Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (2625)	10/25/2000 9:44:23 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

I fear you mean that only a nutcase wouldn't agree with you, and people who don't see things the way you do are sick and scary...." No, I mean what I wrote: Only a nutcase would ask of themselves and their mate that they engage in sex for the "purpose of procreation" but not for the simple, straightforward and natural purpose of achieving sexual bliss together. There are undoubtedly many behaviors you react to as I react to that, with revulsion and the subjective sense that the individual involved is somehow warped. Maybe you respond that way to bilimics. Maybe to those people who play with snakes in church. Glossalalia has always seemed a bit nuts to me, but not revolting and it doesn't appall me or make me feel indignant. Maybe you feel something in the pit of your stomach when you read about those who have been convinced to let their children die when a visit to a doctor would have saved them. Maybe you are repelled by school systems that beat children with whips to make them good. Maybe by parents who tell their children that they will burn in hell for eternity if they masturbate and God is looking at them all the time. But really what appalls me isn't the credulity of the poor, manipulated husband and wife. Really, I pity them for having been driven by a bunch of celibates to such nutty behavior. It's the idea that someone has thrust himself into that bedroom (with threats of sanctions) to tell the husband and wife there when the man can put his penis into the woman's vagina and when he can't, and that when he does, he must ejaculate onto her cervix. It appalls me. And I don't feel it is "harsh" to react that way. I think it is "harsh" and unseemly to stick your nose into that couple's bed and f around with their sex life and wishes regarding parenthood. BTW, does the Church have a position, so to speak, on oral sex? My guess would be that it's okay, but not if you have in your mind the sinful idea of keeping sperm away from the vaginal canal, but I don't know. Do you know? I'm just curious.