Indian Judge says premarital sex is immoral in all religions.

I think its a totally useless question to ask whether the universe or our existence has a meaning.
I also think it's useless to label this or that as "natural" or "unnatural".

I mean what is the point of religion?
To keep people ignorant and divided perhaps?
Sure some sayings are nice, like the Sermon on the Mount, but a lot of it is unproven and unprovable rubbish.

At least functionally homosexual and third gender people had a sacred and religious role that was very important to their cultures.

Even more practically, a man who gathered with the women would have been a significant help if the women or children were attacked by an animal or a neighboring tribe.
So there are certainly ancient explanations for the existence of "two-spirit" people.

Apart from that they were also expert craftspeople, who could often perform the work of both genders.
Apparently some tribes said they held the world in balance.
Perhaps this is why they were also such a threat to religions who don't care if they unbalance the world, because they foolishly think the apocalypse is near.
And they believe this end-time garbage just because some exploiter in religion told them so.
It's not based on any proof.

What is the point of American evangelical Christianity today?
Did it lead to breakthroughs in the social sciences, or perhaps build another beautiful Sistine Chapel?
Did it give us cures for cancer or any diseases?
Did it add something to our understanding of the universe or physics?
No?

Really, no?

So it did absolutely nothing but make people sprout anecdotes and gibberish?
It did nothing but send us fake healers and anti-gay propaganda, which proposes harsh punishments and even the death sentence for homosexuality in countries like Uganda.

What did gay and lesbian people in Uganda and Africa ever do to them?
Did they come to your American country and tell you to murder your children and brothers and sisters?
The world will remember this hatred forever and ever and ever.
They have destroyed the very thing they think they're gonna preach.

That is actually quite sad.
And these people want to run science, and science education!
Hey, I'm glad if they're happy, but I hope they keep their useless and purposeless endeavors far from my family and country.

Don't even get me started on some other religions.

Sorry for the rant.
I'm just so tired of people asking for the purpose of this or that, because I know their position is totally unnatural, and it glaringly has no wider purpose whatsoever.

halfoldman
reply to post by OpinionatedB

 

OK "adult choice" people say.
That's fair enough, because society must allow people their independence at some stage.

But how "adult" are people at 18 or 21?

Pretty adult actually. In the United States they are working full time jobs provided they either did not go to a 4 year college at the age of 18 and by 21 most are very independent and self sufficient. My daughter who recently died, married at the age of 18 to someone she chose, and they were living independently of family... completely. She was 18, he was 21. He was in the military, and she chose not to work. When she got her trust fund at 22, they paid off their house and car completely.

In some cults and religions people that age were expected to make vows to become renounced monks for life.

The OP was concerning a young Indian woman who chose to have sex, and when she tried to sue the young man for refusing to marry her afterward, she was denied any restitution for this...

what does that have anything to do with off the wall cults or even religion?

Have you not been 18 or 21 years old? By that age I was no longer anywhere near my parents, as I had chosen my life and was off living it.... I don't think you can force an 18 year old to do anything to be honest. I know, I have both been one and had two children that went through that age...

So basically, you are complaining that someone forced an adult to be a monk? You are not making much sense to me here.

It didn't really turn out so good for such movements, because a lot of the good people left, and eventually they were run by crazy people, or people that were driven crazy by the religious practices.

I don't think it would turn out well for anyone who tried to force an 18 or 21 year old to do anything... that 18 - 21 year old wouldn't be having any part of anything they did not want to...

But so many years ago, sometimes people were forced due to financial insufficiency, to join the priesthood, which now is quite similar to joining the military...

I don't think one can make people take vows of celibacy or life-long monogamous marriage at that age. Mostly it is doomed to failure, and very deluded.

Not really, if you make the right choice for yourself in marriage, it can turn out beautifully. Even at that age. My parents were young when they married, my mother only 16 years old... and they were together for their rest of my fathers life.

Maybe in the past people endured it (with prostitution or Valium) because the whole culture encouraged it.
Nowadays in Western culture most people (especially women) expect more from life.

My mother never once took a valium, and my father never visited a whore. I never saw them argue either, ever.

Its how you choose.... and trust me, at that age, we are the ones doing the choosing. I jumped up and down screaming trying to stop my daughter from getting married...

lol... she did it anyway.

I am a bit confused what you are asking I suppose, or why you are bothered with those who choose to marry instead of having sex without marriage....

reply to post by OpinionatedB

I think I was adding on my own opinions and train of thought, rather than replying directly. So there's no direct query or issue. I was just inspired to go into something slightly different.

Perhaps to some people what I mentioned are "kooky cults", yet millions of people get mixed up with such groups.

So also when I mentioned 18 or 20 I was thinking of people who really made vows to live a renounced life at that age.
And these people took it very seriously, sometimes up to the point of committing suicide if they sinned.

