patrick.net

Buster says

The irony is not lost on any casual observer and unfortunately the examples of this are hoisted upon us everyday. Hypocrisy of these folks seems to be infinite.

Hypocrisy certainly isn't limited to those who claim to live life with a religious bent to it. I love the liberals who want everyone to be open minded and tolerant ... right up until they meet with someone who espouses a different point of view.

mmmarvel says

Buster says

The irony is not lost on any casual observer and unfortunately the examples of this are hoisted upon us everyday. Hypocrisy of these folks seems to be infinite.

Hypocrisy certainly isn't limited to those who claim to live life with a religious bent to it. I love the liberals who want everyone to be open minded and tolerant ... right up until they meet with someone who espouses a different point of view.

The OP simply asked those who feel homosexual sex is immoral to explain their position in a manner that the OP can understand. That manner asks for logic and enlightened reasoning instead of than tradition and superstition. That is not intolerance rather it is trying to gain a better understanding of an alternate viewpoint.

dig the meme though :)

New Renter says

The OP simply asked those who feel homosexual sex is immoral to explain their position in a manner that the OP can understand. That manner asks for logic and enlightened reasoning instead of than tradition and superstition.

Never said the OP was intolerant, but the reason of considering it immoral because it goes against what I take to be my moral standard (the Bible) is no more or less a legitimate position as those who believe that it's not immoral because two people 'love' one another. As I stated before, it is or is not immoral to you based on what you are using to be your moral standards.

mmmarvel says

New Renter says

The OP simply asked those who feel homosexual sex is immoral to explain their position in a manner that the OP can understand. That manner asks for logic and enlightened reasoning instead of than tradition and superstition.

Never said the OP was intolerant, but the reason of considering it immoral because it goes against what I take to be my moral standard (the Bible) is no more or less a legitimate position as those who believe that it's not immoral because two people 'love' one another. As I stated before, it is or is not immoral to you based on what you are using to be your moral standards.

So to sum up you believe gay sex to be immoral because the Bible says so. Is this correct?

mmmarvel says

I've read the Bible....

You don't appear to have read Samuel and Luke, or Proverbs 18:22, and you seem to have overlooked the fact that same-sex marriage was legal and part of the social context when the Bible was written. And, you haven't explained how re-marriage after divorce, which the NT expressly condemns, can be moral and yet at the same time same-sex marriage wouldn't be. You just reiterate your circular claim that you believe your belief, which you tie to a book that doesn't necessarily support your claim anyway. It's as if you were saying, "my next door neighbors told me so and they're always right," when in fact that isn't what they said and besides they can't always be right because they contradict each other.

If this were only a matter of your private character, no one would care. But too often such circular claims of "morality" are misused as arguments for and against legislation. We have at the moment a major political party that has become an apocalyptic cult, abandoning its role in addressing matters of genuine public concern in favor of enforcing what some call biblical morality. The relevance should be clear: consider John Ashcroft's efforts to divert FBI funding away from counter-terrorism and instead towards pornography enforcement and the "drug war," culminating in his infamous September 10, 2001 letter to Congress. Evidence-based government requires careful objectivity, while faith-based government results in catastrophic consequences.

This is from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sodomy

Anal or oral intercourse between human beings, or any sexual relations between a human being and an animal, the act of which may be punishable as a criminal offense.

The word sodomy acquired different meanings over time. Under the Common Law, sodomy consisted of anal intercourse. Traditionally courts and statutes referred to it as a "crime against nature" or as copulation "against the order of nature." In the United States, the term eventually encompassed oral sex as well as anal sex. The crime of sodomy was classified as a felony.

Because homosexual activity involves anal and oral sex, gay men were the primary target of sodomy laws. Culturally and historically, homosexual activity was seen as unnatural or perverse. The term sodomy refers to the homosexual activities of men in the story of the city of Sodom in the Bible. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their residents' immorality became a central part of Western attitudes toward forms of non-procreative sexual activity and same-sex relations.

Beginning with Illinois in 1961, state legislatures reexamined their sodomy statutes. Twenty-seven states repealed these laws, usually as a part of a general revision of the criminal code and with the recognition that heterosexuals engage in oral and anal sex. In addition, state courts in 10 states applied state constitutional provisions to invalidate sodomy laws. As of early 2003, eight states had laws that barred heterosexual and homosexual sodomy. Three other states barred sodomy between homosexuals.

