ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (01/01/70)
> > So how do you define "good" and "bad"? it sounds as though you have decided > that pre-marital sex is BAD and that's that. Do you really expect to convince > people with that kind of non-argumentation? Capitalising words and putting > little stars in them does not constitute a proper argument. I also like your > "whether they agree or not". You are basically saying that anybody who > disagrees with you is wrong. Who are you, God? Beware, you are pretty close > to committing blasphemy there. > > Also, why do you equate experimentation with sex to be "casual sex". I had sex > when I was a teenager, and I stayed with my first lover for five years, > much longer than a lot of marriages last. I don't see why the fact that I was > young and unmarried made it "casual". I've had some casual sex since, as an > adult. It's certainly not my preferred way of having it and I'm pretty happy > being monogamous again, but it was an interesting experience. I don't think it > harmed me, but it satisfied a certain curiosity. Actually, I've been harmed > by certain relationships, but the sex had nothing to do with it, it was the > personality of the people involved. > Ah, but yes, sex is bad, I guess, it must have been the sex. Sorry I slipped > there for a moment and dared use my intelligence instead of the authority of a > complete stranger to analyse my own life. I guess my parents and friends are > probably wrong too, to agree with me. It was the sex! > > >someone who promised to forget my past and give me a new start. I am most > > > Nobody but God knows what THE TRUTH is. Humans and religions can only guess. > > > Again, YOU as a human, cannot know THE truth and I think it is an offence > against God to pretend you do. > > Sophie Quigley > {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie I have to agree with Matt concerning pre-marital sex. Sophie, you refer to God in your postings and ask if Matt is playing God. Matt didn't write the bible, God did. It is not the word according to Matt. You seem to believe in God, then why don't you believe in His words found in the bible. There are numerous references to God not condoning pre-marital sex and adultrous behav- iour. You are typical of many people who would prefer a democratic religion alowing them to do their own thing rather than what a particular book such as the bible teaches. You seem to be of a mind that any and all sex at any and all ages is just honkey dory. If it feels good do it. You seem not to find any social ills with the rampant sexual callusness that exists today. The sexual revolution has brought us 20,000,000 cases of herpes, an epidemic of gonorrhea and syph- ilis, AIDS, (1000 new cases a day by the year 1990 according to a professor at Boston University). It has also brought us 2,000,000 abortions a year. In 1955 unwed teens accounted for 4% of the births, today it is 19%, and that doesn't even take into account those who had abortions. Not to mention the intangibles such as heartaches, bitterness, animosity, distrust and so forth that are packed away in a suitcase and carried along into each relationship as just so much excess baggage heavily loading one down. Why is gold precious and and desired by everyone? Because it is rare and not had by everyone. This causes gold to obtain a status of uniqueness among all other elements. I believe this value we put on uniqueness is fund- lemental to human emotions and is seen manifesting itself in our desires to have unique relationsips both emotionally and physically with another human being. It becomes increasingly difficult for many people to realize this uniqueness when confronted with the fact that what they intend to share has been shared many many times with many other people and what they have to offer has already been given in such abundance as to have the effect of turning gold into lead thus removing it's distinguishing charact- eristics which made it desirable in the first place. I don't believe for a second that lead cannot be turned back into gold through the magic of love, understanding, and acceptability, but as any chemist will tell you, this can admittedly be a difficult process and perhaps overwhelming to those who are unware of the process. Sex is perhaps the deepest emotional experience we can have unless it becomes as casual as going to the bathroom. Prostitutes interviewed by psychologists have admitted that their feelings toward love and sex has diminished to the extent that they find it difficult to carry on meaningful relationships even after they've left the profession. One said that rather than try and satisfy her spouse sexually, she would just as soon go to the market for a head of lettece. Sex in her case had become meaningless. philosophically ray
sas@lanl.ARPA (08/31/85)
Marcia, Sophie, Barb, Matt, Matt, Charles, Charli, Rich, Ray, Gary and everyone else : We have been argueing lots of issues about why and if abortion is this or that and why and if it is good or bad. I would like to put that aside for a bit and try a different subject. Abortion exists, all of us probably want to see it stop. It won't stop if we just drop it, and it won't stop if we legislate it. What will most effectively and effeciently eliminate abortion? ( I mean the fact of abortion, not the right to it! ). Abortion is not the problem, it is the symptom of a problem. A lot of discussion has occured recently about moral issues surrounding sex. Unfortunately this is an important issue in the abortion debate. What attitudes about sex, if globally held, might yeild a society without abortion? A lot of discussion has occured (not recently) about social issues surrounding ability to pay for abortions/birth control. This also is an important issue. What method of dealing with poverty would help eliminate abortions (the demand for them)?
pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) (09/04/85)
In article <30381@lanl.ARPA> sas@lanl.ARPA writes: > Abortion is not the problem, it is the symptom of a problem. AMEN!!!!! > > A lot of discussion has occured recently about moral issues >surrounding sex. Unfortunately this is an important issue in the >abortion debate. What attitudes about sex, if globally held, might >yeild a society without abortion? If one looks at the societies where abortion is significantly lower than here, the one fact that stands out is not the depression of sex or sexual attitudes --BUT AN INFORMED SEXUAL ATTITUDE. Meaning there is a wealth of information available and a emphasis on the responsibilities it entails. There is also birth control methods available to anyone requesting it. In short sex is not hidden, nor is its responsibilities taken lightly. Our society in the US still has a lot to learn along those lines. > > A lot of discussion has occured (not recently) about social >issues surrounding ability to pay for abortions/birth control. This >also is an important issue. What method of dealing with poverty >would help eliminate abortions (the demand for them)? Again, information as to the responsibilites, easy access to prevention methods,and a change in the attitudes that to eliminate a problem you deny it exits. ------------------------------------------------------------------- This article brings up a couple of good points and topics. I hope that this group comes up with some more comments along these lines. ------------------------------------------------------------------ P.M.Pincha-Wagener (bcsaic!pamp) (usual disclaimer) -------------------------------------------------------------------
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/07/85)
> In article <30381@lanl.ARPA> sas@lanl.ARPA writes: > > Abortion is not the problem, it is the symptom of a problem. > > AMEN!!!!! > > > > A lot of discussion has occured recently about moral issues > >surrounding sex. Unfortunately this is an important issue in the > >abortion debate. What attitudes about sex, if globally held, might > >yeild a society without abortion? > > If one looks at the societies where abortion is significantly > lower than here, the one fact that stands out is not the > depression of sex or sexual attitudes --BUT AN INFORMED SEXUAL > ATTITUDE. Meaning there is a wealth of information available > and a emphasis on the responsibilities it entails. There is also > birth control methods available to anyone requesting it. > In short sex is not hidden, nor is its responsibilities taken > lightly. Our society in the US still has a lot to learn along > those lines. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > P.M.Pincha-Wagener > (bcsaic!pamp) > (usual disclaimer) > ------------------------------------------------------------------- You started your posting mentioning the moral issues surrounding sex, and then avoided the subject like the plague. It is certainly typical to avoid the issue of sexuality and promiscuity, after all, bottom line, isn't sexuality the reason for abortions, VD, etc? Does it hurt to much to discuss the reasons why our society feels it must have as much sex as possible with many partners? America has gone sex crazy in the past 15 years. Sex is used on TV to sell geans to kids. Open up a computer magazine and you'll likely find a scantily clad female holding a memory chip that she thinks you should buy. Could someone explain to me concerning the excercise show called The 20 Minute Workout how showing a 2 inch close up of the sweating buttocks of a female promotes physical fittness? They should call it the 20 minute foreplay. You feel that all we need is more information and everything will be alright. I think this is a cop out. Kids know more about sexuality today then ever before. You say that countries with more information about sex has fewer abortions, would you please expound on this. Do those countries also have similar abortion laws as the U.S.? I'll give you a counter point concerning some 'enlightened' countries. In Denmark and Sweden, they have the highest teen suicide rate in the world. These particular countries happen to be very sexually liberated. In this country since the middle 60's, the teen suicide rate has tripled. I've read where some authorities on the phenomena of teen suicide have in part connected it with the phenomena of the sexual revolut-ion. This may or may not be true, all the evidence is not in yet. But if it is true, how will we then deal with sexuality? More information? People do have sex, they do fall in some sort of love with each other and want full physical gratification, but it seems more prevelent today, that the word 'love' is so overly used as a means to an end that it has been relegated to the level of a cliche. Slam bam thank ya mame, isn't 'love' wonderful uh, uh, what did you say your name was again? Somehow I cannot believe that a lot of people don't walk away from these spontaneous 'love' encounters feeling like a sack of shit, you know, kind of used and worthless. Like the lyrics to the song says: "Is that all there is?"