I think largely I was pondering on when people are ready to make very important vows.
I saw a documentary on the purity movement in the US, and here I also wondered whether these girls were really aware of what they were promising, or whether it was parental pressure.
I certainly think it's a noble act to stay "pure" for your husband, but some of the girls do not, and they don't seem informed very well on sex.

halfoldman
reply to post by OpinionatedB

 

I think I was adding on my own opinions and train of thought, rather than replying directly. So there's no direct query or issue. I was just inspired to go into something slightly different.

Perhaps to some people what I mentioned are "kooky cults", yet millions of people get mixed up with such groups.

So also when I mentioned 18 or 20 I was thinking of people who really made vows to live a renounced life at that age.
And these people took it very seriously, sometimes up to the point of committing suicide if they sinned.

I think largely I was pondering on when people are ready to make very important vows.
I saw a documentary on the purity movement in the US, and here I also wondered whether these girls were really aware of what they were promising, or whether it was parental pressure.
I certainly think it's a noble act to stay "pure" for your husband, but some of the girls do not, and they don't seem informed very well on sex.

I believe younger people are impressionable, and easily swayed, often into things that are not good for them. The biggest problem here, is that when they are.. they won't listen to us.

Sometimes, they make decent choices even if we don't approve and I wont criticize my son-in-law... he was with her til the day she died, and held her hand as she died... he is a good father... so I figure she did okay...

And other times, it doesn't turn out that way with their rebellious choices. But its still them to live their life. We cannot choose for them. All we can hope for, is that we taught them enough common sense when they were young to make it through.

As far as staying a virgin, and only having sex after wedding vows... I think it is a good thing. Disease is rampant, concerns like pregnancy are there no matter what birth control, its never 100%. Also, I think waiting until you are married to have sex creates a bond, that, when created inside the marriage... has a tendency to strengthen the marriage vows...if that makes sense.

Have you noticed, that the more people have sex before they get married, the higher the divorce rate becomes? I think its because the bond wasn't created inside the marriage. And no matter what anyone thinks, two people facing the world together, makes facing the world so much easier.

reply to post by halfoldman


As far as your comment on younger kids, girls especially, not having enough knowledge sexually at a young age... I believe you are right here. So many parents have a very difficult time discussing these issues with their children. Mine never talked about anything at all with me... ever. ever. ever. lol...

that was so wrong... to be a young girl not having a clue about her own body is scarey. So I made certain to raise my kids in a manner where everything was talked about and very casually and openly... from a very young age.

I think it is important, that kids learn about sex from their parents and not strangers, and that they can talk to them and gain knowledge without feeling uncomfortable.

That would solve many many problems I think!

reply to post by OpinionatedB

I actually think that makes perfect sense.

It also seems like a tragedy actually that so many young people are shacking up without getting married, or having children.

I'm starting to sound like my granny!
But to me as gay person they have that advantage and potential where it really counts, and they are wasting their lives not using it properly.

halfoldman
reply to post by OpinionatedB

 

I actually think that makes perfect sense.

It also seems like a tragedy actually that so many young people are shacking up without getting married, or having children.

I'm starting to sound like my granny!

I am glad I made sense to you... wasn't sure I make sense to most people! hahaha

Its ok to sound like granny I figure, she was around the block a time or two and had learned a few things... us sounding like our grandparents mean we have the same amount of wisdom now! Too bad we didn't have it so much when we were younger aye? lol

But to me as gay person they have that advantage and potential where it really counts, and they are wasting their lives not using it properly.

Totally agree!

reply to post by OpinionatedB

Totally, although my granny is 94, so she beats me with experience by about 50 years!

I guess it's also that because everyone is getting older (and we're probably not all going to get that old) that our concerns are the same, and it's a question of inheritance and what comes after our generation.

Straight couples not getting married or having kids complicate all those matters.

And I really don't get it if that couple have been living together for over two decades in any case.

reply to post by halfoldman


Read all of the responses, and I'm just playing a little bit of devil's advocate perhaps but ...

I see a lot of persons in the thread comparing the situation to Western life styles where this type of event would be a road bump in a young person's life perhaps. It would be forgotten after a year or two, and wouldn't have the same kind of long lasting impact. For a woman living in India this could be deeply deeply impacting to her future and reputation. It's not quite the same.

Luckily it appears this person is employed and has other options, but a rich Indian man promising marriage and shelter for sexual advantage could have a very successful time in several parts of the country and ruin a few lives on the journey. The accusation is potentially different from the same situation in America for example ...

All that said, for the record no I don't think this was rape, and we don't have many of the facts to discuss or decide much else. For all I know this hasn't impacted the person that much, and it's not a big deal. Just thought it was an interesting consideration.

reply to post by Pinke

A cool analysis!

I'm not so sure that similar situations impact Western women less.

