Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 49 of 49

Thread: Pledges to fight the contraception and the sexual revolution: Sex only for procreation.

  1. #31
    Member MelissaWV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The Audient Void
    Posts
    15,663
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    why?
    This may shock people like Santorum, but if sex is purely for procreation, people who medically cannot have children would be virgins their entire lives. Of course, post-menopausal women can forget about sex, or women who've had their tubes tied (but he's against that, too, so go figure). He's already against LGBT, who are unlikely to conceive via traditional means.

    Basically, he wants sex restricted to married heterosexual couples of childbearing age and capability, and only (I'd assume) in particularly holy positions.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MelissaWV View Post
    This may shock people like Santorum, but if sex is purely for procreation, people who medically cannot have children would be virgins their entire lives. Of course, post-menopausal women can forget about sex, or women who've had their tubes tied (but he's against that, too, so go figure). He's already against LGBT, who are unlikely to conceive via traditional means.

    Basically, he wants sex restricted to married heterosexual couples of childbearing age and capability, and only (I'd assume) in particularly holy positions.
    Did you even watch the video? He never said the sole purpose of sex is procreation. He clearly said sex is also for conjugal purposes, that means as a form of intimacy, love, devotion and pleasure between married persons.

    He said that sex solely for pleasure diminishes the act. He's right. Sex is more than just pleasure, it is a bond between a man and woman. It is an act of love, the most intimate act of unity. To reduce it to just pleasure is diminished the act of sex to nothing more than a carnal act of animals.

    Sex belongs within the confines of marriage, not just as an act of procreation, which is primarily is, but an act of love, devotion and unity between a husband and wife.
    Last edited by eduardo89; 02-18-2012 at 05:47 PM.

  4. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MelissaWV View Post
    This may shock people like Santorum, but if sex is purely for procreation, people who medically cannot have children would be virgins their entire lives. Of course, post-menopausal women can forget about sex, or women who've had their tubes tied (but he's against that, too, so go figure). He's already against LGBT, who are unlikely to conceive via traditional means.

    Basically, he wants sex restricted to married heterosexual couples of childbearing age and capability, and only (I'd assume) in particularly holy positions.
    The dude needs to hit up a swing club sometime and loosen up. He doesn't know what he's missing.

    The Santorum Theocracy - Obama is not the worst we can do
    http://tirelessagorist.blogspot.com/...theocracy.html
    Follow my blog at http://tirelessagorist.blogspot.com/
    Current commentary from a libertarian/voluntaryist/agorist perspective.

    Consistent Candidate - with Chainspell

    2007
    Ron Paul Landslide by Jake Kellen - Constitution Mix

    The vision of the helpful and protective state is the most pervasive and counter-productive ideology in the world today.

  5. #34
    Member MelissaWV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The Audient Void
    Posts
    15,663
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    Did you even watch the video? He never said the sole purpose of sex is procreation. He clearly said sex is also for conjugal purposes, that means as a form of intimacy, love, devotion and pleasure between married persons.
    Did you?

    "... but also, procreating" at around the 0:30 part. He concedes the point about conjugality, but then goes on to limit it further, based on the way his sentence is structured. He goes on to say that removing ANY PART of that DIMINISHES THE ACT. He further goes on to say that removing procreation from the act diminishes the bond between the man and woman in question. The look of disgust on his face is quite priceless there. Then again, these are "public policy issues," as he says, right? :>

    Frankly, nearly the entire video is about how sex should be for procreation, and that removal of that from the equation makes the act less meaningful. I'm shocked you missed it.
    Last edited by MelissaWV; 02-18-2012 at 05:48 PM.

  6. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LisaNY View Post
    I held off on marriage until I was 34. Could you imagine? Who the hell would want to marry a 34 year old virgin?
    What's wrong with virginity? Is it something to be ashamed of? Does it make you less of a person? Are virgins inferior to you?

  7. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MelissaWV View Post
    Did you?

    "... but also, procreating" at around the 0:30 part. He concedes the point about conjugality, but then goes on to limit it further, based on the way his sentence is structured. He goes on to say that removing ANY PART of that DIMINISHES THE ACT. He further goes on to say that removing procreation from the act diminishes the bond between the man and woman in question. The look of disgust on his face is quite priceless there. Then again, these are "public policy issues," as he says, right? :>

    Frankly, nearly the entire video is about how sex should be for procreation, and that removal of that from the equation makes the act less meaningful. I'm shocked you missed it.
    Of course removing the aspect of procreation diminishes the act of sex. That's what sex is primarily for. That's what God gave us sex for. Does that mean all sex must be solely for procreation? Of course not. But every aspect you remove further diminishes the act itself.

  8. #37
    Member MelissaWV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The Audient Void
    Posts
    15,663
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    Of course removing the aspect of procreation diminishes the act of sex. That's what sex is primarily for. That's what God gave us sex for. Does that mean all sex must be solely for procreation? Of course not. But every aspect you remove further diminishes the act itself.
    Strange. That same God put a limit on when women could procreate, and created many infertile.

