sdb@tekecs.UUCP (Steven Den Beste) (07/26/83)
Answers to Larry Bickford:
Steve Den Beste missed my point altogether by saying "If sex is only
for reproduction..." The question was (again) why the reproductive
process and the joyful intercourse process are so intermeshed. Why
aren't they separate? To turn his own question back, the "gentle orgy"
would have had fewer side effects that way.
I never denied that sex was also used for reproduction - that is patently
obvious. When sex is enjoyable, the primitive humans would copulate
more, and therefore have more progeny. The question was: If sex is ONLY
for reproduction, why are we able to copulate when a woman is not fertile?
If God only intended sex to be for reproduction, why can we do it all
the time? Sex must be for enjoyment, too.
"I have watched too many marriages where the people only became
sexually involved after the wedding break up for this reason [sexual
incompatibility]." 1. Too much pressure on "sexual compatibility."
People are being indoctrinated that sex is the only way to show love. I
contend that if you can't demonstrate your love without sex, the bed is
no place to begin. 2. I've lived several places on this continent and
have YET to see a marriage wherein there was no premarital sex break up
because of "sexual incompatibility." And they wouldn't trade their
marriages for anything. Perhaps you should try a different group...
In a word, BULLSHIT. The issue that causes such marriages to break up is
not too much emphasis on sex, it is simply that sex is a major portion of
anyone's life. Marriage is supposed to provide to each person involved
those things necessary to satisfy basic needs - loving, support in crises,
a friend with whom to talk, AND... sexual satisfaction. All of these things
get tried out before the marriage except the sex - why should it be any
different? If ANY of these
are missing, the marriage is sick; and maybe the people stay together
anyway, but they are not as happy as they could be. In some cases when
sexual incompatability breaks up the marriage, the people remain loving
friends. There was NO HINT of a suggestion by me that sex was the only
way that these people could demonstrate their love. That is not the
issue at all. With respect to your never seeing a marriage break up for
sexual incompatability, two comments: First off, some people stay married
because they think they should even though they are intensely miserable
in such a position; second, when they do get divorced, they often do not
publicize the REAL reason that they broke up. Perhaps you should get to
know the people around you honestly, instead of looking at them through
bible-colored glasses.
Re a deformed child having to "live the rest of his life in an
institution - a fate I would not wish on anyone" - many work in
institutions as jobs, others as a ministry to God. And I know at least
one place where the workers are all of the latter. Want a recommendation?
My cousin (severely inflicted with Down syndrome), at least, is not
capable of understanding the ministry of God. Preaching to him would
be a useless as preaching to a dog or a cow. And are you seriously
suggesting that these people should be preserved in their misery just
to provide a living laboratory where people of normal intellect
can demonstrate their faith? Somehow, I don't think so, so I must
misunderstand your point.
Perhaps there are well run asylums for the mentally deficient - I think
there probably are. Most of them are adequate, but they more resemble
the care given in a well-run zoo than any kind of normal human condition.
I don't see any reason to believe that an asylum run by devout Christians
would necessarily be any better than any other, but that is beside the
point - why should anyone live in an asylum at all? If you are so sure
that the mental deficient should be born, WHY HAVEN'T YOU ADOPTED ONE?
Steve gives quite a bit toward an emphasis on overpopulation. Sounds
like a good excuse for genocide :-). And why don't we start with those
"condemned to abject poverty" :-( If you insist on looking ahead, look
FAR ahead - if left long enough, this whole universe will run out of
energy, so they'll all die anyway. :-(
I found this extremely offensive - you are treating an extremely serious
problem with undeserved levity. The argument "Well, they are going to
die anyway" could be used just as well to justify the extermination of the
Jews in Nazi Germany.
Overpopulation is the most serious problem facing our planet today, and is
the root of most of the other problems (except apathy). You set up a
straw man of me: "If you believe in population control, then you must
also believe in genocide. Obviously genocide is wrong, therefore population
control must be also."
I do not believe in, nor espouse, genocide; nor was there any hint of this
in my article. I believe that with sufficient foresight and the tools available
to us today, we can eliminate many of the problems in the medium term, say
50 to 100 years. The best way to do this is to introduce effective and
plentiful birth control into the third world.
We must take this issue seriously, and statements such as "Well, there is
plenty of food, so keep having children, folks" cause significant harm.
The fact is that mass starvation (by the millions per year) occurs
continuously in the world right now. WE ARE NOW OVERPOPULATED and we
better do something about it or it will result in war and the destruction
of our planet.
Of course, a nuclear holcaust would fulfil the Biblical prophesy of
Armegeddon, so maybe it wouldn't be all bad.
Steve Den Beste
Tektronix
[decvax|ucbvax]!teklabs!tekecs!shark!sdb