The Consent Argument

[Samael_Khan]

I am not criticizing anyone for not believing in that God. Belief has to be a choice, that is why we all have free will to choose.

God's rules have not been proven to be flawed, although they are undesirable to many people who want to be able to do whatever they want to do, even it it is not good for them or for society.

Ok. Lets look at one rule and one order:

1. Would you say that Old Testament slavery is OK?

2. Would you support the killing of men, women, children and animals in the OT?

The problem with your last point, is that you have failed to explain how certain rules of "God" are better than not obeying the rules. I can explain certain rules and their benefits, such as gleaning in the society of Israel that prevented the poor from going hungry which I think should be applied in some form today. You still haven't commented on the fact that contraceptives negate the negative effects of promiscuity if applied right. I understand that in a society where contraceptives do not exist, promiscuity can lead to many diseases and unwanted circumstances, but if we can overcome that then why would promiscuity be a problem now?

 

[Samael_Khan]

That certainly does not apply to me because the reason behind God's laws is irrelevant to me, and I do not only care about following them for some future benefit to myself. Moreover, I can deal properly with the questions and points made. I just do not want to take the time because it would fall on deaf ears.

OK. So if the reasoning behind God's laws is irrelevant to you, then you shouldn't bother criticising people for not following God's laws, because even if they weren't to our benefit you would follow them. So whether God's laws benefit us or not is irrelevant. You are also discussing the issues with us in bad faith by assuming that it will fall on deaf ears. If you are not willing to deal with the questions and points made properly, then I do not understand why you are even commenting on this thread.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I could have sworn I responded to this already, but it appears not. Apologies on delay.

The OP refers to adolescents.
The consent argument was regarding sex. That was the context, of the OP.

You were representing the argument of 'other people' though. Not your argument, I believe. And in doing so, you need to be very careful to articulate their argument in a fair manner. Or simply ask them to articulate it.
Articulating it poorly, or unfairly, and then arguing against that point of view is the very definition of a strawman. Your conclusion was thus stated;

Conclusion
Considering all these factors... the conclusion is, the consent argument, is a subjective opinion which is presented as a reasonable and sensible 19th century intelligent understanding. However the facts show different.
It is simply an argument made to excuse one's choice of conduct, and is built on the lie that no one is hurt, and that whatever one chooses to accept is right.
One certainly has the right to choose, but that does not mean their choice is right.

But no-one (or at least, almost no-one) is arguing that 'whatever one chooses to accept is right'. And no-one is suggesting that 'consent' is unfettered.

Someone else called the OP a strawman. I wasn't referring to the OP, but to the question I asked you.
If one takes the OP out of context, or consider it from their perspective alone, they might refer to it as a strawman.
To me it isn't. However, I don't have to say anything to prove it. The proof is there already.
You are the one required to prove your claim. I don't have the burden of proof here. You do.

Burden of proof? What now?
I'm still trying to work out what your point is. I assume, based on rereading a couple of times, that your point is that unfettered consent doesn't constitute moral righteousness. Fine, I agree. Where are we now?

I would agree that some things made legal, are not necessarily right. I won't say they are always different though.
Something can be both right, and legal, while not being different... Or viewed as having differences.

Simply put, legality and morality are entirely different spheres. Sometimes one informs the other.

The OP seems pretty clear and simple to me.

I would hope so, given that you were the author. However, that doesn't mean it's necessarily clear to others.

May I ask what you take from the OP, in a nutshell?

I think you're suggesting that unfettered consent doesn't constitute moral righteousness. I'm not exactly sure who ever suggested it did, but whatevs. You also seem to be hinting that there is an objective morality, and that determines what is moral. If that is your position, easier to just say that. It really doesn't matter at that point what others state or ask, since you'd be answering to a higher power, and not listening to us.
If you have doubts about objective morality, then sure...it all makes more sense to me.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ok. Lets look at one rule and one order:

1. Would you say that Old Testament slavery is OK?

2. Would you support the killing of men, women, children and animals in the OT?

No, but since I did not live 4000 years ago so I do not know the reasons why the text was written that way, or if it even represents anything that happened.

