the straw men of premarital sex.

[robvalue]

Or a goat, as long as it's not a baby one boiling in its mother's milk.

People's prejudices are often based on what they presume the bible says, not on what it actually says, I've noticed. They are often worse than the people who wrote it.

[Aractus]

Worse in one respect, but I find the patriarchal model to be worse in another respect. Especially when you had much less patriarchal civilisations living alongside the ancient Jews (i.e. the Egyptians).

[robvalue]

Oh sure, the people themselves were probably way worse, but what people say about a particular subject is often more harsh than their book actually says about it. Or at the very least, out of proportion with all the other things it says about subjects they conveniently ignore which would be "just as bad".

[Aractus]

Yes correct, and even Christian theologians don't recognise errors like these (or they willingly turn a blind eye to them).

[abaris]

It's all about control. All the major religions have suffering and asceticism at the forefront. If you say that natural instincts are evil, you've pretty much caught them in a net they can't escape from. The priest or however the particular harbinger of god is called, is the only one offering redemption from something, you will do in any case. So it's a slam dunk for the ones wanting to perpetuate the feeling of guilt.

[loganonekenobi]

The theist mind says "God says premarital sex is bad so we must shoot down this argument any way we can."

That's actually not true, you can look it up in the Bible yourself. Only unmarried women are expected to keep fidelity, men can have sex with any woman besides the wife of another man and it isn't sinful.

I would hazard a guess that some one some where would show a passage that is different about that but you are right. It is very one sided on the gender allowance.

[loganonekenobi]

A strawman that's often presented is, "You think it's fine to use abortion as a method of contraception."

Very few people I've talked to would hold such a position. It's the stupid idea that if you support people's right to choose to have an abortion, that you think abortions are great or something, or are of no consequence.

Abortions are often the most reasonable solution to a situation that wasn't planned; it doesn't mean it follows that trying to get into that situation in the first place, or not caring if you do, is a good way to behave.

Maybe you'd find my beginner's guide to identifying logical fallacies useful, click here

This is the position that makes the most sence to me. I don't like the idea of killing children any more than the typical protester however. It would be much more reasonable to then support those actions that prevent unwanted pregnancy in the context of reality EI: abstanence doesn't really work but affordable and available contraceptives plus good sex education does.

[loganonekenobi]

thank you Robvalue for the link to help educate me on the dishonest argument methods. I only hope that I can keep from typing such fallacies.

[robvalue]

You're most welcome

And agreed, strategies have to be realistic. People are going to have sex. It is better than they are educated and prepared, so they can take precautions.

[Esquilax]

I apologize. I am just learning all of this.  Red herring?  So it is a distraction or a misdirection.

No need to apologize for learning new things, mate.

I often hear the religious cry a lot about abortion.  Then of course we see the bible full of Dog telling his people to kill all sorts of other peoples no matter man, woman, or child.  It seems clear to me that the control factor is there and they want to use any and all ways to do so. It just seems it is easier to get people to side with the sob story of killing children than it is the "sin" of sex at the wrong time.  Sorry I haven't slept since Kansas and now i'm in Iowa.

Well, there's sort of a double standard in place with god anyway: morality is from god for humans, or so goes the fundagelical logic. God isn't bound to the same standards we are, so it's bad for us to abort or to kill, but if god orders or allows it, it is to be assumed that he has a good-yet-unknowable reason for it. The point is that we must always assume god's moral primacy, such that the authority that the fundies just so happen to be the mouthpieces for is maintained.

William Lane Craig has a lovely little apologetic regarding all those genocides, which is that it was actually a really good thing, because all those children god killed are now in heaven with him, spending eternity with their murderer, so it's totally fine, and actually we should be thanking god for it. That sort of twisting should tell you a lot about the fundagelical mindset.