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (09/09/85)
In article <30381@lanl.ARPA> sas@lanl.ARPA writes: >Marcia, Sophie, Barb, Matt, Matt, Charles, Charli, Rich, Ray, Gary and > everyone else : > > We have been argueing lots of issues about why and if abortion >is this or that and why and if it is good or bad. I would like to put >that aside for a bit and try a different subject. Abortion exists, all >of us probably want to see it stop. It won't stop if we just drop it, >and it won't stop if we legislate it. What will most effectively and >effeciently eliminate abortion? ( I mean the fact of abortion, not the >right to it! ). > Abortion is not the problem, it is the symptom of a problem. > > A lot of discussion has occured recently about moral issues >surrounding sex. Unfortunately this is an important issue in the >abortion debate. What attitudes about sex, if globally held, might >yeild a society without abortion? > > A lot of discussion has occured (not recently) about social >issues surrounding ability to pay for abortions/birth control. This >also is an important issue. What method of dealing with poverty >would help eliminate abortions (the demand for them)? Well, I feel that since this is one good question that has been asked in a very non-offensive manner, it should not be ignored. Unfortunately, I am afraid my answer is probably not the one you are expecting, so I wish somedody else would have balanced it out by another, but they didn't, so here goes: I don't believe there will ever be such a thing as a society without abortion. I don't think that abortion can be eliminated. I think the situation could be drastically improved by a combination of education, good availability of contraceptive methods, maybe improved non-dangerous contraceptive technologies (I think it outrageous that in this day and age, condoms, which are by far the safest methods of birth control in terms of side-effects as well as low failure rate, are not designed in such a way to make them more pleasurable). Attitudes can be changed too, but sex will not be erradicated even if it can be delayed. Accidents will always happen, and there will always be difficult pregnancies. Human reproduction is not a perfect process and that's the way things are. However, I was reading today that 1/4 of all pregnancies in the US end in abortion. This is outrageous. While I don't think that abortion will be eliminated, surely this situation can be greatly improved! or -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (09/09/85)
> Ray Frank: > It is certainly typical to avoid the issue > of sexuality and promiscuity, after all, bottom line, isn't sexuality the > reason for abortions, VD, etc? Does it hurt to much to discuss the reasons > why our society feels it must have as much sex as possible with many partners? > America has gone sex crazy in the past 15 years. > ...... > You feel that all we need is more information and everything will be alright. > I think this is a cop out. Kids know more about sexuality today then ever > before. You say that countries with more information about sex has fewer > abortions, would you please expound on this. Do those countries also have > similar abortion laws as the U.S.? .... > ..... I've read where some authorities on the phenomena of > teen suicide have in part connected it with the phenomena of the sexual > revolut-ion. This may or may not be true, all the evidence is not in yet. > But if it is true, how will we then deal with sexuality? More information? This is revealing. "Sexuality is the reason for abortion and VD", so repress sexuality and the world will be OK, right? Are you saying there were no abortions and no VD before the tearing down of the sex taboos? Study history, Mr. Frank: a VD epidemic wiped out 15% of the population of Rome in the 14th century, a "few" years before the beginning of the sexual revolution. You are woefully uninformed if you think "kids know more today than ever before." You might want to listen to stories from teen counselors and those Planned Parenthood people you feel are the focus of modern evil: 'I can't get pregnant if I take a shower right away'; 'I can't get pregnant if I lie with my legs up in the air'; 'If you sit on a hot wall then get up suddenly, you'll get gonorrea' etc, etc. The fact, Mr Frank, is that teenagers today are incredibly ignorant of the facts of their sexuality. They get no help from parents such as you, who wish to avoid the embarrassing fact that their sons and daughters *GET HORNY AT A CERTAIN AGE* and *ARE CALLED UPON BY NATURE* to take action on their horniness. Is it not better to ensure that this inevitable experimentation will have no ill result by making sure that all the facts are available *BEFOREHAND* rather than taking the ostrich approach and bemoaning the evils of sexuality when it is too late? Sex is a normal fact of biology, Mr. Frank, despite all of your pious breast-beating. Marcel Simon
bmt@we53.UUCP ( B. M. Thomas ) (09/10/85)
>This is revealing. "Sexuality is the reason for abortion and VD", so >repress sexuality and the world will be OK, right? Are you saying there >were no abortions and no VD before the tearing down of the sex taboos? >Study history, Mr. Frank: a VD epidemic wiped out 15% of the population of >Rome in the 14th century, a "few" years before the beginning of the >sexual revolution. Study it yourself. It was NOT "before the beginning of the sexual revolution", it was the RESULT of THEIR sexual revolution. Forgive me if I seem to have come from another planet, but I could have sworn that there was a time when it wasn't considered inevitable that teenagers would get into bed with each other. The continued rejection by our society of any form of self-control, particularly where it concerns those "irresistable" passions, is plain by the fact that nobody I've yet read in this newsgroup has even mentioned the possibility that a young man or woman could go through those years without risking pregnancy. I'm sure that I know quite a few, in fact, and though it may amaze you, they're not terminally ugly or malajusted or even that badly frustrated! The fact is, folks, that it IS possible to abstain from sex outside of marriage without becoming warped! In fact, it's easier to avoid being warped that way! I abstained for seven years after my "experiment", and I can tell you that it was MUCH easier BEFORE!! More than that, my sex life as a married man is NOT enhanced by the temptations of pornography, hard, soft, or sunny-side-up. My