Posted on 02/06/2002 4:41:59 PM PST by Starmaker
Ray Charles is God!
Oh uh,er,I remember sex,somewhat.
But what if this traditional view of sex is the most rationally defensible? If so, then it is no mere individual definition, but a truth theoretically knowable by everybody of sound mind. We can't "define" truth for somebody else, we can only discover it and share this discovery.
Now here is the pivotal question: ought we to base our laws and/or our social practices on discovered truth, or on mere private will? Are we to govern ourselves by the rule of reason, as republican government holds, or are we to give ourselves over to irrational passion, and become a nation full of petty tyrants who will not listen to reason?
I'd say "proper" rather than "positive." The lecher certainly thinks sex is a positive thing(even a stopped clock is right twice a day).
No one has come up with a realistic way of legislating the effects of human hormones
Last I checked, I rule my hormones; they don't rule me. They somewhat usurped their proper place in my teen years, but I have since restored justice to my bodily kingdom. From personal experience, I can attest that hormonal control is possible, and far better than the alternative.
so what is the point, accept to teach truth and responsibility?
Teaching truth and responsibility is certainly a mighty strong point, and sometimes the law is indeed a good teacher. Discouraging vice is a good way to indirectly encourage virtue, because it helps develop the habit of self-control.
But I think governmental law is besides the point of this article, since modest societies can combat immodesty through non-legal avenues. The author is noting how we often do not respect the goodness of sex. A society that respected and cherished human sexuality would neither tolerate such widespread meat markets and guilt-free pornophilic "entertainments," nor would it eulogize fellatio on our Free Republic threads. This mutilation of human sexuality cannot help but influence our idea of what it is to be human. And if we change this idea too much, we could very well reject the principles of humanity upon which our nation is founded: That all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. Would you like to see what happens when these principles are rejected? I don't think I would.
Oh, nonsense on stilts. This isn't science, let alone a "fully scientific perspective." It's materialistic determinism, which more often than not destroys both liberty and reason. Just look at Marx's own materialistic determinism.
I think sometimes were are a bit too high-minded in our assumtions that we are so much in charge of our biology, as though it wasnt hormones behind the firing of every impulse in our brains.
So we aren't responsible for following or not following our hormonal impulses?
I think any look at society would suggest that laws are practically irrelavent when it comes to sex; some people will follow laws and some (most in my opinion) will not.
Can you name any of these societies? Even the liberal US doesn't allow kids to buy porn, and prosecutes those who distribute it to minors. That's certainly controlling sex. Why are you making a special provision for sex? Though it is a wonderful thing, there's no proof that it is in its own special category.
'Proper' is such a loaded word, because it is subjective, while positive is a bit more flexible and personal. i.e: you can pick my 'proper' from your perspective, but you would be hard pressed to pick my 'positive' which is a personal evaluation of the event.
Yeah, I'm speaking from a "subjective" perspective, and you're speaking from a "personal" perspective, and there's nothing we can do to change our minds at all, since reason is a myth. Why are you arguing, if you believe so?
May I suggest you read Professor George's essay The Clash of Orthodoxies? He takes apart what I perceive to be your underlying philosophy.
Again, as far as I know, there are no animals who won't have sex in front of other members of their species so long as they don't feel threatened. But according to your argument, shouldn't they also have evolved to seek out privacy during sex?
To sum up: if private sex is such a great strategy for avoiding predators, why haven't more other species discovered it?
LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.