    Mixed signals, I guess.

  9. #38
    Member MelissaWV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The Audient Void
    Posts
    15,663
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    What's wrong with virginity? Is it something to be ashamed of? Does it make you less of a person? Are virgins inferior to you?
    So, to recap, virginity doesn't make you less of a person. Being barren or LGBT or post-menopausal, though, is another issue altogether and diminishes any sexual act you partake in.

    Oh and any act that cannot lead to making a baby is also less desirable.

    Give me a break.

  10. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MelissaWV View Post
    Strange. That same God put a limit on when women could procreate, and created many infertile.

    Mixed signals, I guess.
    That's why I say that not all sex must be for procreation. And that's why God made sex pleasurable, because there are aspects of sex that are not solely for procreation. That doesn't change that sex should be between a husband and a wife, not only as an act of procreation but of love, intimacy, union and adoration.

  11. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MelissaWV View Post
    So, to recap, virginity doesn't make you less of a person. Being barren or LGBT or post-menopausal, though, is another issue altogether and diminishes any sexual act you partake in.

    Oh and any act that cannot lead to making a baby is also less desirable.

    Give me a break.
    Well let's start off with the "LGBTwhatever" part. All sexual acts outside of marriage: homosexuality, fornication, adultery are wrong.

    I never said that any act that cannot lead to making a baby is less desirable. Basically all acts need to fit 3 criteria for them to be "desirable" and acceptable.
    1) Is it lawful? (within marriage, Biblically permissible, legal)
    2) Is it helpful? (does it bring us closer together? do we both like it?)
    3) Is it enslaving? (am i addicted? is it demeaning?)

    If the answers are yes, yes, no. Then it's fine.
    Last edited by eduardo89; 02-18-2012 at 06:04 PM.

  12. #41
    Member MelissaWV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The Audient Void
    Posts
    15,663
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Of course. Marriage is what you define for others, and not what people define for themselves, between themselves and God or whatever higher power they believe in, or even just as a contract agreed to in front of witnesses. Not so very long ago "adultery" was quite common within marriage, though you would view it as an abomination.

    "Is it lawful" is a laugh. Laws change quite regularly, and there are many unjust laws on the books even at this moment. It is not lawful to engage in various acts of a sexual nature in many states, but I don't think folks on the forums will be giving up those acts anytime soon, and they desire them greatly.

    And yeah... I think I'm just going to let this sink. I pity you, sincerely. Moreover, I pity any fertile woman who is not allowed to use contraception at all and must partake in activities which will probably keep her in a near-constant state of pregnancy just because her husband has a strange notion that it's what God wants.
    Last edited by MelissaWV; 02-18-2012 at 06:06 PM.

  13. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MelissaWV View Post
    Of course. Marriage is what you define for others, and not what people define for themselves, between themselves and God or whatever higher power they believe in, or even just as a contract agreed to in front of witnesses. Not so very long ago "adultery" was quite common within marriage, though you would view it as an abomination.
    Marriage is not what we define. Marriage is defined by God as between one man and one woman.

    Whether adultery was common or not, does not make it right. Slavery was common throughout history.

    Quote Originally Posted by MelissaWV View Post
    "Is it lawful" is a laugh. Laws change quite regularly, and there are many unjust laws on the books even at this moment. It is not lawful to engage in various acts of a sexual nature in many states, but I don't think folks on the forums will be giving up those acts anytime soon, and they desire them greatly.
    Lawful does not solely have to do with what is legal according to government. Lawful also means "does Scripture forbid this or not?"

  14. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MelissaWV View Post
    Strange. That same God put a limit on when women could procreate, and created many infertile.

    Mixed signals, I guess.
    Not only this but the clitoris is on the outside and requires manual stimulation for a woman to achieve her sexual superiority over the man. Why did God put the clitoris on the outside of the vagina? For a man to play with it.

    This is why in some misogynist cultures there is clitoral castration, so that this creative and stimulatory superiority can be put under the control of the man, usually for "religious" reasons. Men have really fucked up the world and divinity in general if you study history. Religious history goes so far beyond the Christian and even the ideas of monotheism and much of that history is lost or denied by western cultures, especially Christian ones. People tend to be closed minded to the fact that the worship of God as a "him" is a relatively new development in the history of the human being.
    Agriculture is our wisest pursuit, because it will in the end contribute most to real wealth, good morals, and happiness.
    -Thomas Jefferson

  15. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ryanmkeisling View Post
    Not only this but the clitoris is on the outside and requires manual stimulation for a woman to achieve her sexual superiority over the man. Why did God put the clitoris on the outside of the vagina? For a man to play with it.
    Yes and there's nothing necessarily wrong with a man doing that to his wife.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryanmkeisling View Post
    This is why in some misogynist cultures there is clitoral castration, so that this creative and stimulatory superiority can be put under the control of the man, usually for "religious" reasons.
    I agree, female circumcision is a barbaric, disgusting, violent act.

