I made a long post with a bunch of questions to religious people a while ago and I realized that it was a lot of subjects in one thread, so now that I have some spare time I'd like to break it into several threads. When I'm saying religion, I'm not talking about Christianity specifically, but about all of the three big ones. My question is - what does religion have against sex and why?
Religion and Sex
- Thread starter IchBin
- Start date
it's good that you're not talking about christianity specifically, because christianity is extremely pro-sex, so you wouldn't have much of a thread.
it's obviously very important. some people might see that as a negative, but only because they don't want sex to be that important.
have against sex?
Not sure what you mean.
Given that the act of sex is what generates progeny and its progeny that bears its mark on the society it appears in, any conglomerate that has a vague interest in affairs of social maintenance has "something against sex".
You are mistaking 'sex' with 'producing offspring' - the latter of which is not a necessary aspect of the former, (although it can be an outcome). The question should be asked again.
That question was: "What does religion have against sex"? Not what does religion have against producing offspring, (although I am personally unaware of religions having issues with producing offspring).
Kindly attempt the question again.
Do you have a mother and a father?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
So if your wife gave birth to a child with an asian appearance, you wouldn't make the inquiry who she had been having sex with, since sexual activity and progeny remain separate topics?
Sheesh?
Of course.
I am unsure what you're addressing. I've already agreed that sex can have the outcome of producing offspring. But that is not a necessary factor of sex and the question didn't ask about offspring, it asked about sex. Homosexuals, for instance, cannot produce offspring but can have sex.
Kindly do not confuse the two. The question again then: What do religions have against sex?
P.S Can you name any religions that have an issue with producing offspring?
Homosexuals certainly can and do have offspring
You think child raising occurs in some sort of different setting other than a sexual context?
Yup
I think they all pretty much have some sort of birth ceremony
Not usually through sex, but this ignores the issue. Kindly answer the question - or not. 'Sex' and 'producing offspring' are two different things. The question was "what do religions have against sex", not what do they have against producing offspring, (and I've yet to meet any religions that do have problem with producing offspring - kindly name them).
I am unsure where or how this is relevant. I've already agreed, (three times now), that a possible outcome of sex can be producing offspring. This was not the question, kindly pay attention.
Sorry, kindly clarify.
I asked: "Can you name any religions that have an issue with producing offspring?" . I am unsure how your above statement answers that question.
perhaps your question would make sense in a world where having sex is completely relegated to a service provider industry
As things stand however, the act of sex is completely loaded in the social values of parenting. So dominant are the values, that even persons who have children without going through the usual channels find it convenient and even desirable to imitate the roles of their more conventional peers.
If you would raise your eye brows if your wife gave birth to an asian child, you are capable of understanding this.
You are still yet to acknowledge that child raising, even by secular standards, occurs (ideally) in some sort of sexual context.
IOW children (regardless whether they are in the care of their biological parents or not) are raised in environments that are defined by the sexual relationship of the parents.
IOW one's attitude towards sex defines the environs of the child well after the act (or even if they are not a consequence of the act)
[/QUOTE]
you didn't clarify what you mean by "issue"
If you mean something like "stop" it doesn't make sense since it wouldn't make sense for an institution to endorse marriage if it was aimed at preventing sex (although for one adverse to responsibility, perhaps marriage could prevent it)
Well, it wasn't my question but 'sex' does not equate to offspring, (and if it did I am still unsure of the problem religion would have with it - and you continue to fail to answer that).
What you are seemingly saying is that religion does not have any problems with sex should it not produce offspring. Therefore, unmarried sterile couples aren't a problem, non-offspring producing homosexuals likewise are not a problem. Can you not discern the difference between 'sex' and 'producing offspring'? (A yes or no will suffice).
What?
If I recall correctly, it is something you do not engage in and so I shall forgive you for the apparent ignorance concerning it, but it can only be said that what you're saying is not an accurate reflection of reality. Yes, one possible outcome of sex - for most - is offspring, but the latter is not a necessary part of the former.
If we took into consideration all the people right now engaging in sexual activity, the stats would be so lopsided against "values of parenting" but for "physical/emotional enjoyment" that your point - whatever it might be, you've yet to explain, is made utterly redundant.
I've agreed with it four times now. Yes - in our species sex is required in order to have offspring. You've still yet to tell me what problem religion has with offspring or how having offspring is a necessary aspect of having sex. If you wouldn't mind doing so now - it's been four posts already.
Kindly explain further. How is such environment 'defined by sexual relationships?'
"I asked: "Can you name any religions that have an issue with producing offspring?" "
Issue = problem as per the original question. It has now been clarified, kindly answer it.
Regards,
lightgigantic, you would make a great politician. 4 posts of yours and you still haven't given a clear answer to any of the questions you were posed. The question I originally had in mind was what does religion have against casual sex, lets say, with prophylactics, a perfectly safe sex, without any possibility of conception. Lets even go farther than that and assume that both the male and female are sterile, just for the sake of argument. Why is religion against that kind of sex? Where is the blasphemy in that?
Well, from what I can gather, it's not about being anti-sex..
The Bible says a man shouldn't spill his seed on the ground..The whole "every sperm is sacred" deal.
So, I guess it's ok to screw your brains out, just don't ejaculate.
(Unless you plan to have kids, that is.)
Last edited:
Sex is very necessary for religions because the more people they can have in their particular religion the more money and control they can have over society.
I'm confused. Are you suggesting that sex was the original sin?
Well, from what I can gather, it's not about being anti-sex..
The Bible says a man shouldn't spill his seed on the ground..The whole "every sperm is sacred" deal.
So, I guess it's ok to screw your brains out, just don't ejaculate.
(Unless you plan to have kids, that is.)
Have you ever actually read the passage that talks about the spilling of seed? The sin was in regards to Onan not giving his brother's widow an heir. It is pretty plain in the text; how that story got misappropriated to suggest simply spilling seed is wrong I will never understand.
That is such a loaded question. Within Christianity and Judaism at least the concept that there is something wrong with sex is a corruption of the religions. That corruption has its roots both in the Catholic Church of the Dark and Middle Ages, and again in the Puritan settling of the Americas. Much of the Bible's commentary on sex was either in regards to the production of heirs and the protection of a lineage, or in regards to STDs - neither of which are particularly applicable in an age of contraceptives and medicine.
The Catholic Church put heavy emphasis on sex because of the lineage, and more specifically the passing of family money, issues. This was mostly because the Church wanted as much of that money for itself as it could get, and instituted policies that would encourage the flow of money to the Church.
The Puritans I think were simply misled by the teachings of their religious leaders, in a number of issues - not just sex. They saw any natural pleasures as worldy (and sinful). This has unfortunately pervaded OUR culture, even to the present day, so that Americans' ideals of "strong morality" is such that sex is still seen as something "dirty". There were plenty other areas of influence from the Puritans that have fallen by the wayside over the decades, and I suspect the judgement against sex will too over the next few.
However, neither of those are truly applicable to Christianity and Judaism, both of which have healthy attitudes towards sex. There are of course plenty of churches that are still influenced by the impact of the Catholic Church and the Puritans, but you'll find far less focus on the subject in other countries because it ISN'T a result of the religions, but rather our particular cultural history.