"Why Monogamy Matters"

But the knee-jerk reaction of snarling against something because of a religious tone is ridiculous in and of itself. You and I both know it happens.

 

You are going to have to hone your arguments a little better. You're all over the place.

 

I agree with you in principle Dick, so long as we don't go hysterical any time God is mentioned as a reasoning for anything.

 

No, your characterization of those of us who believe in the separation of church and state is what is truly ridiculous.

 

When it's freedom from religion as opposed to freedom of religion, ridiculous on your part is right.

 

It isn't a matter of "going hysterical." It is simply a matter of saying you need a reason other than G-d said so, because that one doesn't apply to legal matters in this country.

 

Nobody is restricting your right to practice your faith. Your right to shove it on somebody else, however, is restricted. As it should be.

 

Freedom of religion = Free Exercise Clause

Freedom from religion = Establishment Clause

Both are there.

 

Your definition of "shove it on somebody else" is confusing to me.

 

What, exactly, is wrong with you? I don't agree with a lot of what Alma says, but he's at the very top of posters in regard to explaining a given point of view. He "does better" than most of us.

 

Yes, I really misread the words "proper sex education" and the line "Kids are going to fuck. Deal with it and help them do it safely." I completely took that out of context. In fairness to you, you're clearly creating your own context in which you write the strongest post in favor of "proper sex education" yet silently adhere to a moderate approach.

The irony is that you're on safer ideological ground by promoting a "they-won't-stay-abstinent-so-why-bother?" position than you are with a multi-pronged, contradictory approach that says "you're not ready for sex so you should wait, but since we know you won't here's how to do it right."

The second clause negates the need for the first. The first clause makes judgment on the second. At that point, it's just a money grab; programs want to keep getting their grant money, so they agree to laughable compromises that leaves kids with confusing options, because "consumer choice is key." It's a psychosexual GOP nightmare.

 

Who defines proof? Who defines good?

It draws back to my original question: Can, in theory, sex feel so much better - individually or collectively - than whatever advantages one touts from monogamy that the advantages pale in comparison to the feeling? And if so - who are you (or anyone) to tell people to choose a reasonable, utilitarian outcome over a really great orgasm?