  16. #45

    Default Santorum on contraception

    ---"When conservative head-bangers like Rick Santorum complain that birth control encourages women and girls to have sex outside marriage, the appropriate response should be "yes, and?". Of course we want to have sex outside marriage without fear of social or economic punishment. Of course we want to control our fertility and, with it, our future."---

    The moment a woman gets a penis in her, centuries of biology cause her to, almost without end, seek to keep the man around her who without some creativity introduced, fertilized her uterus; as she is now pregnant and vulnerable. A child could know this. That's why it's not good to have sex out of marriage. Abandonment usually creates an irreversible scar on the soul of a women. This is indeed the moment where women like you are created. In the panic, and pretty reasonably, not to your fault, you start creating alternate realities that only you and other begotten, mistreated woman can cooperatively sustain through a multitude of ways: the media, feminism, a sort of degenerate form of liberalism (which indeed is more mobish than about the individual); and emotional attachment to some state, education, or even sometimes military institutions. Or more righty, you fasten yourself into a home for one of these various things, of which never really fill the void where that man should have been who had sex with you.
    A remedy to this situation you think would be: "do you want your daughter to know what it feels like to get had sex with and then abandoned?" However, we reach the nastiest part; the answer in many cases is: yes! The social nature of women inclines them to simply spread their experiences, especially the emotions therein, especially the strongest felt ones throughout their whole life; at the expense of any virtue or principle.
    So "no, and" you never wanted to get fucked and left, much less over and over again. It is the case that you are simply emotionally damaged, and fittingly your propagating your shit out on the net because your more about simply spreading that which you have felt rather than solving any problems (looking at reality of course the first step to doing so).

    And most most importantly, it's not a woman's fault! Men are the ones driven, in vastly greater magnitude to have sex. They too, are usually living in an alternate reality beforehand, or they would know this simple necessity for commitment after sex that is a natural as the birds and the trees. Since this is rooted in a man's decisions truly, we enter the realm of spiritual matters. And thus, we can see the political religious fusion. It is about pulling guys heads out of their asses on morality, that the things in the good book, interpreted reasonably are not kind suggestions, but codes of conduct that are to be abided by. Along with that is making sure woman who have been made crazy by one of these guys do not mistake their crazy for sanity, and most importantly do not try and bully sane woman to fear simply being sane. Santorum is standing up for them. You can live the life you want to live, but it will be done so in the proper container: hurt, abandoned, driven to madness (all the fault of the guy) while you heal up and make your way back into sane, clear-headed, and trusting. And it really, and truly must start with men. Poetically, and in this situation, man is spark, woman is fire. He starts whatever it is, then disappears because the woman sustain its essence in abundance. I think we are seeing sparks, and soon we'll have fire (ladies).

  17. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    God made sex enjoyable so we would enjoy it, no question about it. Sex, however, belongs within the confines of marriage.
    There is nothing wrong with sex ouside the confines of marriage. Also, there is nothing wrong with homosexuals getting married. You state that sex belongs within the confines of marriage, yet you also state that two men or women cannot marry, and therefore they cannot have sex without being married. Give the religous nonsense a rest. Two men (or women) having sex outside of marriage or getting married doesn't have an effect on you in any way.
    Last edited by DerailingDaTrain; 03-04-2012 at 12:42 PM.

  18. #47

    Default

    xxxxx
    Last edited by Voluntarist; 09-22-2012 at 03:20 PM.

  19. #48
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    841

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MelissaWV View Post
    And yeah... I think I'm just going to let this sink. I pity you, sincerely. Moreover, I pity any fertile woman who is not allowed to use contraception at all and must partake in activities which will probably keep her in a near-constant state of pregnancy just because her husband has a strange notion that it's what God wants.
    You make it sound like American men are legally able to force their women not to use birth control. Obviously that's not true. If that's the stipulation that a man states as a condition of being with him then any woman is free to leave that relationship. No man can actually legally 'force' a woman to do anything. In fact getting a divorce is a typically a more profitable and attractive prospect for women than it is for men in this country as the divorce courts and laws tend to favor women. So if any gender does have the legal ability to use coercion in their relationships it would be women.

    BTW, in response to the other poster. If 'god' didn't want us to have orgasms outside of the institution of marriage then there wouldn't be nocturnal emissions.
    Last edited by HigherVision; 03-18-2012 at 08:41 PM.

  20. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MelissaWV View Post
    Basically, he wants sex restricted to married heterosexual couples of childbearing age and capability, and only (I'd assume) in particularly holy positions.
    How could he ever regulate it? I can't even imagine how he could regulate the sex life of every adult in the country hell more than half the country would be in jail and the others would have to be the peeping toms calling the cops.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12





« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •