be the spawn on someone she hated, so she had it aborted.  If she had kept the child, I would have never been born 10 years later.  Who knows, that baby could have turned out be be a smelly Evangelical Christian
J/K

Quote from: "brainshmain"She didn't feel able to handle a child without a partner

Yeah, I know exactly how that fear feels.  When my first daughter was born my wife was suffering from Preeclampsia.  After delivery there were several times when her blood pressure rose very high.  I was watching the pressure monitor and feeding this little baby out of bottles and wondering, if my wife died, how was I going to be able to deal with that loss and then raise a baby by myself all at the same time?  Luckily things worked out, two days later she was fine.

I view the extreme pro-lifers to be cruel.  In their zeal to protect potential people they seem to lack compassion for actual people.

Quote from: "brainshmain"Who knows, that baby could have turned out be be a smelly Evangelical Christian

:lol: Perish the thought!

i will go back to the main issue, which is the fact that sex has three aspects: pleasure, love and procreation. love and procreation requires responsibility. various techniques are used which try to avoid responsibility, by removing the love and procreative aspects away from sex, leaving only pleasure.

i can't prove 100% that an embryo is human from conception. but what are the implications of it not being human? sex is no longer actually "procreative" unless the "thing" is allowed to grow for x months. it seems simply like a way to avoid responsibility for a deed done.

i know of course there are many moral dilemnas e.g. child conceived of rape or a bad man, woman dying in childbirth, homosexual people who are in love. but there cannot be compromise, because all three aspects are important to sex.

Why do you think that love and procreation must always be tied to sex?  I'm assuming this is a religious view but if it is true then there should be a way to prove this logically.

We know that you don't have to love someone to have sex.  We also know that you don't have to recieve pleasure to procreate (ie; rape, IVF, those who don't get pleasure from sex, etc).  We also know that sex, even without protection, does not always lead to conception/procreation.

Obviously sex can easily be associated with love, procreation, and pleasure...but it's not necessarily tied to those things.

Quote from: "easytrak"i know of course there are many moral dilemnas e.g. child conceived of rape or a bad man, woman dying in childbirth, homosexual people who are in love......

Okay, I can see how you would connect the abortion debate to the first two 'moral dilemnas' you listed  (should a rape victim be allowed to have an abortion if impregnated; if the woman is having health complications, should they terminate the birth to save her life?), but........ gay people in love?  Gay people being in love have nothing to do with abortion.  Quite the contrary, they have no chance of naturally conceiving a child together.  No member of a monogamous gay relationship would EVER have to consider having an abortion.  Duh.  :roll:

laetusatheos, an important principle of life i believe is that if we want to receive, we should also be willing to give. i think love and procreation are the sacrificial aspects of sexuality, where we give. if we are willing to give, it means we truly believe that what we want to receive is worth it.

you are right though: we have found ways to sever the procreative and loving aspects of sex. isn't that what makes sex very addictive? the greatest addictions are those which give a lot of pleasure for little sacrifice.

brainshmain, what i meant was that homosexuals in love do not practice procreative intercourse (though it could be loving and pleasurable), and this is a dilemna because we want intercourse to always be sexual, but we also feel sorry for the two men or two women in love.

Quote from: "easytrak"the greatest addictions are those which give a lot of pleasure for little sacrifice

nope, addiction is continuing to do or use something regardless of the negative aspects it has on your being.  It's not an addiction if it has no negative effect on your life.

Quote from: "easytrak"we have found ways to sever the procreative and loving aspects of sex. isn't that what makes sex very addictive? the greatest addictions are those which give a lot of pleasure for little sacrifice.

Um, no.  People will have sex regardless of if it has consequences or not.  Take for example those areas in Africa where having sex is very likely to transmit aids...they still do it even if they don't have condoms available and/or have been taught by missionaries that condoms are bad.

Something is not an addiction unless it is associated with negative consequences.  Examples of sex addiction would be a person who repeatedly has high risk sex or is unable to refrain from sex while at work.  Can you think of an addiction that doesn't have a lot of sacrifices attached to it?  I can't...it really wouldn't be an addiction if it didn't have sacrifices.  As I said before, I don't think sex is necessarily addictive.

