From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: not BECAUSE GOD SAID SO, but it is right
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 18:23:16 GMT
Organization: Society For Putting Things on Top of Other Things 

In article <1992Sep8.171325.1@jaguar.uofs.edu> dfm2@jaguar.uofs.edu writes:
>
>That's whats wrong with many Christians, not with Christianity.
>All Christian laws (defined as those in the bible) are for the improving
>of society.   

Improving for whom?  Ordering women to submit to their husbands (Paul)
has been interpreted to mean women should stay with abusive spouses.
I often find that Biblical commandments were made to keep things fine
and dandy for the ruling class.

>For instance, I'll answer why not have premarital sex.
>(this is not meant to start a debate in alt.atheism about the validity
>of these viewpoints)
>1.  Because marriage is a guarantee that both partners will be responsible
>to each other for what their sex causes.  Paying for a vacuum tube to be shoved
>up a woman's uterus and rip apart what is growing inside is not considered
>being responsible.  Bearing a child you can't take care of isn't either, and
>being an absent father sure as hell isn't.  Birth control fails.

Then why does the Bible suggest that men have the upper hand in
the relationship?  Men are physically stronger; now he has a Divine
mandate to whomp on women?  Why do the old laws make it easier for
men to get divorces than women?  Some guarantee.

>2.  Even if sex were okay in certain situations,  sexuality begets sexuality.
>How do you tell your child/ younger sibling that its OK for you to have sex,
>but not OK for them. * "You're too young?" No-one undrestands their own lack
>of maturity. * "Only when you're in love." How much in love?  Doesn't the first
>crush seem like love. * "Only when you know the other person isn't taking 
>advantage of you?" Let's face it, half of the guys in my dorm will lie about
>anything to score, ("No, I mean it this time. I'll love YOU 4ever") Only true
>way to tell is to see a ring.

No, you're wrong here too.  Ever read _War and Peace_?  There's a whole
section in there about a rogue's  plan to have sex with a virgin, which
included a phony marriage performed by a defrocked priest.

There is no true way to tell.  It's all relative.

>3.  In a sex-dominated society, sexiness becomes a commodity, and everyone
>becomes seen as a sex prospect, leading to harassment, assault, date-rape, etc.
>Women can get pregnant and can get raped by the opposite sex.  Men can't.
>Women lose if the game's sex. "And He Shall Have Dominion Over You" (Gen 3) 
>wasn't a commandment, it was a curse.

This is the Islamic argument (men can't control themselves around women,
so keep women locked up or covered in veils).  It's silly.  How about
instilling men with a sense of responsibility for their actions, with
punishments for violations such as rape and harassment instead of
blaming women for "giving it away"?  Your assumption that available
sex causes harassment is incorrect.  What causes harassment is the
failure of society to teach men how to behave.

>4.  Freedom becomes necessity.  Hit the schools and see how many kids in NYC
>feel they have the choice not to have sex.

So your solution is to force the other option?  How about allowing
those kids a real choice, instead of forcing them to abstain?

>5.  People aren't honest.  Marriage is a contract.

This is an argument in favor of civil marriage, not religious marriage.

>6.  Sex is the best way of communicating diseases known to mankind.  Condoms
>are 85-92% effective, PER USE when used properly, and are unavailable to 80%
>of the world's population

Excuse me, but you are completely wrong here.  The statistics you
are referring to are not "per use" but per woman-year, and do not
refer to disease transmission but pregnancies.

If condoms were only 92% effective per use, then only NINE uses would
drop the effectiveness rate below 50%, and I assure you, people would
not use them for birth control with such lousy prospects.  Of course,
at an 85% rate, only FIVE uses knock it below 50%.

Don't quote figures you don't understand.  The condom rates of failure
include people who use condoms as their main form of birth control
who decide to "go bare just this once," a more common failure than
the condom breaking.

>I've got loads of reasons, and I don't have the time to make the one's I've
>supplied airtight.  I'm not interested in debating.  My only point is that
>there are reasons why society created marriages.  No, they weren't designed
>to oppress poeple, they were designed to protect them.  Not until someone
>can understand why society makes rules can someone question them, and 
>unfortunately, because few poeple follow that principle, others felt
>it best to answer "BECAUSE I SAID SO!"  When that person's authority was
>challenged, it became "BECAUSE GOD SAID SO." 

And society changes.  The rules might have been good ideas 2000 years
ago.  The big problem I have with Christians is when they wish to
enforce old laws based on old societies.  Or do you want us to go
back to "Thou shald not suffer a woman to preach"?

>ALSO,  WE  don't always know why.  Christians presume that Christ or his
>immediate followers wouldn't have siad something without damn good reason.
>Keep in mind, a main focus of Christ's teaching was to break people away
>from needless ritualizations and laws.  In reality, there are very few
>instances of this.   Many of Paul's writings are understood now to be 
>specific to certain communities (ie, that hat biz he tells Galatians).

Fine.  Just leave the rest of us out of it, and quit trying to legislate
your morality.


-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553