The problem with your last point, is that you have failed to explain how certain rules of "God" are better than not obeying the rules.

God's rules are always better than human rules because God is All-Knowing and All-Wise.

I can explain certain rules and their benefits, such as gleaning in the society of Israel that prevented the poor from going hungry which I think should be applied in some form today. You still haven't commented on the fact that contraceptives negate the negative effects of promiscuity if applied right. I understand that in a society where contraceptives do not exist, promiscuity can lead to many diseases and unwanted circumstances, but if we can overcome that then why would promiscuity be a problem now?

I do not believe that contraceptives negate the negative effects of promiscuity if applied right because they have nothing to do with promiscuity. I believe that promiscuity is a spiritual problem.

Below is the standard I live by and what I believe is moral behavior. This no doubt this standard seems unreasonable to most people only because we are at a spiritual low water mark in history. Keep in mind it was written over 50 years ago and how much more decadent society is is today:

“The proper use of the sex instinct is the natural right of every individual, and it is precisely for this very purpose that the institution of marriage has been established. The Bahá'ís do not believe in the suppression of the sex impulse but in its regulation and control.” Lights of Guidance (second part): A Bahá'í Reference File, pp. 364-365

“The Bahá'í Faith recognizes the value of the sex impulse, but condemns its illegitimate and improper expressions such as free love, companionate marriage and others, all of which it considers positively harmful to man and to the society in which he lives. The proper use of the sex instinct is the natural right of every individual, and it is precisely for this very purpose that the institution of marriage has been established. The Bahá'ís do not believe in the suppression of the sex impulse but in its regulation and control.'

In response to another letter enquiring if there were any legitimate way in which a person could express the sex instinct if, for some reason, he were unable to marry or if outer circumstances such as economic factors were to cause him to delay marriage, the Guardian's secretary wrote on his behalf:

'Concerning your question whether there are any legitimate forms of expression of the sex instinct outside of marriage: According to the Bahá'í Teachings no sexual act can be considered lawful unless performed between lawfully married persons. Outside of marital life there can be no lawful or healthy use of the sex impulse…….

In another letter on the Guardian's behalf, also to an individual believer, the secretary writes:

'Amongst the many other evils afflicting society in this spiritual low water mark in history is the question of immorality, and over-emphasis of sex...'

This indicates how the whole matter of sex and the problems related to it have assumed far too great an importance in the thinking of present-day society.

Lights of Guidance (second part): A Bahá'í Reference File, pp. 364-365

 

[Trailblazer]

OK. So if the reasoning behind God's laws is irrelevant to you, then you shouldn't bother criticising people for not following God's laws, because even if they weren't to our benefit you would follow them. So whether God's laws benefit us or not is irrelevant. You are also discussing the issues with us in bad faith by assuming that it will fall on deaf ears. If you are not willing to deal with the questions and points made properly, then I do not understand why you are even commenting on this thread.

That was a typo. I meant to say: "That certainly does not apply to me because the reason behind God's laws is not irrelevant to me." In other words, the reasons behind God's laws is relevant to me.

I know God's laws are for our benefit because God does not make laws that do not benefit humans. I follow them because I know they are beneficial for me.

I tried to opt out of commenting on this thread because I consider it pointless since I know my beliefs about sexual behavior are not what nonreligious people want to hear and I do not want to argue with anyone. I stand fast in my beliefs, especially the ones that involve sexual behavior but that does not mean I am criticizing or judging other people. If people do not believe in God or Baha'u'llah thy would have no reason to ascribe to the laws of Baha'u'llah. Moreover, Baha'i Laws do not apply to anyone except Baha'is.

 

[Samael_Khan]

No, but since I did not live 4000 years ago so I do not know the reasons why the text was written that way, or if it even represents anything that happened.

