Homophobia causes the problems, not homosexuality

[Revoltingest]

Another great thing about female sexuality...orgasms are completely independent from fertility. So our climaxes are for pleasure only.

Since males are in the same biological boat (fertility being unnecessary), I don't get your point.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, it really won't... well, except to display how dishonest you are about the whole thing. After all, you're perfectly aware that my statement was completely factual. What a shocker.

I indicated that I loathe bullies.
You want to engage me, but your posts are abusive.
Perhaps a visual aid will help....

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Since males are in the same biological boat (fertility being unnecessary), I don't get your point.

It was intended to be addressed to Vigilans, concerning masturbation, sperm, and "spilled seed" as being spiritually detrimental. I intended to throw in the perspective of humans having the capacity to masturbate as a whole, but that it included the female orgasm from masturbation. Therefore, it showed the argument from "masturbation = sin" being problematic.

I'm in agreement with you about male sexuality, since orgasm can occur without ejaculation in males as well.

 

[Revoltingest]

....orgasm can occur without ejaculation in males as well.

Neither requires fertility though.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Neither requires fertility though.

Exactly, but the argument against masturbation is what I'm addressing.

 

[Revoltingest]

OK.

 

[Vigilans]

I guess I must clarify, I am not talking about a popularity contest or putting things to a vote to determine what is moral. I am talking about a morality modeled after law and science where empiricism and precedent reign over mere opinion. General outcomes of various contentions can be measured and tested. Claims can be directly compared on what types of sequelae emerge.

In western countries, our law is prescribed by democratically elected bodies. Within such a system, law is inevitably modelled after the popular will, therefore so to is morality. What you have described is still a popularity contest, it's just a circuitous one. As for means testing moral precepts, I accept that this is a pragmatic view and a reasonable one. It's just not one I can share.

I am much more an elitist than a populist. I believe well-trained experts can process information to be get at truth.

Ditto. I think our respective experts look quite different though. The experts I put the most stock in all wear vestments!

Given the exponential changes in human understanding, in my view, the weight of the past is vastly bogged down by ignorance. We can certainly glean apt hypotheses from antiquity but we certainly cannot draw conclusions about morality from them.

It's true that we've more knowledge, but not more wisdom or understanding. I won't paint our ancestors with one brush, particularly your brush of 'ignorance'. In many ways, I think we're inferior to them.

I just wonder whether religious passion can come from stores of excess sexual passion or whether sexual frustration can be channeled into religious conviction at least for a time before the rupture. ( haha I believe rupture is inevitable but not rapture.) Cheers !!

Undoubtedly. It's often said that sex makes men 'weak at the knees'. Knights would often refrain from making love to their wives if battle was looming. Many boxers still practice abstinence in the build up to fights. Frustration of all kinds can foster zeal. Religiosity is infinitely more than just sexual frustration though!

 

[Midnight Rain]

In western countries, our law is prescribed by democratically elected bodies. Within such a system, law is inevitably modelled after the popular will, therefore so to is morality. What you have described is still a popularity contest, it's just a circuitous one. As for means testing moral precepts, I accept that this is a pragmatic view and a reasonable one. It's just not one I can share.

What would you propose? I can only assume your belief is that the Christian definition of morality should be the universally accepted one but what is your reason for believing it to be the best?

It's true that we've more knowledge, but not more wisdom or understanding. I won't paint our ancestors with one brush, particularly your brush of 'ignorance'. In many ways, I think we're inferior to them.

I also believe that there are ways that our ancestors were better than ourselves. In what way did you have in mind?

Undoubtedly. It's often said that sex makes men 'weak at the knees'. Knights would often refrain from making love to their wives if battle was looming. Many boxers still practice abstinence in the build up to fights. Frustration of all kinds can foster zeal. Religiosity is infinitely more than just sexual frustration though!

