@wrybreadspread - haha, actually, it didn't even sound mean the way you phrased it (making the narrow, hateful part funny). Biased, though, I would say yes to, though that doesn't mean you don't have good reasons (perhaps even better) for your side.

I don't think I could be anything but Catholic. I've tried to leave the religion before, I just couldn't bear to do it.

As for virgin, the plan is 'til marriage.

My own views on sex for myself are generally more traditional. The post wasn't about whether or not I have sex but more just sexual knowledge in general (since there are certainly many others having sex) and the grossly incorrect representations of it in the media, in casual conversation, etc.

I believe in non-stigmated dialogue about sex, regardless of personal views on it. People have it; we shouldn't be surprised. While we might have our own reasons for how we engage with sex, I really don't think there's a sexual morality (except in awful, obvious crimes such as rape). That said - we all should know this information. I mean, granted, I know I did peer help services (for far more years than I think is usual for most...) but this should be basic stuff. As a virgin, I can say that there are constant times in my life when this information is useful in a multitude of ways that might come up.

That, really, was the gist of it - this stuff is basic, you ought to know it.

@LyricalVent - really? why's that? This would seems like one of things you would expect me to do, to me

@wrybreadspread - "Humor trumps hatred. I’ve no interest in hating people. I want to discuss--not name call."

Totally with you there. Part of the reason I subscribed to you.

I'd first put forth that, given the multitude of interpretations you could have of the Torah (in many different ways, not just those most often mentioned), not everyone would come away with the same conclusions necessarily. That general, all-encompassing statement said, I understand what you mean and where you're coming from.

Where this, probably, a mere 2 years ago, I might've said that what people want is legal recognition rather than, necessarily, social acceptance. As I've seen the way that acceptance can have huge impacts on the well-being and lives of people, I'd say I agree with you, people want at least social tolerance.

Injecting my own personal view, (since society clearly has some form of morality imbued in their laws) a plural and multifaceted society like our own needs a morality which is judged on a basis of harm. If something causes physical harm (emotional in the case of prolonged harrassment), then it's immoral; if not, it's fine (I would personally argue that said harm should only apply to others, not if done to oneself, but a discussion for another time).

If we were to go by the basis of religious texts (or other such things) for anyone, we'd first run into the issue of interpretation. We've seen the Middle East. Yet there are many Muslims who argue that many of the extreme positions that others take directly conflicts with the Qur'an (indeed, there are passages which directly command a love and compassion that extreme Islam contradicts, though I admit my own large ignorance when it comes to the Qur'an).

The second part is that our society ceases to be plural and allow the freedom of thought and action that it currantly allows if it were to accept a particular religion's morality as its own.

Now, I use the example of religion because you had mentioned it, but this really is a template for all. We didn't ratify non-segregated schools, interracial marriage, and other such race issues because we decided it was a moral thing for us to do as a nation (though that is easily what helped it forward, along with polititions being able to rack up new constituents and social pressure abroad (it's absolutely a hilarious thing to watch the U. S. try to characterize itself as a progressive and free nation before the 60s because it wanted to save face globally and that was a form of competition for nations, despite the U. S.'s awful status at the time as a nation on race)).

We ratified these things because they legitimately made a certain portion of our country second-class citizens and restricted them in a miriad of ways (remember that desegregation came about because of the psychological effect on young black children).

Our status as a(n attempt to be a) non-racist society is by our own choice. You're allowed to be racist. You're allowed to think blacks inferior. But no one is allowed to restrict that portion of society legally. We choose to be a non-racist society. We could choose to be otherwise (as unlikely as that is). But constitutional policy is equal access for all.

If we were to officially, as a society, decide on incest and bestiality, it would be that by morality, regardless of my own beliefs and opinions. Hence, rape should never be considered acceptable (I will literally cry if our society ever considers such an act acceptable).

@FallenReign - never believe you? *sigh* 'Tis a shame