God's rules are always better than human rules because God is All-Knowing and All-Wise.

So hypothetically, if God says that people must be enslaved or killed via genocide then that is wisdom on his part?

I do not believe that contraceptives negate the negative effects of promiscuity if applied right because they have nothing to do with promiscuity. I believe that promiscuity is a spiritual problem.

Below is the standard I live by and what I believe is moral behavior. This no doubt this standard seems unreasonable to most people only because we are at a spiritual low water mark in history. Keep in mind it was written over 50 years ago and how much more decadent society is is today:

“The proper use of the sex instinct is the natural right of every individual, and it is precisely for this very purpose that the institution of marriage has been established. The Bahá'ís do not believe in the suppression of the sex impulse but in its regulation and control.” Lights of Guidance (second part): A Bahá'í Reference File, pp. 364-365

“The Bahá'í Faith recognizes the value of the sex impulse, but condemns its illegitimate and improper expressions such as free love, companionate marriage and others, all of which it considers positively harmful to man and to the society in which he lives. The proper use of the sex instinct is the natural right of every individual, and it is precisely for this very purpose that the institution of marriage has been established. The Bahá'ís do not believe in the suppression of the sex impulse but in its regulation and control.'

In response to another letter enquiring if there were any legitimate way in which a person could express the sex instinct if, for some reason, he were unable to marry or if outer circumstances such as economic factors were to cause him to delay marriage, the Guardian's secretary wrote on his behalf:

'Concerning your question whether there are any legitimate forms of expression of the sex instinct outside of marriage: According to the Bahá'í Teachings no sexual act can be considered lawful unless performed between lawfully married persons. Outside of marital life there can be no lawful or healthy use of the sex impulse…….

In another letter on the Guardian's behalf, also to an individual believer, the secretary writes:

'Amongst the many other evils afflicting society in this spiritual low water mark in history is the question of immorality, and over-emphasis of sex...'

This indicates how the whole matter of sex and the problems related to it have assumed far too great an importance in the thinking of present-day society.

Lights of Guidance (second part): A Bahá'í Reference File, pp. 364-365

So your claim that the negative effects negated by contraception is not relevant to promiscuity is complete nonsense, because YOU were the one who used physical issues such as STDs as an excuse to say that promiscuity, sex outside of marriage etc is wrong. So why are you then using reasoning that is not actually a true reflection of what you have a problem with?

Explain how sex outside of marriage is a spiritual problem?

I imagine that "spiritual problem" here means alienation from God. Because evidently there is no reason apart from that is the issue.

I also do not understand why you just aren't saying "I consider sex outside of marriage to be immoral just because God says so and that there is no other valid reason to consider it such". I am sure that if God said sex outside of marriage is OK you would agree with that and condemn sex within marriage.

 

[Samael_Khan]

That was a typo. I meant to say: "That certainly does not apply to me because the reason behind God's laws is not irrelevant to me." In other words, the reasons behind God's laws is relevant to me.

Ok...

I know God's laws are for our benefit because God does not make laws that do not benefit humans. I follow them because I know they are beneficial for me.

In order for you to know that you have to examine each law on a case by case basis to examine their benefits.

I tried to opt out of commenting on this thread because I consider it pointless since I know my beliefs about sexual behavior are not what nonreligious people want to hear and I do not want to argue with anyone. I stand fast in my beliefs, especially the ones that involve sexual behavior but that does not mean I am criticizing or judging other people. If people do not believe in God or Baha'u'llah thy would have no reason to ascribe to the laws of Baha'u'llah. Moreover, Baha'i Laws do not apply to anyone except Baha'is.