sex life, and anyone else's, is enhanced only by the love and consideration that one is required to show to one's spouse as a life partner. Merely because it doesn't always work out for everyone is not a reason to chuck it. Let me say this. Sex is good. It's wholesome, healthy, and beautiful, and FUN! There is nothing wrong with it, or with the powerful desires that puberty brings on. There is a LOT wrong with misusing those desires for selfish gratification, or letting those desires rule you, as someone always gets hurt, pregnancy or no. You won't hear any of that from the folks at Planned Barrenhood, or from the ACLU, or from anyone else who thinks it his raison d'etre to protect us from progeny . So much for that. The thing that really grieves me about abortion is that there is such a thing as an unwanted pregnancy. Not that they happen, but that they're not wanted. Granted, procreation is not the sole purpose of sex, but the idea that children are to be avoided is a problem. Teenage pregnancy is not the result of underinformed teenagers, it's the result of teenagers who have not been trained to control themselves or taught that there is good to be had by keeping themselves virgin until marriage. I'm not so hot on birth control, as you can see here. True, if you don't think that you can really support a lot of children, I can well understand it, but I decided(forgive me, Elizabeth, let me say, WE decided) from the beginning that we would rather suffer poverty if need be than to harbor the hardness of heart that would deny all that we can give, or give in to the fear of not being able to provide for little ones that God gives to us. That includes her decision not to work outside our home. I want to add that I don't consider anything that we may have sacrificed to be a loss, and that we have been in every way blessed more than we could have hoped for. My point here is not to argue the legal or even the moral issues of abortion. The real poverty of spirit that leads to the very idea of considering abortion is what I want to address. In partial answer to an earlier posting, the system of values that would lead to a reduction of the abortion rate is not hard to find; all you have to do is go back a few years to when it was lower. I'm not in any way eulogizing any period in our past, just saying that when something was better, you really ought to consider why. There were fewer teenage pregnancies then: why? There was a lower teen suicide rate then: why? Couldn't have had anything to do with the fact that do-your-own-thing or if-it-feels-good-do-it weren't recognized as modern wisdom, could it? Yes, the seeds of that attitude were sown in the permissive forties and the materialistic fifties, but before they bore the fruit that we see now, there was a lot less of all the things that we decry today. To sum up, I am not trying to force anyone to do anything. I believe that an unborn child has the right not to be killed, but more than anything I am addressing the ideas that have led up to today when people are arguing for the right to do something that only a few decades ago was unthinkable, even in the minds of the morally degenerate. Please change your hearts, and change your minds. There is NO other way. brian
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (09/10/85)
> > ME: > >This is revealing. "Sexuality is the reason for abortion and VD", so > >repress sexuality and the world will be OK, right? Are you saying there > >were no abortions and no VD before the tearing down of the sex taboos? > >Study history, Mr. Frank: a VD epidemic wiped out 15% of the population of > >Rome in the 14th century, a "few" years before the beginning of the > >sexual revolution. > > brian: > Study it yourself. It was NOT "before the beginning of the sexual revolution", > it was the RESULT of THEIR sexual revolution. > You should check your facts. VD came to Europe with returning Crusaders and spread because of unsanitary practices and extensive adulterous activities. Such activities were just as extensive before the Crusades. This was during a time when the Catholic Church and its anti-sex precepts were at their most powerful. It was also a time when power ruled and the powerful got to be as adulterous as they wanted. Most certainly not a sexual revolution the way we understand the late 60s-early 70s to be one. > ... I could have > sworn that there was a time when it wasn't considered inevitable that > teenagers would get into bed with each other. The continued rejection by > our society of any form of self-control, particularly where it concerns > those "irresistable" passions, .... > Let me say this. Sex is good. It's wholesome, healthy, and beautiful, and > FUN! There is nothing wrong with it, or with the powerful desires that > puberty brings on. There is a LOT wrong with misusing those desires for > selfish gratification, or letting those desires rule you, as someone > always gets hurt, pregnancy or no. You won't hear any of that from the > folks at Planned Barrenhood, or from the ACLU [??], or from anyone else who > thinks it his raison d'etre to protect us from progeny . No article I have seen advocates teen people ruled by their bodies. I feel it much healthier when teenagers determine their sex life because of informed choices, and not on orders from third parties. I feel it is much healthier when teenagers understand the signals their bodies send them and choose to take or not take action accordingly. I feel it is *not* healthy when they don't understand what is happening or worse, have false ideas about their sexuality and thus make bad choices. If you think sex is "good, wholesome, healthy, beautiful and FUN!" why do you denigrate organizations like Planned Parenthood that seek to keep it that way? People have pointed out again and again that the teenagers who go to Planned Parenthood do so because sex education is not forthcoming from their parents. Yet you flame the concept of sexual education, from whatever source. What do you want? It is one thing to remain virginal until marriage, quite another to get to your wedding night without the faintest idea what is going to happen or why! I have known several people who have found themselves in that situation and they invariably suffered for it. > ... More than that, my sex > life as a married man is NOT enhanced by the temptations of pornography, > hard, soft, or sunny-side-up.... Who said anything about pornography? What deos that have to with sex education and abortion (besides some ramblings