@spendius,
spendius wrote:
Oh--come on Krumpie. That's a complete cop out.
The Christian religion is about the control of sexuality. Professor Greer said that the Catholic Church is a fertility machine. The law covers everything else.
You have ONLY three choices. Christian control of sexuality, no control or political control. You rule out the first I presume despite acting in the correct Christian manner for whatever reason. If you don't know the reason you act in the correct Christian manner you are in parrot mode.
Well here you are forcing me into three options when I can consider a forth or even fith. Why are these my only options when I can consider others? For example you never really said what political would mean as far as sexuality goes. I don't even know what you mean by it or what sort of limits or control it has towards it.
Not only that but since you said I only had problems with the first one, meaning christian control, you neglected to actually read what I wrote. I actually stated that I was not for absolute no control. There are aspects that need be addressed. I don't think someone has a right to your body just beause they want it. Therefore there would be a bit of control here. A person's body is their property and should thus have say over it.
Now if some guy wants to have sex with his dog, it effects me in no way, so why should I care if he wants to have sex with his dog? Do I care about the dog, of course I do, but if it's his property I shouldn't have a say. Animal rights a side it should be up to him and his dog. If the dog objects I think he should consider it and not force the animal. However; if the dog was my dog, I wouldn't want this same guy having sex with my dog, so there would be some necessary control.
Regardless if religous people want to admit it or not, just because something is illegal doesn't mean everyone will follow it. Not to mention that even if something is illegal, it doesnt mean a person is a good person simply because they follow the law. A truely good person acts in good ways regardless of the law. This means that if you were to say, make murder legal, an actual good person still would not murder even though it were legal to do it. Why? Because of my definition of what I consider goodness to be. It is not based on laws. It is based on societal agreeances.
If you want to consider that political then okay, but as far as our current political standings on sex, I don't agree with them. So you need to define for me what you mean by political here in this context before I can say I agree or disagree with it.
I think everything should be debated.
Just like abortion, I am actually both, pro-life and pro-choice at the same time. But people refuse to allow me to be this way. People simply can not see how I could be both at the same time. Here is how.
I personally think it is wrong to kill a being that is in production phase. However; if someone else thinks it is okay, then it should be allowed. But why? Because that production phase is solely based on another beings life. If the fetus were able to develop independantly from another body then by all means you would have to grant it's full rights, but since it is dependant upon another, then you have to take into consideration that beings wishes as well.
Long story short. If a woman wants to have an abortion, it should be available. However; I wouldn't want to have one because it is my choice and my point of view, but since I feel this way, it doesn't give me the right to impose my belief onto others and force them to behave like me.
This is only one reason, I do have other reasons as well but to prevent this from becoming incredibly long, I'll leave them out.