It isn't that people do not want to hear the argument. It is that you, being a person who is supposedly pro science, have to look and reality and deduce from the information given why something is right or wrong, and then explain it to people. For instance, you could say that sex outside of marriage is wrong when not using contraceptives because then people would get STDs and unwanted pregnancies which would be a very valid reason a couple of hundred years ago, and this is the reason why I think promiscuity was condemned among many religions because if everybody was promiscuous and transferred STDs then the society as a whole would objectively suffer. But, since we have contraceptives today, that reasoning would only apply to sex without using contraceptives, so the Gods law is valid within a certain context. Hence, today the law is outdated.

 

[Polymath257]

You lost me. I never said God tortured anyone.
You got the idea that he did, and called it fact.

He had his followers torture others: ever hear of the case where they had their opponents get circumcised before killing them under false pretenses?

So you agree that abortion is evil. Killing innocent babies.

Two points:
1. An embryo is not a baby.
2. A woman gets to remove anyone who is residing inside of her.

The children God killed were not innocent, as I quoted from scripture. Not sure you read it.

I did. And the idea that infants can not be innocent is horrific to me.

Therefore, "putting down" any animal is immoral
Again, the cleansing of the land was necessary. That's not inhumane and cruel. It acting for the good of humanity living in that land.

The animals were not 'contaminated'...they are simply animals. To 'put them down because of the wrong-doing of the humans is cruel.

Show LUCA.

??

The Bible said nothing about torture. I suggest if you are here making up stories that are not written, we end this conversation. I am not interested in discussing anything with someone who is going to just make up things.
If you claim God tortured anything, then please provide the scriptures that says he did.
Otherwise, it's a lie.

See above.

If a king decides to pop the neck of a murderer or chop his head off, it is not immoral just because you think so. Romans 13:1-4

Again, this is based on the fact that the murderer harmed someone. The king would NOT have the right to put someone to death that did not harm anyone.

Like what? The things you claim, which are not in the Bible, or the things you don't agree with?

The things in the Bible that show Jehovah to be a moral monster.

I find this and other conversations with you, telling. So what's new.

I ignored none of your post. I think this is the last time I am speaking to you. It's not moral to tell lies... especially on others.
If one consents to tell lies to themselves, that's their prerogative. To tell lies on others, is doing others harm. It's not the harm done, that makes the act immoral. It's the principle of love, that deems it immoral.
This is the root cause of immorality - lack of love... not love from the heathen perspective.

Exactly what I said: compassion and caring. There is no difference in a 'heathen perspective'. it is still love, compassion, and caring.

They harmed others, so good. Immortality does not equal to harm. That crutch is imaginary, and useless.

Then what *is* immorality? if it is simply agreement with some deity, then I have no interest in it. I *am* interested in how people harm other people. That is the behavior that needs to be dealt with.

No, it is not. That's your opinion.

And a quite common opinion. It is one of the reasons people are rejecting the Bible: it doesn't address the real issues. Instead, it sets up a false morality based on pleasing some deity.

If you are reading the posts, you will see the harm mentioned. If you don't see it, I cannot help you. You won't see it.

Please give the post number. I must have missed it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am not criticizing anyone for not believing in that God. Belief has to be a choice, that is why we all have free will to choose.

God's rules have not been proven to be flawed, although they are undesirable to many people who want to be able to do whatever they want to do, even it it is not good for them or for society.

I would say that several posters have actually done that.

We're not talking about people doing whatever they want to do whether it's good for them or not. Because that's an only theist canard that isn't actually based in reality. As you can see, there are a lot of atheists on this thread who care a great deal about morality and doing what is best for all the people of a society.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That certainly does not apply to me because the reason behind God's laws is irrelevant to me, and I do not only care about following them for some future benefit to myself. Moreover, I can deal properly with the questions and points made. I just do not want to take the time because it would fall on deaf ears.

Then you aren't really practicing morality at all. You're just following dictates without putting any thought into them.
That sounds dangerous to me.

 

[Polymath257]

Then you aren't really practicing morality at all. You're just following dictates without putting any thought into them.
That sounds dangerous to me.