Quote from: "easytrak"brainshmain, what i meant was that homosexuals in love do not practice procreative intercourse (though it could be loving and pleasurable), and this is a dilemna because we want intercourse to always be sexual, but we also feel sorry for the two men or two women in love.

That still has nothing to do with abortion.  Abortion and gay marriage are in no way correlated.  And the excuse that anti-gay activists use that gay people shouldn't marry because they can't procreate is ridiculous and biased.  If we only allowed people who were fertile to marry, we would have to limit elderly people, infertile couples or couples with one infertile member, etc.  You can't pick and choose who can and can't marry according to your bigoted opinion.

All good things in life are forbidden by theists because they distract people from their gods. This absurd, bigoted worldview has been ruining the lifes of countless people, since the origin of theism.

addictions don't always have immediate negative consequences. for instance i might smoke a few packets of cigarrettes a day yet not even get lung cancer till about 40 years down the track. though i agree the negative consequences are there.

the problem with gay unions is that they are not sexual. so how do gay people have intercourse? they can't. so you can't put gay unions on the same level as male-female unions. that's just the way things are, biologically speaking.

tom62 i agree in part with what you said. theists put God as the highest good in their lives and are careful not to put lesser goods (gods) above him. that it has often been done in tyrannical fashion at times is regrettable. i don't agree with the idea that all theists are out to bend others to their will, except perhaps where there is injustice e.g. rape, murder.

Quote from: "easytrak"addictions don't always have immediate negative consequences. for instance i might smoke a few packets of cigarrettes a day yet not even get lung cancer till about 40 years down the track. though i agree the negative consequences are there.

And if we can prevent the negative consequences of sex...then how again is it an addicition if the person doesn't obsess over sex?

Quotethe problem with gay unions is that they are not sexual. so how do gay people have intercourse? they can't. so you can't put gay unions on the same level as male-female unions. that's just the way things are, biologically speaking.

Oh, gay relations can definitely be sexual.  They just do it in a different way.  I didn't know we judged the worthiness of a marital union based on if traditional intercourse can be achieved on not.  By your reasoning no heterosexual couple's marriage should be on the "same level" as other marriages if one partner is unable to physically have intercourse.

what about old people, if they can't get-it-on anymore are their marriages a sham?

Quote from: "easytrak"except perhaps where there is injustice e.g. rape, murder.

Do you mean when the religious rape and murder to bend a conquered populace to their will?  Or when missionaries attempt to help a downtrodden populace, as long as they accept the teachings of that church?

Quote from: "easytrak"the problem with gay unions is that they are not sexual. so how do gay people have intercourse? they can't. so you can't put gay unions on the same level as male-female unions. that's just the way things are, biologically speaking.

Oh, that is incredibly untrue.  Just because YOU don't consider gay sex to be sex doesn't mean you are right.  It just means you're a bigot.


Gay people can have intercourse, in a variety of ways.  Just a few:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strap-on_dildo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strap-on_dildo)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingering_%28sexual_act%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingering_%28sexual_act%29)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_sex)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outercourse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outercourse)

I'd guess that the majority of gay couples have tried at least one of these, and that they probably have sex more than most straight couples.  Your weird inner-fear of those different from you doesn't validate the idea of them being undeserving of a legal marriage like any other human being.

laetusatheos, do you really think it is possible to avoid the negative consequences of irresponsible sex?

as to things such as homosexual love, as i said before, the issue of homosexual relations is a tough moral dilemna. i can understand why you find it difficult to agree with me. and i guess i can sympathize somewhat with homosexuals, but i can never agree with non-sexual intercourse.

Quote from: "easytrak"non-sexual intercourse

What's non-sexual intercourse?  Do you mean non-procreative intercourse?

What if you're a "good Christian" but also a premature ejaculator?  If you happen to ejaculate on your wife instead of in her is that a sinful spilling of seed?  Or is it excused because God made you a premature ejaculator?

