beliefnet
One of the reasons to side with the
atheists in matters of sexual morality is that the atheist community is
far superior to at least the Christian community in dealing with the
modern fact, I use that term advisedly, that it is no longer the norm
even among Christians for women to be married soon after puberty "To
cleave only unto the husband" and spend her life barefoot and pregnant.
Women and men tend to seek partners with similar educational and
vocational interests, which frequently means deferring marriage until
mid 20's or later. Perhaps a bit younger for women.
Marriage
or parenting vows, take your pick, are generally taken after
considerable thought with little impetus from sex. Indeed sexual
compatibility is generally well proven by the time of parenting vows.
And the pair bond is well established usually through contraceptive
monogamous sex long before the vow is taken and the contra lost. The
moral imperative is that the parenting vows are the binding ones and
generally are anticipated to last through adulthood of the planned
children. No instant gratification or fashion involved. It is a well
thought out moral commitment.
OK.
That takes care of the grown ups. What about the horny teens? The Our
Whole Lives program, a joint venture between UU and UCC, recognizes the
fact that at an early age children and young adults will experiment with
sexual activities. OWL does not "Just say NO," that is a proven path
to unwed parenthood. Please note there are two unwed parents for every
child born out of wedlock. A much better moral standard is to
understand that sex happens and that it is critical that when it does
both partners are responsible, willing, and ready for it. The common
question "Your condom or mine?" is a simple way of insuring this moral
standard. Using this moral standard a sex act is no more (or less)
significant than dirty dancing or if you prefer a formal Pas de Deux.
Yes, 300 is fascist
16 hours ago
No comments:
Post a Comment