Sex and the Religious-Left

[Wizard22]

The logical conclusion of the Religious-Left extends from the Hippy, "Free Sex" Movement of the 1960s and 70s, by which most Liberal-Leftists retain their world-view, values, "morals", beliefs, etc. They see life as "one big party". Life is about having fun, free sex, pleasure, hedonism. And there's nothing "more" than that, to the Religious-Left. There is no "future" necessarily. To the Religious-Left, Life is only "in the moment", not or never "thereafter". The future doesn't exist, to the Religious-Left, only immediate gratification.

Because the Religious-Left has no "forward thinking", its "Progressivism" is a ruse. It's a Big Lie.

Only among the Religious-Right, is there a "Future", a Purpose, a Meaning, a Value in life which 'transcends' the mundane, animal impulses and instincts (sex for pleasure). The Religious-Right is about Family building. And from the Family, is Community/Communion. This is the essence of every Church, every Holy Book, every Marriage. A group of humans are Cooperating. Without this cooperation, it's a "free for all", All against All.


These are the essential differences of the Religious-Left, versus Religious-Right.

A completely different, distinct, oppositional World View. Exact opposites, that cannot 'tolerate' one-another.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

What a bloody loon. So if you only want two children then you would only have sex twice in your entire life. Yeah. Like THAT'S ever going to happen. Is this guy a troll?

[attofishpi]

But you can't find ANYTHING in the Bible that supports your claim that sex without creating a baby is sexually perverted.

The Religious Right are a bunch of bigots that place their own "moral" compass and attribute their lies to God, as you are by suggesting I cannot have sex with my wife without creating another baby.

As I stated, pretty certain that is a major sin, to attribute bullshit to God (as the bigotted Religious Right tend to do)

[Wizard22]

What a bloody loon. So if you only want two children then you would only have sex twice in your entire life. Yeah. Like THAT'S every going to happen. Is this guy a troll?

You're confusing the Ideal, with the practical and the Real.

Obviously no humans are going to hold-up to the Religious-Right's ideals. But you're missing the point. It's about what people Ought to do, and how to 'improve' themselves.

Otherwise let the Trannies be Trannies, vege, and you have "no right" to criticize them...don't you see how you would impose your own morality against them, over them, if you could??? So how does anybody base any degree of moral righteousness or indignation???

[Wizard22]

But you can't find ANYTHING in the Bible that supports your claim that sex without creating a baby is sexually perverted.

The Religious Right are a bunch of bigots that place their own "moral" compass and attribute their lies to God, as you are by suggesting I cannot have sex with my wife without creating another baby.

As I stated, pretty certain that is a major sin, to attribute bullshit to God (as the bigotted Religious Right tend to do)

No offense, fishpie, but you seem a little 'triggered' on the point?

Why do you care so much what the Religious-Right thinks, or how they rationalize, if it doesn't affect you and your "morality"?

So far, I'm merely describing the differences. I'm not telling you or anybody what they should, or should not do.

[attofishpi]

But you can't find ANYTHING in the Bible that supports your claim that sex without creating a baby is sexually perverted.

The Religious Right are a bunch of bigots that place their own "moral" compass and attribute their lies to God, as you are by suggesting I cannot have sex with my wife without creating another baby.

As I stated, pretty certain that is a major sin, to attribute bullshit to God (as the bigotted Religious Right tend to do)

No offense, fishpie, but you seem a little 'triggered' on the point?

Why do you care so much what the Religious-Right thinks, or how they rationalize, if it doesn't affect you and your "morality"?

So far, I'm merely describing the differences. I'm not telling you or anybody what they should, or should not do.

Well of course I am triggered. You are assigning YOUR moral compass to my God, not the other way around. You and the "Religious Right" have no evidence in the Bible to support such "morality".

[Wizard22]

Well of course I am triggered. You are assigning YOUR moral compass to my God, not the other way around. You and the "Religious Right" have no evidence in the Bible to support such "morality".

Then what does "Holy Communion" mean, if not the sexual union between man and woman, explicitly to procreate a child???

[vegetariantaxidermy]

What a bloody loon. So if you only want two children then you would only have sex twice in your entire life. Yeah. Like THAT'S every going to happen. Is this guy a troll?

You're confusing the Ideal, with the practical and the Real.

Obviously no humans are going to hold-up to the Religious-Right's ideals. But you're missing the point. It's about what people Ought to do, and how to 'improve' themselves.

Otherwise let the Trannies be Trannies, vege, and you have "no right" to criticize them...don't you see how you would impose your own morality against them, over them, if you could??? So how does anybody base any degree of moral righteousness or indignation???