And also:

sodomy n. anal copulation by a man inserting his penis in the anus either of another man or a woman. If accomplished by force, without consent, or with someone incapable of consent, sodomy is a felony in all states in the same way that rape is. Homosexual (male to male) sodomy between consenting adults has also been found a felony, but increasingly is either decriminalized or seldom prosecuted. Sodomy with a consenting adult female is virtually never prosecuted even in those states in which it remains on the books as a criminal offense. However, there have been a few cases, including one in Indiana, in which a now-estranged wife insisted that a husband be charged with sodomy for sexual acts while they were living together. Traditionally sodomy was called "the crime against nature." Sodomy does not include oral copulation or sexual acts with animals (bestiality). (See: rape, bestiality)

And from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sodomy

definition of sodomy: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also : copulation with an animal

New Renter says

Bap33 says

everyone please note: These are all from text/books, and were wrote by humans.

Your point Wile E?

lol .. if you read through the volumes above here you will find those on your side telling those on my side that we are stupid for following a book. Honest, it's there. lol. Not a biggie, just funny.

curious2 says

You don't appear to have read Samuel and Luke, or Proverbs 18:22, and you seem to have overlooked the fact that same-sex marriage was legal and part of the social context when the Bible was written. And, you haven't explained how re-marriage after divorce, which the NT expressly condemns, can be moral and yet at the same time same-sex marriage wouldn't be.

Let's answer these questions since you've seen to have taken such offense to me; no problem (must be that tolerance that liberals show). First Samuel, the story of Jonathan and David, I could dispute it based on it is from the Old Testament and as a Christian I'm not bound by the Old Testament but merely look at it as backup, tradition to the New Testament which I am bound by, but let's not go the easy route. The story is of two men who are very close friends, NO WHERE in the story is it suggested that they are intimate. They are merely close friends who support each other to an extreme. I too had a friend who at one time was without cash or a place to stay, he stayed with me for four months while he got on his feet and I footed the expenses for everything; however we were never sexually attracted to each other. Next Proverbs 18:22, it says, "Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the Lord." And since we remember that wife in the the Old Testament is always referred to as a 'she'; as in Proverbs 31:10 "An excellent wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels."

Let's move to Luke, now we're finally in the New Testament. The passage (Luke 17:34-35) where Luke is talking about the rapture. He writes, " I tell you, in that night, there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left." The way I read it, if it was support for gay sex, then both would be taken. No, the passage is meant to show that a person (even a homosexual who's sin is on the list of sins that are an abomination to God) who has heard and believes in Jesus, that that person will be saved; it does NOT advocate or promote gay marriage or gay sex.

Finally to your assertion that same-sex marriage was legal when the Bible was written. Well with Roman rulers like Nero and Caligula, yup, that wouldn't surprise me at all; however per God's Word, it's never been okay with Him. As for your other questions, like divorce; while I could easily answer that (although it takes a lot of text) this original question was regarding gay sex, so I'll limit myself to that. Good Day.

Bap33 says

In an 8th grade understanding way, so I can grasp it and respond, please tell me: (1) why is cutting in line immoral?

Dan8267 says

Is cutting in line immoral

Yes, because you are imposing a cost on another person against their will. It's a minor evil, but certainly it is a harm.

How does this apply to gay sex? Not at all. Consensual gay sex, like consensual straight sex is a benefit to the parties involved, not a cost.

I don't see how I can dumb it down any further. If you want me to trigger your trap, you really have to point out what you want me to say to set off the trap. I'm willing to trigger your trap, but I don't know how.

Bap33 says

is morality's primary function for the good of the group or the individual? This one is very important to help move the discussion along.

No, this question would be important to the thread in which I discuss the nature of morality, but I haven't written that thread yet. Just finished the abortion one and I'm waiting for Patrick to increase the thread size so I can post that thread.

This question is completely irrelevant to the question "Why the hell is gay sex immoral?". I will only entertain your question briefly as I'm not letting red herrings that this thread off track.

The answer to your question is neither. Neither the group nor the individual has absolute priority in a well-constructed moral system.

