|
|
 | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) Then we disagree. (...) Yes, but neither are you "all for" sex either, unless you are willing to advocate beastiality, incest, etc. You draw your lines, I draw mine. There is no difference except in degree. (...) Of course. Do you have another (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) I don't think so. (...) You're "all for" sex with only one partner, of only one certain sex, in only certain ways, under only certain circumstances. Right? (...) To start, I'm assuming that you agree with American Heritage in that the nuclear (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) I'm surrounded by Abrahmics. I'm not sure if I have enough perspective to verify what you're saying. My experiences with Indians (fairly extensive across fifteen years in university and IT) do lead me to believe that they (at least the ones (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: (snipping) (...) It is a misnomer to characterize the Judeo-Christian tradition as antisexual. We are all for sex, but within the context of marriage. Sex outside of marriage erodes at the institution (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) This is a really good question, and I hadn't thought about it in those terms. I guess I would have to note, as you suggest, that attempts to reinvent sexuality (or the expression thereof) are met with vigorous resistence, often by the very (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
