Religion Discussion Thread

[Baltlandia]

what, are you surprised?

Considering you are basing your thing on the existence of religion (specifically Christianity) and considering what many Christian sects say about sex, yes.

Christians make a big deal about waiting until marriage, but being married just means a committed partnership + a piece of paper.

I fail to see how it is immoral though.

Casual sex increases the chances of spreading disease (more sexual partners = a greater chance).

Take AIDS, for example. If that flight attendant guy (who spread it in the US initially) had waited until he was in a committed partnership, the disease wouldn't have spread as much initially.

[Neutraligon]

Considering you are basing your thing on the existence of religion (specifically Christianity) and considering what many Christian sects say about sex, yes.

Christians make a big deal about waiting until marriage, but being married just means a committed partnership + a piece of paper.

I fail to see how it is immoral though.

Casual sex increases the chances of spreading disease (more sexual partners = a greater chance).

Take AIDS, for example. If that flight attendant guy (who spread it in the US initially) had waited until meeting another dude, and stayed in a committed partnership, the disease wouldn't have spread as much initially.

Considering that most young people in the early 1900s had premarital sex, your example makes no sense. They might have made a big deal about it, but that does not mean it did not happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premarital_sex

More than that, there is such a thing called protection. Second, considering that people did not know about Aids, and the act that it can be passed on using shared needles suggests you are wrong. Oh and, there is evidence that Gaëtan Dugas was not patient zero, so there is that too.

[Cyrisnia]

Just that?

what, are you surprised?

Kinda.
No "all gays are bad" or anything of the like.
Not used to it.

[Baltlandia]

Christians make a big deal about waiting until marriage, but being married just means a committed partnership + a piece of paper.


Casual sex increases the chances of spreading disease (more sexual partners = a greater chance).

Take AIDS, for example. If that flight attendant guy (who spread it in the US initially) had waited until meeting another dude, and stayed in a committed partnership, the disease wouldn't have spread as much initially.

Considering that most young people in the early 1900s had premarital sex, your example makes no sense. They might have made a big deal about it, but that does not mean it did not happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premarital_sex

I don't care if people have pre-marital sex, as long as they are in a committed partnership.

More than that, there is such a thing called protection.

The only way not to get an STD is with abstinence. Until someone is sure that their partner doesn't have an STD, abstinence is the only guaranteed way to prevent the spread of STD's.

Second, considering that people did not know about Aids, and the act that it can be passed on using shared needles suggests you are wrong.

I'm not saying it would stop the spread of AIDS, but avoiding casual sex would definitely have helped reduce the spread of it.

[Baltlandia]

what, are you surprised?

Kinda.
No "all gays are bad" or anything of the like.
Not used to it.

Well, considering that I'm gay, that would be an issue...

[Neutraligon]

Considering that most young people in the early 1900s had premarital sex, your example makes no sense. They might have made a big deal about it, but that does not mean it did not happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premarital_sex

I don't care if people have pre-marital sex, as long as they are in a committed partnership.

More than that, there is such a thing called protection.

The only way not to get an STD is with abstinence. Until someone is sure that their partner doesn't have an STD, abstinence is the only guaranteed way to prevent the spread of STD's.

Second, considering that people did not know about Aids, and the act that it can be passed on using shared needles suggests you are wrong.

I'm not saying it would stop the spread of AIDS, but avoiding casual sex would definitely have helped reduce the spread of it.

Possibly, but then again you said during the 1900s. Considering that AIDS started in the mid 1900s I would then assume you are talking about the early 1900s. But then again, do we have any proof there was no casual sex during that time, especially in certain communities? It might have been condemned by Christianity, but that does not prove it did not happen in high rates. After all prostitution was still big business.

And again not necessarily considering there is more than one way to catch an STD (well for AIDS at least), and there are ways of preventing STDs from being spread.
In the 1920s there were the flappers so again what time period are you comparing now to? There was no point in time in which there wasn't some form of casual sex and Christianity did nothing to prevent it.

[Baltlandia]

I don't care if people have pre-marital sex, as long as they are in a committed partnership.


The only way not to get an STD is with abstinence. Until someone is sure that their partner doesn't have an STD, abstinence is the only guaranteed way to prevent the spread of STD's.


I'm not saying it would stop the spread of AIDS, but avoiding casual sex would definitely have helped reduce the spread of it.