Also, what about after menopause; Can you still bang your wife?  There's no chance of procreation.  Is there a verse you could point me to rule on this?

If semen is considered "sacred" how come unfertilized eggs are not?  Shouldn't a woman be getting pregnant as soon as possible after she pops out a kid until she's infertile.  Seems to be such a waste of good eggs.

What if your sperm count is low?  Is that less of a sin than someone with a higher sperm count?  And if it is, wouldn't one have to masturbate to find this info out?

Quote from: "easytrak"laetusatheos, do you really think it is possible to avoid the negative consequences of irresponsible sex?

That's a loaded question.  I never said it was possible to avoid the negative consequences of irresponsible sex. Would you like to rephrase?

I think the hardest part is determining what we mean by 'Moderation'?  

I also consider 'temptation' to have connotations that are purely religious and by the way, when did it become the preserve of religion to direct our sexuality?

I'm not sure if easytrak is coming back to continue the discussion.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"I'm not sure if easytrak is coming back

That sucks, I really wanted to know if someone with a high sperm count is committing a greater sin than someone with a low sperm count.

donkeyhoty, the main thing is that you have intercourse sexually. if you are sterile or have a low sperm count, well there's nothing you can do about that - you can't condemn a person for something that is not their fault. of course if they sterilized themselves it becomes a different story.

huxley, moderation is about recognizing things as they are and not trying to glorify them beyond their true worth. at any rate, you don't have to be a theist to recognize that things like adultery or unmarried mothers etc. are not good.

laetusatheos, by irresponsible sex, i mean seeking the pleasure but trying to remove the procreative and loving aspects of sex, in other words, trying to get nothing for nothing.

sorry, i meant "something for nothing."

Quote from: "easytrak"laetusatheos, by irresponsible sex, i mean seeking the pleasure but trying to remove the procreative and loving aspects of sex, in other words, trying to get nothing for nothing.

How is getting something for nothing irresponsible?  Just because something is good doesn't mean it has to come with strings attached.

easytrak, you're not fully answering my question.  I'll will elucidate further for your edification(haha, that was pretentious)


If person A has a sperm count double of person B,
and they ejaculate an equal amount, during non-procreative sex(e.g. masturbation)
Would not person A be committing twice the sin of person B?

Person A is spilling more seed than person B,
and spilling of any seed is a sin,
consequently, wouldn't person A spilling more seed in one ejaculation be worse than one ejaculation of person B?

Person A was obviously given a gift of high sperm count by God, so he is wasting more of God's gift than low sperm count person B.  


Can this conundrum be resolved?  Or, is our current understanding of reproduction beyond what can be explained by religious texts?

Ejaculation has been shown to be beneficial in helping stave off prostate cancer:

Quotehigh ejaculation frequency was related to decreased risk of total prostate cancer

Leitzmann, M., Platz, E., Stampfer, M., Willett, W. and Giovannucci, E. (2004). Ejaculation Frequency and Subsequent Risk of Prostate Cancer. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291, 1578-1586.

QuoteEjaculatory frequency, especially in early adult life, is negatively associated with the risk of prostate cancer

Giles, G., Severi, G., English, D., McCredie, M., Borland, R., Boyle, P. et al. (2003). Sexual factors and prostate cancer. BJU International, 92, 211-216.

And we all know that even if you're married - you can be going a while without gettin' any - therefore rubbing one out may help keeping us guys from developing prostate cancer later in life.

Quote from: "Squid"Ejaculation has been shown to be beneficial in helping stave off prostate cancer:

Quotehigh ejaculation frequency was related to decreased risk of total prostate cancer

Leitzmann, M., Platz, E., Stampfer, M., Willett, W. and Giovannucci, E. (2004). Ejaculation Frequency and Subsequent Risk of Prostate Cancer. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291, 1578-1586.

QuoteEjaculatory frequency, especially in early adult life, is negatively associated with the risk of prostate cancer

Giles, G., Severi, G., English, D., McCredie, M., Borland, R., Boyle, P. et al. (2003). Sexual factors and prostate cancer. BJU International, 92, 211-216.

