Religion stifles Moral Evolution

[Joods]

Joods, it goes along with our understanding that human sexuality has 2 functional purposes that go together - to procreate, and to form a mutual bond with the person you have pledged to spend your life with (to help keep you together through the emotional bonding effects of the hormone oxytocin). Healthy, intact families are extremely important to society because they are the best environment to raising the next generation of people, and sexuality is meant to serve that purpose in those 2 ways.

Taken outside of those 2 functions, sex has caused a lot of harm to society. From rape as the absolute worst, to STD's, over population, unwanted/out of wedlock pregnancies, to men and women feeling used.

No. Religion has caused a lot of harm to society. Religion just likes to blame sex for everything. Rape has been discussed to death on these boards so I'm leaving that alone, knowing my personal history with that one. 
STD's can and do happen among married couples. That isn't a single person sort of thing. In your religion, married couples cheat on each other all the time, but they get forgiven with just a few hail Mary's and Our Father's issued after time in a confessional. 
The church's refusal to acknowledge birth control is needed and people shouldn't rely solely on abstaining, especially in modern times, because, well, people actually evolve, hasn't exactly helped society. Religion places guilt on people that they are going to hell for a myriad of sins. You have a woman who gets knocked up and is made to feel ashamed and bad for getting pregnant when in fact, society, thanks in part to religion, makes it impossible for single women to get free birth control so that "unwanted" pregnancies could have been avoided to begin with.

But priests who molest and rape little boys get a free pass because the Vatican refuses to punish those priests. They are just relocated elsewhere and never face any sort of legal ramifications for their actions. The Vatican fully goes along with trying to cover it up. So how is it that they aren't held responsible for the rape and abuse of little boys everywhere? Their actions go directly against the Church's "2 functional purposes". 

None of this is to say premarital sex should be illegal. And as I've said before, I'm behind giving gay couples all the same benefits/rights. Seperation of church and state makes sense.

But as far as sexual morality is concerned, thats why we believe it is best left reserved for the bonds of marriage as a mutual self giving act between one man and one woman.

Okay, but you do understand that religion doesn't have exclusivity over sex and marriage, right? Because people existed long before Christianity did. NAI held marriage ceremonies between both same sex couples and heterosexual couples and were fine with doing so until our ancestors came into this country and thrust bibles in their hands and told them they were all sinners.

Also... I asked specifically about the Natural Law, because if you look out in nature, at dolphins for example, they are known to have same sex relationships. So if they are doing what comes natural to them and doing something that nature has provided for, who are we, as part of the same animal kingdom they live in, to put governor on other people for simply doing what comes natural to them? I absolutely do not agree that people exist for the sole purpose of breeding kids. 

People can't help who they fall in love with. They shouldn't be "punished" for that just become some religious people find it offensive and quite frankly, it isn't anyone else's business about who other people love. Morally or not people need to stay out of business that isn't theirs to begin with. 

The only time this should ever get an over ride is when you have a minor that is gay and the parents have every right to know who they are with and what they are doing. How about that. I'm the mother of a gay teenager. I have had to set strict limits for my kid in regards to this. He gets full support from the entire family and knows that he can be himself at home, at school and out in public. Once he's out of my house and living on his own, who he dates and what he does with them will no longer be my business. I'll always worry about him, but at that point, I can't tell him what to do anymore and I have allow him to live his life. 

Morals, according to religion, should not ever get to trump someone's rights to love who they want to love. 
Morals, according to religion, should not ever get to be used to guilt anyone for feeling the way they do. 
Morals, according to religion, should not ever get to be involved in the making of laws in a secular society because religion is not the be all and the end all of how life should be lived.

[drfuzzy]

Hmm.
I was raised Holy-Roller Pentecostal Funditard.  (Think Westboro Baptist with snake-handling, speaking in tongues, and rolling in the aisles.)  The Bible was the INERRANT WORD OF GOD, every word, "jot and tiddle".  If you found a contradiction in your assigned daily Bible readings and memorization, then it was YOUR fault.  You weren't trusting God enough, you didn't have enough faith.
     This mindset is closed.  It is tribal, racist, and judgmental.  It denies science, global warming, evolution, etc., etc.  The outside world is evil and that is a reason God created hell - evil humans could not possibly be allowed into their heaven.  And Jesus is coming to take them away in the Rapture any day now.
     These people get their "morality" from the Bible.  If church leaders told them that God has said that they should go out and kill a group of people, they just might do it.

