What is the sex rules of your religion or philosophy?

[Lain]

Can I ask you the same question?

What do you think is the most fundamental reason to criminalize those things?

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. This "trickles down" to the statement by Pope Ven. Pius XII that natural Law should be the basis of all human law on the national and international levels. From these two things (which imply a lot of other things of course) I begin being "political" and trying to figure out of the state should do this or what in an ideal state should be punished or not. This process led me to certain principles such as "a good state is like a good father" or "human law should help dispose man toward God."

All-in-all it leads to a very different idea of freedom, if I equivocate I can sound like a liberal (not talking about just in the US sense, to me all Republicans and Conservatives are liberals also), but it isn't that at all, because freedom to me is in God, all else is slavery and death. So a state which promotes freedom will direct humans toward the Lord Jesus who said "whoever the Son sets free is free indeed" and "whoever commits a sin is a slave of sin."

 

[Link]

I don't think it *has* worked with 'no problem'. For example, it has kept women as second class citizens (at best) in many societies. it has lead to many unhappy marriages (since people get married before they are mature enough to make good decisions) and leads to more misery than the alternatives.

I think it is a good thing to 'contradict our history' in that way.

Your mixing two subjects that have nothing to do with each other.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Disagree with you. It's standards we've put, it has worked for most societies in the past with no problem. This is a new discovery that contradicts our history.

The past is the past. Maybe in your world silly things like "happiness" aren't important, but they are in mine.

 

[Link]

The past is the past. Maybe in your world silly things like "happiness" aren't important, but they are in mine.

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

 

[Polymath257]

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. This "trickles down" to the statement by Pope Ven. Pius XII that natural Law should be the basis of all human law on the national and international levels. From these two things (which imply a lot of other things of course) I begin being "political" and trying to figure out of the state should do this or what in an ideal state should be punished or not. This process led me to certain principles such as "a good state is like a good father" or "human law should help dispose man toward God."

All-in-all it leads to a very different idea of freedom, if I equivocate I can sound like a liberal (not talking about just in the US sense, to me all Republicans and Conservatives are liberals also), but it isn't that at all, because freedom to me is in God, all else is slavery and death. So a state which promotes freedom will direct humans toward the Lord Jesus who said "whoever the Son sets free is free indeed" and "whoever commits a sin is a slave of sin."

So you would advocate a theocracy? One based on your specific religious beliefs?

Well, we definitely have a very different idea of what government is about and how laws should apply. Anything in the direction of theocracy is anathema to me. the idea that any specific religious ideas should be written into law just seems deeply wrong.

And yes, that means the freedom (and it is a freedom) to reject the teaching of religions.

 

[Polymath257]

Your mixing two subjects that have nothing to do with each other.

Which two subjects? I was addressing the consequences of having early marriage, which I thought you were advocating.

I find it to be a horrible idea that leads to much more unhappiness and unfairness.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

A lifetime of experience, of knowing many, many people who married young, or even were married at the dictates of their families.

I live in Canada, where there are many people from many cultures from around the world. I have personally known many people who have come to hate their former spouses -- who they married too young, or were forced into by pregnancy, or by their families for "cultural" reasons.

The most successful marriages I've known (both the usual kind and the same-sex kind) have been between people who were mature, knew themselves reasonably well, and took the time to get to know the person they married before they eventually made the leap.

I also know quite a few who are so glad the kids are grown and gone -- so that they can have a room of their own to sleep in without a spouse they can barely tolerate, much less make love to.

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

False analogy.

Murder and rape doesn't happen with consent meaning that you can fall victim to it also - that makes it your business.

y
But if you don't like gay sex, you can just not agree to it.
2 men having gay sex with mutual consent, does not affect you in any way.

Incest is not only ga

It can be father and daughter mother son

I do not care if they like it

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

If neither cares and nobody is harmed, it isn't abuse.

Acting like animals? Really? Then don't eat (like animals do) or sleep (like animals do) or do other things that animals do. See how long you last.

We *are* animals with a very thin veneer of civilization on top. Having sex isn't 'acting like animals', it is acting like humans.

Incest is what you are fine with
you are veering off the road now distractions

 

[Polymath257]

Incest is what you are fine with
you are veering off the road now distractions

Yes. For example, I once had a friend who was adopted. She met a genetic brother as an adult and they had sex. They used protection, so pregnancy wasn't an issue.

I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[Polymath257]

Incest is not only ga

It can be father and daughter mother son

I do not care if they like it

Again, if it is a child involved, it harms the child, and it is wrong.

If both are adults, it is really none of your business what they do in privacy. It harms nobody.

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

Yes. For example, I once had a friend who was adopted. She met a genetic brother as an adult and they had sex. They used protection, so pregnancy wasn't an issue.

I see nothing wrong with that.

Well then

 

[Polymath257]

Well then

Clearly you disagree. But who was harmed? Nobody.

 

[Link]

A lifetime of experience, of knowing many, many people who married young, or even were married at the dictates of their families.

I live in Canada, where there are many people from many cultures from around the world. I have personally known many people who have come to hate their former spouses -- who they married too young, or were forced into by pregnancy, or by their families for "cultural" reasons.

The most successful marriages I've known (both the usual kind and the same-sex kind) have been between people who were mature, knew themselves reasonably well, and took the time to get to know the person they married before they eventually made the leap.

I also know quite a few who are so glad the kids are grown and gone -- so that they can have a room of their own to sleep in without a spouse they can barely tolerate, much less make love to.

Stats disagree with you. All studies disagree with you.

 

[Polymath257]

Incest is what you are fine with
you are veering off the road now distractions

I wasn't the one that brought up animals.

 

[Lain]

So you would advocate a theocracy? One based on your specific religious beliefs?

Well, we definitely have a very different idea of what government is about and how laws should apply. Anything in the direction of theocracy is anathema to me. the idea that any specific religious ideas should be written into law just seems deeply wrong.

And yes, that means the freedom (and it is a freedom) to reject the teaching of religions.

I am not sure what you mean 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.

 

[Sheldon]

Exactly. Pain need not be harm. But permanent damage is.

Desiring permanent damage (self-injury, for example) is reason to seek professional help.

I don't do pain. Again, not my thing. But I don't judge what turns other people on if it harms nobody.

I know what you mean, but I'd have to add the caveat that permanent damage is not always harmful, piercings, or tattoos would be two good examples.

 

[Sheldon]

Stats disagree with you. All studies disagree with you.

Could you link those stats and studies please?

Only just because arranged marriages appear less likely to end in divorce, could be attributable to a number of factors, divorce might be a lot harder to obtain in cultures where such practices are common, just as one example.

 

[Link]

Could you link those stats and studies please?

Only just because arranged marriages appear less likely to end in divorce, could be attributable to a number of factors, divorce might be a lot harder to obtain in cultures where such practices are common, just as one example.

Not just less divorce, they provide stable happy relationships.

 

[Link]

Could you link those stats and studies please?

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.

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.