Halo 2 Forum > Off-topic > Debate Forum > Religion Debate
 
 
Display Modes Thread Tools
The Colostomizer
REP FOR THE REP GOD
The Colostomizer's Avatar
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 290,211
Subtract from The Colostomizer's ReputationAdd to The Colostomizer's Reputation The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000
#391
01-08-2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrbas
Genesis 2:24 "Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and embraces his wife. They become one flesh."

Matthew 19:5 "And because of this, a man leaves father and mother and is firmly bonded to his wife, becoming one flesh--no longer two bodies but one.

Mark 10:8 "he becomes one flesh with a woman--no longer two individuals, but forming a new unity."

Basically the reason we can give our virginity to our wife, husband, spouse, whatever is because we no longer are 2 seperate people. Just as Mark 10:8 says, "he becomes one flesh with a woman..." Once bonded in marriage, you become one. Both in flesh and in heart. They are now one person, one "flesh". Heck, you can become one flesh with a prostitute, but that is only the physical part. What about the heart?
I said, "Besides the fact that God said so…" The Bible is what God said through its authors, so you didn't answer what I was asking. Outside of the Bible, why is it okay to give your virginity to your wife and not anyone else?
Vrbas
i'm around
Vrbas's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Memphis
Posts: 1,548
Subtract from Vrbas's ReputationAdd to Vrbas's Reputation Vrbas is a novice
Send a message via AIM to Vrbas
#392
01-08-2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Colostomizer
I said, "Besides the fact that God said so…" The Bible is what God said through its authors, so you didn't answer what I was asking. Outside of the Bible, why is it okay to give your virginity to your wife and not anyone else?
Lol, these versus makes PLENTY of sense even outside of religion. Think of the vows that they say to eachother. Quote the pastor that marries couples. You'll find that what these versus say tie DIRECTLY into what it means to get married. To become one.
The Colostomizer
REP FOR THE REP GOD
The Colostomizer's Avatar
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 290,211
Subtract from The Colostomizer's ReputationAdd to The Colostomizer's Reputation The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000
#393
01-08-2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrbas
Lol, these versus makes PLENTY of sense even outside of religion. Think of the vows that they say to eachother. Quote the pastor that marries couples. You'll find that what these versus say tie DIRECTLY into what it means to get married. To become one.
"To become one" is an abstraction, it's made up. You don't actually become a single person with your wife when you have sex. You only say that those verses make sense outside of religion because you're Christian. If you were agnostic like me, you'd be able to see how ridiculous-sounding those verses are. Those verses didn't even say why, they just said to wait until marriage. There was no explanation. You haven't given me a good reason yet for why it's alright to give your virginity to your wife and no one else.
MarkedAchilles
MarkedAchilles's Avatar
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Gainesville, Fl
Posts: 8,298
Subtract from MarkedAchilles's ReputationAdd to MarkedAchilles's Reputation MarkedAchilles is a novice
#394
01-08-2006
Default

What about when people get married without a priest.


-i got kicked out of barnes and noble once for moving all the bibles into the fiction section


Think You Watch Movies? http://www.halo3forum.com/showthread.php?t=81621
Vrbas
i'm around
Vrbas's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Memphis
Posts: 1,548
Subtract from Vrbas's ReputationAdd to Vrbas's Reputation Vrbas is a novice
Send a message via AIM to Vrbas
#395
01-08-2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Colostomizer
"To become one" is an abstraction, it's made up. You don't actually become a single person with your wife when you have sex. You only say that those verses make sense outside of religion because you're Christian. If you were agnostic like me, you'd be able to see how ridiculous-sounding those verses are. Those verses didn't even say why, they just said to wait until marriage. There was no explanation. You haven't given me a good reason yet for why it's alright to give your virginity to your wife and no one else.
Think about it. What do people say when they are wed? What does the pastor say? What does the man that weds them say? I doubt i should have said "vows" because those vary from person to person, but you get the idea. Just as Genesis 2:20-24 states:

"So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

As you can see, it's as if the woman BELONGS to the man. When the 2 are seperated, they are not one being. But once the pieces of the puzzle are put back where they go, it makes sense. The woman returns to the man, thus creating one flesh.