Bap33 says

By the way, I hope you did see where I said I never dis-liked your posts. It matters to me.

Yes. I apologized for presuming that it was you. There must be some asshole flagging all of them. Not that a person's dislike count means anything, but I've always found it repugnant for a person to abuse a forum feature. It shows disrespect for the community.

It's fine for people to dislike what I say, but when they dislike a post simply because I posted it, like the following, it's transparently childish.

Dan8267 says

jessica says

The question posted wasn't 'why is gay sex bad for society.'

So true. The question is "Why the hell is gay sex immoral?". A question so far unanswered.

But that's the price to pay for freedom of speech.

Personally, I only dislike posts that are deliberate trolling attempts. And very few people have gotten my dislikes.

Bap33 says

oh, MAYBE male/male coupling is not reacted to in the same way as female/female coupling because the male human roll in the family/clan/tribe/society/group/nation is not the same as the female?

No. Male homosexuality is loathed while female homosexuality is not because heterosexual men have lesbian sexual fantasies. Put simply, men are pigs and utter hypocrites when it comes to gay sex. We're simply not that noble or rational. And that's why everyone should listen to their frontal lobes rather than their guts.

Furthermore, in the modern era, there are no male and female roles but simply roles filled by men and women. The 21st century isn't the Stone Age. Labor is not divided based on gender. And, in fact, most labor is mental anyway, so Stone Age needs do not apply to modern society anyway.

Peter P says

Dan8267 says

True morality is not an arbitrary opinion. There is something a universal and absolute basis for morality even though morality itself is not absolute.

Are you saying that meta-ethics is absolute and universal?

Morality is quite like aesthetics. A "bad" painting will look bad to most people. But it is not necessarily bad to find that "bad" painting good.

Universal, yes. Absolute, no.

Just like the laws of physics don't vary from place to place, neither do the laws that govern the creation of moral systems, even though such moral systems vary as greatly as bridge designs. The underlying mathematics of bridge design, however, is absolute and universal.

Philistine says

Dan8267 says

Also in the Bible are gems like you must fuck your dead brother's wife and make sure to cum inside her or it’s a sin. Women who are menstruating must leave the city. If a mob wants to gang-bang your houseguest, you must offer your daughters instead

In fairness to Christianity, these are all Old Testament laws for the Jewish tradition. Christ's redemption freed the Christians from Old Testament law, which is why you won't find anything in the manner of the above in the New Testament.

The New Testament is pro-slavery. That alone makes the New Testament an utter failure as a moral guide.

Furthermore, the early Christian church, which is the root of all Christian religions, was as anti-women as the Middle East is today. That also makes Christianity at its roots a terrible basis for morality in the modern world.

mmmarvel says

And I entirely disagree. Morality is a standard, that is why using the Bible works (for many of us) because, it is a standard, there are absolute rights and absolute wrongs. Just because YOU have decided, based on whatever your moral standard is, that rape is wrong, then it is to you.

If morality was nothing more than arbitrary opinion, it would be worthless and there would be no reason to discuss it.

Some moral systems work far better than others. Understanding why matters.

mmmarvel says

Golly Dan, you're going to edumacate us all on how morality works, gee, thanks.

Only if you are wise enough to listen.

Is there anything wrong with sharing knowledge? Why does the idea of learning something from another human being offend you so?

mmmarvel says

In your world, using your particular moral standard, gay sex is okay. In my world, using the Bible to base my moral standards off of, gay sex is not okay. The question really isn't that hard, nor is the answer. It appears to me that you wanted some people to bash the issue using Bible verses so you could attack them.

1. Whether or not you consider gay sex to be immoral is not the question. The question is why do you consider gay sex to be immoral. Even if morality were just an arbitrary opinion, opinions have reasons. I like ice cream because it tastes sweet. I don't like the taste of shit because evolution implanted a repulsion response in my species in order to keep us from getting sick by eating shit.

2. The question was not meant to be hard. Yet, it still remains unanswered.

3. My intention in asking this question was to either find a legitimate reason why homosexuality is immoral or to demonstrate that there isn't one. The fact that Bible thumpers are the biggest and dumbest idiots isn't my fault.

