Should condoms be handed out

[Subduction Zone]

@ADigitalArtist
I believe you may be right about what you said occurred in Biblical times, but the Law in the Bible is trying to channel people in to getting married first. You can see that from Exodus 22:16. I don't argue with you regarding the price of contraceptives, but if sex education taught properly abstinence only you'd be getting a better result than teaching a "comprehensive sex education".

Nope, it has been tried and failed. Abstinence only leads to a rise in abortions. If you are anti-abortion you should be anti-abstinence only.

 

[Polymath257]

@Subduction Zone
The Bible teaches against illicit sex, so those who engage in it are indeed spiritually weak.

This assumes that the Bible is correct. And so it does not apply to those of a different religious tradition (or no such tradition).

Illicit sex is any sexual activity prohibited by law or moral convention; unlawful or improper under the accepted codes of a given society such as incest, adultery, and pedophilia or prohibited by religious law, such as sodomy and oral sex.

Well then, this means that sex outside of marriage, that otherwise does not involve dishonesty, is NOT illicit since the majority of people in this society approve of it.

Religious law is irrelevant to those who are not practicing that specific religion. And, in a secular society, the government is not in the business of picking one religion over others. So sodomy and oral sex, which most definitely *are* approved of by most people, are NOT illicit.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

That does not support your claim. Why give the Bible any credence at all? If you want to cite the Bible you need to demonstrate that it is a reliable source.

And you appear to have a poor understanding of the Bible. If by "sodomy" you mean anal sex that is not forbidden. Go ahead, see if you can find a verse that bans it. The closest that you will come is its opposition to gay sex. And oral sex is approved of. Read the Song of Solomon if you doubt me.

@Subduction Zone
I hope I don't have a poor understanding of the Bible. In terms of anal and oral sex, all sex which doesn't result in the penetration of the vagina by the penis is not Biblical. I know that people would have you believe that any type of sex is fine, but it's simply not true. Matter of fact, such types of sex are Tōʻēḇā (an abomination). The Song of Songs, also Song of Solomon or Canticles, is one of the megillot found in the last section of the Tanakh, known as the Ketuvim, and a book of the Old Testament. The Song of Songs is unique within the Hebrew Bible and it is an allegory to represent the relationship between the Messiah and His people and Satan, who is trying to divert Yahweh's people away from the Messiah.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone
I hope I don't have a poor understanding of the Bible. In terms of anal and oral sex, all sex which doesn't result in the penetration of the vagina by the penis is not Biblical. I know that people would have you believe that any type of sex is fine, but it's simply not true. Matter of fact, such types of sex are Tōʻēḇā (an abomination). The Song of Songs, also Song of Solomon or Canticles, is one of the megillot found in the last section of the Tanakh, known as the Ketuvim, and a book of the Old Testament. The Song of Songs is unique within the Hebrew Bible and it is an allegory to represent the relationship between the Messiah and His people and Satan, who is trying to divert Yahweh's people away from the Messiah.

I am pretty sure that my reading comprehension of the Bible is better than yours. You seem to have too many prejudices to read what it says and to understand it.

And no, the Song of Solomon has nothing to do with Jesus. You are trying to put a false meaning into those verses. Reinterpreting the Bible after the fact will always lead to error.

You failed to show why anyone should respect the Bible in the first place. Large parts of it are just myths anyway. Also you failed to show how the Bible bans oral sex or anal sex.

 

[Enoch07]

By what you said, if you have sex with more than one person, you are then married to both. Sex=marriage, right?

The divorce clause hehe.

Right. I was talking about with no divorce.

Without divorce then it's considered adultery. Except maybe in some cases like in the Bible. When one person isn't capable of having children then if both agree to bring in a fertile person who is willing then so be it.

So it is a mistake to take Biblical pronouncements as the rules for today?

Not in all cases. It's up to us to discern and provide balance for the times we live in. We can't very well go bashing peoples head in with rocks anymore and such. Even if it was socially acceptable 2,000 years ago.

The immorality, in my mind, isn't the sex. It is failing to live up to responsibilities.

I agree wholeheartedly. The only place where we disagree here is what those responsibilities they are. Not a huge difference of opinion really.

And having sex with them prior to marriage is one aspect of that

Meh yes and no.

I know it's hard for some people to accept.

But sex is not near as important as people think. So much more is important in a relationship. Besides good sex can be learned with practice. Morals and content of character are much harder to develop.

