To: Yeti
Its not that I think that sex must be only for purposes of procreation based on any religious beliefs.......
--------------------
That's the point. Whever someone hints at that with arguments about procreation, it's both irrelevant and alienating. It kills the anti-sexual revolution position. Typically, people advocates from this frame of reference are brought in as spokesmen and are exploited to promote ridicule of the position. If I never hear it again in my life it will be a blessing.
25 posted on
05/21/2002 2:51:45 AM PDT by
RLK
To: RLK
Whever someone hints at that with arguments about procreation, it's both irrelevant and alienating.Please explain its irrelevance and just how exactly its alienating since it is the prime part of nature.
29 posted on
05/21/2002 5:40:00 AM PDT by
JMJ333
To: RLK
Is the truth so hard to bear?
We are fools for Christ, but you are so wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are honored, we are dishonored! To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless.
1 Corinthians 4:9-11
To: RLK
It strikes me that the notion that sex is moral only if used for reproduction accomplishes the same thing that libertinism does: it tends to devalue and perhaps, consider ultimately as sinful, the bonding and increased intimacy that sex elicits. In both cases sex and love are disconnected, and love becomes a problem.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson