Universal religious sexual taboos... How stupid can one be?

[rusra02]

Can you support this claim?

I think STDs alone are sufficient, but there is much more evidence that sex outside of marriage is harmful. God's standard of monogamy provides security for family members and stability in society, largely lost today, IMO. (Hebrews 13:4)

 

[Sunstone]

After some meditation, I think that the only clear taboo that all religions seem to agree on is the fact that you must have sexual taboos. However, they fail to ever agree really on what these taboos are... Thus, they seem completely arbitrary. It seems as though the only purpose is create an arbitrary condition of what defines one as a socially-acceptable adult within a specific relative tribe. What are your thoughts?

There seems to be a biological or rather genetic basis for some taboos, such as taboos against incest. But how that genetic basis is manifested varies from culture to culture. In humans, biology is not destiny.

 

[Sunstone]

I think STDs alone are sufficient, but there is much more evidence that sex outside of marriage is harmful. God's standard of monogamy provides security for family members and stability in society, largely lost today, IMO. (Hebrews 13:4)

The fact of STDs is not sufficient reason to avoid having several sex partners during one's life time. In the first place, it is not inevitable that one will get an STD from having several sex partners. In the second place, most STDs are curable. It's no different than driving an automobile. We do not call the risk of an accident proof that God does not want us to drive, and we should not call the risk of a STD proof that God does not want us to have more than one partner.

 

[rusra02]

Again, I believe what matters is not the shifting views of men, but God's standards for those he created. Homosexual marriage may be accepted by governments of men, but this does not negate the effects of such conduct on those engaging in it, and their families.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Again, I believe what matters is not the shifting views of men, but God's standards for those he created. Homosexual marriage may be accepted by governments of men, but this does not negate the effects of such conduct on those engaging in it, and their families.

I think that the real problem with "God's standards" is that they tend to be the shifting views of men, such as yourself. Usually they are the views of kings and other prominent people choosing what rules they think are convenient. If God has a standard it will be obvious from evidence that it is the best way to live.

 

[leibowde84]

I think STDs alone are sufficient, but there is much more evidence that sex outside of marriage is harmful. God's standard of monogamy provides security for family members and stability in society, largely lost today, IMO. (Hebrews 13:4)

Well, that is one example, but there are other things to consider that make sex before marriage desirable to allow for a lasting marriage. I've always been under the impression that sexual compatibility is extremely important. If people get married before they have sex, they might soon realize that they aren't satisfied with each other, and they will find satisfaction elsewhere. It is also important to live together before getting married to see whether you actually get along as well as you think you do. But, that is just my opinion on the matter. My point is that it is not as cut and dry as you claim.

 

[Demonslayer]

Again, I believe what matters is not the shifting views of men, but God's standards for those he created. Homosexual marriage may be accepted by governments of men, but this does not negate the effects of such conduct on those engaging in it, and their families.

"God's standards" on sexuality...what are those again? Before Yahweh was invented, the old Gods didn't demand heterosexual monogamy as the only acceptable way to live. Homosexuality was no big deal, in fact, in society before Christianity came along.

Heck, even the Old Testament is full of prominent figures that had multiple wives, concubines, all completely sanctioned by the Christian God. Exodus 21:10 clearly allows for multiple wives, as does Deuteronomy 21:15. Heck God actually gave concubines to David I believe. God also allows for divorce in Matthew 19:8.

In no way is it clear that "God"...even if your talking about the Christian God...mandates one man one woman for life, heterosexual only, and no sex outside of marriage. You can find as many passages in the Bible that reject these things as you can that demand them. The laser focus on homosexuality has nothing to do with God's standards and everything to do with a certain group of modern human beings pushing their ideals...not God's...on everyone.

 

[cambridge79]

Again, I believe what matters is not the shifting views of men, but God's standards for those he created. Homosexual marriage may be accepted by governments of men, but this does not negate the effects of such conduct on those engaging in it, and their families.

how many people on earth feel the need to have sex with a dolphin? No one? some very few that we consider have some sexual disorder?
if god was so keen about his sexual standard he should have simply removed the desire from all human hearts to have sex with people from their same gender just like he did with the desire of having sex with a dolphin. Apparently he didn't.

