Sabastian said:
It isn't a fucking conspiracy ironically they make no bones about creating a utopia based on sex. Go ask around on any university campus and see for your self.
Which utopia would that be?
Religion did take up the notion of marriage and the morals surrounding monogamy. RE: adultry etc etc etc.
Yes but it happened somewhat late is history, at a time at which monogamy had already been the norm. Btw, when I say monogamy I mean being married to only one person - it does not really have that much to do with sexuality since non-martimonial sex has been as widespread throughout the ages as it is today.
No question that society naturally went with the monogamous heterosexual family as the norm.
Then how can you argue that the question of monogamy is somehow and inevitably tied to religiosity when history shows us that religion adapted to whatever the preferred model of family organisation was at a given point in history?
How do you explain the strongly polygamous tradition of early Judaism? According to biblical account, Solomon had relationships with 1000 women and archeology tells us that Jerusalem had maybe 6000 inhabitants at the time Solomon supposedly ruled. So that guy was basically humping every single woman of reproductive age in Jerusalem. That's the great monogamic traditon of Judeo-Christianity.
The adaption of the concept of Original Sin and the condemnation of sexuality as something filthy which is only acceptable for reproduction in a clerically sanctioned relationship came much, much later and it didn't stop people from having non-matrimonial sex. They would just confess their evil sin to some priest and it was all forgiven.
This is besides the point though.
No, it IS the point. You claim that some leftist "utopists" devised a devilish plan to replace religion (and therefor good old monogamy) with some concept of a society based on free-for-all sex orgies. Hell, I bet you also believe that liberals eat children.
Not to mention the hundreds of god-fearing priests who have been railing young boys in the ass and all those popes and bishops with multiple concubines. Sure makes me see that religion has any measurable impact on sexual bahviour.
The question of promiscuous sexuality has nothing to do with religion since religion utterly failed to restrain it to any meaningful extend. In fact, I seriously doubt that promiscuity in rabidly atheistic societies like the USSR was significantly more widespread than among upright, capitalistic, god-fearing North Americans, or Europeans for that matter.
Utopians need something to motivate people with and instead of using religious notions the left wants to replace these questions about why we are here for out and out hedonistic values of self sexual gratification.
That's bullshit. How can "sexual gratification" replace any profound questions about life? You're mixing together two totally unrelated things and make it sound like non-religious people are somehow more prone to promiscuity. Given he fact that like 90% of all Americans confess themselves as Christians who believe in Jeebus you must imply that promiscuity and STDs are mainly a problem for the remaining 10%.
Which BTW has nothing what so ever to do with monogamous heterosexual natural families.
Gotta ask.. what the hell is a "natural" family. A family is not exclusively about sexuality since married people have been having sex with people they are NOT married to since the dawn of humanity. A family is really a social unit.
Working with that definition, there is no such thing as a "natural" family. The
nuclear family (again: talking about social units here) consisting of husband, wife and children did not exist before the industrialization. It's a completely new thing. Before that (and that's still the case in many agricultural societies) we had much lager family units, multiple generations living under one roof. And before that we had kinship groups which did not even know personal property as we can still see today in some indigenous primitive societies.
There were times and places in history in which "family" meant being married to a woman and raising children while having a bunch of concubines was no big deal at all and socially accepted. That marriage at some point in history became sexually exclusive is not "natural" in terms of being intrinsic to the concept of monogamy. It was a social change that happened.
The structure of what we refer to as family changed and ist still chaning and will keep changing in the future. We are now at a point where people form families without formalizing their relationship, raise some children and then move on. There is no "natural" state of the family.
They have been around but they were never so widely proliferated and this wider proliferation is directly related to sexual promiscuity.
The issue of monogamy does not touch the problem of people screwing around since the principle of monogamy never stopped people from having sex with other persons than their "sanctioned" spouse.
The only thing that has an impact is the social enviroment. One quite obvious example are Muslim societies. You have the Arabs who harshly police sexual monogamy and then you have Muslims in several Eastern Asian countries who don't. Religion does not seem to be the determining factor. It might be an aggregating factor sometimes but never the determining factor. That myth is tied to the bullshit concept that morality, social stability, in fact society itself cannot work without a religious framework. Dream on.
The wider proliferation of STDs is indeed a direct result of the greater promiscuous behavior of individuals as a result of the contraceptive effect of not producing children.
Oh boy. STDs are not more common nowadays then they used to be in the past, say, until 1900. In fact, they are a lot less common than they used to be. Syphilis, Gonorrhea etc. were once a plague killing or maiming millions, nowadays they are freak incidents thanks to much improved hygiene, medical treatments and the widespread use of condoms (at least in countries which don't bullshit youths about "abstinence only" and tell them how to protect themselves).
AIDS is pretty much a non-issue in Western societies with just a couple of thousands dying each year. This is because of the widespread use of condoms and not because we're so gloriously monogamous (hint: we're not, never were when it comes to sexuality). People in Africa on the other hand are often so incredibly uneducated that they don't even know how aids is transimitted, let alone know how to protect themselves.
You know how to avoid getting AIDS 100%? Stay with the one your with.
That's pretty darn obvious. I still fail to see what this has got do with religion. Plus, you can't be sure that your spouse will not fuck your neighbour or the post man.
Yes sure people have been screwing around to a degree but nothing like we are seeing today ever.
You simply taking a hunch here. Nothing to back that assertion up. It's probably just some good-old-times nostalgia. Just because people didn't talk about it openly a few decades ago does not mean it did not happen.
