Texaggie7nine said:

---

Do you actually think God cares how a married couple gets busy?

---

Yes, of course. Can a man rape his wife? That is evil as well, even though it is a married couple getting busy, as you say.

In this case, even YOU should care how a married couple gets busy.

So slipping it in the brown eye is "evil"?

Texaggie7nine said:

---

So slipping it in the brown eye is "evil"?

---

Ahhh... I thought you were taking this convo seriously. I understand now.

Sorry, it's entertaining to encounter such rare views.

So you think that it is wrong even though never mentioned in the bible? The bible will go so far as saying what to do when a woman is on her period. What to do when the man gets semen on the bed, but not a peep about backdoor action and you think wrong?

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Sorry, it's entertaining to encounter such rare views.

So you think that it is wrong even though never mentioned in the bible? The bible will go so far as saying what to do when a woman is on her period. What to do when the man gets semen on the bed, but not a peep about backdoor action and you think wrong?

---

You're certainly assuming a lot about me and my views.

I believe I specifically said above you don't need theology to make a declarative statement it is wrong. Just using reason.

I think he's saying it's ok.

Marco Esquandolas said:

---

I think he's saying it's ok.

---

I think he's saying he's not Christian or Jewish. But still thinks its wrong. I mean he called it evil.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Marco Esquandolas said:

---

I think he's saying it's ok.

---

I think he's saying he's not Christian or Jewish. But still thinks its wrong. I mean he called it evil.

---

You still try to read too much into things. Don't go beyond what is written. It helps a lot in forum discussions.

I'm not saying I *think* it's wrong, I'm saying it is evil. It is harmful to the human person and harmful to society. It is, therefore, of societal concern.

Does that mean I support legislation around it like there used to be universally in the west (and almost world-wide)? No. I do, however, think people that use Reason, including Christians, need to be more universal in their condemnation of these acts, because it helps their case in arguments against supporting gay marriage and pedophilia and bestiality and polygamy and such. (i.e. point the finger at ourselves as well)

Sexual immorality affects all, and is largely obvious in the use of Natural Law (Reason), not in theology or appeals to a scripture or religion.

Ok so what is your factual data to back that up. How is butt sex any more harmful than eating a fatty dinner? Prove its evil other than say it is. Are you mocking the christians that say homosexuality is evil? I can kind of see your point if you are but, but there is scriptural support to condemn homosexual activity.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Ok so what is your factual data to back that up. How is butt sex any more harmful than eating a fatty dinner? Prove its evil other than say it is. Are you mocking the christians that say homosexuality is evil? I can kind of see your point if you are but, but there is scriptural support to condemn homosexual activity.

---

I would say eating a fatty dinner, if it is gluttonous or intemperate is evil as well. I am certainly guilty frequently.

I would say quite confidently that homosexuality is not evil. Actions are evil, not preferences. Preferences or desires can be disordered (again, me and fatty food, or me and beer) but they are not in and of themselves evil.

Actions are evil, and gravely evil, if:
The person knows it's wrong
The person does it purposefully
The matter is evil, or gravely evil

For instance-

I know eating too much is wrong- especially unhealthy food, because I know it will lead to poorer health and I will not be able to perform my duties such as being a good father for a long time.
I eat the Chicken Fried Steak anyway.
Intemperance, especially gluttony, is evil.

The above example, a very real one for me, is an act of evil.

Pedophilia, while a clearly disordered desire or orientation, isn't itself evil, but the acting on it is. The person might not be able to help this orientation. Perhaps they were born this way or broken along the way.

Imagine, in your earlier scenario, about the married couple "getting it on". What if they are watching an animated porn that shows child pornography while they "get it on". Some might say no one is hurt by this. Both are consenting. No victims. Both, while oriented to be sexually turned-on by pedophilia, aren't directly acting on it.

I say this is evil. I say this confidently. They are disordered in their desires, they aren't working toward the good of themselves, or their marriage, or their community, or the world, and they are partaking in disordered fantasies which might lead to a direct act in the future. This act is evil, and the are culpable if they know it.

This, even though it is in the private bedroom of consenting married adults, should be your business.

Ok so you are God then. I see.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Ok so you are God then. I see.

---

Where did I mention God?

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Ok so you are God then. I see.

---

I assume then you're saying you're God when you condemn an adult having sex with a child?

I hope you're at the very least saying that action is evil.

I wouldn't react the way you just did, though, and say 'Ok, so you are God then. I see.'

I would say 'oh, this is a reasonable person.'

The only sexual interaction endorsed by god is sex for procreation. You get one hump and it better have sperm. Anything else is disordered. Don't touch each other with your hands or kiss or talk dirty and certainly no butt contact as that is disordered. One pump pregnancy is the only non evil physical intimacy allowed. Everything else is unnatural.

there is no way that "Reason" gets you inevitably to "butt stuff is evil." To assert that it can or does fails to admit the presupposition of some objective moral absolutes purportedly handed down by God and, let's be honest, the errant interpretations of the Roman Catholic Church, which Athanasius is trying to avoid conceding. It's the obvious subtext in one of his previous posts above.