Nevertheless, even the religious should be able to give a non-religious reason why they think gay sex is immoral. If there only reason is because their Bible says so, then I am right to point out the utter hypocrisy and contradiction as the Bible says that slavery is good and many, many other things that no Bible-thumper today would advocate as good morality.

curious2 says

I believe you. The disliking of Dan's posts started when mmmarvel arrived, so I made that connection and never suspected you.

Having read mmmarvel's recent posts, I agree. He does sound like a troll douche-bag.

Nevertheless, he's just making his side look like assholes.

At least FortWayne made some rational attempts to justify considering gay sex to be immoral. And even though his attempts ended up more about cultural norms and practical issues, at least it was a sincere attempt to answer the question.

curious2 says

Bap33 says

Dan is a very smart guy and knows what I am doing and what my next move is, like chess.

Dan is a very smart guy and you could learn a lot from him. Instead you seem to be playing some kind of game in your mind that you use as a rationalization to avoid answering the original question.

My strategy on this thread, and all others, is pretty straight-forward and simple. Transparency, transparency, transparency. Just keep probing by asking the question why until you get to the underlying kernel of truth, the reason for a political or, in this case, moral stance.

If just keep asking why, eventually you find out what's really important to people.

So far, it seems that what's important to anti-gay persons is simply conformity to their arbitrary culture. I think that gay sex is immoral because that was what I was raised to believe. And that is not a good justification for calling something immoral.

New Renter says

Peter P says

Rush is highly entertaining.

So was Hitler

I think you're confusing Charlie Chaplin and Hitler. Chaplin was the one with the hat.

New Renter says

Perhaps you are trying to compare the time cheated from those in line behind the cutter to the "ick" suffered by people offended by the idea of gay sex? Is this what you are trying to do?

That's what I thought Bap was trying to do, but he could have just "sprung the trap" already as we've said that line cutting is immoral like 50 times.

StoutFiles says

Dan8267 says

For example, if god wanted you to rape babies, would raping babies be good? Hell no.

Well, yes, it would, if it actually came from God. There is no such thing as a true right or wrong, good or evil. We do things based on what society says or what we believe God wants, defining the terms. If society wanted us to rape babies and God gave us a big thumbs up and promised Heaven for it, then surely it would be a "good" act.

And that is yet another problem with religion.

The idea that good and evil are simply what some "god" wants is perhaps the greatest thing what makes religion dangerous. Since the "god" doesn't actually exist, his desires are always expressed by some authority figure, and it just so happens to be that the fictitious god wants exactly what the authority figure wants.

For George W. Bush, god wanted America to invade Iraq killing about 1 million men, women, and children. For Hitler, god wanted the Jews burned alive in ovens.

Once a person realizes that all these incarnations of "god" are simply lies and that those telling the lies have ulterior and evil motives, that person can finally see that good and evil has nothing to do with a "god" or religion.

Also, I've always found it utterly ridiculous to not only assume that there is a god, but then assume that there is only one. Of course, such an assumption is necessary for tyrants because if there were more than one god, they could disagree. And if the gods disagreed, then the tyrant couldn't claim unquestioning authority.

It's no surprise that monotheism took off during the rise of nation-states and empires. Earlier religions were all polytheistic.

swebb says

Therefore gay sex is immoral.

QED

Actually, what you are saying is that people hijack the subject of morality to demonize things that aren't immoral but that the demonizers don't like.

I agree with this as there is ample evidence to support this. And essentially, that seems to be the only reason gay sex is called immoral by some people. However, demonizing a practice doesn't make it immoral. Rock-n-roll was demonized not so long ago. So was interracial marriage.

Bap33 says

who says cheating is immoral? what is the reason?

Whether or not cheating is immoral depends on the situation. If a person is placed in an unjust situation, cheating may be a moral imperative.

For example, hijackers take an airplane and promise the pilot no one will die if they land in Iraq. The pilot actually lands in Israel and the Israelis pretend to be Iraqis until they can take out the hijackers. The pilot cheated on the deal, but it was the moral thing to do.

I have an infinite number of other examples. For brevity, I won't list them here. Sufficient to say, there are reasons underlying the act which determine whether or not cheating is immoral.

mell says

People should not take "books" as their moral guide.

Certainly not religious books.

