(January 24, 2011 at 6:52 pm)dqualk Wrote:Quote:Because children are too young to consent to sex in a fully informed way, and the adult has more power over the child.
Can you prove this or is this just want some pope told us a long time ago? You know people used to say that women were to dumb to consent and that man had more power over woman so the father had to choose who she married to protect her. Do you think a 17 year old can consent? 16? 15? 14? 13? 12? At what point do you draw the imaginary line?
This is exactly why morality is not objective and absolute. It evolves as we discuss moral issues. We realize that our past behaviour was morally reprehensible and attitudes change. The age of consent today differs from place to place, but in most Western societies it is about 16.
What do you mean 'some pope told us?' I'm sure the clergy said nothing of the sort, and obviously a bunch of them couldn't care less about the age of consent, at least when it comes to their own behaviour.
(January 24, 2011 at 6:52 pm)dqualk Wrote: I'm sure it is insulting to a degree but some times the truth hurts. I do beleive it is my obligation to do all I can to bring the truth to people.
I think the State should only support the tried and true form of sexuality and that is within marriage.
The State should not go about trying to regulate people's private lives, but I think it should treat fornication (to use an old fashioned word) like it treats ciagrette smoking.
I think the State should encourage sex within marriage only, and it should restrict any other kind of advertising that encourages any other kind of sexuality.
Who says you possess knowledge of the truth? Whatever truth you have seems to correspond to the 'holier than thou' attitude of the Catholic church, that Biblical truth is somehow morally superior. This is why the church and the state need to be kept separate, because religious groups all feel that they have the obligation to push their version of the 'truth' on other citizens.
What advertising are you referring to that 'encourages' certain kinds of sexuality? I see ads calling for respect and acceptance of sexuality diversity, but nothing that says 'Be gay, it's awesome! ' or 'Go have an affair!' or 'Have sex before marriage, all the cool kids are doing it!'
(January 24, 2011 at 6:52 pm)dqualk Wrote: it is difficult to see how society would behave if we were told our whole lives that sex is absolutely fine in anyway you want. I imagine society would change a great deal. People probably would be far more free with their sexuality.
Even in secular society, no one ever says that any kind of sex is fine. There are restrictions (age of consent, laws against rape and molestation, etc.) that limit harm and do not require religion.
And personal freedom of sexual expression does not invariably lead to forcing oneself or one's sexuality on others.
(January 24, 2011 at 6:52 pm)dqualk Wrote: Even France, a most secular nation, did a secular study and found that homosexuality was damaging to children so in France it is illegal for gays to adopt, for purely secular reasons.
Post a link or a source for this study, please. Otherwise, I don't believe it.
(January 24, 2011 at 6:52 pm)dqualk Wrote: I dont think they should be allowed to flaunt their homsexuality because it is more dangerous to society.
Please tell me, why is it dangerous to society?
(January 24, 2011 at 6:52 pm)dqualk Wrote: I feel like homosexuals and free sex people are changing the traditional sexual mores by trying to force us to accept their sexuality as normal and good.
They are not 'forcing' you to accept it, they just don't want to be persecuted or discriminated against because of it. You don't have to believe that it's normal and good. But you must realize that this is only your opinion, and that they don't deserve to have their rights limited by the opinions of religious people.
(January 24, 2011 at 6:52 pm)dqualk Wrote: Well long oppressed groups should not abuse their newly gained freedom. The shoudl have respect for those with different sensibilities who find it troubleing to see a man in a bikini with things hanging out everywhere.
No one has the right not to be offended. Just like certain Muslims whose 'sensibilities are troubled' when they see cartoons of Mohammed. If you don't like it, look away.
(January 24, 2011 at 6:52 pm)dqualk Wrote: I would be for allowing people to be more intimate whether same sex or not, so long as they keep their sexual life private. I would even possibly allow for two men or two women under certain conditions to adopt so long as they kept their private life private, and did not try to act like homosexuality is completely normal and healthy.
How charitable of you. So a gay couple can't hold hands or kiss in public because that's deviant and they should keep it to themselves. Think about how that would make you feel, if this was the person you love. Would you like others telling you to keep your relationship a secret? Homosexuals deserve the same rights as everyone else.
(January 24, 2011 at 6:52 pm)dqualk Wrote: I believe the empirical data and nature tells us that homosexuality is neither [normal or healthy]. Once again I think the only kind of sexuality that should be encouraged is sex within marriage, marriage being a life long exclusive union between one man and one woman.
What empirical data do you have that says homosexuality is not normal or healthy? Include sources, so we know that you're not just stating your opinions and beliefs.
![[Image: 186305514v6_480x480_Front_Color-Black-1.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=img.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv474%2Ftirenon%2F186305514v6_480x480_Front_Color-Black-1.jpg)