Sexual activity can actually stimulate the brain making it easier to learn new skills and concentrate on existing ones. For men the buildup of testosterone that has not been released can cause them to be irritable and can be confused with strength. Its like prodding a bull before a rodeo. Though long term effects of sexual frustration are universally negative on the body and your personal performance in non-sexual endeavors.

 

[columbus]

In western countries, our law is prescribed by democratically elected bodies.

I don't know what country you live in. I live in the USA, where we are a constitutional republic.

The whole problem, politically, with "Freedom and equality for all" is that is in conflict with religionists who demand the freedom to oppress people based on their religion. They call that "Freedom of religion'".

Fortunately, the principles and Constitution are winning the battle. It is a slow process, but it is working.

Tom

 

[Norman]

Your Church is one of the worst Norman. The hypocrisy is astounding. Complaining of being silenced when you spend millions of tax deductible donations influencing elections in California makes me angry.

Tom

Norman: I answered your post Tom from both sides of the issue. Are you proclaiming to be a pedagogue of what my church did in regards to proposition 8? I am assuming that is what you are referring to. If so, state your case. My church has not dissimulated in anyway about its stand and what actions it took in regards to Proposition 8. I do not understand your vituperative criticism or your supercilious tone in your post. Marriage between one man and one woman, this tradition of marriage has been and is sacrosanct.

Tom: The hypocrisy is astounding

Norman: What hypocrisy?

Tom: Complaining of being silenced

Norman: Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like “homophobic.”
Interview With Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman: “Same-Gender Attraction”

Norman: “to criticize those with a different view” That comment Tom was referenced to anyone who opposes same sex attraction.

Tom: when you spend millions of tax deductible donations influencing elections in California makes me angry.

Norman: Since you did not do homework on your comment, I will have to do it for you. What is there to be angry about? Why don’t you find groups that support your cause and donate to those group (s) that support your belief in same sex attraction? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints were not the only church that supported Proposition 8. However I will respond in regards to my church with this to dispose some myths about this. I will also give the reason (s) my church gets involved with moral issues that affects society as a whole.

Norman: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints clarifies Proposition 8 Filing, Corrects Erroneous News Reports
Today The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints clarified erroneous news reports following the filing of its final report on donations to the ProtectMarriage.com coalition.

Norman: On Friday, 30 January, the Church filed the final report of its contributions (all of which were non-monetary) to the ProtectMarriage.com coalition. The report, submitted in advance of the 31 January deadline, details in-kind donations totaling $189,903.58.
The value of the Church’s in-kind (non-monetary) contribution is less than one half of one percent of the total funds (approximately $40 million) raised for the “Yes on 8” campaign. The Church did not make any cash contribution.

Norman: Because media coverage about this filing ran without a comment from the Church, the following statements of fact from the Church add context to this story and should help correct the record:

Norman: Fox13 (Utah): “The documents show the amount spent by the Mormon Church is greater than what was initially stated.”
Fact: The Church, like other organizations on both sides of the ballot issue, was required to publicly file these donations by the 31 January deadline. The Church has been filing required contribution reports throughout the campaign. Those earlier donations “initially stated” were filed for specific time periods prior to this last reporting period, as required by law. Other groups are also filing their final contribution reports to meet the same deadline.

Norman: San Francisco Chronicle : “Mormon church officials, facing an ongoing investigation by the state Fair Political Practices Commission, Friday reported nearly $190,000 in previously unlisted assistance to the successful campaign for Prop. 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California.”
Sacramento Bee : “The disclosure comes amid an investigation by the state's campaign watchdog agency into whether the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints violated state laws by not fully disclosing its involvement during the campaign.”
Fact: This filing is in no way prompted by an investigation by the California Fair Political Practices Commission. Many organizations are filing this week to meet the deadline required by law. We believe we have complied with California law.