Let me ask you something, do you enjoy not believing in anything? Do you enjoy not holding a belief to be true? Do you enjoy not having faith in a religion? Do you enjoy not knowing ANY answers? I'm not saying i do but holding at least SOME TYPE of belief is better than holding none at all, IMO.

I can tell no reason is good enough for you. You are the kind of person that wants 100% proof for EVERYTHING. But the thing is, you'll never find it. Nothing can be proven 100% true. I'm mostly referring to religion and beliefs. Morals also apply. It's like you are waiting for something that will never come. It's not my place to tell you to find something to believe in but come on man, you gotta use some faith. Just like in that thread about "Satanism", some people who read it said they agreed with alot of it. Thus almost "adopting" that belief. Have you ever tried to do that with other religions? Not just my beliefs, but any? I'm not asking you to believe what i believe. I am merely doing the work that my Lord God desires of me, and that is to plant the seed. If you remain open to God, He will do the rest. All i can ask of you is not to give up on God. He has yet to give up on you, and the thing is He never will. You can stop "loving" God but that doesn't change His love for you. Remember, we are talking about UNCONDITIONAL love here.

I feel this is where we must stop the debate because i am becoming too prideful. I'm starting to debate and argue just for the sake of it and that's not what i do. I'm not out to win but i feel if i stick around forever i will only be debating for the sake of the debate and the sake of proving the other person wrong. If anything, i need a break to think about all we've discussed. I've learned alot about you Colost. I'm glad i had the chance to talk to someone who is soo different from me. It has truly been a learning experience. I really appreciate your patience with me. I can be a "frustrating" person at times, i realize that. But you have managed to stick in there with as little as a few curse words here and there. Your calm nature is very admirable.

I don't know all the answers to life. I don't know all the answers to your questoins. I never made that claim. Every question you threw at me i have answered them to the full extent of my knowledge. I know you are dissapointed with many of my answers but if you want an agnostic answer or an atheist answer, you should have asked them. I have done the best i can with the knowledge the Good Lord has blessed me with. Please try to understand where i'm coming from. I'm not through debating. I just think it's a good idea if i take a break to reflect upon all i've learned. I hope you can understand. Plus, i am slowly leaning toward debating for the sake of the debate. I want to avoid that. It's been a pleasure. Speak with you soon enough.

I'd like to leave you with a verse. It comes from 1 Corinthians 6:12-18

"Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything. "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit. Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body."

Last edited by Vrbas; 01-10-2006 at 04:39 PM.
cheesegrady87
Level 11
cheesegrady87's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 66
Subtract from cheesegrady87's ReputationAdd to cheesegrady87's Reputation cheesegrady87 is a novice
#396
01-10-2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Colostomizer
I am starting this thread for the purpose of debating whether premarital sex is good or bad, and the people I'm looking to argue with are ideally Christians, but can be of any religious faith that discourages premarital sex or of no faith at all. This argument is really between sex with someone you don't love (solely for pleasure) and sex with someone you do love (pleasure, procreation, and the emotional connection), because in our society, marriage is the logical extension of love.

In my humble opinion, premarital sex is in no way wrong or impure, as long as the participating parties are mature enough to go about it in a responsible manner. To me, the pleasure of sex (whether in marriage or not) is one of life's perks. I can see how having sex with someone you truly love would amplify the experience as a whole in the sense that there is a deep emotional connection not present with sex just for pleasure, but that in itself doesn't mean sex for pleasure is bad. Here's an analogy for how I look at it: hot chocolate with marshmellows is rockin' awesome, and hot chocolate without marshmellows isn't quite as good, but it's still pretty sweet. Just because it's better with marshmellows doesn't mean I'm not going to make hot chocolate if I run out of marshmellows.

