What is the sex rules of your religion or philosophy?

[Polymath257]

I am not sure what you mEditean by theocracy, I would assume confessional state. In which case, it doesn't have to be but I think it (that is an ideal State) is best if it was currently. I need to do more research on the relationship between the secular and religious orders of things in Christian history and politics. I do think they are two powers, although the one represented by the Pope or priest is superior to that represented by the Emperor or king. Often the later has taken the role to enforcing the teaching and ways of the former, for instance executing a person which the Church condemned as a heretic, for such is not the domain of the Church but of the State.

[Note: this is why it is often said "the Church never executed anyone" for it was the domain of the State to execute and the Church to condemn as a heretic, or at least such is what is said to be, I obviously have not read about every case.]

I need to obviously do a lot more research though about the interactions between these powers, Scripture has a lot to say about it and so do many other people up and down the ages including Dante.

As for rejecting the teachings of the Church that is well and fine, tolerating the existence of such communities is a well-attested part of the Tradition although to what extent is another matter, but attempting to force belief or the conscience is indeed wrong to me. I wouldn't call those who do so "free" though. There is some word used in these discussions, I think "liberty" or another to distinguish it from what is seen as true freedom, that is the Lord Jesus.

All in my opinion of course.

That is *so* far away from anything like a society where I would want to live. Looks like a theocracy supporting a totalitarian state.

Yes, liberty works if you prefer that word. Far better than living in such a state.

I tend towards the opinions of Diderot when it comes to priests and kings.

In my mind, this is the *worst* form of society: one where the church condemns and the state executes. That leads to very, very bad places very quickly.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm going to link them in a new thread to discuss them. Also, there are studies that show dating is such that nice guys are not trusted and women date toxic men and then get married, and then divorced and divorced only to then later in life want a nice guy.

Marriage protects people from blinding chaotically loving on irrational impulse, but rather with getting both families involved and seek permission of the ladies family, all that is negated.

And what about permission from the man's family?

And why should the families be involved at all in the decision?

I'm going to make a thread with many studies on different subjects pertaining to marriage and dating and types of marriage I have read.

Might be interesting!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Stats disagree with you. All studies disagree with you.

I don't suppose you'd care to cite any, would you?

I did not cite stats, because I don't have any in particular, so instead I spoke about what I think based on my own experience. But if you're going to smack me down with stats, I think you ought to produce them.

 

[Heyo]

I think that criminalization should be limited to those acts that cause harm. If there isn't a victim, there should be no crime. No, society isn't a victim.

I think that criminalization should rest on constitutional values.

Just as moral condemnation should rest on moral basics, and no, "it feels icky to me" is not a moral basic.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Title question

Some do not hate gay people, some forbid trans people, some allow child marriage, some mutilate genitals, some have many wives, some allow masturbation and some try to have sex with incubus

What are your rules?

You should know that different Jewish groups say different things. I'll give you where I personally stand.

Sex is powerful -- in addition to broken hearts, it can create children who need to be raised in a stable loving environment. Therefoer sex is protected, sheltered, so that it does good rather than harm. Basically, sex is a wonderful thing when part of a committed married relationship between a man and a woman. Outside of that, it is sin. For example, I am divorced, therefore I do not have sex.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Truly a radical difference in perspective. What would you say is the most fundamental reason (like asking yourself "why" until you hit the base) for thinking so? To either statement.

I think your question reveals a fundamental difference in reasoning. What you did there, is some kind of species of shifting the burden of proof.

Your question seems to assume that any act one could engage in, is by default criminal and that we require reasons to make it not criminal.

The exact opposite is true.

The default for any act is "neutral" and one requires reasons to elevate it to criminal status.
If you can't give a proper reason for why an act should be criminal, then why would it be criminal?


So, to answer your backwards question of why these things shouldn't be considered crimes, the answer is quite simply: because there is no reason to make them crimes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Perhaps it ultimately goes back ultimately to me holding that a particular God has revealed Himself to me, and such a being is naturally right about everything.

So in other words.... you have no actual reasons or arguments.
All you have is mere blind obedience to a perceived authority?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What's your proof there is more happiness by making marriage to be something you have wait for longer?

Statistics like societal health indexes.
Correlation isn't causation though.

But it's certainly interesting.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Incest is not only ga

It can be father and daughter mother son

I do not care if they like it

So how many people do you know who actually want such sexual relations with their parents or their children?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Stats disagree with you. All studies disagree with you.

Citations needed

 

[Lain]

I think your question reveals a fundamental difference in reasoning.

Your question seems to assume that any act one could engage in, is by default criminal and that we require reasons to make it not criminal.

You thought. You assumed. Maybe you know what they say about assuming.

 

[Lain]

So in other words.... you have no actual reasons or arguments.

If that's how you read it's how you read.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If that's how you read it's how you read.

No, that's what you said.

 

[Lain]

No, that's what you said.

A direct lie, for I quite literally did not say that. But you do you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You thought. You assumed. Maybe you know what they say about assuming.

No. Your question assumed.
Nobody asks "why should brushing your teeth NOT be criminal"

The proper question to ask is why it SHOULD be.

Whenever you ask the reverse question, you imply that the default is that it should be criminal and that one requires reasons to make it not criminal. It's kind of a loaded question.

This is why I said that the only proper answer to that question is: "because there are no reasons to make it criminal".

One requires reasons to make something a crime.
Lacking such reasons, one doesn't have to do anything.

 

[Lain]

No. Your question assumed.

So you think.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A direct lie, for I quite literally did not say that. But you do you.

You didn't literally use those words, but it's what it comes down to.

You were asked why you think some of those acts should be crimes.
In your response, you did not give an actual reasoned argument for why they should be crimes.

Instead, your very first sentence, is that it ultimately comes down to you believing in god and that he "is naturally right about everything". Means that "if god says it's bad, then it's bad" and "if god says it's good, then it's good".

That's clearly the implication of your statement.
The rest of your post furthermore offered nothing at all to bypass that implication nor did you provide actual reasoning.


So how you think I can understand that to mean anything but "god said it, that settles it" and thus that your "reason" or motivation for it is no more or less then obedience to a perceived authority, is beyond me.

Perhaps you can actually clarify then, instead of simply trying to handwave it away with meaningless one-liners and accusations of me lying..............

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you think.

Feel free to clarify.

These meaningless one-liner denial responses aren't convincing me.

For example, you could maybe address the point I made, about how one requires reasons to criminalize certain acts.

To argue for the opposite, would necessarily consist of addressing an argument that was given to criminalize the act.

As in: "I think it should be a crime for such and such reasons"
To disagree with that, would consist of addressing those reasons and explaining a flaw in the reasoning or whatever.

But nobody discusses why some should NOT be a crime when nobody before that attempted to argue why it should be a crime.

 

[Sheldon]

Not just less divorce, they provide stable happy relationships.

You've neglected to offer a citation or any evidence for your claim, again?

Stats disagree with you. All studies disagree with you.

So if you could provide some link to these stats and research please?

 

[Sheldon]

I'm going to link them in a new thread to discuss them.

You made the claim right here, so just provide any citation for it.

Also, there are studies that show dating is such that nice guys are not trusted and women date toxic men and then get married, and then divorced and divorced only to then later in life want a nice guy.

Ah another fictitious study.

Marriage protects people from blinding chaotically loving on irrational impulse, but rather with getting both families involved and seek permission of the ladies family, all that is negated.

Is there any chance you will offer any objective evidence for any of these claims you keep reeling off?

I'm going to make a thread with many studies on different subjects pertaining to marriage and dating and types of marriage I have read.

Just offer a citation for the claims?