Why do the Christians always hate sex so much?

[Waratah]

I mean one could make a whole list out of that:

1. obsession with virginity which in reality means no sex for women or much less sex before marriage or before a certain age (by the way - don't you think that being a virgin after reaching puberty and beginning to have periods is just unhealthy and un-hygienic?)

2. the absurd mutually exclusive simultanous ban on abortion and contraception and condoms in particular - I really do observe hardcore Catholics and orthodox in Poland adhere to this - it is like inviting diseases and unwanted pregnancies

3. discouraging masturbation resulting in one's disconnection and ignorance of own body as well as severe stresss

4. hatred towards adult entertainment and sensuality in mainstream culture

Christians dont hate sex at all. Nothing in the bible about hatred of sex.

Wanton promiscuity? Lying? Cheating? Theft? Adultery? Ignoring the sanctity of life/procreation?

Yep - the bible takes the moral high ground there.

Show me the atheistic moral argument against beastiality.
If atheism had a bible what would it say about men sleeping around... (what she doesnt know wont hurt her.)
Atheists make a lot of noise about closet pedophiles hiding in the clergy (along with all the closet atheists in the clergy) but not much noise about child abuse everywhere else - eg. Internet child pornography. How exactly does an atheist demonstrate that pictures of naked children on the Internet is objectively immoral?

Since you're so progressive and open-minded about sex (unlike those religious prudes,) wanna hear the pedophile's argument?
...look, they are enjoying it. (Same argument applies to beastiality)
...we pay them money
...opposing underage sex is a bigoted, prudish, old-fashioned attitude.
...nobody is physically harmed (Victimless crime)
...we have their parents permission
...when they grow up they will wonder what all the fuss was about. They will be more open minded about sex - unlike all those Christians who hate sex.

Do you really use the bible for your source of morality.
- Women are worth less than men
- Execute people who work on the seventh day
- If a man rapes a women then he pays her father, then she has to be married to him.

Really glad to see your bible has the "moral high ground"

[ElijahDrew]

'Cause they don't get any. Boom. Roasted.

[Lion IRC]

Suppose I want to do unto others as follows...

I'm the parent of a child and I think every other child should (ought to) have the right to a gender-balanced upbringing by their biologically related, opposite gender, monogamous parents.

Therefore...

- I would not cheat on my wife because that would make my child sad.
- I would not avoid my obligations as the biological father of my child.
- I would not donate sperm (DNA) anonymously leaving children wondering where they came from.
- I would not suddenly discover I was gay, get divorced, start campaigning for gay marriage/adoption and impose 18 years of same-sex adoptive parenting on a child that I purchased on the internet from a surrogate mom.

---

LOL
What slippery slope?

It takes a special kind of person to actually use the name of a fallacy when committing said fallacy.

You said you can't see anything wrong with it.

I was laughing because that would mean there is no slippery slope - let alone a steep one going down in one direction from where we are now.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Suppose I want to do unto others as follows...

I'm the parent of a child and I think every other child should (ought to) have the right to a gender-balanced upbringing by their biologically related, opposite gender, monogamous parents.

Therefore...

- I would not cheat on my wife because that would make my child sad.
- I would not avoid my obligations as the biological father of my child.
- I would not donate sperm (DNA) anonymously leaving children wondering where they came from.
- I would not suddenly discover I was gay, get divorced, start campaigning for gay marriage/adoption and impose 18 years of same-sex adoptive parenting on a child that I purchased on the internet from a surrogate mom.

---

Then don't do those things.

It takes a special kind of person to actually use the name of a fallacy when committing said fallacy.

You said you can't see anything wrong with it.

I was laughing because that would mean there is no slippery slope - let alone a steep one going down in one direction from where we are now.

Going down to where? What's running through your imagination?

[TaraJo]

Christians dont hate sex at all. Nothing in the bible about hatred of sex.

No, but there are a lot of rules and regulations on it. It's kinda like what the right is doing with abortion right now: we aren't getting rid of it, but we're going to make it way more complicated than it needs to be.

Wanton promiscuity? Lying? Cheating? Theft? Adultery? Ignoring the sanctity of life/procreation?

Yep - the bible takes the moral high ground there.