For example, i don't have homosexual sex.
It's not something that i want to do but i don't practice cause i feel it's wrong. it's simply something i don't have the desire to do. Just like you i assume.
Why would god place this desire for homosexual sex in the heart of some men but not in mine?
Is it fair by him to do so? I won't have to live that struggle in my life, another man would have, things are so much easier for me. That would be a very childish way to play with our minds by him.

 

[rusra02]

"God's standards" on sexuality...what are those again? Before Yahweh was invented, the old Gods didn't demand heterosexual monogamy as the only acceptable way to live. Homosexuality was no big deal, in fact, in society before Christianity came along.

Heck, even the Old Testament is full of prominent figures that had multiple wives, concubines, all completely sanctioned by the Christian God. Exodus 21:10 clearly allows for multiple wives, as does Deuteronomy 21:15. Heck God actually gave concubines to David I believe. God also allows for divorce in Matthew 19:8.

In no way is it clear that "God"...even if your talking about the Christian God...mandates one man one woman for life, heterosexual only, and no sex outside of marriage. You can find as many passages in the Bible that reject these things as you can that demand them. The laser focus on homosexuality has nothing to do with God's standards and everything to do with a certain group of modern human beings pushing their ideals...not God's...on everyone.

I am convinced that Jehovah is the only true God. All other gods are false gods. While it is true God permitted polygamy for a time, this was not the case in the beginning. The only valid ground for divorce among Christians is marital infidelity on the part of one's spouse. Matthew 19:9 says; "I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery." Throughout the Bible, there is no question that Jehovah condemns homosexuality, as well as heterosexual immorality. These standards for human behavior were set by God, not man. I believe we ignore them to our peril. (1 Thessalonians 4:8)

 

[rusra02]

how many people on earth feel the need to have sex with a dolphin? No one? some very few that we consider have some sexual disorder?
if god was so keen about his sexual standard he should have simply removed the desire from all human hearts to have sex with people from their same gender just like he did with the desire of having sex with a dolphin. Apparently he didn't.

For example, i don't have homosexual sex.
It's not something that i want to do but i don't practice cause i feel it's wrong. it's simply something i don't have the desire to do. Just like you i assume.
Why would god place this desire for homosexual sex in the heart of some men but not in mine?
Is it fair by him to do so? I won't have to live that struggle in my life, another man would have, things are so much easier for me. That would be a very childish way to play with our minds by him.

God does not place wrong desires within us. James 1:13 assures us of this. "When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone." So where do these wrong desires come from? Because we inherited sinfulness from our first parents, the inclination of our hearts is to do what is bad. Jehovah said: "the inclination of the heart of man is bad from his youth up." (Genesis 8:21) I believe the influence of Satan, the wicked spirit who caused our first parents to sin, greatly increases the evil that men desire and practice. (1 John 5:19) I also believe that coming to know and love the true God gives us the motivation to obey his commands and to stop practices that harm ourselves and others. (1 Corinthians 6:9,10)

 

[cambridge79]

God does not place wrong desires within us. James 1:13 assures us of this. "When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone." So where do these wrong desires come from? Because we inherited sinfulness from our first parents, the inclination of our hearts is to do what is bad. Jehovah said: "the inclination of the heart of man is bad from his youth up." (Genesis 8:21) I believe the influence of Satan, the wicked spirit who caused our first parents to sin, greatly increases the evil that men desire and practice. (1 John 5:19) I also believe that coming to know and love the true God gives us the motivation to obey his commands and to stop practices that harm ourselves and others. (1 Corinthians 6:9,10)

what you believe can't possibly stand for a simple reason. If you believe that we inherited sinfulness and the inclination of our hearts is to do what is bad, than why would i do good things?
I completely reject god and all he represents.
Basically i'm embracing satan in your view, plus i have inherited sinfulness and my heart has the inclination to do what is bad.
Yet i dont indulge in homosexual sex. neither i kill or steal. nor i do drugs and other things. I'm actually compassioned probably more compassioante than you cause i won't judge and condamn people according to my own moral standards while you apparently do.
I should be the most doomed and wicked person on earth. Why am i not? No praise can be given to god in my case cause i totally reject him, i don't feel inspired by him or guided by him.

