“God-given sexual power is to be used only between a husband and wife.” Agree/Disagree Why?

Comments

• HA HA
  
  Are you serious?

  • Report
  

  by Wynper on April 20th, 2011

• Yes. I'm absolutely serious.
  
  I understand why you would wonder though. This guy, David Baxter, is doing his best to muddy the water.
  
  Power, roughly, is the ability to force an action, to determine a result.
  
  In Christianity, there is sexual desire, and even recognition of sexual need, but never sexual "power". There is seduction by money, fame, and sex but not "power". One may sin, but one always gets to decide. If one can't decide, then one can't sin.
  
  Marriage is *specifically* ( 1 Corinthians Chapter 7 ) a man and a woman committing to care for each other's sexual needs. One may "defraud" the other by abstention, but there is no license for either to force sex on the other. There is no "sexual power".
  
  The only way I can understand "sexual power" is either dominant/submissive sexual play or rape.
  
  There is God ( Allah ) given "sexual power" in Islam, but my aforementioned understanding of it remains. I can find you references on this if you like, but I think you'd be more certain of it if you find them yourself.

  • Report
  

  by Ecclesiastes on April 21st, 2011

• wow...

  • Report
  

  by Wynper on April 21st, 2011

• Sex gives a man and woman the power to create life. I cannot imagine a more profound power than that.

  • Report
  

  by Christine on April 22nd, 2011

• Christine,
  
  With that interpretation, Mr. Baxter is proposing to make conceiving a child out of wedlock a *crime*. That would make a pro-sodomy pro-abortion bill.
  
  I'm not saying you're wrong, but that if you're right - it's even worse than we thought.

  • Report
  

  by Ecclesiastes on April 22nd, 2011

• Conceiving a child out of wedlock often leads to abortion, abuse, or neglect, which is exactly why it should be a crime. A father or mother who tries to conceal their crime should be dealt with especially severely. The world is too overcrowded to continue pretending that sex has no consequences.

  • Report
  

  by Christine on April 22nd, 2011

• Christine,
  
  I see. Let's walk through this once.
  
  Woman gets pregnant in the usual way. Marrying the father is no good, the delivery date will incriminate her and she's going to jail anyway. Mother is going to lose the child, either when she delivers and she goes to jail, or by an abortion done with doctor-patient privacy protection so that she walks away.
  
  The father is going to the child either way too, and so will deny paternity because his DNA can't be collected as evidence of a crime. The rules of evidence and level of certainty for a verdict is far higher in a criminal courts than in the civil courts where paternity is established now.
  
  In your Brave New World, only the government can sanction a child to be conceived, making the proposed act the worst 3-way sex I've ever heard of.

  • Report
  

  by Ecclesiastes on April 22nd, 2011

• As long as father and mother take care of the child they conceived, then it's none of the government's business how long they've been married. If the father tries to run, the mother should be able to press criminal charges. God forbid such a quasi-rapist conceive again. He won't be able to conceive any children in jail.
  
  Sex is what really makes a couple married. You can't conceive children with a marriage certificate. If a child is conceived, the couple should automatically be treated as married, and if he strays, then prosecute him for adultery. Adultery creates more children then the parents can care for and it is therefore in the public interest that adulterers be held accountable.

  • Report
  

  by Christine on April 27th, 2011

• Christine,
  
  Just curious what you think about sex, marriage and adultery when there are no children involved.

  • Report
  

  by Wynper on April 27th, 2011

• Whether rape or adultery actually affects a child, the survivor should still have legal recourse if she chooses to exercise it.
  
  Other than that, as long as sex is actually consensual for all parties (adultery is not consensual because the victimized spouse did not consent) and the couple takes care of the child if a child is conceived, then it is not the state's business, even in cases where it is otherwise still morally wrong.
  
  I also do not think that sex and marriage can really be separated. Whether moral or not, sex and marriage should only be a government concern when couples do not step up to their parental responsibilities in the event a child is conceived, whether planned or not.
  
  I have long said that marriages and families should be defined by the people in them, not the government. Sex, like any other freedom, is a right as long as it is not abused.

  • Report
  

  by Christine on April 27th, 2011

• "...like any other freedom, is a right as long as it is not abused."
  
  There it is. You don't know what a 'right' is. You don't believe that government is the servant of the people, but that people are charges that the government takes care of. In the 1770's, you'd have been a Royalist.
  
  Christine, the details of this discussion are irrelevant. You and I are never going to agree.

  • Report
  

  by Ecclesiastes on April 27th, 2011

• All rights, even the right to life, can be forfeit by a sufficiently extreme crime. One of the ways that government serves the people is by protecting the innocent against murderers and rapists. If there was not a legal means to restrict a person's right to freedom of movement after he commits a murder, then we'd have anarchy and probably tyranny shortly thereafter. Whenever there is no government at all, those willing to do the most evil the most quickly will form a new government.
  
  Our rights depend on our willingness to restrict the rights of those who want to take our rights away.

  • Report
  

  by Christine on April 28th, 2011