However, a good book on any subject explains the subject clearly. One could write a good book on morality, why it exists, and how it works. Actually, such books may already be written. If so, there content will be mathematical, not supernatural.

mell says

Consentual sex is never immoral, be it gay or straight.

I wouldn't go that far. If I had consensual sex with a married woman, I would consider that immoral because of the harm the act does to the woman's husband, children, and marriage. Similarly, infidelity in gay marriages would be immoral.

Buster says

mmmarvel says

we will be held accountable for our actions.

Perhaps, but I prefer to hold people accountable for their actions in the here and now.

Relying on some god to set things straight after death is completely wrong. If a god really did balance the scales after death, then there would be no purpose in stopping evil such as murder, rape, genocide, etc. There would be no point in striving for social justice. God takes care of everything. This is exactly the mindset of the Dark Ages, and that's why social justice stood still during that period.

It is this life that matters. Making this world a better place is what counts.

New Renter says

The OP simply asked those who feel homosexual sex is immoral to explain their position in a manner that the OP can understand. That manner asks for logic and enlightened reasoning instead of than tradition and superstition. That is not intolerance rather it is trying to gain a better understanding of an alternate viewpoint.

All true. But there is a reason for the post.

Demonizing homosexuality has caused enormous harm to many people. Mathew Shepard was brutally murdered because of it. His family suffered greatly. Many people have been arrested in 20th century U.S. and Britain for being homosexual. Alan Turing, the greatest mind that ever lived, was driven to suicide after he was arrested for being gay. Multitudes of same-sex couples are denied equality under law due to this discrimination.

So, I am quite justified in demanding an explanation for why gay sex is immoral, because if it isn't, then calling it immoral certainly is.

New Renter says

mmarvel says

Buster says

The irony is not lost on any casual observer and unfortunately the examples of this are hoisted upon us everyday. Hypocrisy of these folks seems to be infinite.

Hypocrisy certainly isn't limited to those who claim to live life with a religious bent to it. I love the liberals who want everyone to be open minded and tolerant ... right up until they meet with someone who espouses a different point of view.

You took my comment out of context. The thread is referring to gay sex. My comment was meant to imply that those against it are often times hypocrites. I do agree however that some on the left can be just as crazy.

Here is an example that just passed my facebook moments ago. I don't go looking for these, they simply happen every SINGLE DAY.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/2790496-95/biron-charges-lawyer-manchester

Anti-Gay Christian Lawyer Arrested For Possession Of Child Pornography

A member of the anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund, which has filed numerous lawsuits in opposition to LGBT rights nationwide, has been arrested on multiple felony charges related to child pornography.
A Manchester lawyer took a teenage girl to Canada, had her engage in sexual activity and convinced her to let it be filmed, according to federal indictments. FBI agents swiftly arrested Lisa Biron yesterday morning as she awaited a hearing on child pornography charges at Manchester’s district court. About 9 a.m. FBI agents entered the courtroom, told Biron to leave her belongings and took her into an adjoining conference room where she remained for several minutes before coming out in handcuffs. Outside, Biron ducked her head below the backseat window of a white vehicle as it was driven away from the courthouse. A few hours later in U.S. District Court in Concord, Biron, who is associated with a national coalition of Christian lawyers, was formally told of the federal charges against her: transportation with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, possession of child pornography and five counts of sexual exploitation of children. Judge Landya McCafferty decided to detain Biron yesterday, largely, she said, because she is believed to have broken most of the bail conditions imposed on the district-level pornography charges.

Dan8267 says

l. Alan Turing, the greatest mind that ever lived, was driven to suicide after he was arrested for being gay.

That would be an interesting topic to debate. Was Alan Turing the greatest mind to ever live?

I'm all up his ass, too, but the greatest mind to ever live? Maybe, but how could you be sure?

Dan8267 says

New Renter says

Peter P says

Rush is highly entertaining.

So was Hitler

I think you're confusing Charlie Chaplin and Hitler. Chaplin was the one with the hat.

Plenty of people in the mid 1930s found the speeches given by Hitler entertaining. He wasn't humorous at least that I can tell but he did have a style that kept his audiences enthralled. He could never have come to power otherwise.

Personally I can't see how anyone can listen to Limbaugh. I've tried but I can't go more than a few minutes before I have to turn off the radio.

swebb says

Maybe, but how could you be sure?