about society's decay)? > Teenage pregnancy is not the result of underinformed teenagers, it's the > result of teenagers who have not been trained to control themselves or > taught that there is good to be had by keeping themselves virgin until > marriage. I'm not so hot on birth control, as you can see here. But if sex is so much "FUN!", why wait until marriage, especially if you decide not to get married for a while? Is the argument "sex is for married people only, junior" "But why daddy?" Why indeed? Religious reasons? Then those who don't share your faith will be forgiven if they reach different conclusions, yes? > My point here is not to argue the legal or even the moral issues of > abortion. The real poverty of spirit that leads to the very idea of > considering abortion is what I want to address. In partial answer to an > earlier posting, the system of values that would lead to a reduction of > the abortion rate is not hard to find; all you have to do is go back a > few years to when it was lower. I'm not in any way eulogizing any period > in our past, just saying that when something was better, you really ought > to consider why. There were fewer teenage pregnancies then: why? There > was a lower teen suicide rate then: why? Couldn't have had anything to do > with the fact that do-your-own-thing or if-it-feels-good-do-it weren't > recognized as modern wisdom, could it? Yes, the seeds of that attitude > were sown in the permissive forties and the materialistic fifties, but > before they bore the fruit that we see now, there was a lot less of all > the things that we decry today. > Fist of all, abortion was a legal, accepted and not immoral option throughout the 18th and early part of the 19th centuries. In the mid 1800s, the newly formed AMA decided that the midwives who performed abortions and delivered babies were incompetent and started a campaign to stamp them out. It succeeded in declaring abortion illegal, not on moral grounds but on grounds of health dangers to the mother. It is only in the Victorian era that moral taboos got imposed on abortion. Even then, from roughly 1870 to 1970, abortions got performed, but in back alleys, with coat hangers. Women died or became permanently sterile. Are these the good old days you wre referring to? Spare me the cloak of your morality, sir. I can understand opposition to abortion. I am willing to try an reach a compromise with those who would make their opposition public policy. I am not willing to listen to jeremiads from those who long for a golden age of hypocritical morality. Marcel Simon
bmt@we53.UUCP ( B. M. Thomas ) (09/11/85)
>No article I have seen advocates teen people ruled by their bodies. I feel >it much healthier when teenagers determine their sex life because of informed >choices, and not on orders from third parties. I feel it is much healthier >when teenagers understand the signals their bodies send them and choose >to take or not take action accordingly. I feel it is *not* healthy when they >don't understand what is happening or worse, have false ideas about their >sexuality and thus make bad choices. You just did advocate it. Yes, you're right about making bad choices. What you and they don't seem to understand is that outside of marriage it's a bad choice, whether it agrees with your religion or not. If you swallow poison, you're going to get sick whether or not you believe it's poisonous. >If you think sex is "good, wholesome, healthy, beautiful and FUN!" why do >you denigrate organizations like Planned Parenthood that seek to keep >it that way? People have pointed out again and again that the teenagers >who go to Planned Parenthood do so because sex education is not forthcoming >from their parents. Yet you flame the concept of sexual education, from >whatever source. What do you want? It is one thing to remain virginal >until marriage, quite another to get to your wedding night without the faintest >idea what is going to happen or why! I have known several people who >have found themselves in that situation and they invariably suffered for it. I know several who waited, too, like I said before, and they didn't suffer for it. How did they suffer? Because they had to learn together how to satisfy each other? And Planned Parenthood is perpetrating the lie that you can have your cake and eat it too. The thing that kids need most to know is not how to do it, but how to keep from doing it. You're still missing the point. It is NOT good for young people to experiment with sex. I'm not trying to make anyone unhappy, just point out the *F*A*C*T* that casual sex is not good for anyone, whether they agree or not. >Who said anything about pornography? What deos that have to with sex education >and abortion (besides some ramblings about society's decay)? Rambling it was, sorry. I get that way after a long day. It was just another part of the "it feels good, so it must be right" lie. >But if sex is so much "FUN!", why wait until marriage, especially if you decide >not to get married for a while? Is the argument "sex is for married people >only, junior" "But why daddy?" Why indeed? Religious reasons? No. Practical reasons. It may feel good now, son, but afterwards it will do you harm. Just like lots of other things that I've taught you that seem good at the time but later get you into trouble. Like eating too much ice cream. > Then those >who don't share your faith will be forgiven if they reach different >conclusions, yes? Not my department. I can forgive them, but the question is, is it right? My purpose is not to judge, but to warn of danger, and to plead the cause of righteousness. >Fist of all, abortion was a legal, accepted and not immoral option >throughout the 18th and early part of the 19th centuries. In the mid 1800s, >the newly formed AMA decided that the midwives who performed abortions >and delivered babies were incompetent and started a campaign to stamp >them out. It succeeded in declaring abortion illegal, not on moral >grounds but on grounds of health dangers to the mother. It is only in >the Victorian era that moral taboos got imposed on abortion. >Even then, from roughly 1870 to 1970, abortions got performed, >but in back alleys, with coat hangers. Women died or became permanently >sterile. Are these the good old days you wre referring to? "Not immoral"? Says who? You? Pharaoh commanded the Jewish midwives to kill male Jewish babies too. That was legal, since Pharaoh WAS the law. Was that "not immoral"? The way I heard it was that research that was coming