I play organ for Catholic Masses.  I have quite a few Catholic friends.  How the Bible should be interpreted varies from person to person.  The priest is more or less a guide, but if he says something "wrong" they'll call him on it.  Beliefs vary -- even on subjects like abortion, tho' the ones who are actually pro-choice usually don't say it out loud.  These people, for the most part, take what they are told and use their own judgment.

So I think the distinction is between Fundamentalists and non-Fundamentalists of any religion, not the religion itself.

[Aroura]

Joods, it goes along with our understanding that human sexuality has 2 functional purposes that go together - to procreate, and to form a mutual bond with the person you have pledged to spend your life with (to help keep you together through the emotional bonding effects of the hormone oxytocin). Healthy, intact families are extremely important to society because they are the best environment to raising the next generation of people, and sexuality is meant to serve that purpose in those 2 ways.

Taken outside of those 2 functions, sex has caused a lot of harm to society. From rape as the absolute worst, to STD's, over population, unwanted/out of wedlock pregnancies, to men and women feeling used.

None of this is to say premarital sex should be illegal. And as I've said before, I'm behind giving gay couples all the same benefits/rights. Seperation of church and state makes sense.

But as far as sexual morality is concerned, thats why we believe it is best left reserved for the bonds of marriage as a mutual self giving act between one man and one woman.

One of your "harm to society" items is a direct result of one of your 2 functional purposes, and mostly occurs inside those sacred bons.
As a matter of fact, more gay people would result in a lot less of that problem. (out of wedlock birth occurs, but the vast, vast, vast majority of birth, and therefore overpopulation, is from straight married couples).

Also, men and women feel used inside of straight marriages all the time, and can possible not feel used inside gay ones.  

Lastly, the first purpose of marriage you listed has nothing to do with the second, and people of all sexualities want exactly that out of marriage, that's one reason they want to be married also!  Why are you denying it to them?  You just said it's one of the main purposes!

So, quote me where Jesus says anything about gay folks.
Tell me why this is an issue for you, personally, but it's ok to wear mixed fibers.  I'm completely serious.

---

And to clarify, i'm not saying sex outside of the context I described above will  always lead to some sort of negative outcome. A lot of people, gay or straight, lead perfectly fine lives not keeping with those moral standards of sexuality. But the reason we think it's immoral is because it is contrary to our understanding of natural law nonetheless, and that is what we base morality off of.

And where do you get that understanding?  If not "because religion told you so"?

Because none of your reasons are outside of religious ones.

---

Please let me clarify, I think I put a few too many questions in there.

Cl, you state that you do not hold beliefs soley because your religion told you so, but that there are books of study on many moral subjects, backing up your doctrines moral law.

Then please sum up your non-religious reasons for opposing homosexual marriage (or homosexual behavior).

(I still wouldn't mind if you answered my other questions, but I think this one covers the main conversation better).

[Whateverist]

Hmm.
I was raised Holy-Roller Pentecostal Funditard.  (Think Westboro Baptist with snake-handling, speaking in tongues, and rolling in the aisles.)  The Bible was the INERRANT WORD OF GOD, every word, "jot and tiddle".  If you found a contradiction in your assigned daily Bible readings and memorization, then it was YOUR fault.  You weren't trusting God enough, you didn't have enough faith.
     This mindset is closed.  It is tribal, racist, and judgmental.  It denies science, global warming, evolution, etc., etc.  The outside world is evil and that is a reason God created hell - evil humans could not possibly be allowed into their heaven.  And Jesus is coming to take them away in the Rapture any day now.
     These people get their "morality" from the Bible.  If church leaders told them that God has said that they should go out and kill a group of people, they just might do it.

I play organ for Catholic Masses.  I have quite a few Catholic friends.  How the Bible should be interpreted varies from person to person.  The priest is more or less a guide, but if he says something "wrong" they'll call him on it.  Beliefs vary -- even on subjects like abortion, tho' the ones who are actually pro-choice usually don't say it out loud.  These people, for the most part, take what they are told and use their own judgment.

So I think the distinction is between Fundamentalists and non-Fundamentalists of any religion, not the religion itself.

So very much this.  It is fundamentalism which stifles moral evolution and lowers the IQ of the people infected.

[Minimalist]

"Religion poisons everything."  - Hitchens

[The Grand Nudger]

Religious fundamentalism makes no sense outside of the context of "the religion itself".  That a believers religiosity has a converse and equally proportionate relationship to their decency is a commonly remarked upon observation.