Possibly, but then again you said during the 1900s. Considering that AIDS started in the mid 1900s I would then assume you are talking about the early 1900s. But then again, do we have any proof there was no casual sex during that time, especially in certain communities? It might have been condemned by Christianity, but that does not prove it did not happen in high rates. After all prostitution was still big business.

I wasn't arguing that there wasn't any casual sex, just less of it. It wasn't encouraged by society, like it is now.

[Sun Wukong]

Possibly, but then again you said during the 1900s. Considering that AIDS started in the mid 1900s I would then assume you are talking about the early 1900s. But then again, do we have any proof there was no casual sex during that time, especially in certain communities? It might have been condemned by Christianity, but that does not prove it did not happen in high rates. After all prostitution was still big business.

I wasn't arguing that there wasn't any casual sex, just less of it. It wasn't encouraged by society, like it is now.

So painfully naive...

What do you think happens when you make sex taboo? Do you really think it discourages anything?

[Neutraligon]

Possibly, but then again you said during the 1900s. Considering that AIDS started in the mid 1900s I would then assume you are talking about the early 1900s. But then again, do we have any proof there was no casual sex during that time, especially in certain communities? It might have been condemned by Christianity, but that does not prove it did not happen in high rates. After all prostitution was still big business.

I wasn't arguing that there wasn't any casual sex, just less of it. It wasn't encouraged by society, like it is now.

Prove it. Provide data that shows it occurred less often.

[Baltlandia]

And all their children. Yep our entire population is supposedly based on two instances of massive amounts of incest.

Whoever wrote that story was a kinky mofo, and didn't understand reproduction. Baltlandia, do you believe in Adam and Eve?

They're just a metaphor for the fallibility of human nature. So in that sense, yes.

Am I one of the fundamentalists who believe that humans magically appeared out of the dust, and a snake actually spoke? no, I think most of the OT is clearly storytelling.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Whoever wrote that story was a kinky mofo, and didn't understand reproduction. Baltlandia, do you believe in Adam and Eve?

They're just a metaphor for the fallibility of human nature. So in that sense, yes.

Am I one of the fundamentalists who believe that humans magically appeared out of the dust, and a snake actually spoke? no, I think most of the OT is clearly storytelling.

Well at least you're somewhat sensible. That's a good start. You should show some sources for your claims though.

[Baltlandia]

I wasn't arguing that there wasn't any casual sex, just less of it. It wasn't encouraged by society, like it is now.

Prove it. Provide data that shows it occurred less often.

There aren't any studies from that far back.

The closest thing I've seen was from that wikipedia article you linked me, where it stated that 61% of men born before 1910 admitted to having pre-marital sex.

[Sun Wukong]

Prove it. Provide data that shows it occurred less often.

There aren't any studies from that far back.

The closest thing I've seen was from that wikipedia article you linked me, where it stated that 61% of men born before 1910 admitted to having pre-marital sex.

Bullshit. Go read the Kinsey Reports.

[Baltlandia]

There aren't any studies from that far back.

The closest thing I've seen was from that wikipedia article you linked me, where it stated that 61% of men born before 1910 admitted to having pre-marital sex.

Bullshit. Go read the Kinsey Reports.

"Males: 67-98%, depending on socioeconomic level.
68% by age 18 had experienced premarital coitus, (p. 549-52, and Table 136, p. 550, Male).

Females:
about 50%, (p. 286, and Table 75, p. 333 and Table 79, p. 337, Female)."

I can't find anything on casual sex, specifically.

[Neutraligon]

Prove it. Provide data that shows it occurred less often.

There aren't any studies from that far back.

The closest thing I've seen was from that wikipedia article you linked me, where it stated that 61% of men born before 1910 admitted to having pre-marital sex.

So basically, you have no evidence that the changing demographics about religion affected the rates of casual sex, and yet you claim it does and thus it is sad religion is slowly declining. You have no reason to believe what you believe.

[Baltlandia]

There aren't any studies from that far back.

The closest thing I've seen was from that wikipedia article you linked me, where it stated that 61% of men born before 1910 admitted to having pre-marital sex.

So basically, you have no evidence that the changing demographics about religion affected the rates of casual sex, and yet you claim it does and thus it is sad religion is slowly declining. You have no reason to believe what you believe.

If the rates of pre-marital sex were lower, one can extrapolate that the rates of casual sex were lower.