In fact, I would consider this to be incredibly immoral. it is the neglect of the responsibility to think about the consequences of our actions and their effects on others.

To abide by a system where all moral reasoning is pushed off to another, even if that other is a deity, is in itself immoral in my mind.

This is why there are so many deeply religious people who get it into their heads that God wants them to kill their kids, or another person. And then they do it. If, instead, they would realize that, even if God did dictate they do such, it would still be wrong, then maybe they wouldn't do the evil that they do.

And, of course, this is another aspect of things: even if there is a deity, we cannot know what that deity desires in every situation. We have to make our best guess based on the texts we choose to follow.

But that isn't moral reasoning: it's guessing what some unknown and unknowable entity thinks. Moral reasoning is based on some principles that determine what is right and wrong that can be independently determined. That is why the criterion of harm is so important.

 

[Polymath257]

I would say that several posters have actually done that.

We're not talking about people doing whatever they want to do whether it's good for them or not. Because that's an only theist canard that isn't actually based in reality. As you can see, there are a lot of atheists on this thread who care a great deal about morality and doing what is best for all the people of a society.

The difference is that theists identify morality with whatever their deity desires.

Actual morality, in my mind, identifies morality with whatever improves general human physical and mental health and well-being.

So, the theists are interested in how they can do 'God's will', while the atheists are interested in how to improve the human condition. Those are two very different notions of morality.

 

[SkepticThinker]

In fact, I would consider this to be incredibly immoral. it is the neglect of the responsibility to think about the consequences of our actions and their effects on others.

To abide by a system where all moral reasoning is pushed off to another, even if that other is a deity, is in itself immoral in my mind.

This is why there are so many deeply religious people who get it into their heads that God wants them to kill their kids, or another person. And then they do it. If, instead, they would realize that, even if God did dictate they do such, it would still be wrong, then maybe they wouldn't do the evil that they do.

And, of course, this is another aspect of things: even if there is a deity, we cannot know what that deity desires in every situation. We have to make our best guess based on the texts we choose to follow.

But that isn't moral reasoning: it's guessing what some unknown and unknowable entity thinks. Moral reasoning is based on some principles that determine what is right and wrong that can be independently determined. That is why the criterion of harm is so important.

Agreed.
Once again, you've stated it much better than I have.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then you aren't really practicing morality at all. You're just following dictates without putting any thought into them.
That sounds dangerous to me.

Sorry, that was a typo. What I meant to say is that certainly does not apply to me because the reason behind God's laws is not irrelevant to me, and I do not only care about following them for some future benefit to myself.

I know the reason for God's Laws and I agree with those reasons, but even if I did not agree or like the laws, I would still believe they are right and try to follow them because I know that God knows more than I do about appropriate sexual behavior (and everything else).

The salient difference between believers who have a religion of laws vs. atheists is that atheists have no belief in God and no religion and no laws to follow, so they live by their own standards, and they "believe" they can decide what is best for society, using their own fallible human standards.

I have an opinion/belief about what is best for society according to God's standards but I am not foisting it upon anyone, it is simply my belief according to my religion.

I disagree with atheist standards and I disagree they can set standards for society, but nevertheless it is their inherent right to think for themselves and make their own choices and live by their own standards. I only ask that I be afforded the same rights.

 

[Trailblazer]

The difference is that theists identify morality with whatever their deity desires.

God does not have any desires because God is fully self-sufficient and self-sustaining so God has no needs whatsoever. God only desires what is best for humans, and that is why He sends Messengers to reveal teachings and laws.

“The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath wished nothing for Himself.The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, neither doth its perversity harm Him. The Bird of the Realm of Utterance voiceth continually this call: “All things have I willed for thee, and thee, too, for thine own sake.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 260

Actual morality, in my mind, identifies morality with whatever improves general human physical and mental health and well-being.

Improve the human condition according to your standards, but who are you to decide what is good for general human physical and mental health and well-being, and who are you to decide what the standards for society should be?