to light was convincing the medical scientists that there really was a life in there, and that killing it was indeed criminal. >Spare me the cloak of your morality, sir. I can understand opposition >to abortion. I am willing to try an reach a compromise with those >who would make their opposition public policy. I am not willing to >listen to jeremiads from those who long for a golden age of >hypocritical morality. > >Marcel Simon I'm not certain what you mean by a cloak of morality. I am a somewhat seasoned sinner who has seen what my doings have caused, and come for forgiveness to someone who promised to forget my past and give me a new start. I am most certainly not masquerading as someone that I'm not, and there is nothing hypocritical about understanding the consequences of the misuse of a human life. If you want to call me a hypocrite, you had better first come and live with me and show me what's wrong. More than likely, if you find something wrong and point it out, I'll change. I have no percentage in anyone living in guilt or depression. It is the wrongdoing itself, not someone else's calling it wrong, that causes guilt, sickness, and death. Extramarital sex is wrong- doing, and the fact that your religion doesn't recognize that is a judgement on your religion and doesn't change the truth. I would like to believe that you didn't intentionally misunderstand what I said. Because of your very different world view and my poor style at the keyboard, I can understand that you might not have been able to get my meaning. I am only asking that people open their eyes and see what's happening all around them, and stop trading their lives for pleasures that are false and fleeting. This is the truth, and I'd like to persuade you of it, for your benefit and that of the whole world. (At least you called me "sir".) brian
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (09/11/85)
> B. M. Thomas > > ME > >No article I have seen advocates teen people ruled by their bodies. I feel > >it much healthier when teenagers determine their sex life because of informed > >choices, and not on orders from third parties. I feel it is much healthier > >when teenagers understand the signals their bodies send them and choose > >to take or not take action accordingly. I feel it is *not* healthy when they > >don't understand what is happening or worse, have false ideas about their > >sexuality and thus make bad choices. > > You just did advocate it. Yes, you're right about making bad choices. What > you and they don't seem to understand is that outside of marriage it's a > bad choice, whether it agrees with your religion or not. > No, Mr. Thomas, I did not advocate that. I am not interested in arguing morality with you or anyone. I am interested in helping people make informed choices. People WILL make decisions on the conduct of their lives. All parents, counselors and other third parties can do is give them the facts they need to make the choices that are right *for them*. You are interested in telling people what is right and wrong. That is your right, but absolutes have little to do with the real world, where not everyone shares your idea of right and wrong. You will say 'well *I* am right' and I am sure you are quite sincere in saying so. Please understand that reasonable people can take the same data and arrive at different conclusions where subjective matters are concerned. > [What] you ... don't seem to understand is that outside of marriage [sex]'s a > bad choice, whether it agrees with your religion or not. > ... > The thing that kids need most to know is > not how to do it, but how to keep from doing it. You're still missing the > point. It is NOT good for young people to experiment with sex. I'm not > trying to make anyone unhappy, just point out the *F*A*C*T* that casual sex > is not good for anyone, whether they agree or not. > ... > ... [Sex] may feel good now, son, but afterwards it will do > you harm. Just like lots of other things that I've taught you that seem good > at the time but later get you into trouble. Like eating too much ice cream. > Would you care to back these assertions with some facts? Cite the "practical reasons" why sex before marriage causes harm? Explain how come there are millions of sexually active singles who are reasonably well adjusted? > > Then those > >who don't share your faith will be forgiven if they reach different > >conclusions, yes? > > Not my department. I can forgive them, but the question is, is it right? > My purpose is not to judge, but to warn of danger, and to plead the cause > of righteousness. Are you saying that those who don't share your faith are indanger, just because they don't share it, Mr. Thomas? You don't call that judging? > > ... [A]bortion was a legal, accepted and not immoral option > >throughout the 18th and early part of the 19th centuries. > > "Not immoral"? Says who? You? Pharaoh commanded the Jewish midwives to > kill male Jewish babies too. That was legal, since Pharaoh WAS the law. > Was that "not immoral"? Not me, U.S. society. Which just goes to show that morality changes with people, rather than being a rigid code of conduct for all times. > ... It is the wrongdoing itself, not someone else's calling > it wrong, that causes guilt, sickness, and death. Extramarital sex is wrong- > doing, and the fact that your religion doesn't recognize that is a judgement > on your religion and doesn't change the truth. > I see. Your religion has a lock on the truth, and such folks, religious or otherwise, who don't share your religion's idea of the truth are heathens engaged in wrongdoing. The word for this mindset is "intolerance," Mr Thomas. Marcel Simon
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (09/12/85)