Waiting until marriage for sex will not amplify the pleasure. If anything, it'll decrease the pleasure for the girl. This is because you're not going to know much about it. Sure, it can be as good for the guy as if he hadn't waited, but that's because it's easy for guys to climax. It might seem really good if it's his first time, but that's not an argument for waiting. He could just do it before marriage and it would seem just as pleasurable then. And on the other hand, waiting will probably decrease the pleasure for the girl. You've got to work for it with the ladies, and if the guy doesn't know what he's doing, it's actually going to suck for the girl. Maybe the girl will think it's good because she's never had good sex to compare it to, but she will realize later in life that it was crappy. They'd have been better off on their honeymoon if they'd learned how to do it sooner. I agree that there will be an emotional connection that couldn't have been experienced before love, but having premarital sex wouldn't ruin that connection for when you do get married. People who have premarital sex and then get married later to someone else aren't missing that connection.

An argument I often hear is that premarital sex is bad because sex was originally designed for procreation. Sex for pleasure isn't about making babies, so it's using it in a way other than what was originally intended. But using something in a way other than what was originally intended is not inherently bad. If you use a hammer as a paper weight, you're not acting immorally.

What problems does anybody have with my arguments so far?

Wow, I really don't know where to begin. You seem to assume that sex is some sort of a contact sport, simply for pleasure, and that through shere willpower we can separate the love from the sex...you couldn't be more wrong.

It's wrong to assume that sex can be just for pleasure, because science proves that to be wrong. There's a hormone in a woman that is only released during two times in her life. One of those times is when she's nursing, and the other time is when she's having sex. What this hormone does is literally gives this woman a bond of connection with that man. (or baby) You ever wonder why so many women are stuck in messed up relationships? It's because they had sex, and now she hates him, but she is committed to him nonetheless.

Answer me this: if sex can be reduced to a mere contact sport, why then is rape so traumatizing? If sex can be separated from love my our own thoughts, why then do so many women spend the rest of their lives shattered because of such bad sexual experiences? According to you, sex is like drinking hot chocolate. Now...if someone where to shove me to the ground and make me drink hot cocoa...admittedly that would be weird...but it would not carry the same psychological trauma as being raped. To reduce sex to such a transient pleasure like hot chocolate is not only stupid, it's blatantly wrong. Such an attitude and way of thinking about sex is what gives rapists their justification. It's dead wrong. Continuing to regard sex as a mere contact sport is the reason that the number of rapes continue to rise each year.

I can see why people reduce sex to just pleasure. It is because that is how certain low life people live. Their lives are a mere progression of one transient pleasure to the next. They want uncommitted sex because it is just that: a mere transient pleasure. So they will use whatever argument possible to try to equalize sex with a simple cup of hot chocolate. (honestly, when was the last time you woke up with a cup of cocoa and it started talking to you?)

So I say let us be upright and righteous people and conduct ourselves in a righteous manner. Let us acknowledge sexual relations for what they are. Regarding sex as a transient pleasure violates the dignity of who we are as human beings. Let us respect all human beings and preserve our human dignity. Let us live lives of sexual morality.
Cursed Lemon
Darren Helm's Bitch
Cursed Lemon's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 14,766
Subtract from Cursed Lemon's ReputationAdd to Cursed Lemon's Reputation Cursed Lemon IS OVER 9000 Cursed Lemon IS OVER 9000 Cursed Lemon IS OVER 9000 Cursed Lemon IS OVER 9000 Cursed Lemon IS OVER 9000 Cursed Lemon IS OVER 9000 Cursed Lemon IS OVER 9000 Cursed Lemon IS OVER 9000 Cursed Lemon IS OVER 9000 Cursed Lemon IS OVER 9000 Cursed Lemon IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to Cursed Lemon Send a message via MSN to Cursed Lemon Send a message via Yahoo to Cursed Lemon
#397
01-10-2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesegrady87
Wow, I really don't know where to begin. You seem to assume that sex is some sort of a contact sport, simply for pleasure, and that through shere willpower we can separate the love from the sex...you couldn't be more wrong.