Not really. Several of God's chosen (according to the Bible) had multiple wives, not to mention concubines. I mean, really, Soloman had to have the ultimate out for the sleeping around rule; he just had 1,000 women that were 'his' so he could be monogamous by fucking any one of them. As for women, yeah, we had to only have one husband, which is pretty damn sexist if you ask me.

As for the sanctity of life, any deity who demands the death of anyone who works on Sunday, wears clothes made from more than one fabric or makes fun of a bald man cannot claim to give a damn for the sanctity of life. If you claim to worship such a God, neither can you.

Show me the atheistic moral argument against beastiality.
If atheism had a bible what would it say about men sleeping around... (what she doesnt know wont hurt her.)
Atheists make a lot of noise about closet pedophiles hiding in the clergy (along with all the closet atheists in the clergy) but not much noise about child abuse everywhere else - eg. Internet child pornography. How exactly does an atheist demonstrate that pictures of naked children on the Internet is objectively immoral?

Since you're so progressive and open-minded about sex (unlike those religious prudes,) wanna hear the pedophile's argument?
...look, they are enjoying it. (Same argument applies to beastiality)
...we pay them money
...opposing underage sex is a bigoted, prudish, old-fashioned attitude.
...nobody is physically harmed (Victimless crime)
...we have their parents permission
...when they grow up they will wonder what all the fuss was about. They will be more open minded about sex - unlike all those Christians who hate sex.

Wanna know my sexual morality? It's simple: anything consenting adults choose to do is up to them. If they want to masturbate, that's cool. If they want to sleep around, as long as all their partners are informed about what's going on, I'm cool with swingers. Pedophilia is out because of that phrase consenting adults. Beastiality is out, too, simply because animals aren't able to communicate their consent.

[Lion IRC]

...Wanna know my sexual morality? It's simple: anything consenting adults choose to do is up to them. If they want to masturbate, that's cool. If they want to sleep around, as long as all their partners are informed about what's going on, I'm cool with swingers. Pedophilia is out because of that phrase consenting adults. Beastiality is out, too, simply because animals aren't able to communicate their consent.

We can have a bible study together if you like.
I think there is ample scripture to show that committed monogamy between two opposite gender partners (living as one) works best.

That was always God's blueprint for happy families.

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
(Genesis 2:24)

As for beastiality/consent. We do tons of things to animals without consent. And proponents of sexual freedom of the inter-species variety argue quite convincingly that in many cases, the animal giving consent is the HUMAN.

You say pedophilia is out for lack of adult consent but the definition of the word "adult" is as open to change as the definition of the word marriage.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Ample scripture"

Who gives a shit? I'm left wondering if scripture is all that stands between a christian and donkey-cock.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...Wanna know my sexual morality? It's simple: anything consenting adults choose to do is up to them. If they want to masturbate, that's cool. If they want to sleep around, as long as all their partners are informed about what's going on, I'm cool with swingers. Pedophilia is out because of that phrase consenting adults. Beastiality is out, too, simply because animals aren't able to communicate their consent.

We can have a bible study together if you like. I think there is ample scripture to show that committed monogamy between two opposite gender partners (living as one) works best.

That was always God's blueprint for happy families.

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
(Genesis 2:24)

Maybe if you studied your bible from the perspective of modern historical criticism rather than systematic theology, you'd know that verse was likely a descriptive statement (i.e. the way things are), rather than a prescriptive statement (i.e. the way things should be). It's not there to promote modern monogamous marriage, but it's simply there as the conclusion of a story providing an explanation for the way things are (i.e. why do men like women, etc).

[Anomalocaris]

I gave him up as one more example of the dictum that no matter how unfathomably stupid a christian is, tomorrow you will meet another more stupid.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

....

And proponents of sexual freedom of the inter-species variety argue quite convincingly that in many cases, the animal giving consent is the HUMAN.

....

If they argue "quite convincingly," then what's problem exactly? If you say it's wrong because the "bible says" you lose because we're discussing the sexual ethics not based on the bible. We're proposing ethics based on reason and evidence, not on gut feelings and ancient superstition.

I mean don't get me wrong, I mostly if not 100 percent against beastiality, and certainly 100 percent against pedeophilia.

But saying "what if these creeps have good reasons therefore your ethic is wrong" is a fallacious argument (appeal to incredulity and or fear perhaps?). If they really have good arguments (which I doubt), and they're better than our own, then we should accept them.