I mean, sure, there are obvious instances, like rape and pedophilia, where sexual conduct is clearly immoral.

Then there are instances like pressure and coercion that can certainly be considered wrong.

But by and large, what reasons does religion really have to seize upon certain kinds of sexual behavior and call them wrong or immoral?

I mean, really, if a consenting couple (or more than that) want to engage in certain behaviors, does that lessen the commitment each of them may have to treating others with respect and "being honest in dealings with fellow men"?

Yes, I'm also talking about "inborn tendencies" like orientation, etc.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2012 04:10PM by helamonster.

If you can define neat little groups as 110% evil, then you get to say your own group might have its bad apples, but it's not pure evil, like those other folks. We're sometimes guilty of that here when it comes to talking about Mormons.

All through human history, there have always been others to demonize. Sex has been just one area to draw lines and lay blame.

If you have a person by his or her personals, you pretty much have control over them. Men wanted sex to be a sin to keep women their possessions. Women liked religion because it kept their husbands on a leash and kept their kids from getting "in trouble" before the days of birth control. Making sex about morals - about your spirit's worth, is great if you are into controlling your population.

What bothers me is there are some pretty dang immoral people who dress up, go to church and are faithful to their spouses. Yet they will screw up other people's lives without even stopping to think about their actions. That's less moral by far than two consenting adults having safe sex.

Since the Victorian Era.

Ron

I've read somewhere the theory that it was around the time that humans started farming. The idea is that is when property became important and thus when other humans started being seen as property including in regard to sexual relations.