So, the theists are interested in how they can do 'God's will', while the atheists are interested in how to improve the human condition. Those are two very different notions of morality.

These are not two very different notions of morality. Theists are about what will improve the human condition and we believe that following God's teachings and laws are what improves it. I do not believe atheists have any idea what is good for the human condition since they have no way of knowing what humans were created for in the first place, but that is just my opinion according to my beliefs.

 

[Trailblazer]

Moral reasoning is based on some principles that determine what is right and wrong that can be independently determined.

So what if there were no laws and everyone decided to "independently determine" whether it is moral to burglarize houses or not? I am sure you are aware where most civil laws originate, from the religious laws such as the Ten Commandments.

 

[Trailblazer]

As you can see, there are a lot of atheists on this thread who care a great deal about morality and doing what is best for all the people of a society.

The hundred-dollar question is how they think they know what is best for all people of a society.

 

[Polymath257]

God does not have any desires because God is fully self-sufficient and self-sustaining so God has no needs whatsoever. God only desires what is best for humans, and that is why He sends Messengers to reveal teachings and laws.

“The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath wished nothing for Himself.The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, neither doth its perversity harm Him. The Bird of the Realm of Utterance voiceth continually this call: “All things have I willed for thee, and thee, too, for thine own sake.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 260

Yes, I understand that is the belief. But if what is best for humans isn't determined by God, but just known by God, that means it is possible for humans to know and understand without God's intervention.

Improve the human condition according to your standards, but who are you to decide what is good for general human physical and mental health and well-being, and who are you to decide what the standards for society should be?

That is why a democratic system of governance is to be desired. That way everyone gets a say in how things happen.

These are not two very different notions of morality. Theists are about what will improve the human condition and we believe that following God's teachings and laws are what improves it. I do not believe atheists have any idea what is good for the human condition since they have no way of knowing what humans were created for in the first place, but that is just my opinion according to my beliefs.

Even if there was a reason for our creation, what relevance is that to what is best for us *now*? And, shouldn't *we* get to determine what is best for us?

I don't think theists have any more understanding of what is best for humans than atheists. All they have is what they believe is the opinions of some deity.

 

[Trailblazer]

So hypothetically, if God says that people must be enslaved or killed via genocide then that is wisdom on his part?

Hypothetically, if pink elephants in my garage said I should kill my husband, would that be right?
I do not give a rip what the Old Testament says "God did" and I do not need to defend it as it is not associated with my religion.

So your claim that the negative effects negated by contraception is not relevant to promiscuity is complete nonsense, because YOU were the one who used physical issues such as STDs as an excuse to say that promiscuity, sex outside of marriage etc is wrong. So why are you then using reasoning that is not actually a true reflection of what you have a problem with?

I never said that STDs are the reason that sex outside of marriage etc is wrong, I only said that is one thing that can result from sex outside marriage. I believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong because it runs contrary to God's Law, but that is just my belief and I am not foisting it upon anyone else or expecting anyone else to adhere to it.

Explain how sex outside of marriage is a spiritual problem?

I imagine that "spiritual problem" here means alienation from God. Because evidently there is no reason apart from that is the issue.

As a believer I would consider that pretty important reason, although I would not exactly call it alienation from God, but rather it is going against God's laws which can lead to alienation, but that is just according to my religion and it is my belief, to which I have just as much of a right as you have to your beliefs.

I also do not understand why you just aren't saying "I consider sex outside of marriage to be immoral just because God says so and that there is no other valid reason to consider it such". I am sure that if God said sex outside of marriage is OK you would agree with that and condemn sex within marriage.