Athanasius said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Ok so you are God then. I see.

---

I assume then you're saying you're God when you condemn an adult having sex with a child?

I hope you're at the very least saying that action is evil.

I wouldn't react the way you just did, though, and say 'Ok, so you are God then. I see.'

I would say 'oh, this is a reasonable person.'

---

The action is evil because it's scientifically shown to be psychologically harmful to children and they are not old enough to know what the consequences are.

When 2 adults are the participants, who cares it's a free country

That's ridiculous. As if all consensual behavior is beneficial.

Who said beneficial? Does it have to be benificial to not be evil?

Ok, fine - -as if consensual behavior precludes harmful behavior.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Ok, fine - -as if consensual behavior precludes harmful behavior.

---

Well then it becomes a very subjective spectrum. Is a fatty dinner evil? Because if you have the option to have a non fatty dinner other than a fatty one like fried catfish and hush puppies, then are you committing an evil act by choosing to have the fatty dinner?

Look, man, all I'm saying is you're arguing with a guy who's talking about good and bad and you bring up consent. It's not really an answer to him, because just like a person can self harm, a couple can self harm. That's kind of his point.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Look, man, all I'm saying is you're arguing with a guy who's talking about good and bad and you bring up consent. It's not really an answer to him, because just like a person can self harm, a couple can self harm. That's kind of his point.

---

But what is the harm in this situation?

DaBaba said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Look, man, all I'm saying is you're arguing with a guy who's talking about good and bad and you bring up consent. It's not really an answer to him, because just like a person can self harm, a couple can self harm. That's kind of his point.

---

But what is the harm in this situation?

---

By engaging in sexual deviance, one is harming their soul or standing with God or something . . . I don't know. Frankly, unless someone is raping or molesting Childrens or something, I don't see how it's any of their business.

Of course it is their business because many many (edit) religious people are in the business of controlling others' sexual behavior, condemnation of what they find abnormal, and in expressing the belief that the own the exclusive rights to mandate what is accepted by society. The religious need to learn that societal norms, insomuch as they do not affect their rights and freedoms, are none of their GD business.

Whether pedophilia is an orientation or not is irrelevant if we agree to the idea that children under a certain age cannot consent. Rape is wrong. Pedophilia is wrong. Anything done between two consenting adults - you do you - and the Religious people who think it's their ****ing business can go **** themselves.

Yeah there is no agreement on how or under what circumstances it constitutes a type of harm. Reason alone cannot establish a universal standard because context and intent and all kinds of things could be decisive in making such a judgment about it.

I'm not offering any kind of comment on the harm or benefit. I'm just saying "yeah well they're consenting to it" doesn't even pretend to examine the question.

And ranting about staying out of other people's business is just as irrelevant. Whether it's a persons business to make the decision or even offer an opinion doesn't address a discussion about whether a behavior is beneficial or harmful to a person.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Whether it's a persons business to make the decision or even offer an opinion doesn't address a discussion about whether a behavior is beneficial or harmful to a person.

---

Oh, I'm all for a discussion about whether some behaviors are beneficial or harmful. And I'm all for the offering of opinions. Athan made it very clear a few posts ago that his agenda is for Christians to be as Judgy as possible (my words . . . ), so my opinion that I'd like to offer is that I think he can kiss my ass.

I LOVE the free hugs movements.

More of this.

Love that. Thanks for sharing. I had assumed the Hatmaker's and their church would be there. Of course, I doubt Jen Hatmaker is the most liked person around here regardless of this.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Look, man, all I'm saying is you're arguing with a guy who's talking about good and bad and you bring up consent. It's not really an answer to him, because just like a person can self harm, a couple can self harm. That's kind of his point.

---

He's trying to say you can reach the stance that anything but missionary is evil when you make whoopie with your spouse through reason alone and that simply does not hold water. What about oral? There, you don't even have the argument that some damage could be done to the body other than issues with hygiene and STDs. However, you could argue it's unnatural because it does not lead to reproduction. One could easily rebut, however, that such practices gives variety and novelty to the act of making love and keeps the relationship fresh and healthy.

To say that, in order to remain consistent via reason, one must condemn all acts of "sexual deviancy" which include mouth and back door, if you are going to say sexual relationships with children is evil or wrong or bad, is a silly argument at best.

ok. But consent is not relevant.

Consent alone, maybe. But consent by itself is a pretty big requirement. Anything sexual against one's consent seems pretty cut and dry immoral.

Look, lack of consent is a different discussion than whether an action is beneficial or not. Obviously, generally speaking, doing something to another person against their will is wrong. But a person being a willing participant in an activity does not qualify that activity as either beneficial or harmful. It's a separate point.

Beneficial has nothing to do with anything. As stated before. You cannot reason that something is good or evil in gods eyes based of it is beneficial or not.

As I said, if I eat fettuccine alfredo for dinner instead of grilled chicken and veggies, does God see it as evil?

We are talking about claims that are orders of magnitude apart (i.e., "evil" vs everything else). The person making the stronger claim "butt stuff is evil" needs to show their work because it's ludicrous.