 

[Thanda]

Polygamy is fraught with problems, with jealousy and rivalry common among such arrangements. I think the fact that such arrangements exist does not make them good. Men in Latin American countries often have mistresses, while their families are neglected or even abused. My personal knowledge of some such families indicates to me these families are unhappy and suffer greatly.

My father and grand-father were polygamous. And while it is true that jealousy and rivalry are common in such arrangements it is also true that jealousy and rivalry are common with having multiple children. The reasons that make people have more than one wife or more than one child outweigh the possibility for rivalry or jealousy (which is in any event a choice).

 

[cambridge79]

My father and grand-father were polygamous. And while it is true that jealousy and rivalry are common in such arrangements it is also true that jealousy and rivalry are common with having multiple children. The reasons that make people have more than one wife or more than one child outweigh the possibility for rivalry or jealousy (which is in any event a choice).

That multiple wives multiple childrens analogy is quite a clever one i see.
I'm just curious about one thing here: would you accept polygamy for women too? If a woman could afford to marry many men, would you give her the freedom to do so? Or is it something we can accept only for males?

 

[Thanda]

Well, that is one example, but there are other things to consider that make sex before marriage desirable to allow for a lasting marriage. I've always been under the impression that sexual compatibility is extremely important. If people get married before they have sex, they might soon realize that they aren't satisfied with each other, and they will find satisfaction elsewhere. It is also important to live together before getting married to see whether you actually get along as well as you think you do. But, that is just my opinion on the matter. My point is that it is not as cut and dry as you claim.

While there is merit in what you say I must say, I have never been convinced by the living together before marriage argument. My reason for it is that most people who live together end up doing so for on average two years in the US and 7 years in the UK. That is quite a long time.
And I am of the opinion that those who then break up after cohabitation do so not because they were not compatible (two/seven years is a long time to live with someone with whom you're not compatible) but rather it is the lack of commitment that characterizes the arrangement itself. When you are married it is generally a lot harder to end things and it results in people thinking long and hard (including seeking solutions and exercising patience) before going through with it.
And as are very often a part of these unions I think you would prefer people took more time to think about the consequences of their breakup before going through with it.

 

[Thanda]

That multiple wives multiple childrens analogy is quite a clever one i see.
I'm just curious about one thing here: would you accept polygamy for women too? If a woman could afford to marry many men, would you give her the freedom to do so? Or is it something we can accept only for males?

It is something I accept only for males, generally. Each person wants to know who their biological child is from the moment it is conceived until birth. And no guy would really be interested in waiting around for a women to give birth (9 months), recover from the birth and nurse the child before he finally has an opportunity to have his own child (and that's just assuming he is next in line).

So actually I think it would be quite a self-selecting thing if it were opened up. Some few - very few - women would be able to pull it off if it were allowed. But generally I think even if it were allowed it would be a rare occurrence as a result of some of the things I've noted.

 

[cambridge79]

It is something I accept only for males, generally. Each person wants to know who their biological child is from the moment it is conceived until birth. And no guy would really be interested in waiting around for a women to give birth (9 months), recover from the birth and nurse the child before he finally has an opportunity to have his own child (and that's just assuming he is next in line).

So actually I think it would be quite a self-selecting thing if it were opened up. Some few - very few - women would be able to pull it off if it were allowed. But generally I think even if it were allowed it would be a rare occurrence as a result of some of the things I've noted.

don't want to seem rude but this absolutely reminds me that "doctor strangelove" scene here

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I think STDs alone are sufficient, but there is much more evidence that sex outside of marriage is harmful. God's standard of monogamy provides security for family members and stability in society, largely lost today, IMO. (Hebrews 13:4)

Do you feel bacteria ask people if they are monogamous?

Again, I believe what matters is not the shifting views of men, but God's standards for those he created. Homosexual marriage may be accepted by governments of men, but this does not negate the effects of such conduct on those engaging in it, and their families.

Jesus and Paul suggest celibacy is much better than having families period. Are you going to toss aside yours for Christ? And the only bad thing for families regarding gay marriages is when homophobes (and studies prove that many homophobes are just closeted gays) attack the family members they have suddenly decided are not worth God's love.