Norman: KFMB 760 AM (San Diego) :
“Mormon Church Misstated How Much It Spent in Prop 8 Fight.”
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints previously claimed only about $2,000 was spent in support of the measure.”
365Gay : “Mormon Church admits it spent 100 times more for Prop 8 than reported”
Fact: Again, the previous disclosure of an in-kind donation was to meet an earlier deadline. In fact, previous filings detailed over $50,000 out of the total non-monetary contribution of $189,903.58.This week’s filing reported donations that fell within a different time period and required reporting by the 31 January deadline. Other groups also made their final contributions reports this week.
Understanding the extent of donations from other organizations may help the media and the public better understand the context in which the Church’s donations were made.
Church Clarifies Proposition 8 Filing, Corrects Erroneous News Reports

Norman: Official Statement — 7 February 2012
Church Issues Statement on Appeals Court Prop 8 Ruling
Salt Lake City —
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued the following statement today regarding the decision on Proposition 8 by a federal appeals court in California. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regrets today’s decision. California voters have twice determined in a general election that marriage should be recognized as only between a man and a woman. We have always had that view. Courts should not alter that definition, especially when the people of California have spoken so clearly on the subject. Millions of voters in California sent a message that traditional marriage is crucial to society. They expressed their desire, through the democratic process, to keep traditional marriage as the bedrock of society, as it has been for generations. We recognize that this decision represents a continuation of what has been a vigorous public debate over the rights of the people to define and protect the fundamental institution of marriage. There is no doubt that today’s ruling will intensify the debate in this country. We urge people on all sides of this issue to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different opinion.
Church Issues Statement on Appeals Court Prop 8 Ruling

Norman: Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identities as men or women. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, will continue to defend the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, because it is a compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to the future of society.
The final words in the Church’s proclamation on the family are an admonition to the world from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”
The Divine Institution of Marriage

 

[SkepticThinker]

The benefit is spiritual rather than physiological. It's an exercise in self-restraint. Many philosophies preach it. I couldn't honestly tell you what the psychological effects are. I'm only one human being. I haven't done a case study of abstinence versus indulgence.



As a Christian, I believe that the truth is axiomatically good, and that therefore the study of said truth is a worthwhile pursuit. I wouldn't go as far as to say that all attempts at 'isolating objective truth [are] inherently good.' I have reservations about certain research in the fields of medicine and genetics for example.



The right thing rarely correlates with the practical thing. I hope that I'll always do what I believe to be right, and not what I know to be expedient.


Mind-independent facts are true regardless of whether we comprehend them. That's not to say they're incomprehensible though. I don't think they are, not entirely at any rate.

I agree that what's 'right' and 'wrong' has changed. Christ fulfilled the Law after all. I don't agree that morality is transmitted from the bottom-up though. Morality is decreed from above. For me, rightness doesn't correspond to the democratic will but the will of our creator. I'm not a consequentialist. Moral axioms can't be discovered empirically.

I don't agree that the claim is faulty. Onanism, a conscious spilling of one's seed, is sinful. The function of the sexual organs is observed empirically. Sperm exists for conception, not for spilling on the floor. Sex is pleasurable, another purpose is its enjoyment with your spouse.

I would argue that this isn't actually a system of morality at all. If we are taking orders from above with no thought to consequence in the world we actually live in, with no thought for empirical evidence, I would say we are not practicing any system of morality. To exercise morality one needs to be able to reason out choices and make distinctions between what is right and wrong based on the consequences of taking certain actions. If we're not doing that, we're just following arbitrary orders, which to me, is not practicing any kind of morality at all.

And if morality has changed, as you say, then how can we know what these changes are, and why the changes have been made? Or does that not matter?

 

[SkepticThinker]

In western countries, our law is prescribed by democratically elected bodies. Within such a system, law is inevitably modelled after the popular will, therefore so to is morality. What you have described is still a popularity contest, it's just a circuitous one. As for means testing moral precepts, I accept that this is a pragmatic view and a reasonable one. It's just not one I can share.