If religious fundamentalism is a problem..it's because the fundamental ideology of the religion itself is trash. Those people are decent in spite of their professed beliefs..and..frankly..none of them manage to -completely- divorce themselves from those beliefs. At it's very best....it's very best...religion turns mildly horrid ideology into the believers notion of piety and goodness - and that's more dangerous and chilling than overt fucked up-ed-ness.

If the problem were fundamentalism itself..then rational fundamentalism, or even ethical fundamentalism would be a problem. "Lowering IQs and stifling moral evolution". The problem isn't the ism..it's the fundament. GIGO, Full stop.

[Aroura]

Hmm.
I was raised Holy-Roller Pentecostal Funditard.  (Think Westboro Baptist with snake-handling, speaking in tongues, and rolling in the aisles.)  The Bible was the INERRANT WORD OF GOD, every word, "jot and tiddle".  If you found a contradiction in your assigned daily Bible readings and memorization, then it was YOUR fault.  You weren't trusting God enough, you didn't have enough faith.
     This mindset is closed.  It is tribal, racist, and judgmental.  It denies science, global warming, evolution, etc., etc.  The outside world is evil and that is a reason God created hell - evil humans could not possibly be allowed into their heaven.  And Jesus is coming to take them away in the Rapture any day now.
     These people get their "morality" from the Bible.  If church leaders told them that God has said that they should go out and kill a group of people, they just might do it.

I play organ for Catholic Masses.  I have quite a few Catholic friends.  How the Bible should be interpreted varies from person to person.  The priest is more or less a guide, but if he says something "wrong" they'll call him on it.  Beliefs vary -- even on subjects like abortion, tho' the ones who are actually pro-choice usually don't say it out loud.  These people, for the most part, take what they are told and use their own judgment.

So I think the distinction is between Fundamentalists and non-Fundamentalists of any religion, not the religion itself.

So very much this.  It is fundamentalism which stifles moral evolution and lowers the IQ of the people infected.

But the world isn't broken up into fundamentalists and non fundamentalists.  Many people exists somewhere on the scale to one side or the other, depending on the issue.

Perhaps it would be better to say the distinction is between fundamentalism, and non fundamentalism (or perhaps fundamental beliefs, and non...yada yada), because even Lutheran pew warmers and cafeteria Catholics can hold fundamentalists, racist, sexist views based on the teachings in their religion, while there exist evangelicals who do not.

[Brian37]

Hmm.
I was raised Holy-Roller Pentecostal Funditard.  (Think Westboro Baptist with snake-handling, speaking in tongues, and rolling in the aisles.)  The Bible was the INERRANT WORD OF GOD, every word, "jot and tiddle".  If you found a contradiction in your assigned daily Bible readings and memorization, then it was YOUR fault.  You weren't trusting God enough, you didn't have enough faith.
     This mindset is closed.  It is tribal, racist, and judgmental.  It denies science, global warming, evolution, etc., etc.  The outside world is evil and that is a reason God created hell - evil humans could not possibly be allowed into their heaven.  And Jesus is coming to take them away in the Rapture any day now.
     These people get their "morality" from the Bible.  If church leaders told them that God has said that they should go out and kill a group of people, they just might do it.

I play organ for Catholic Masses.  I have quite a few Catholic friends.  How the Bible should be interpreted varies from person to person.  The priest is more or less a guide, but if he says something "wrong" they'll call him on it.  Beliefs vary -- even on subjects like abortion, tho' the ones who are actually pro-choice usually don't say it out loud.  These people, for the most part, take what they are told and use their own judgment.

So I think the distinction is between Fundamentalists and non-Fundamentalists of any religion, not the religion itself.

So very much this.  It is fundamentalism which stifles moral evolution and lowers the IQ of the people infected.

I'd say Hitchens is right, religion poisons everything.

Now I have many times here, and all over the web said CONSISTENTLY  and repeatedly that most humans are good. But the idea of religion itself for all the good all of them claim to do, has the downside of pitting religion against religion and sect vs sect, even within the same umbrella label.

It isn't fundamentalism, it is the idea itself. I love my well intended liberal theists friends, but they fail to see far too much that the fundies ARE still drawing their sense of morality from the same holy writings but merely with a different interpretation. 

There are far right in every religion. There are empathetic and compassionate individuals in every religion too. It isn't fundamentalism causing the problem, it is a false perceptions that lead humans to create these clubs and base their morality on those beliefs, for good or bad. 