In article <340@we53.UUCP> bmt@we53.UUCP ( B. M. Thomas ) writes: >I'm not >trying to make anyone unhappy, just point out the *F*A*C*T* that casual sex >is not good for anyone, whether they agree or not. Interesting. Perhaps you'd like to share the support for this *F*A*C*T*? >Rambling it was, sorry. I get that way after a long day. It was just another >part of the "it feels good, so it must be right" lie. Lie? Hmmm. What's the Truth? Perhaps I should stop eating too. > >No. Practical reasons. It may feel good now, son, but afterwards it will do >you harm. Just like lots of other things that I've taught you that seem good Well, that must explain this funny hair growing on my palms.... >Not my department. I can forgive them, but the question is, is it right? >My purpose is not to judge, but to warn of danger, and to plead the cause >of righteousness. "Righteosness?" In who's eyes? What are the dangers? (Besides the obvious "pregnancy and VD" which are results of carelessness) Maybe you are talking about ETERNAL DAMNATION? Maybe not. >"Not immoral"? Says who? You? Pharaoh commanded the Jewish midwives to >kill male Jewish babies too. That was legal, since Pharaoh WAS the law. >Was that "not immoral"? No, it is immoral for a government to tell people what to do with their own bodies. Nobody's advocating forced abortions. >I'm not certain what you mean by a cloak of morality. I am a somewhat >seasoned sinner who has seen what my doings have caused, and come for >forgiveness to someone who promised to forget my past and give me a new >start. Sinning seems to come naturally to humans, I'm sorry you didn't learn how to do it right. As for me, I'm living a life of sin, getting a good education, and having a GREAT time. Maybe Jesus will see me snuffed out after I die, but I doubt you're any more capable of judging that than I am. Considering that most of the gospels were written a couple of decades or so after Jesus died(breifly:-), I don't know if I'd place a great deal of "faith" in them. (Not, to mention the gospels that got deleted because the orthodoxy din't approve of them.) >it wrong, that causes guilt, sickness, and death. Extramarital sex is wrong- >doing, and the fact that your religion doesn't recognize that is a judgement >on your religion and doesn't change the truth. I suppose I'll realize that when the guilt, sickness and death hit me. > >brian Have you ever seen "Life of Brian?" Oh never mind, you wouldn't find it funny anyway... -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "We pray to Fred for the Hopelessly Normal Have they not suffered enough?" from _The_Nth_Psalm_ in _The_Book_of_Fred_
john@gcc-bill.ARPA (John Allred) (09/13/85)
[munch, munch] In article <430@mhuxr.UUCP> mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) writes: > >> ... It is the wrongdoing itself, not someone else's calling >> it wrong, that causes guilt, sickness, and death. Extramarital sex is wrong- >> doing, and the fact that your religion doesn't recognize that is a judgement >> on your religion and doesn't change the truth. >> >I see. Your religion has a lock on the truth, and such folks, religious >or otherwise, who don't share your religion's idea of the truth are heathens >engaged in wrongdoing. The word for this mindset is "intolerance," Mr Thomas. > >Marcel Simon My guess is that Mr. Thomas will now tell us that all heathens will burn in hell. -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (09/13/85)
In article <340@we53.UUCP> bmt@we53.UUCP ( B. M. Thomas ) writes: > >What >you and they don't seem to understand is that outside of marriage it's [sex] a >bad choice, whether it agrees with your religion or not. If you swallow >poison, you're going to get sick whether or not you believe it's poisonous. Why is sex outside of marriage bad? why is marriage an antidote to the sexual poison? >>It is one thing to remain virginal >>until marriage, quite another to get to your wedding night without the faintest >>idea what is going to happen or why! I have known several people who >>have found themselves in that situation and they invariably suffered for it. > >I know several who waited, too, like I said before, and they didn't suffer >for it. Good for them. So you both have contradictory evidence? just goes to show that people are different. Some people are better off having had pre-marital sex and some are not. Nothing extraorinary about that. It just shows that there is not ONE set of behaviour that will suit everybody. >How did they suffer? Because they had to learn together how to satisfy >each other? And Planned Parenthood is perpetrating the lie that you can >have your cake and eat it too. Why is that a lie? >The thing that kids need most to know is >not how to do it, but how to keep from doing it. You're still missing the >point. It is NOT good for young people to experiment with sex. Why not? >I'm not >trying to make anyone unhappy, just point out the *F*A*C*T* that casual sex >is not good for anyone, whether they agree or not. So how do you define "good" and "bad"? it sounds as though you have decided that pre-marital sex is BAD and that's that. Do you really expect to convince people with that kind of non-argumentation? Capitalising words and putting little stars in them does not constitute a proper argument. I also like your "whether they agree or not". You are basically saying that anybody who disagrees with you is wrong. Who are you, God? Beware, you are pretty close to committing blasphemy there. Also, why do you equate experimentation with sex to be "casual sex". I had sex when I was a teenager, and I stayed with my first lover for five years, much longer than a lot of marriages last. I don't see why the fact that I was young and unmarried made it "casual". I've had some casual sex since, as an adult. It's certainly not my preferred way of having it and I'm pretty happy being monogamous again, but it was an interesting experience. I don't think it harmed me, but it satisfied a certain curiosity. Actually, I've been harmed by certain relationships, but the sex had nothing to do with it, it was the personality of the people involved. Ah, but yes, sex is bad, I guess, it must have been the sex. Sorry I slipped there for a moment and dared use my intelligence instead of the authority of a complete stranger to analyse my own life. I guess my parents and friends are probably wrong too, to agree with me. It was the sex! >>But if sex is so much "FUN!", why wait until marriage, especially if you decide >>not to get married for a while? Is the argument "sex is for married people >>only, junior" "But why daddy?" Why indeed? Religious reasons? > >No. Practical reasons. It may feel good now, son, but afterwards it will do >you harm. Just like lots of other things that I've taught you that seem good >at the time but later get you into trouble. Like eating too much ice cream. Oh, I see, unmarried people are not able to control their sexual appetite. Listen, buddy, I don't know what YOU did before you were married (no, I don't want to know either), but I sure wish you would speak for yourself. We are not as depraved as it seems you were before you were married. Why did marriage change you anyway. Once a sinner, always a sinner, no? >> Then those >>who don't share your faith will be forgiven if they reach