And we all know that even if you're married - you can be going a while without gettin' any - therefore rubbing one out may help keeping us guys from developing prostate cancer later in life.

However, as a public service announcement for the guys out there:

Please change hands once in a while and avoid the potential for serious repetitive stress injury.

Quote from: "easytrak"donkeyhoty, the main thing is that you have intercourse sexually. if you are sterile or have a low sperm count, well there's nothing you can do about that - you can't condemn a person for something that is not their fault.

Oh you can't?  Well unless you actually believe that crap about homosexuals choosing to be gay, you are a serious hypocrite.  I mean really, who would actually make the conscious decision to have not be able to marry the person they love, inherit property, make medical decisions should their loved one become incapacitated, and have over 1000 other basic rights that gay couples are not allowed.  Not to mention the verbal and physical abuse they are subject to.  I mean, who wouldn't want to become the next Matthew Shepard?  He chose to be gay, so it's his fault he was murdered, right?  He could have just changed back to straight and those guys killing him would have probably taken him out for some beers.  Seriously.

laetusatheos, wanting something for nothing is just plain selfishness. of course, i am also opposed to the puritanical idea that we should want nothing for something, i.e. that we shouldn't be pleasure-seekers at all, but rather work ourselves to death without any reward.

donkeyhoty, spilling seed is not a sin, but rather how it is spilt that is the issue. thanks for elucidating

squid, i am interested to know why that is the case.

brainshmain, you think that i have some personal grievances with homosexuals. its not as though i haven't had homosexual desires from time to time. in fact i think perhaps all of us have the capacity to become homosexual. what i am against is any sexual activity which is not done sexually and/or is without love.

easytrak, it's ok sweetie.  Here, I'll open the door for you.  Now come on out - it's cramped in that small space...

There.  Isn't that better?

I can only hope that whoever you find to have sex with will help to free you from these artificial bonds - unless you're into bondage, of course.

Quote from: "easytrak"donkeyhoty, spilling seed is not a sin, but rather how it is spilt that is the issue. thanks for elucidating

Leviticus 15:16-19 (King James Version)

 16 And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even.

 17 And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even.

 18 The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even.

 19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.

Quote from: "easytrak"brainshmain, you think that i have some personal grievances with homosexuals. its not as though i haven't had homosexual desires from time to time. in fact i think perhaps all of us have the capacity to become homosexual. what i am against is any sexual activity which is not done sexually and/or is without love.

Why isn't homosexual sex without love?  I know plenty of loving gay couples in happy relatioships.  Why is their sex life 'not sexual' or 'without love'?  In fact, why are their sex lives any of YOUR concern?

Quote from: "easytrak"laetusatheos, wanting something for nothing is just plain selfishness. of course, i am also opposed to the puritanical idea that we should want nothing for something, i.e. that we shouldn't be pleasure-seekers at all, but rather work ourselves to death without any reward..

Well, with responsible sex both people get something (pleasure) for nothing (no unwanted side effects of sex)...how is mutual enjoyment selfish?  I'm no arguing for rape.

You also need to provide support for how wanting something for nothing is actually selfish if no one is harmed or overlooked in the process of achieving something for nothing.

Quotedonkeyhoty, spilling seed is not a sin, but rather how it is spilt that is the issue. thanks for elucidating

I could be wrong because it's been a while since I've read the verse in the bible about spilling seed and I don't feel like looking it up...but I don't rember it applying the rule to only certain contexts.

squid, i am interested to know why that is the case.

Quotebrainshmain, you think that i have some personal grievances with homosexuals. its not as though i haven't had homosexual desires from time to time. in fact i think perhaps all of us have the capacity to become homosexual. what i am against is any sexual activity which is not done sexually and/or is without love

I don't think you understand sexuality or love...you can be a homosexual and express both just a sensually as any straight couple.  

As for all people having some homosexual tendencies....I don't think that human sexuality is always a black or white issue and many people fall in the gray areas between straight or gay.  However, that doesn't mean that if you have tendencies you are gay.  Homosexuals are those who are only attracted to the same sex just as straights are only attracted to the opposite sex.  Maybe you are bi, which is okay.