For example, I have a distant family member who was in love with a man and the marriage date was set.
But then she discovered that his entire persona was fake, and worst of all, he already had a wife.
Although this happened in the 1990s, they say she never recovered, or had another relationship.

Nowadays there are all kinds of scammers and Svengalis, and the newer type usually clean out bank accounts, or disappear when marriage gave them citizenship to a desired country.
I'm sure the victims must feel very betrayed, especially if they were robbed both emotionally and financially.

reply to post by halfoldman


Oh I absolutely agree about the emotional pain halfoldman!

I'm more referring to community, culture and potentially religious aspects of India alone. I'm not saying all Western people are made of sunshine and rainbows, but India certainly has the potential to be much harsher to a woman who they deem as being immoral and shamed. Just think about the judge's comments and imagine if a Western judge had the same out burst.

Potentially being the Indian woman who fell for a man who lied about his intentions of marriage is at least marginally better than no defence at all. The majority of western women at least have the option of saying, 'I just did what I did, get over it!' with only minimal social repercussions.

Imagine if a judge said something like this to you in the West, you would backhand him to Mars!

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Is it natural for a man to kill a human baby for food? No, so I'm not sure why you used that analogy.

Earlier, you were complaining about manmade things coming before something "natural".

animals killing weaker animals = natural
laws to punish killers = manmade


(in a reply to user ketsuko)

Marriage serves absolutely no purpose except for man-made ones, there is nothing like a marriage contract anywhere else in nature meaning it is an unnatural human tradition.

Well, by the same logic, "laws" to punish killers are also man-made... and there is nothing like "laws" in nature.

So if you want to dismiss laws when it comes to sex, you can also dismiss laws when it comes to pre-marital sex. Don't expect it to have it both ways.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Again, if I had a choice between something natural or something man-made coming first, I would choose what's natural 100% of the time.

Did you know that the vast majority of killings are done by, for, and/or because of man-made things? Whether it be for money, by a nuclear bomb, because of drinking alcohol and driving, or because of religious means, 99% of the troubles in this world are caused by something man-made and against nature. It is not natural to kill over money or power, but that is exactly what happens most of the time in today's world.

Again, I would take something natural before something man-made any day of the week. I never said all man-made things are bad, but lots of them can and have been used for something bad.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Again, if I had a choice between something natural or something man-made coming first, I would choose what's natural 100% of the time.

... and predatory behavior is 100% natural.

I never said all man-made things are bad

You didn't. So why say "man-made laws on sex" is bad?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Yes predatory nature is natural, what's your point?

Because man-made laws on sex serve no purpose other than to restrict our freedoms as individuals. What other purpose could they be for?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Yes predatory nature is natural, what's your point?

My point is that "natural" acts are not always acceptable in human society.
Which is why man-made laws are required.

Because man-made laws on sex serve no purpose other than to restrict our freedoms as individuals.

So man-made laws are "good" when it comes to curbing predatory behaviour.... but "bad" when it comes to curbing sexual freedom.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Obviously you aren't listening because I JUST said a few posts up that not all laws are bad. Laws against murdering people for the hell of it are good, but those laws are hardly going to stop a serial killer from killing his victims, so in a way they are still pointless.

Man-made laws on sex are stupid and don't serve any purpose other than for others to be able to tell us what to do and to take away our individual freedoms. What other purpose could they possibly have? Please let me know.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

JUST said a few posts up that not all laws are bad.

Then you are simply picking and choosing when laws are good.
Its weird, because earlier in this post, you were complaining about having to "live in a world where men want to tell us what to do".

Man-made laws on sex are stupid and don't serve any purpose other than for others to be able to tell us what to do and to take away our individual freedoms. What other purpose could they possibly have? Please let me know.

Laws aren't about taking away freedoms... but rather serve to regulate certain "natural acts" - whether its sex, killing, carrying out bodily functions. Just because its "natural" doesn't mean its acceptable in human societies. Because without laws we would be no different from animals.

A serial killer can also argue that man-made laws prohibiting murder are "taking away from his individual freedom". Like you said here... why should something man-made come before something natural?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


If a law actually serves a purpose then I see no problem with it, but unfortunately many of them are used only for control, especially ones that regulate natural human instincts. Me choosing which laws I believe are beneficial is no different from someone choosing which religion they believe is correct. It's called freedom of expression, religious laws on sex are the suppression of that freedom.

So in other words, they are used to "regulate", a.k.a. control our freedoms to perform natural acts we are made to do. Would you like to outlaw porn? If so, you are trying to force your personal morals on other people. Religious laws against sex is forcing morals on others.

Are you implying that murdering someone is somehow natural? Animals killing other animals for survival is not the same as someone "murdering" someone else for anything other than survival. If laws need to exist, they should be based around the golden rule, the majority of religious laws are not.