It's wrong to assume that sex can be just for pleasure, because science proves that to be wrong. There's a hormone in a woman that is only released during two times in her life. One of those times is when she's nursing, and the other time is when she's having sex. What this hormone does is literally gives this woman a bond of connection with that man. (or baby) You ever wonder why so many women are stuck in messed up relationships? It's because they had sex, and now she hates him, but she is committed to him nonetheless.

Answer me this: if sex can be reduced to a mere contact sport, why then is rape so traumatizing? If sex can be separated from love my our own thoughts, why then do so many women spend the rest of their lives shattered because of such bad sexual experiences? According to you, sex is like drinking hot chocolate. Now...if someone where to shove me to the ground and make me drink hot cocoa...admittedly that would be weird...but it would not carry the same psychological trauma as being raped. To reduce sex to such a transient pleasure like hot chocolate is not only stupid, it's blatantly wrong. Such an attitude and way of thinking about sex is what gives rapists their justification. It's dead wrong. Continuing to regard sex as a mere contact sport is the reason that the number of rapes continue to rise each year.

I can see why people reduce sex to just pleasure. It is because that is how certain low life people live. Their lives are a mere progression of one transient pleasure to the next. They want uncommitted sex because it is just that: a mere transient pleasure. So they will use whatever argument possible to try to equalize sex with a simple cup of hot chocolate. (honestly, when was the last time you woke up with a cup of cocoa and it started talking to you?)

So I say let us be upright and righteous people and conduct ourselves in a righteous manner. Let us acknowledge sexual relations for what they are. Regarding sex as a transient pleasure violates the dignity of who we are as human beings. Let us respect all human beings and preserve our human dignity. Let us live lives of sexual morality.
Um, okay...well...first of all, no. Hormones don't "literally" give them a connection. A person's emotions are a person's emotions, they can't help how they feel. Some people are fit for uncommitted sex and some people aren't. Problems arise when people of different sexual values start getting intimate.

Women are traumatized by rape because they (those particular women) CAN'T separate sex from emotion. Or, in some cases, they feel that they have been completely overpowered and then feel they aren't anything more than an object. It's as simple as that.

All you've got is "it's wrong". Come up with something better. Your use of the word "low life" for people who like sex really invites some serious comments from me, but I'll be the "upright and righteous person here".