Right. That's exactly the same thing. And I have never once used the word 'morality'. Calling men women creates enormous practical problems--mainly for women actually. There is very little inconvenience to men. They are the ones who benefit. Normal sex between consenting adults has nothing to do with men publicly displaying their fetishes, demanding that our language and worldview be turned upside down to accommodate them, insinuating themselves into women's spaces....

[attofishpi]

What a bloody loon. So if you only want two children then you would only have sex twice in your entire life. Yeah. Like THAT'S every going to happen. Is this guy a troll?

You're confusing the Ideal, with the practical and the Real.

Obviously no humans are going to hold-up to the Religious-Right's ideals. But you're missing the point. It's about what people Ought to do, and how to 'improve' themselves.

Otherwise let the Trannies be Trannies, vege, and you have "no right" to criticize them...don't you see how you would impose your own morality against them, over them, if you could??? So how does anybody base any degree of moral righteousness or indignation???

Right. That's exactly the same thing. And I have never once used the word 'morality'. Calling men women creates enormous practical problems--mainly for women actually. There is very little inconvenience to men. They are the ones who benefit. Normal sex between consenting adults has nothing to do with men publicly displaying their fetishes, demanding that our language and worldview be turned upside down to accommodate them, insinuating themselves into women's spaces....

Little inconcenience to men!! Look what happened to me...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmlxHhZON4Y

[Wizard22]

Right. That's exactly the same thing. And I have never once used the word 'morality'. Calling men women creates enormous practical problems--mainly for women actually. There is very little inconvenience to men. They are the ones who benefit. Normal sex between consenting adults has nothing to do with men publicly displaying their fetishes, demanding that our language and worldview be turned upside down to accommodate them, insinuating themselves into women's spaces....

You might not like it—but you suggest an imposition of Morality. And I agree with your imposition.

However you are moving into the territory of the Religious-Right, where what people Ought to do, trumps what they Do do.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You're confusing the Ideal, with the practical and the Real.

Obviously no humans are going to hold-up to the Religious-Right's ideals. But you're missing the point. It's about what people Ought to do, and how to 'improve' themselves.

Otherwise let the Trannies be Trannies, vege, and you have "no right" to criticize them...don't you see how you would impose your own morality against them, over them, if you could??? So how does anybody base any degree of moral righteousness or indignation???

Right. That's exactly the same thing. And I have never once used the word 'morality'. Calling men women creates enormous practical problems--mainly for women actually. There is very little inconvenience to men. They are the ones who benefit. Normal sex between consenting adults has nothing to do with men publicly displaying their fetishes, demanding that our language and worldview be turned upside down to accommodate them, insinuating themselves into women's spaces....

Little inconcenience to men!! Look what happened to me...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmlxHhZON4Y

Right, because a woman is just a castrated man. Or an uncastrated man for that matter, when it suits him.

[Wizard22]

Little inconcenience to men!! Look what happened to me...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmlxHhZON4Y

Fishpie, imagine God looking over your shoulder, do you think He would approve of you masturbating? Would He approve of threesomes or orgies? Would he approve of humans having sex with animals?

Are you making your Ancestors Proud?

For most of the Religious-Left, I think the answer is resoundingly: NO! You know it. I know it. The whole world knows it. But for whatever reason, everybody pretends like we don't.

[Harbal]

OMG. So the only time you make love to a woman or a man is to create a child? ...and as far as you are concerned to make love to a loving partner without causing pregnancy is sexually perverted?

What's the Purpose of a man and woman, if not to reproduce?

According to you, not to God. So you can't find anything in the bible that supports what you believe to be a sexual perversion - where two consenting loving adults make love to each other for reasons other that to create a child!!?

What do you think the purpose of Church and Marriage even is???

Why do you think The Bible or any "Holy Book" is written in the first place?

I don't believe in God, or your silly Bible, so none of this applies to me, of course.

[Wizard22]

OMG. So the only time you make love to a woman or a man is to create a child? ...and as far as you are concerned to make love to a loving partner without causing pregnancy is sexually perverted?

What's the Purpose of a man and woman, if not to reproduce?

According to you, not to God. So you can't find anything in the bible that supports what you believe to be a sexual perversion - where two consenting loving adults make love to each other for reasons other that to create a child!!?

What do you think the purpose of Church and Marriage even is???

Why do you think The Bible or any "Holy Book" is written in the first place?

I don't believe in God, or your silly Bible, so none of this applies to me, of course.

...reproducing with a woman doesn't apply to you, "of course", wait Hairball... what are you implying??

[Harbal]

Fishpie, imagine God looking over your shoulder, do you think He would approve of you masturbating?

What sort of God looks over peoples' shoulders, watching them masturbate?