I said it before and I am saying it again. I consider sex outside of marriage to be immoral just because God says so and I believe there are other valid reasons to consider it immoral, because it is harmful to individuals and thus harmful to society. In a nutshell, I believe it is harmful to individuals because it is harmful to the soul. I believe it is harmful to society for the following reason:

“The Bahá’í teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Bahá’í law thus restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.” The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 223

“The proper use of the sex instinct is the natural right of every individual, and it is precisely for this very purpose that the institution of marriage has been established. The Bahá'ís do not believe in the suppression of the sex impulse but in its regulation and control.” Lights of Guidance (second part): A Bahá'í Reference File, pp. 364-365

 

[Trailblazer]

In order for you to know that you have to examine each law on a case by case basis to examine their benefits.

I could do that and show their benefits but I am not the one who decides what is beneficial according to any personal opinions or criteria I might have.

It isn't that people do not want to hear the argument. It is that you, being a person who is supposedly pro science, have to look and reality and deduce from the information given why something is right or wrong, and then explain it to people. For instance, you could say that sex outside of marriage is wrong when not using contraceptives because then people would get STDs and unwanted pregnancies which would be a very valid reason a couple of hundred years ago, and this is the reason why I think promiscuity was condemned among many religions because if everybody was promiscuous and transferred STDs then the society as a whole would objectively suffer. But, since we have contraceptives today, that reasoning would only apply to sex without using contraceptives, so the Gods law is valid within a certain context. Hence, today the law is outdated.

Atheists are not going to see sex outside of marriage or certain other sexual behaviors as wrong because they do not believe in God so they do not see the importance of following God's laws. Regarding the vital importance of the law, this is the Baha'i belief:

“The beginning of all things is the knowledge of God, and the end of all things is strict observance of whatsoever hath been sent down from the empyrean of the Divine Will that pervadeth all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 5

I believe that God's laws become outdated with the coming of a new Messenger of God who updates those laws.

I guess you are going to push me to explain why I believe that lack of restraint in sexual matters is bad for humans. I received a post from a Baha'i on a forum some time back and I fully agree with what he said. I was so taken with it that I saw no reason to restate it in my own words so I asked him if I could share it on forums and he said that was fine. Below is what he posted:

"Sex is not love and love is not sex, nor is there any necessary relationship between the two. In human beings it is true that sex typically plays a bonding role in a certain type of loving relationship, but it's not necessary to it (however much people think it is). We love lots of people who we would (unless something is wrong with us) never consider having sex with: children, parents, close friends, etc. One might even add household pets to the list.

Sex is primarily about reproduction. That's why it even exists in the first place. It's a biological mechanism that increases diversity in the gene pool, for one thing. Its role in relationships in some species is a secondary role, not the primary one, which evolved much later. Sex is not something only cute furry creatures do for bonding. Reptiles and amphibians and insects and even plants have sex lives. It evolved as a means of reproduction, and only later acquired secondary roles. Those who want to divorce it completely from its primary role (and they do exist; I've been in discussions where people have argued quite strenuously that sex isn't about reproduction at all!) are in a very real sense attempting to force it to conform to their own selfish desires . . . and that, ultimately, is what is against our spiritual nature.

Our spiritual nature cannot be developed except by "dying to self" and "living in God." God has given us a dual nature: one material and one spiritual. Sex is part of the material nature, however much it may be able to play a role in a truly loving relationship. It is not what we are, even though people insist that it is. (Extreme but real example: I read an article in the long ago when the AIDS epidemic had become the big news of the day in which the author, a promiscuous homosexual who had contracted the disease, wrote about how it had affected his life. He stated near the end that he had to take a lot of precautions now to avoid spreading the illness, but that he couldn't give up his promiscuous lifestyle because that was "who he was.")

God is calling us to struggle against our lower nature and to become who we truly are: not material beings, not sexual beings, but spiritual beings who are in control of the physical side of our nature and who can thus find true happiness living in conformity with His will. Although not scriptural, there is a possible explanation of why He has made it so hard that I ran across long ago in a Baha'i children's book: Because if it were too easy, it wouldn't be worth anything. Or put another way, because only by being challenged can we really prove our love for God."