Birth rates are down, which is probably a good thing (although it needs to happen worldwide).

I disagree there. Even though overpopulation will tax our resources and the environment. A base number of people is required to maintain civilized society. It may be hard for an academic to understand. But once there is not enough people willing to take care of the sewage system, power, water, and other infrastructure society will begin to degrade at an exponential rate. We are steadily approaching this time now already (within 100-200 years by my estimation). It is already very hard to find people willing and with the education/skills do do these jobs anymore. Neil Degrasse Tyson is a brilliant scientist, but he is not crawling on his hands and knees through an active sewer with a 3,000 psi snake drain to unclog a pipe that's been stopped up with a grease.

The nuclear family was a relatively modern invention. The death of the extended family was a really important one. That of the nuclear family much less so.

It needs to make a comeback imo. If people would act right we could end so much poverty, drug addiction, crime, and abuse just by working hard to maintain a family home of 2 dedicated parents raising 3 or more children.

And I would discourage the practice of irresponsible sex. But then, I would discourage the practice of irresponsibility in general. Sex just isn't the main issue here, I think.

I agree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@Subduction Zone
The Bible teaches against illicit sex, so those who engage in it are indeed spiritually weak. Illicit sex is any sexual activity prohibited by law or moral convention; unlawful or improper under the accepted codes of a given society such as incest, adultery, and pedophilia or prohibited by religious law, such as sodomy and oral sex.

I don't think highly of your views, but I respect your right to live by them. If you want to continue to have this respect from me, pay it forward.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

Yes, definitely they should be handed out. What some religion teaches is irrelevant. If you're opposed, don't take one but you should have no right to block sexual healthcare for others. Also, I have my own religion which is completely the opposite of yours in many ways. Concepts such as "sin" aren't a part of it.

I am pretty sure that my reading comprehension of the Bible is better than yours. You seem to have too many prejudices to read what it says and to understand it.

And no, the Song of Solomon has nothing to do with Jesus. You are trying to put a false meaning into those verses. Reinterpreting the Bible after the fact will always lead to error.

You failed to show why anyone should respect the Bible in the first place. Large parts of it are just myths anyway. Also you failed to show how the Bible bans oral sex or anal sex.

@Subduction Zone
Well I could go through the Song of Solomon verse by verse and show you why I believe it relates to the relationship between the Messiah and His people, but that would take a long time. All I can do is ask you to re-read the book sometime in this light. It sure isn't advocating anal or oral sex, that I can be sure of, no matter how much wishful thinking you want to occupy. Song of Solomon is an interesting book. If you are carnal minded, you'll read in to it carnal things, but if you're spiritually minded, you'll read in to it spiritual things.

Nowhere in the Bible is there any mention of Yahweh's people engaging in anal or oral sex. That in itself should be enough to tell you that it is not approved. As a matter of fact, it's quite laughable that this would even be the case. You already know about Leviticus 18:22. The message is that the types of sex homosexuals engage in are not Biblically approved, and Yahweh will never validate any of those types of sex.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

@Subduction Zone
Well I could go through the Song of Solomon verse by verse and show you why I believe it relates to the relationship between the Messiah and His people, but that would take a long time. All I can do is ask you to re-read the book sometime in this light. It sure isn't advocating anal or oral sex, that I can be sure of, no matter how much wishful thinking you want to occupy. Song of Solomon is an interesting book. If you are carnal minded, you'll read in to it carnal things, but if you're spiritually minded, you'll read in to it spiritual things.

Nowhere in the Bible is there any mention of Yahweh's people engaging in anal or oral sex. That in itself should be enough to tell you that it is not approved. As a matter of fact, it's quite laughable that this would even be the case. You already know about Leviticus 18:22. The message is that the types of sex homosexuals engage in are not Biblically approved, and Yahweh will never validate any of those types of sex.

I don't know why you quoted me. I don't care what your book says and it should not be the basis of public policy, anyway.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone
Well I could go through the Song of Solomon verse by verse and show you why I believe it relates to the relationship between the Messiah and His people, but that would take a long time. All I can do is ask you to re-read the book sometime in this light. It sure isn't advocating anal or oral sex, that I can be sure of, no matter how much wishful thinking you want to occupy. Song of Solomon is an interesting book. If you are carnal minded, you'll read in to it carnal things, but if you're spiritually minded, you'll read in to it spiritual things.