I suppose Friedrich Gauss could give Turing a run for his money, but I'm still more of a Turing fan.

Dan8267 says

mmmarvel says

Golly Dan, you're going to edumacate us all on how morality works, gee, thanks.

Only if you are wise enough to listen.

Is there anything wrong with sharing knowledge? Why does the idea of learning something from another human being offend you so?

No, but it does come across as you're setting yourself up to be the guru on the mountain top. I've read many of your comments/observations that I completely disagree with. Not sure that I'll learn, but sometimes your rants are mildly entertaining. Do you understand how it can come across?

Dan8267 says

Relying on some god to set things straight after death is completely wrong. If a god really did balance the scales after death, then there would be no purpose in stopping evil such as murder, rape, genocide, etc. There would be no point in striving for social justice.

Not sure I'm 'relying' on God to set things straight, I believe it will happen regardless of if you're 'relaying' on it or not. I also disagree that what happens in the afterlife to those who commit horrible acts (rape, murder, etc) dismisses the reason/need to correct/punish the offender in this life, render to caeser and all that.

mmmarvel says

. Do you understand how it can come across?

How I come across depends entirely on the maturity of the other person. Juveniles see knowledge sharing as arrogant. Adults see these discussions as ways of letting good ideas bubble through society. Sure, most of the ideas in such conversations may be "bad", but if even a small percentage are worth spreading and they spread like wildfire, then society is better off.

Perhaps some day you will understand this. It's not about the person doing the writing. It's about the ideas being written down and discussed.

I wouldn't limit it the problem to anal sex. Doggy style sex is a lack of respect for your human conditions and going back being animals. Missionary style should be the only moral way of having intercourse.

ja says

Missionary

Still too similar to animals, by that logic the only moral way is test tubes in an immaculate lab. Relying upon the Bible and the doctrine of the Church, everyone must emulate the example of Mary as closely as possible: immaculate conception is the only moral way. Praise be to the inventor of the test tube, for bringing us all closer to The Light and The Truth and The Way. And the Brave New World.

curious2 says

ja says

Missionary

Still too similar to animals, by that logic the only moral way is test tubes in an immaculate lab. Relying upon the Bible and the doctrine of the Church, everyone must emulate the example of Mary as closely as possible: immaculate conception is the only moral way. Praise be to the inventor of the test tube, for bringing us all closer to The Light and The Truth and The Way.

I was going to suggest through a hole in a sheet, but your reasoning is undeniable.

leo707 says

curious2 says

ja says

Missionary

Still too similar to animals, by that logic the only moral way is test tubes in an immaculate lab. Relying upon the Bible and the doctrine of the Church, everyone must emulate the example of Mary as closely as possible: immaculate conception is the only moral way. Praise be to the inventor of the test tube, for bringing us all closer to The Light and The Truth and The Way.

I was going to suggest through a hole in a sheet, but your reasoning is undeniable.

Still too close to the animals. we need to get away from biology altogether:

Robot bodies with cybernetic brains for all, its the only moral choice!

Dan,
after seeing your position (no pun), and those of others, it seems to me you need to start a new thread asking, "why the hell is gay sex so rare?"

Bap33 says

"why the hell is gay sex so rare?"

Easy question. It was very common less than a century ago, but then got bundled together with an identity. Previously, people who keep thinking about it (not to mention any names Bap) would simply have done it, but now they are afraid of being called gay, so instead of actually doing it they just keep thinking about it.

BTW, the hunky Captain America avatar reminds me of a certain WWE wrestler:

Please take care. Pills marketed as "anti-depressants" are no substitute for healthy living. Neither is religion - which wthrfrk/freak80 retreats into because he calls legal recognition for gay marriage equivalent to slitting his own throat. Although less common than previously, gay sex is pretty easy to find if you look around, and much healthier than pills and religious paranoia.

Bap33 says

Dan,

after seeing your position (no pun), and those of others, it seems to me you need to start a new thread asking, "why the hell is gay sex so rare?"

What is rare to you?

10% of men are "predominately" homosexual. 37% of men have had at least one same-sex orgasm.

curious2 says

immaculate conception is the only moral way.

Indeed. One should also only get married if they can't stay Celibate, according to Paul. This one gets glossed over big time.