Interpretation of Texts (General)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, October 01, 2010, 02:36 (4976 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Wow.. Ok.No.
> 
> The act of homosexuality (male male) caries a intrinsic greater health risk because of tissue damage during the act itself. The breakages in the skin expose the pair to direct blood/blood transfer, and any blood born pathogens by extent.
> -Your assertion of these things being unhealthy comes directly from a moral perspective. -I say this because all things people do carries some kind of risk. Football players will suffer weekly bruises and strains; yet we don't say they're unhealthy. And in the grand scheme of things, if you choose to engage in the kind of behavior we're talking about, we're talking about a generally calculated risk that an adult takes on themselves for pleasure--just like hiking, swimming with sharks, or any other downright crazy things we do as humans. -> 
> The same could be said for bestiality, not to mention that in this case some animals could carry blood borne pathogens that humans have no immunity to. 
> -Generally speaking, aside from the fact that I have a distaste for the act, I view this similarly to what I discussed above. But you present no real evidence for pathogens; unstudied is unstudied. We have suppositions and anecdotes here.-> 
> 
> Promiscuity/Adultery in any society, particularly where there was no contraception has inevitably lead to an increase in STD's, unwanted pregnancies, (and normally abortions which carry their own health risks), and often, but admittedly not always, broken families.
> -You need to chuck the broken families out of there. That perfect "nuclear family" you refer to has never really existed. Your case on adultery is much harder to prove, however. Hispanic culture has a strong tradition of men (especially affluent) seeking women outside of the marriage. Yet having spent time in Mexico, there's few things Mexicans love more than their children. There's also a tribe in South America where sex is freely given and no one "possesses" anyone.-> These things are statistical and medical fact and have no bearing on morality at all. (except perhaps the broken family bit.)
> -Wrong. Or are football players unhealthy? -> What I was trying to point out is that many of the laws set out at the time were practical for the time. However, from a less Christian and more Esoteric standpoint, there is another reason. The relationship between man and woman is significant in two unique ways. First is that they comprise two sides of the same coin, complete each other, if you will. The other is that it is supposed to reflect the spiritual union, the vow between man and god.
> -And the people I mentioned above began that policy in reaction to their own mystics; just as valid. -However if you had studied the "Left Hand" version of those same religions, you would see alot more of "all of the above," promiscuity, homosexuality, and even bestiality. If you go back to Rome, the legendary parties of Bacchus hadn't resulted in any massive "decline," only pointed to a culture that had so much excess that they could indulge in mass hedonism. Watch the full episode. -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npB4XfBTICA-Different strokes, for different folks.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"