It isn't that you can force any religion out of existence, you cant. But when large groups of humans start making truth claims about the nature of reality and morality, you will end up with conflict to greater or lesser degrees.

Fundamentalists are still drawing from the same writings as liberal believers.

[vorlon13]

Any religion that would allow 'moral evolution' would be undermining it's claim of piously representing an eternal and unchanging God.

Religion 101, people . . .

[Catholic_Lady]

Joods, it goes along with our understanding that human sexuality has 2 functional purposes that go together - to procreate, and to form a mutual bond with the person you have pledged to spend your life with (to help keep you together through the emotional bonding effects of the hormone oxytocin). Healthy, intact families are extremely important to society because they are the best environment to raising the next generation of people, and sexuality is meant to serve that purpose in those 2 ways.

Taken outside of those 2 functions, sex has caused a lot of harm to society. From rape as the absolute worst, to STD's, over population, unwanted/out of wedlock pregnancies, to men and women feeling used.

None of this is to say premarital sex should be illegal. And as I've said before, I'm behind giving gay couples all the same benefits/rights. Seperation of church and state makes sense.

But as far as sexual morality is concerned, thats why we believe it is best left reserved for the bonds of marriage as a mutual self giving act between one man and one woman.

One of your "harm to society" items is a direct result of one of your 2 functional purposes, and mostly occurs inside those sacred bons.
As a matter of fact, more gay people would result in a lot less of that problem. (out of wedlock birth occurs, but the vast, vast, vast majority of birth, and therefore overpopulation, is from straight married couples).

If people only had sex while married, it would logically follow that less people would be getting conceived. Last I heard, 40% of children were being born to unwed mothers now a days. I'm not sure if that number is accurate or not, but even if that number was 10%, that's still millions of people. 

Also, men and women feel used inside of straight marriages all the time, and can possible not feel used inside gay ones.

Agreed. That is why I specified that the sex act be mutually self giving.  

Lastly, the first purpose of marriage you listed has nothing to do with the second, and people of all sexualities want exactly that out of marriage, that's one reason they want to be married also!  Why are you denying it to them?  You just said it's one of the main purposes!

I would disagree on the first and second not going together. The most basic, fundamental reason why sex exists in the first place is for successfully continuing on the human race. The procreation part of it, in and of itself, makes the babies. The unitive part of it creates a bond that will help the couple stay together to keep the family intact, thus providing the ideal environment for the future generation to be raised in. It's no surprise that many criminals come from broken homes or homes with no father figure. Family is very important to the foundation of society, and both purposes of sex are geared towards it. We believe sex outside of this context is contrary to natural law because it is being used outside of its intended purpose. 

(as an aside, i do not deny gay folks getting married and having the same benefits/rights under the law)     

So, quote me where Jesus says anything about gay folks.
Tell me why this is an issue for you, personally, but it's ok to wear mixed fibers.  I'm completely serious.

To be fair, I never claimed Jesus said anything about gay folks. If I did, it would kind of debunk my whole point that our thinking about morality isn't just "because God said so", as the OP claims.     

And to clarify, i'm not saying sex outside of the context I described above will  always lead to some sort of negative outcome. A lot of people, gay or straight, lead perfectly fine lives not keeping with those moral standards of sexuality. But the reason we think it's immoral is because it is contrary to our understanding of natural law nonetheless, and that is what we base morality off of.

And where do you get that understanding?  If not "because religion told you so"?

Because none of your reasons are outside of religious ones.

Please let me clarify, I think I put a few too many questions in there.

Cl, you state that you do not hold beliefs soley because your religion told you so, but that there are books of study on many moral subjects, backing up your doctrines moral law.

Then please sum up your non-religious reasons for opposing homosexual marriage (or homosexual behavior).

(I still wouldn't mind if you answered my other questions, but I think this one covers the main conversation better).

Well, to clarify, I never said they aren't religious reasons. If we believe in God, it logically follows that we believe moral standards were set by Him. So they are always going to be "religious reasons" in that sense. 

But what I was saying was that it is important that we understand why our religion teaches what it does about morality, and not just settle with "Because God/religion says so." It's important to understand why we think something is immoral, and how we came to that conclusion. And that's where Natural Law comes in. 

I think I have already explained why I believe sex outside the standards I presented is contrary to Natural Law. Hopefully my answers above helped to further clarify.