different >>conclusions, yes? > >Not my department. I can forgive them, but the question is, is it right? >My purpose is not to judge, but to warn of danger, and to plead the cause >of righteousness. Thank you for your forgiving. Again, be careful, there, you DO seem to have some kind of Godly complex - if sex is an offence, it is one against God, not you, so it is none of your business to forgive people unless you claim to be HIM (and the evidence seems to be mounting on this...). Plead all you want. >>Spare me the cloak of your morality, sir. I can understand opposition >>to abortion. I am willing to try an reach a compromise with those >>who would make their opposition public policy. I am not willing to >>listen to jeremiads from those who long for a golden age of >>hypocritical morality. > >I'm not certain what you mean by a cloak of morality. I am a somewhat seasoned >sinner who has seen what my doings have caused, and come for forgiveness to >someone who promised to forget my past and give me a new start. I am most Ah ha! well, again, then do please speak for yourself. It's not because YOU sinned so much that everybody else is as bad as you were. I am glad that you did find someone who was willing to give you a new start; that's nice. >It is the wrongdoing itself, not someone else's calling >it wrong, that causes guilt, sickness, and death. Extramarital sex is wrong- >doing, and the fact that your religion doesn't recognize that is a judgement >on your religion and doesn't change the truth. Nobody but God knows what THE TRUTH is. Humans and religions can only guess. >I am only asking that people open their eyes and see what's happening >all around them, and stop trading their lives for pleasures that are false and >fleeting. This is the truth, and I'd like to persuade you of it, for your >benefit and that of the whole world. Again, YOU as a human, cannot know THE truth and I think it is an offence against God to pretend you do. >(At least you called me "sir".) People usually do that when they want to be insulting. I called you "buddy". mm, not sure what that means.... <-: > >brian -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (09/14/85)
> > Forgive me if I seem to have come from another planet, but I could have > sworn that there was a time when it wasn't considered inevitable that > teenagers would get into bed with each other. Err, in what society. Margret Mead, in "Growing up in Soma" argued that the reason there is so much violence in our society was that it was sexually repressed. There are certainly cultures that are more sexually loose than ours, but are also peaceful. Instead of sounding like you are from another planet, you actually sound provincial. Read some anthropology books, you will be more likely to be less free with statements like ". . there was a time when . . ." The statement begs for an answer to the questions like "for whom?" and "where?" > > My point here is not to argue the legal or even the moral issues of > abortion. The real poverty of spirit that leads to the very idea of > considering abortion is what I want to address. I agree! There is no argument here. That is a statement stated as unconditionally true. You use it as a premise, an axiom, from which to reason. > In partial answer to an > earlier posting, the system of values that would lead to a reduction of > the abortion rate is not hard to find; all you have to do is go back a > few years to when it was lower. [ . . . ] > There were fewer teenage pregnancies then: why? There > was a lower teen suicide rate then: why? Killer bees, there is no question about it. There are far more killer bees in the Americas than there were then. The killer bees have psychic vibrations that influence behavior. > Couldn't have had anything to do > with the fact that do-your-own-thing or if-it-feels-good-do-it weren't > recognized as modern wisdom, could it? No way, look at the statistics. It has to be killer bees (though there is a powerful argument that it is the rodent population in El Centro that is influencing behavior). > Yes, the seeds of that attitude > were sown in the permissive forties and the materialistic fifties, but > before they bore the fruit that we see now, there was a lot less of all > the things that we decry today. I don't decry them! Why should I? If there are many unwanted teenage pregnancies, then the women can have abortions. That way there will not be a bunch of unwanted children and everything will be in balance. > > There is NO other way. > brian There MUST be another way, people get abortions all the time. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0382 (also: hplabs!hpda!hpdsqb!steiny)
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/17/85)
> [brian] > Forgive me if I seem to have come from another planet, but I could have > sworn that there was a time when it wasn't considered inevitable that > teenagers would get into bed with each other. ---- There was. It was before the bed was invented. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (09/22/85)
In article <11727@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >> Again, YOU as a human, cannot know THE truth and I think it is an offence >> against God to pretend you do. >> >> Sophie Quigley >> {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie > >I have to agree with Matt concerning pre-marital sex. Sophie, you refer to >God in your postings and ask if Matt is playing God. Matt didn't write the >bible, God did. How do you know? As far as anyone can tell, the Bible was written by humans. If I claim that this posting was inspired by G-d, would you believe me? What if I could prove that it was over 5000 years old? >Why is gold precious and and desired by everyone? Because it's a good conductor? >Because it is rare and not had by everyone. Darn, I didn't think of that. Would you like some plutonium, Ray? It fits the same bill. Thankyou for sharing your value judgements with the net, Ray. Would you like to know mine? They're not printed in the Bible! ...I thought not. Things would be so simple if we just looked up the answers in the Bible. Nobody would ever have to hear heretical words like "physics", "astronomy", "sociology" or "religious freedom" again. Why do you think freedom of thought is so precious and desired by everyone? Because it makes every single human important. I can think and feel and do what I want... I'm sorry it angers your diety. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "What? With her?" -Adam from _The_Book_of_Genesis_