posted
I think that it could be because it's difficult to reasonably concieve of a situation where someone must have sex or else suffer dire consequences.
Unless, of course, you are talking about rape. There actually are exceptions to the no-nonmarital-sex rule: if it is against your will, there is no blame or sin attached whatsoever.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I understand your first sentence. Are you saying the belief that nonmarital sex is wrong (with exceptions) may stem from the severity of certain possible outcomes?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'm saying that in cases where other serious sins are seen as less serious, then THAT comes from the severity of certain possible outcomes.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, I still don't understand. I'm tired, muddled, and possibly getting sick -- maybe I'm just slow today. Can you clarify some more?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think kat is referring back to blacwolve's post, where she says:
quote:I've been thinking about this a lot recently. It seems like in our society most moral wrongs are not universal moral wrongs. Very few people would say killing, or stealing, or lying are wrong no matter what. The debate over US torture is really a debate over whether or not torture is a universal wrong. But sexual immorality is considered a universal wrong by everyone who considers it a wrong in the first place.
kat is saying most people can concieve of situations where killing, stealing, or lying are the more moral choice, because the alternatives are worse. But if you take as a given that non-marital sex is wrong, like lying or stealing is wrong, it's a lot harder to come up with a situation where the alternatives to not having sex are "worse."
Is that a valid reading of your posts, kat? Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think that it could be because it's difficult to reasonably concieve of a situation where someone must have sex or else suffer dire consequences.
Unless, of course, you are talking about rape. There actually are exceptions to the no-nonmarital-sex rule: if it is against your will, there is no blame or sin attached whatsoever.
Unless, of course, you live under Sharia Law or your family is composed of Islamic fanatics. In which case, it the rape victim's fault for making herself available or attracting the attacker.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think that it could be because it's difficult to reasonably concieve of a situation where someone must have sex or else suffer dire consequences.
Unless, of course, you are talking about rape. There actually are exceptions to the no-nonmarital-sex rule: if it is against your will, there is no blame or sin attached whatsoever.
Unless, of course, you live under Sharia Law or your family is composed of Islamic fanatics. In which case, it the rape victim's fault for making herself available or attracting the attacker.
But then again with how much flesh your average extremist female is displaying you'd think men would drift towards homosexuality. Its no wonder it must be the woman's fault if a man can get excited enough to try anything.
edit: In retrospect I thought I should note that I am being purely facetious as the last two posts sorta rubbed me the wrong way.
posted
Scarlett's line is like the Left's equivalent of George H. W. Bush's that if Bill Clinton had his way, we'd be "up to our ears in spotted owls and out of work for every American." (See An Incovenient Truth.)
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I'm tired, muddled, and possibly getting sick -- maybe I'm just slow today. Can you clarify some more?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