Nowhere in the Bible is there any mention of Yahweh's people engaging in anal or oral sex. That in itself should be enough to tell you that it is not approved. As a matter of fact, it's quite laughable that this would even be the case. You already know about Leviticus 18:22. The message is that the types of sex homosexuals engage in are not Biblically approved, and Yahweh will never validate any of those types of sex.

Not really. Odds are that you will take verses out of context and at best use a special pleading argument. It must be read in context. And let's stop the false accusations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know why you quoted me. I don't care what your book says and it should not be the basis of public policy, anyway.

He may be new to using forums.

But since I forgot to bring this up in my last post he still has not found any verses against either anal or oral sex. Within a marriage I have seen countless Christians claim that they are fine if both partners agree to it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just came across this rather humorous image in facebook (FSM page):

 

[ADigitalArtist]

@ADigitalArtist
I believe you may be right about what you said occurred in Biblical times, but the Law in the Bible is trying to channel people in to getting married first. You can see that from Exodus 22:16. I don't argue with you regarding the price of contraceptives, but if sex education taught properly abstinence only you'd be getting a better result than teaching a "comprehensive sex education".

That is emphatically not true. Places that teach abstinence only have much higher unwanted pregnancies and std.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Look around, technology is slowly killing skill.

I've seen some claim humans have evolved to live longer. That is BS IMO.

However our technology has evolved which allows us to live longer.

Take away just only two things; medicine's and electricity and millions upon millions would die. That's not evolving to live longer, it's becoming dependant on technology to live.

Billions of people would die within a month if they had to survive on only what was used 150 years ago. That is evidence we are becoming a weak species and dependant on technology.

An interesting post. And certainly, there is truth in what you say about our dependence on technology. But I'm not sure that I'd use the word "weak." A changed species, for certain, as other species that have, through adopting parasitism, have become dependent on their hosts.

I'd go further and say that since technology can change (can I use the word "adapt?") far more quickly than living species, that in itself may turn out to be a strength. (A strength as far as species survival goes, anyway. We may yet find ourselves akin to the Borg.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I just came across this rather humorous image in facebook (FSM page):

Extra weird.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's exactly like handing out free syringes to drug addicts.

I see your point, but you really should consider that the word "addict" strongly suggests that without that free (sterile) syringe, the addict will opt for the "next best choice," which could very well be a fatal decision.

It is, to be sure, a serious dilemma. But which do you prefer, a living drug addict or a dead, if frail, human?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

@Subduction Zone
The Bible teaches against illicit sex, so those who engage in it are indeed spiritually weak. Illicit sex is any sexual activity prohibited by law or moral convention; unlawful or improper under the accepted codes of a given society such as incest, adultery, and pedophilia or prohibited by religious law, such as sodomy and oral sex.

So you are saying that "religious law" defines what is illicit? Does that mean any religious law, or only the religious law that you believe in? And does the religious law you believe in therefore apply to everybody else, even though they don't believe in it? (You might not have heard, but there are at least several religions out there, and they all seem to have their own rules.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The Song of Songs is unique within the Hebrew Bible and it is an allegory to represent the relationship between the Messiah and His people and Satan, who is trying to divert Yahweh's people away from the Messiah.

Rubbish. Song of Songs is erotic poetry, and every culture has had similar. It has always struck me as ludicrous nonsense to try and frame it as "allegory of a relationship between God and Israel (as Jewish tradition would have it) or between Christ and his "bride" the church (as Christians would have it.)

Like Lady Chatterley's Lover is an allegory for a love of gardening! Pooh!

 

[Komori]

simple way to avoid that harm.

The simple way to avoid that harm is to not have sex outside of marriage. It's not difficult at all.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The simple way to avoid that harm is to not have sex outside of marriage. It's not difficult at all.

Getting married doesn't obviate the need for contraceptive. My husband and I use two forms, because we don't want children. (Not biological ones anyway.)

But more importantly 'it's not difficult to not have sex' people seem to continuously miss that those places that attempt to impose stricter sexual guidelines have more, not less, unwanted pregnancies and stds. So the sentiment is like saying 'avoiding hugs is not difficult.' Well, sure. But it doesn't make you a more well-adjusted person to do so.

 

[Polymath257]

The simple way to avoid that harm is to not have sex outside of marriage. It's not difficult at all.

And while true, it also denies the benefits. Most of life is a trade off between harms and benefits.