Comment: Rape vs Sex

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: IMissLiberty, would you (see in situ)

Rape vs Sex

Most would agree that two people having sex should be in agreement about what they're doing. Rape is bad. An expectation of marriage on one side and not on the other is bad. A contract (marriage, or perhaps otherwise) is good.

An act, involving another, should be natural, in harmony with each person's best self. Taking advantage of children is bad.

Expressing one's drives without regard to the other is not good, and neither is forcing oneself to accept behavior that does not feel right.

Straight men in prison engaging in homosexual acts is a perversion the same as if they force themselves on women who aren't on the same page one way or another. I can see why that would be "an abomination."

Two people in love, committed to each other, and in accord with their physiology (e.g., not immature children, and in harmony with their physiology), is clearly part of the ideal. One thing is clear: sex drive, sexual identity, and sexual maturity are all fundamentally physiological, under the influence of hormones before birth and after, and usually not controlled by the individual (i.e., "God-given"). The only thing we can learn to control is how we value what we were given and how we treat what others were given.

If homosexualality is an abomination, why does God keep making them? It's fairly apparent that the abomination is perverted sex, not natural, committed sex between two people on the same page (no fraud, mutual respect, commitment, etc.).

What do you think?