[Sun Wukong]

Bullshit. Go read the Kinsey Reports.

"Males: 67-98%, depending on socioeconomic level.
68% by age 18 had experienced premarital coitus, (p. 549-52, and Table 136, p. 550, Male).

Females:
about 50%, (p. 286, and Table 75, p. 333 and Table 79, p. 337, Female)."

I can't find anything on casual sex, specifically.

So, again, you have no evidence.

You know what's true of people in every age? They always think their forefathers were more moral, and that modern society is degenerate. I can quote everyone from Augustus Caesar to Nixon on that. They can't all be right, and considering how much better things are today generally then in the past, most of them are wrong.

[Neutraligon]

So basically, you have no evidence that the changing demographics about religion affected the rates of casual sex, and yet you claim it does and thus it is sad religion is slowly declining. You have no reason to believe what you believe.

If the rates of pre-marital sex were lower, one can extrapolate that the rates of casual sex were lower.

Umm, no, there is such thing as adultery...

[Baltlandia]

"Males: 67-98%, depending on socioeconomic level.
68% by age 18 had experienced premarital coitus, (p. 549-52, and Table 136, p. 550, Male).

Females:
about 50%, (p. 286, and Table 75, p. 333 and Table 79, p. 337, Female)."

I can't find anything on casual sex, specifically.

So, again, you have no evidence.

You know what's true of people in every age? They always think their forefathers were more moral, and that modern society is degenerate. I can quote everyone from Augustus Caesar to Nixon on that. They can't all be right, and considering how much better things are today generally then in the past, most of them are wrong.

While looking for sources, I actually found one that proved that pre-marital rates were about the same now and in the 1950's.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17236611

so yeah, I'm wrong. I guess religion didn't have much of an impact on casual sex.

I just think it would be better for society if people waited until they were in a committed relationship.

[Washington Resistance Army]

So, again, you have no evidence.

You know what's true of people in every age? They always think their forefathers were more moral, and that modern society is degenerate. I can quote everyone from Augustus Caesar to Nixon on that. They can't all be right, and considering how much better things are today generally then in the past, most of them are wrong.

While looking for sources, I actually found one that proved that pre-marital rates were about the same now and in the 1950's.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17236611

so yeah, I'm wrong. I guess religion didn't have much of an impact on casual sex.

I just think it would be better for society if people waited until they were in a committed relationship.

Why? What's the point?

[Baltlandia]

While looking for sources, I actually found one that proved that pre-marital rates were about the same now and in the 1950's.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17236611

so yeah, I'm wrong. I guess religion didn't have much of an impact on casual sex.

I just think it would be better for society if people waited until they were in a committed relationship.

Why? What's the point?

fewer sexual partners = less chance of catching/spreading an STD. And, on the individual level, if the people involved waited, they would be able to make sure that their partner is clean.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Why? What's the point?

fewer sexual partners = less chance of catching/spreading an STD. And, on the individual level, if the people involved waited, they would be able to make sure that their partner is clean.

Not everyone in the world has an STD you know? Just because you like to have sex doesn't mean you instantly are disease ridden.

[Neutraligon]

Why? What's the point?

fewer sexual partners = less chance of catching/spreading an STD. And, on the individual level, if the people involved waited, they would be able to make sure that their partner is clean.

Random question, but if there were no STDs would you still have the same opinion?

[Baltlandia]

fewer sexual partners = less chance of catching/spreading an STD. And, on the individual level, if the people involved waited, they would be able to make sure that their partner is clean.

Not everyone in the world has an STD you know? Just because you like to have sex doesn't mean you instantly are disease ridden.

I never said that.

fewer sexual partners = less chance of catching/spreading an STD. And, on the individual level, if the people involved waited, they would be able to make sure that their partner is clean.

Random questions, but if there were no STDs would you still have the same opinion?

Yes, because I think fidelity is important. but I do get that everyone's different, so to each his own, I guess.

[Neutraligon]

Not everyone in the world has an STD you know? Just because you like to have sex doesn't mean you instantly are disease ridden.

I never said that.

Random questions, but if there were no STDs would you still have the same opinion?

Yes, because I think fidelity is important. but I do get that everyone's different, so to each his own, I guess.

If you and your partner agree it is casual sex, where does fidelity come in? I'm honestly interested since your opinion is very different from mine. I'm of the opinion that if all parties are legally consenting adults, I do not see how it can be immoral