[Aliska]

If you believe in a sexual free-for-all, Christianity isn't the religion for you.

There are people other than clergy who find themselves in a position of restraining their sexuality so as not to commit sin. Widows, widowers, single people.

The other reason is that in the Christian next life, there is no sex, so you can get a head start here. Regular enjoyment of sex, while normal if one is doing it with one's lawful spouse, *can* alter your spiritual priorities.

In an orderly society, sexual discipline really works for the good of all, whereas we now see in our society the downside of sexual laxity.

If sexuality weren't regulated to some extent, society as we know it would completely collapse. In other words, you can't just always do it because it feels good without severe consequences. Better to get a handle on it while you can and if you can.

[Bluntpoint]

It is not just sex. It is the natural longing for family and commitment.

To crave such a life is not akin to a sexual free-for-all.

To deny your church leaders this, is unnatural and leads to the delusional thinking of many of today's adherents that what is happening in the church today and 100 years ago, is and wasn't happening.

You can claim the moral highground by demanding such. But look what you have as a result.

[stuartcr]

I don't believe in a sexual free-for-all, and I'm not a Christian. I believe that society regulates itself without taking oaths. As you said yourself, there are many individuals that do the same, without taking an oath. You know what is in the next life?