Consent cannot be given by those who are judged to lack the mental capacity to make an informed decision.
Such as Children and Animals and those with diminished responsibility eg Someone with late stage Alzheimer's disease.
Incest is inherently exploitative...most victims of incest will not tell a happy tale.
The reason it is wrong to have sex with a child is because the child by definition of being a child is still developing and it is a scientific fact that sexual activity with children is psychologically harmful as well as potentially physically harmful. Certainly early pregnancy is potentially harmful and not in the interests of the child.
I am concerned this is not obvious. Perhaps the story of Lot has led you to believe incest and pedophilia is acceptable.
Christianity will never grip the world again as it did...it is dying now and not soon enough,
Nema... ;)
If the object of your desire cannot give legal consent to sex then you might well have a legal duty not to attempt to have sex with it...regardless of what the Bible says.
Having sex with your sister children and animals and vulnerable people etc.. is illegal and is outlawed because it is inherently exploitative, it is rape or incest in the case of humans.
If you don't understand why animals and children should not be excluded then you do not understand the concepts of exploitation or rape, since obviously unrelated homosexuals above the age of consent who freely engage in sexual activity are not being raped or being incestuous.
One does not have to allow all forms of sexual expression or revert to religious puritanical bigotry and persecution in order to maintain a healthy moral society.
Mutual consent between individuals able to make that decision freely without fear or coercion.
That is the dividing line between sexual right and wrong.
That means homosexuals and heterosexuals and bisexuals can all stand on one side of the line together.
The incestuous, the pedophiles, the necrophiliacs, the bestiality enthusiasts...on the other. Should they act on their desires.
Sexuality in the LBGT context is and should remain exclusively related to sexual orientation and sexual orientation only, with regard to preference for a particular gender or both. Any expansion with things like Polygamy would lessen the recognition sought for by the gay community and with Incest Pedophilia and Bestiality and Necrophilia...they really have little connection either, since gender preference is not the issue..
Sexual orientation and gender identity, that is what the LGBT organisations stand for.
'I and my father are one' implies that one is equal to or indivisible from the other, that there is no differentiation. The other verse states that one is higher than the other, thus there is a degree of separation. These two verse are thus conflicting. There are many more obvious contradictions if you want further examples, I chose that one because it is fairly subtle.
It (The Bible) has numerous contradictions.
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
It depends on what is meant exactly by talking about sex.
Clearly not discussing sex or making sex a taboo subject is unhealthy and very likely to lead to much dysfunction. Sexual repression leads to all kinds of evils as the Catholic Church and it's sorry record of child abuse demonstrates admirably. If people are not open about sex then there can be no discussion as to what is healthy sex and what isn't...no guidance for the young in particular, leading to obvious issues like teenage pregnancy. Also when people are coming to terms with their sexuality it is necessary for them to feel able to discuss such matters, openly and frankly.
Perhaps the problem is the causal and perhaps distasteful open discussions of sex and sex acts between people, when really such gratuitous discussions about sex serve no real purpose and should perhaps be toned down in public.
I believe war can be eliminated if nationstates decide that for the greatest good for the greatest number of people and for ultimately the altruistic benefit of our species it would be wise to abandon a multi government world and create a global unity government, a federal government of nation states.
Where instead of competing like Rats and Locusts for natural resources and third world nations to exploit, nations cooperate, pooling and re distributing resources fairly and sustainably.
With a centralised federal world government that can make real decisions...and not just 'bring change' change isnt always good is it?...what we need is progress.