I am convinced that Jehovah is the only true God. All other gods are false gods. While it is true God permitted polygamy for a time, this was not the case in the beginning. The only valid ground for divorce among Christians is marital infidelity on the part of one's spouse. Matthew 19:9 says; "I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery." Throughout the Bible, there is no question that Jehovah condemns homosexuality, as well as heterosexual immorality. These standards for human behavior were set by God, not man. I believe we ignore them to our peril. (1 Thessalonians 4:8)

Yes, Adam and Eve were supposedly monogamous. They were also brother and sister (Eve could actually be considered a feminized clone of Adam, which means Adam could only screw himself with tits).

It is something I accept only for males, generally. Each person wants to know who their biological child is from the moment it is conceived until birth. And no guy would really be interested in waiting around for a women to give birth (9 months), recover from the birth and nurse the child before he finally has an opportunity to have his own child (and that's just assuming he is next in line).

So actually I think it would be quite a self-selecting thing if it were opened up. Some few - very few - women would be able to pull it off if it were allowed. But generally I think even if it were allowed it would be a rare occurrence as a result of some of the things I've noted.

We have this stuff called DNA tests now. And besides, why should it matter if it's a free-for-all? If they're all in love, there should be NO ownership. You are essentially saying you believe men can own many women like many cars.

 

[Thanda]

We have this stuff called DNA tests now. And besides, why should it matter if it's a free-for-all? If they're all in love, there should be NO ownership. You are essentially saying you believe men can own many women like many cars.

I'm talking about who the children belong to not the women - not sure where your ownership statement comes from. Like I said, I wouldn't have too much of a problem if it was opened up. I don't believe it works out all that well the other way round but people are free to try it (if it were my country with my laws). Like i said it will be self-selecting, and it will end up with far more men with multiple wives than the other way around.

 

[rusra02]

Well, that is one example, but there are other things to consider that make sex before marriage desirable to allow for a lasting marriage. I've always been under the impression that sexual compatibility is extremely important. If people get married before they have sex, they might soon realize that they aren't satisfied with each other, and they will find satisfaction elsewhere. It is also important to live together before getting married to see whether you actually get along as well as you think you do. But, that is just my opinion on the matter. My point is that it is not as cut and dry as you claim.

Here is a quote regarding cohabitation:."Many couples of the opposite sex live together without the commitment of marriage. Such unions, however, are even “less stable than marriages,” notes a report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Some of these couples cohabit in order to assess their compatibility prior to marriage. Does such an arrangement eliminate poor matches and improve subsequent marriages? According to the Journal of Marriage and Family, the evidence indicates otherwise. “Among married individuals, premarital cohabitation is related to lower marital satisfaction . . . , more reports of marital problems, and . . . a higher risk of marital dissolution,” says the Journal." g7/06 p. 6. I believe our Creator knows what is best for us, and he forbids sex outside of marriage. (1 Corinthians 7:2)

 

[1137]

So we should have no traffic laws either because people will break them?

The point of having rules is not the expectation that they will always be followed by everyone for all time. It is to give guidelines for acceptable behavior.

Sex trafficking is a topic in the realm of slavery, not sex.

This isn't a taboo - this is just abuse. It's important to understand that exploiting and abusing others isn't a part of normal sexual behavior -- it is a part of psychosis.

You can exploit and abuse during sex in a controlled way. There are healthy ways to use sex for such people. Destroying a child by molesting them is simply it's own category.

While there is merit in what you say I must say, I have never been convinced by the living together before marriage argument. My reason for it is that most people who live together end up doing so for on average two years in the US and 7 years in the UK. That is quite a long time.
And I am of the opinion that those who then break up after cohabitation do so not because they were not compatible (two/seven years is a long time to live with someone with whom you're not compatible) but rather it is the lack of commitment that characterizes the arrangement itself. When you are married it is generally a lot harder to end things and it results in people thinking long and hard (including seeking solutions and exercising patience) before going through with it.
And as are very often a part of these unions I think you would prefer people took more time to think about the consequences of their breakup before going through with it.

My gf and I refuse to get married before we live together. If we end up breaking up because of it then at least we didn't marry someone we can't live with!