Elmo <3
The Colostomizer
REP FOR THE REP GOD
The Colostomizer's Avatar
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 290,211
Subtract from The Colostomizer's ReputationAdd to The Colostomizer's Reputation The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000 The Colostomizer IS OVER 9000
#398
01-10-2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesegrady87
Wow, I really don't know where to begin. You seem to assume that sex is some sort of a contact sport, simply for pleasure, and that through shere willpower we can separate the love from the sex...you couldn't be more wrong.
I don't think that sex is only for pleasure or that it should be, I think that it can be if you let it. You don't need much willpower to have sex with someone you don't love. If you made use of the services provided by a prostitute, would you automatically love her?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesegrady87
It's wrong to assume that sex can be just for pleasure, because science proves that to be wrong. There's a hormone in a woman that is only released during two times in her life. One of those times is when she's nursing, and the other time is when she's having sex. What this hormone does is literally gives this woman a bond of connection with that man. (or baby) You ever wonder why so many women are stuck in messed up relationships? It's because they had sex, and now she hates him, but she is committed to him nonetheless.
So a prostitute develops a bond of connection with every guy she has sex with? That hormone doesn't do what you say it does; it couldn't possibly. Lots of women are stuck in messed up relationships because they say that they love the guy, but they don't define love. Sex is not involved in every messed up relationship, and when it does cause problems, it's because the two people value sex differently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesegrady87
Answer me this: if sex can be reduced to a mere contact sport, why then is rape so traumatizing? If sex can be separated from love my our own thoughts, why then do so many women spend the rest of their lives shattered because of such bad sexual experiences? According to you, sex is like drinking hot chocolate. Now...if someone where to shove me to the ground and make me drink hot cocoa...admittedly that would be weird...but it would not carry the same psychological trauma as being raped. To reduce sex to such a transient pleasure like hot chocolate is not only stupid, it's blatantly wrong. Such an attitude and way of thinking about sex is what gives rapists their justification. It's dead wrong. Continuing to regard sex as a mere contact sport is the reason that the number of rapes continue to rise each year.
Rape is traumatizing because the woman is forced give up something that's very important to her, and she has absolutely no control over the situation. Rapists don't have a justification. They do it because they get a kick out of controlling their victims and they don't care about the legal and moral consequences. Rapes don't occur because the rapists reduce sex to pleasure. Rape isn't even about pleasure, it's about control. If it was about pleasure, rapists would sit at home and jank it all day. My analogy was useful to describe how sex for pleasure is good but better when it's meaningful. It's not a good analogy to describe the consequences of having sex forced upon you. Once again, I'm not saying that sex is nothing more than pleasure, I'm just saying it can be if you let it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesegrady87
I can see why people reduce sex to just pleasure. It is because that is how certain low life people live. Their lives are a mere progression of one transient pleasure to the next. They want uncommitted sex because it is just that: a mere transient pleasure. So they will use whatever argument possible to try to equalize sex with a simple cup of hot chocolate. (honestly, when was the last time you woke up with a cup of cocoa and it started talking to you?)
If you don't think that sex can be solely about pleasure, then you will not be able to understand why other people think it can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesegrady87
So I say let us be upright and righteous people and conduct ourselves in a righteous manner. Let us acknowledge sexual relations for what they are. Regarding sex as a transient pleasure violates the dignity of who we are as human beings. Let us respect all human beings and preserve our human dignity. Let us live lives of sexual morality.
So I say we should do whatever we feel like, as long as we don't interfere with the rights of others. Let us acknowledge sexual relations as what they are. Regarding sex as something that can't ever be had just because it feels good deprives us of the right to experience pleasure. Let us respect all human beings and preserve our human dignity, which will in no way be compromised by casual sex for people who have no irrational stigmas associated with it. Let us live lives of sexual morality by having sex responsibly, and let us refrain from calling other people "low-lifes" and "stupid".

Last edited by The Colostomizer; 01-10-2006 at 05:37 PM.
cheesegrady87
Level 11
cheesegrady87's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 66
Subtract from cheesegrady87's ReputationAdd to cheesegrady87's Reputation cheesegrady87 is a novice
#399
01-10-2006
Default this is going to go for a while I bet.

"If you don't think that sex can be solely about pleasure, then you will not be able to understand why other people think it can."

Man what a wonderful statement. So basically what you're trying to tell me is that because I don't agree with your opinion, I can't understand your opinion. I understand your opinion. You're trying to say that sex CAN be solely about pleasure. I am saying that sex CANNOT be boiled down simply to pleasure.

Trying to say that sex is only about pleasure is pretty much the same as saying eating is solely about pleasure. Yes, I will agree, pleasure is certainly an aspect of eating, but eating food cannot be boiled down simply to pleasure. Because eating also nourishes you. It gives you the vital things necessary to survival. Based on what you eat, it can make you fat, or it can make you healthy. You can most certainly abuse the pleasure of eating. If you eat wrong, you'll get fat. If you eat right, you'll hopefully be healthy.

