The doctrinal teachings of religion contain distilations of mankind’s general moral attitudes with regard to sustaining a beneficent civilisation, but the lumbering mechanics of any institution is blunt and unwieldly in many respects compared to the enlightenment of a free thinking individual – using all his innate wit and perception – unhindered by the authoritative precepts of any organised religion.
Sometimes those attitudes, born of man, have been adopted by religions as a mask of law – from behind which they wield the authority of fear.

“Good” & “sinful” – by definition must be understood in their broadest, most universal definitions – as pertaining to the future of civilisation, the future of life – not in association with perceptions of pleasure that have automatically inherited distortional “hauntings of guilt” – as encouraged by many religious institutions.

Pleasure is a principal of life – it is there to ensure that life, in it’s most primitive form, survives – propagates – continues.
With survival comes evolution – evolution is not confined to physicality – our consciousness evolves – our minds broaden. Gradually it is expected that the laws we make reflect an evolutionary trend towards a more beneficent civilisation.

The biological function of sex is therefore inseparable from the pleasure. So who are we to determine that psychological and emotional aspects of that pleasure – as perceived by us humans – should outwiegh the biological – let alone imbue that opinion with a so-called “divine authority” that is purely derived from a limited human perspective?

Eating is pleasurable.
The pleasure is intrinsic to the act.
Is it immoral to eat between meals?
As human beings we have learned to express our sociability through eating, as we have learned to express our higher ideals of love – through the intimacy of sex.
Only the severely hungry and impoverished will steal food.
Surely the same applies to sex?
Making the sexual act more beneficent to civilisation by restricting population growth is a choice we should all be free to make – it will not automatically engender a race of rapists.

Believe it or not – we have free-will.
Denying people their innate right to excercise their free-will, develop their own enlightened opinions, free from authorative moralistic threat or encumberance is of far more consequence
than attempts at clawing back an oppresive and often abused power – by semantic manipulation.

Please liberate those people, and yourself, from the clutches of an imagined guilt – let them use all their human talents for judgement, perception.
Educate – yes – to the true and absolute unconditionality of “God’s” love.
No favours granted – saint and sinner alike – believer and disbeliever – we all are enclosed by the same rules of the universe – no escape.
We must learn to use those rules to our advantage.

Offer guidance – yes – but never force.
Is there no place for liberated thought in the church?
Surely, that is a blasphemy?

i could not imagine a mother amputating her child just to fit the shirt. she should just be imaginative enough to find a larger one.

ayuz! :D

such is why i support population management. any argument based on “the philippines has X land area and therefore has no problem with population” should find out how easy it is to live on, well, i don’t know, Apo Reef? :D

here’s my version (quoting my economist best friend): if you have a small shirt, and your child is inevitable growing, do you cut off his extremities to fit the shirt?

economically speaking, i think it should be the resources that should be made fit to the people and not the other way around.

im all for good sex but i think the bill should be seen not only in light of good sex but in light of the policies that it will imply.

cheers jester! i always enjoy your arguments.

Remember, promiscuity (especially if you are single) is NOT a sin (outside of the church) and NOT illegal.

gad, what a load of B.S. who wrote this?

Take note that what King defines as good sex (that intimate perfect union of two loving souls) and what the Jester defines as good sex (that which does not add to the economic and health burden) are not necessarily mutually exclusive.