In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter what you are for or against...another person's sexuality is none of your business to control or criticise unless you have reason for why what they are doing is harmful to others (ie pedofiles).  Homosexuals don't harm anyone by loving and touching each other through mutual attraction.

I don't even care that you strange views about what sex is and is not as long as you don't try to impose your lifestyle choice on others.

It is no argument to say something is so because "the bible says so." spilling of seed in itself is a neutral act, regardless of what the bible says.

I never said homosexual sex was not without love. but nevertheless, it is not sexual. I don't pass negative judgement on the moral character of people simply because they are homosexual. Nevertheless, I stand by the principle that intercourse is about procreation and love as well as pleasure.

even if nobody is harmed in the process of getting something for nothing, it is still selfish. for instance, if i were to steal something from a person, but it is something they didn't want anyway, i am still a bad person and a thief.

I'm curious, why do you care about what other people do? Its not effecting you is it? Hell gays can fuck all they want however they want big deal, its their lives let them live it.

But so are your main points:

You disagree with sex (in whatever form) without emotional attachment...right? Gay or straight.

You dont have anything against gays...right?

Quote from: "easytrak"even if nobody is harmed in the process of getting something for nothing, it is still selfish. for instance, if i were to steal something from a person, but it is something they didn't want anyway, i am still a bad person and a thief.

Having sex with a willing partner is hardly comparable to taking something without asking.  There are many organizations which provide food for those who cannot otherwise afford it...are individuals who accept food from those organizations selfish?  Not that I'm comparing sex to charity work, but I think it is an example of how getting something for nothing isn't necessarily selfish.  I actually think that in many cases having procreative sex is more selfish than utilizing protective measures....It is rather selfish to have a bunch of kids in a world that is quickly becoming overpopulated.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"Not that I'm comparing sex to charity work

This was a funny thought.  Imagine it, people could write off the going rate for prostitution from thier taxes as charitable donations.  Hahaha!

i agree that some people have children for selfish reasons. yes, procreative sex can be selfish.

as for the food bank analogy, most people would be ashamed to take food from a food bank, because they want to be able to say they have done something to earn the food. that way they can say it is their food.

in the same way, most people are ashamed to go to a prostitute because a prostitute is not their partner.

If you go to a food bank and receive food it is your food.  Someone may feel badly for having to go to a food bank because that person feels s/he should be able to provide for themselves on their own but are currently unable for some reason.  It has absolutely nothing to do with ownership of the food.

I find the analogy between food banks and prostitutes especially odd since no one own's their spouse and I'm pretty sure there are many people who go to prostututes without feeling ashamed.  Not all cultures view prositutuion as wrong, I believe it was the Japanese who did or still do encourage married men to see a gesha (sp).

Anyway, so we have established that sometimes procreative sex can be selfish....so should your argument now be that no one should have sex ever because no matter how they go about it selfish reasons will be attached to why they have sex?

Wasn't Mary Magdelene a whore?

Or, is that a myth... you know, like the resurrection?

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Wasn't Mary Magdelene a whore?

Or, is that a myth... you know, like the resurrection?

Ahaha... nice.

And yeah, I've heard she was a prostitute too, but weren't like half the women back then mistresses anyway?

Quote from: "brainshmain"...half the women back then mistresses anyway

Giving my mistress money and gifts for sex does not make her a whore...  

It's the several hundred other guys that also give her money for sex that makes her a whore.

there is nothing wrong with taking pleasure from sex as long as you do not try to avoid the responsibilities associated with sex. these include responsibilities towards the person you have sex with and any children which may be conceived as a result of the sex.

would you go to a prostitute without feeling shame? people feel shame when they masturbate. the reason i think is because it cheapens sex, a thing which is supposed to be about love and procreation as well as pleasure. it is profaning something sacred. pornography does the same thing.

Quote from: "easytrak"people feel shame when they masturbate.

