And since I’m not forcing anyone else to do anything, that’s all I need to do. It’s the people who want to impose their rules on others who need to come up with something better than “it’s just my opinion”.
Then you need to show that it does. And that stopping them won’t cause more harm than letting do what they want will.
No, because they are trying to force their will on others. It’s not at all the same thing. And people who oppose “freedom and happiness” aren’t moral; they are practically cliche evil. They aren’t trying to protect people, but to harm them.
You can’t put people who just want to have fun and harm no one else, and people who ( according to you ! ) are actively trying to spread misery and tyranny in the same category.
So are there any limits to sex? Just jump in the sack with someone as soon as your loins start that thing that they do? 11 or 12 year old kids? 13? 14? Gang bangs?
It seems as everyone has their own morality in play, but we just want to set it at a different point that the traditional view.
Oh, please. The tired old slippery slope, let people have sex when they want and they’ll start having sex with kids/dogs/fallen logs argument.
What part of “consenting adult” do you not understand ? As for your attempt to pretend that both sides of the argument are the same, AGAIN I’ll point out the obvious difference that one side is trying to run other people’s lives, and the other is not.
But, but, it’s their right to freedom of religion to legislate against us having sex!
After all, what I do in my own bedroom somehow infringes their rights to their contrived moral indignation and self-righteous claptrap.
The same argument comes up with gay marriage: what if someone wants to marry a goat? This is where their minds directly go, and supposedly gay people are the sick ones.
It similarly holds true for sex outside of wedlock. It just doesn’t add up in any fashion whatsoever I’ve ever had the displeasure to suffer through.
How our intrepid reader doesn’t understand that what people choose to do (or not) with their own bodies puts them in a completely different class than people who want to make them do (or not) something with their bodies. You quite correctly pointed this out a couple of times, yet the point doesn’t seem to get through.
So, I’ll attempt to offer my two cents:
Your right to decide what people can or cannot do with their own bodies stops the very moment the body in question is no longer yours. To force your decisions on people simply because you don’t like what they do is immoral. It essentially denies from these people one of the central tenets of the major cause of abstinence only education (read Christians), which is free will. People are endowed with the ability to decide to do what they please with their own bodies.
To prevent people from doing so, you must show that the conduct in question is objectively and likely to do great harm to others (in some cases themselves). Having sex all by itself isn’t inherently harmful (provided you’re doing it right anyway.) There are, of course, risks involved with having sex. There are risks, of course, involved with eating dinner, taking a shower, driving, crossing the street, growing old and every other activity in the world. If that’s not enough, there’s a degree of risk involved with not doing activities. You literally are potentially damned if you do, or damned if you don’t.
But that’s not the deciding factor. The determining factor is essentially that people are, by mere virtue of being alive, allowed to weigh the costs and benefits of some particular action. It is for them alone to decide if the benefit outweighs the potential risk. For you step in and try to shove some contrived version of morality down their throats to prevent them from enjoying their lives is quite simply the very definition of immoral.
Essentially you’re saying that your freewill to do whatever you want to do (even if it’s to another person against their consent) is more important than their freewill to do themselves the things they want to do, which best suits their own purposes.
(please note that you is generalized here, not specific to anyone in this thread).
I wasn’t saying that at all. But since we are abandoning the “Wait until you are married line”, what do we tell the kids? Do we say that casual sex is okay?
Then you’ve missed the last couple hundred years of laws in the United States. The religious right, per force, have sought to make some kinds of sex a crime. Fortunately, just recently the United States Supreme Court resolved their fight against ye olde fashioned blowjob.
There is a movement afoot to make abstinence only sex education carry the force of law. For a good example, I’ll just refer you to the period January 20, 2001 through January 20, 2009. It seems that their morality is that it’s better to have sex-having, knocked-up, disease laden young people than simply just sex-having. When confronted with the realistic options, their answer is that their having sex isn’t enough! Pregnancies and STIs around! Then again, when are they ever reasonable in what they choose to politicize, and how they do so?
The answer most commonly given to children is “wait until you’re ready”. I think that’s a reasonable approach. Why is there some need in this country to draw arbitrary lines in the sand for certain things? Instead, it would seem to be far more reasonable to recognize that people mature at different rates; there are some 16 year olds who are undoubtedly more mature than some 18 year olds. Yet the latter, per force of law, is allowed to vote as willy nilly as it wants whereas the far more mature 16 year old is, alas, not.
Apparently, he and I were responding at about the same time. I have children, and I encourage them to make the best choices possible. But there is nothing inherently bad with having sex, (provided, again, you’re doing it right). What’s the best choice possible for each of my children? Well, that’s something they’ll have to decide when confronted with the issue.
The best I can do is equip them with the best possible information and have discussions with them. But, like any parent, at the end of the day, they will ultimately make the decision themselves. I just have to trust that the information I’ve given them, and the conversations we’ve had about this, or any other subject really, factors into their decisions. I realize that at some point my children will, barring some accident, become sexually active. I would much prefer they do so with full knowledge of what it entails so that they can take steps to protect themselves rather than pretending that telling them “you can’t have sex until you’re ____” and hoping they buy that line of bullshit.
As Whoppi Goldberg said: they’re going have sex because, well, sex feels good.
That most everybody does it is 1 thing. That most everybody thinks it’s OK is 2 things. That there’s no logical reason for declaring it wrong is 3 things. That people have a powerful emotional need for sexual fulfilment is 4 things.
The idea that you can’t prove a negative applies to morality as well: It’s up to those who think it is immoral to prove it.
We’re not talking about occasional lapses of correct behavior, like the example of lying you gae earlier. Some degree of sexual experience before marraige is widely considered part of the model for a normal life. If you’ve been in a romantic relationship for months and you haven’t consummated it, or you’re still a virgin at age 30, it begins to raise questions that there may be something dysfuntional. It’s not analagous to being the one person who goes through life never telling a lie.
[/quote]
It’s not up to me to “think” something is wrong. There have to be good reasons. If there are, chances are I’ll go along with the consensus.
There are still some people who think “fornication” is a sin. This isn’t all just about you.
What I’m really getting at in this thread is that people like educators and politicians–and indeed religious leaders–should stop sidestepping the issue and get with the program in urging young peopl to wait unitl they’re 18, use contraceptives dilligently, etc, etc, rather than be intimidated by a small but vocal cadre of superstitious social conservatives for whom that’s not good enough.
Depends how pedantic you want to be about the term “risk”. Is there a non-zero risk of developing an STD or knocking some girl up? Yes. Is it an acceptable risk if you take proper precautions? Usually.
That’s a little nebulous for me. I can’t be responsible for the entire species. I can only make choices that are rational and practical for me. Let the other 6 billion people worry about the species.
Allow me to point out the glaring gap in your logic. What people do in the bedroom does not affect society at large. It may affect their own personal lives and they will have to deal with the consequences of their choices, but that is a choice they are capable of making.
Hey, it’s great that we have sexual liberation. I can knock as many girls up as I feel like and the state foots the bill while they do the heavy lifting. What’s not to like?
