The harms of religion

[Brian37]

Sex is not a taboo in Christianity until it's taken out side marriage

Keep your baggage to your own religion.

The only taboo there should be for sex is when it is forced on someone without their consent. Rape and child molesting are examples ANYONE sane can agree are bad.

There are also pragmatic reasons without a superstition to keep it in your pants. Like an unwanted baby, or teen baby when you have no money. Or a disease.

Religion does not have a monopoly on morality and I had sex before I was married. Would I do it again? DEPENDS. Some of the sex was stupid and I look back at it now and am glad I didn't get the woman knocked up.

But marriage does not automatically mean you will have good sex, or a child you can afford, or even end up getting along with. Nor does it mean the kid will grow up well adjusted.

What parents should teach their kids, instead of utopia myth bullshit, is to know what they want for their future, even if it means being single. Teach them that their actions can affect them and those around them. Teach them what their bodies do at the individuals mental maturity age. LET THEM DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES after informing them of all the pros and cons and dangers of sex and the COST of having a baby in today's high cost of living.

I look back at my life of being indoctrinated by the idea of marriage and the truth is I never wanted to get married. I just thought thats what I had to do because stupid religious people told me life was script. If I had had a kid I would have been miserable and that kid would have been affected. Being married is a CHOICE it should NOT be a law.

[Annik]

Circumcised men transfer less disease than uncircumcised men, this is a health issue. Christian women are not circumcised, I do not know why you would believe they are, unless you're uninformed.

Hi. That's a myth.

[Brian37]

Circumcised men transfer less disease than uncircumcised men, this is a health issue. Christian women are not circumcised, I do not know why you would believe they are, unless you're uninformed.

Hi. That's a myth.

That may be true, but that was NOT the reason Hebrews first started that practice. They had no clue what bacteria or viruses were back then. When it started it was merely a religious issue.

And though doctors do it as a default to boys, if you train the parents and then when the kid is old enough, most males who keep their forskint can keep themselves disease free.

Which brings up the concept of a perfect god and the issue of design. Why the fuck would an all powerful god create a baby with a petri dish for disease on their prick? And then tell adults, not for medical reasons, but for a blood cult promise to kiss his ass, to inflict pain on the innocent baby for something he didn't have to put there in the first place.

[Hovik]

Circumcised men transfer less disease than uncircumcised men, this is a health issue.

You're talking completely out of your ass. That's not true even in the slightest. If anything, circumcision creates immediate health risks for the infants whose choice is made for them by ignorant parents.

You nor anybody else has the right to cut off a perfectly functional and necessary part of somebody's anatomy, your Bronze Age beliefs be damned.

[StatCrux]

The only taboo there should be for sex is when it is forced on someone without their consent.

So you would advocate sex between consensual 13-16 yr old children?

[Annik]

The only taboo there should be for sex is when it is forced on someone without their consent.

So you would advocate sex between consensual 13-16 yr old children?

When teens are about 16, I'd say they're about ready to begin sexually exploring, provided they are given plenty of material on how to stay safe and responsible.

[StatCrux]

So you would advocate sex between consensual 13-16 yr old children?

When teens are about 16, I'd say they're about ready to begin sexually exploring, provided they are given plenty of material on how to stay safe and responsible.

Two definitions required, safe and responsible, regarding sex. Does your definition of safe include psychological issues? Is it responsible for 16 year old persons to engage in sexual activity without interpersonal commitment to a long lasting relationship? Are they capable of such decisions without a societal structure? BTW the question was about 13-16 year olds

[Annik]

When teens are about 16, I'd say they're about ready to begin sexually exploring, provided they are given plenty of material on how to stay safe and responsible.

Two definitions required, safe and responsible, regarding sex. Does your definition of safe include psychological issues? Is it responsible for 16 year old persons to engage in sexual activity without interpersonal commitment to a long lasting relationship? Are they capable of such decisions without a societal structure? BTW the question was about 13-16 year olds

And I answered with what I thought to be acceptable, 16 would be as young as I would set the age of consent.

Safe and responsible mean that they engage in safe sex, as to not cause unwanted pregnancy.

[StatCrux]

Two definitions required, safe and responsible, regarding sex. Does your definition of safe include psychological issues? Is it responsible for 16 year old persons to engage in sexual activity without interpersonal commitment to a long lasting relationship? Are they capable of such decisions without a societal structure? BTW the question was about 13-16 year olds

And I answered with what I thought to be acceptable, 16 would be as young as I would set the age of consent.

Safe and responsible mean that they engage in safe sex, as to not cause unwanted pregnancy.

So you disagree with brian37 that sex should be allowed between consensual persons, with no caveat? You think that sex between two consenting 16 year old children is acceptable, outside of societal structures and providing they use contraception?

---

[Annik]

What does his ideas have to do with mine?

Who are we to limit their personal freedoms, provided they are not hurting themselves or others?