Not me. In fact, I think it's self-empowering to know that we can get ourselves off any time we feel like it. Why should we be ashamed if there's nothing wrong with it? It's just a natural and healthy thing to do. I concede that, because it's such a private thing, talking about it can lead to embarrasment in polite conversation. But not shame. Nobody should ever be ashamed of pleasing themselves. That's just silly.

Quote from: "easytrak"there is nothing wrong with taking pleasure from sex as long as you do not try to avoid the responsibilities associated with sex. these include responsibilities towards the person you have sex with and any children which may be conceived as a result of the sex.
would you go to a prostitute without feeling shame? people feel shame when they masturbate. the reason i think is because it cheapens sex, a thing which is supposed to be about love and procreation as well as pleasure. it is profaning something sacred. pornography does the same thing.

Sorry, but no.

These are all cultural and learned behaviors.

Depending on the country and society, prostitution, masturbation, mistresses, etc may be the norm.

You seem to be mired in your own upbringing.  Open your mind a little and see that there are more perspectives than your own.

This type of puritan society has never existed in reality.  Just another way for one group of people to control the masses.

Free your mind, read a book.
(or at least watch Discovery or the History Channel from time to time),
JoeActor

Quote from: "easytrak"people feel shame when they masturbate.

There is nothing shameful about masturbation....it is a natural mood booster and is also associated with some health benefits.  Earlier in this thread, maybe another thread (if forgot since this thing has dragged on for so long), Squid cited an article about masturbation being associated with lower occurrences of testicular cancer in men.

As for prostitution...I'd be more concerned about catching an STD than if I'd feel shame or not.

Quote from: "easytrak"people feel shame when they masturbate.

Maybe you do, I and millions of other people certainly don't.

Only time masturbation can be shameful is when you forget to lock the door...

if you think sex is supposed to be between two people then it is certainly going to be difficult for you to take in the idea of masturbating.

Masturbation is the safest form of sex there is.

I'm just curious, what is so bad about it?

Quote from: "Squid"Masturbation is the safest form of sex there is.

As long as you don't do it while you're driving.....

Consider, if people stop masturbating, it'll shut down the porn industry, which could cause the entire economy to collapse.  Plus, what would we do with the internet?  It'd be empty!

(takes tongue out of cheek)

Seriously, I don't get what's so bad about masturbation either.  I'll admit I'm not really comfortable having a public, open, frank, detailed discussion about it.  But telling someone else not to masturbate is just ... weird.  Who the hell cares?  It's nobody else's business.  

And why do religious beliefs seem to come with so much sexual baggage?

Quote from: "easytrak"if you think sex is supposed to be between two people then it is certainly going to be difficult for you to take in the idea of masturbating.

What exactly do you think constitutes sex?

What are morals?  Where did they come from?  Were we born with them?  Are they learned?  Does each being have a different set of morals?  If each individual can define it's own morals, then is there really such a thing as morals?

It seems to be a combination of nature and nurture.

Quote from: "JustInterested"What are morals?  Where did they come from?  Were we born with them?  Are they learned?  Does each being have a different set of morals?  If each individual can define it's own morals, then is there really such a thing as morals?

Morals are basically actions which are considered acceptable in a society for the benefit of that society.  Considering that numerous morals must be taught to children (ie waiting to have sex till they are old enough to handle it properly or, according to some, till marriage) then we can be pretty sure we aren't born knowing all moral codes.  Things like empathy do make it possible to argue that we (normal people) are born with an understanding of not to do things like murder.

As for individuals having different sets of morals; I think you'll find that in general members of groups will share similar if not same moral ideals because to do otherwise would outcast the individual from the group.  For instance, in many societies (groups) there are laws against murder and those who's moral understanding does not exclude murder as an option end up being separated from society by means of jail time and/or execution.  It simply isn't possible to have an understanding of morality that conflicts with the society in which you live without compromising your own survival within that society.  On an individual basis there will be variations in how morals of a given society are upheld and understood but these variations are also how morality evolves over time.  If morality didn't evolve the US would still have slaves.

Morality isn't really a thing anyway, it only exists through human understanding of how we should interact with each other and this understanding is what allows us to live in large groups.