My consideration of the lust conversation requires me to reference the earlier conversation here or another thread regarding *the act* of sex being sacred. If I remember correctly, CL opined that the act is considered sacred because life is considered sacred. I would agree that lie is sacred, if the religious overtones of the word are dropped. My life is special because of its brevity in the grand scheme of things and the fact that I only have one shot at it.
I cannot agree that sex should be considered sacred simply because of the value placed on life. Indeed sex can result in life, but as has already been established there are plenty of other reasons to enjoy sex. Are only those times where sex is engaged in specifically for procreation considered sacred? The only reason to clump other variants of sex into the sanctification of *the act* is for crowd control purposes. The prohibition of spilling seed can be used to support this idea.
Now we come to lust. So what is really being claimed is that sex is sacred, but I'm not allowed to consider it except in a very prescribed manner or else I have committed a sin with potentially severe consequences. This is a thought crime. Thought crimes are inimical to any just moral theory. There is nothing inherently immoral with lust; there's no victim. Effectively criminalizing the act or the 'improper' thought of it in order to influence behavior is the true crime here.
The other problem I have with religious notions of sex as it pertains to morality is that plenty of other species, existing and extinct, have been engaging in *the act* for quite some time. Religions also ignore that we had been shagging ourselves into the future for almost 200,000 years before Abraham's god showed up and attempted to take some spice out of life. Furthermore, taking advice on healthy sexual relations from an organization whose leadership takes oaths of celibacy is akin to scheduling an appointment with a proctologist when you have a toothache, unless of course your tooth needs to be exposed before the dentist can help you.
I cannot agree that sex should be considered sacred simply because of the value placed on life. Indeed sex can result in life, but as has already been established there are plenty of other reasons to enjoy sex. Are only those times where sex is engaged in specifically for procreation considered sacred? The only reason to clump other variants of sex into the sanctification of *the act* is for crowd control purposes. The prohibition of spilling seed can be used to support this idea.
Now we come to lust. So what is really being claimed is that sex is sacred, but I'm not allowed to consider it except in a very prescribed manner or else I have committed a sin with potentially severe consequences. This is a thought crime. Thought crimes are inimical to any just moral theory. There is nothing inherently immoral with lust; there's no victim. Effectively criminalizing the act or the 'improper' thought of it in order to influence behavior is the true crime here.
The other problem I have with religious notions of sex as it pertains to morality is that plenty of other species, existing and extinct, have been engaging in *the act* for quite some time. Religions also ignore that we had been shagging ourselves into the future for almost 200,000 years before Abraham's god showed up and attempted to take some spice out of life. Furthermore, taking advice on healthy sexual relations from an organization whose leadership takes oaths of celibacy is akin to scheduling an appointment with a proctologist when you have a toothache, unless of course your tooth needs to be exposed before the dentist can help you.