Ditto. I think our respective experts look quite different though. The experts I put the most stock in all wear vestments!



It's true that we've more knowledge, but not more wisdom or understanding. I won't paint our ancestors with one brush, particularly your brush of 'ignorance'. In many ways, I think we're inferior to them.



Undoubtedly. It's often said that sex makes men 'weak at the knees'. Knights would often refrain from making love to their wives if battle was looming. Many boxers still practice abstinence in the build up to fights. Frustration of all kinds can foster zeal. Religiosity is infinitely more than just sexual frustration though!

Studies seem to be showing that this claim doesn't hold much water and/or that the opposite is actually more effective (e.g. sex stimulates the production of testosterone, which boosts aggression). Of course, that only matters if you rely on empirical evidence.

 

[Ingledsva]

Masturbation is not forbidden for fear that one might forgo a partner. Much sin can be committed with a partner. Masturbation et al. are sins because they abuse and/or obstruct the observable function [purpose] of the sexual organs. I've never felt that truth can lie in moderation. It's always seemed to me that, by straddling the middle ground, one must necessarily surrender principle to practicality. I'm idealistic.

UMMM! Where does it say that in your Bible?

*

 

[McBell]

Masturbation is not forbidden for fear that one might forgo a partner. Much sin can be committed with a partner. Masturbation et al. are sins because they abuse and/or obstruct the observable function [purpose] of the sexual organs. I've never felt that truth can lie in moderation. It's always seemed to me that, by straddling the middle ground, one must necessarily surrender principle to practicality. I'm idealistic.

So basically you are saying that every time a man urinates, he is sinning?
If a man urinating is not sinning, then you shoot your argument in the foot, right?
I mean, if you claim that the penis is only for reproduction...

 

[Ingledsva]

*

Masturbation is not forbidden for fear that one might forgo a partner. Much sin can be committed with a partner. Masturbation et al. are sins because they abuse and/or obstruct the observable function [purpose] of the sexual organs. I've never felt that truth can lie in moderation. It's always seemed to me that, by straddling the middle ground, one must necessarily surrender principle to practicality. I'm idealistic.

UMMM! Where does it say that in your Bible?

*

Anyone? Bible? Not the traditions of man! We know what Jesus said about traditions of man! From the Bible? Anyone?

*

 

[Ingledsva]

So basically you are saying that every time a man urinates, he is sinning?
If a man urinating is not sinning, then you shoot your argument in the foot, right?
I mean, if you claim that the penis is only for reproduction...

Not to mention - all those guys with erection problems that have to prove it at the hospital, to get their Viagra!

*

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If a man urinating is not sinning, then you shoot your argument in the foot, right?

Don't aim for your right foot when having a wee!

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't aim for your right foot when having a wee!

That reminds me.....
Why did John Wayne always have wet shoes?

Because whenever he stood at a urinal, the guy next to him would turn & say, "Hey, you're John Wayne! Oh....sorry about that.".

 

[Vigilans]

UMMM! Where does it say that in your Bible? *

The Bible says that masturbation et al. are sins. This is not an innovation of man. The line of reasoning you take issue with was developed by the Scholastics. It demonstrates that God's will is observable in nature. This tradition does not contradict scripture, it supplements and elucidates it. I'm an Anglo-Catholic Ingledsva. I believe that sacred tradition is invaluable to an understanding of Scripture.

 

[Vigilans]

So basically you are saying that every time a man urinates, he is sinning? If a man urinating is not sinning, then you shoot your argument in the foot, right?
I mean, if you claim that the penis is only for reproduction...

This is an enormous straw-man. Read my posts carefully. I've not used the word 'penis' once. I'm discussing the purpose of the sexual apparatus. Not the urinary apparatus. The two functions are unrelated. I've been discussing the purpose of sperm, not the purpose of the penis as a whole. I've not said 'the penis is only for reproduction.' What I have said is that sperm is for conception, rather than for spilling on the floor.