Sex works in the same way. Pleasure is certainly an aspect of it. I'm certainly not in denial of it. I am saying that when you try to make pleasure the only aspect of sex worth looking at, you're missing the point. When you eat, you cannot turn on the pleasure and turn off the health affects. Likewise, when you have sex and try to turn off the psychological bonding with you partner and turn on the pleasure, you're doing something that fundamentally disagrees with the nature of the action.

People like to think they can turn off the emotion, and turn on the pleasure. Griffin, obviously you disagree. But seeing as how the both of us are woefully inexperienced when it comes to sex, I don't think either you nor I have much credibility when arguing for either side.

We therefore have to go off what we've heard from others and our own observations. Think of the more "sexually liberated" promiscuous people in our school. It seems to me that those are generally the people who don't have much moral reasoning in other parts of their lives as well. In fact, those teenages who do engage in promiscuity are generally the more depressed, drama obsessed strange teenage person. Now I know you'll probably say something to the affect of "oh well you're making assumptions." "Quit judging." "why should a few bad eggs spoil the fun for the rest of us." etc. I am not trying to judge, I am just analyzing what I have observed. I am just saying that the more upbeat happy people in this world are generally those who have a set of morals in the realm of sexuality. Looking at that, I think it's fair to say that the people who don't engage in promiscuous sex have something figured out...and that something figured out is definetley worth looking into.

oh and one more thing: whoever said something about women being traumatized and it's somehow their own fault: I dare you...I really dare you to say that to a woman who's been raped.

Oh yeah, and here's on emore thing: When scientific studies are conducted, the people who not only have the most sex, but the most satisfying sex are not the permiscuous people you would expect. The people with the most satisfying sex lives are married christians.
cheesegrady87
Level 11
cheesegrady87's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 66
Subtract from cheesegrady87's ReputationAdd to cheesegrady87's Reputation cheesegrady87 is a novice
#400
01-10-2006
Default

So long story short: the internet sucks.

I just wrote a huge response, and for some reason I post click and something or another "timed out." Admittedly I probably should have saved it somewhere else, but I blame the internet.

Basically, the long story short is that sex CANNOT be reduced to solely pleasure.

Pleasure is certainly an aspect of sex, and a good thing. However, the claim that you CAN make sex just about pleasure is like saying you CAN make eating just about pleasure. Pleasure is one aspect of eating among others. Eating is also about nourishment and sustaining. It would be wrong for a man to walk up to a sandwhich and tell the sandwhich, "I'm going to get pleasure out of you, but disregard the nutrition you provide." The pleasure and the nutrition (or lack thereof depending on the sandwhich) are inseparable. You can certainly say "I'm experiencing only the pleasure of this sandwhich, and not the nutrition," all you want. But you would be wrong.

So I strongly encourage you to analyze what we get out of sex. I'll be the first to admit that pleasure is certainly an aspect of sex. But it is not the only. Sex is also about bonding yourself with your partner, an unavoidable psychological bond. If sex could be boiled down to mere pleasure, then casual sex and prostitution would certainly be acceptable sexual outlets. (I'm not sure about your views on prostitution, but you really are lost if you argue that prostitution is okay.) The point is, saying you can experience only the pleasure of sex and disregard the bonding is like saying you can take only the pleasure of the sandwhich and disregard the nutrition.

Saying that the issue is only an issue when people disagree on the standards of sexual morality is also inacurate. You can say all you want that the sandwhich has no nutrition. You can yell at that sandwhich 'til you're blue in the face, telling the sandwhich not to force it's values onto you. You can certainly disagree with the sandwhich all you want. (this is america, I won't let a sandwhich tell me what to think.) but that won't change the fact of the matter. The sandwhich is what it is regardless of how much you disagree with it.

Sex is what it. Separating the pleasure from the bonding is not possible.

Yell at that sandwhich as much as you want, it won't change the nature of that sandwhich.

(man that turned out a lot longer than I thought it would be. I think I like this draft much more than the first.)
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off