Test for How you View Sex

To the People in the Middle,    When a controversial subject arises, things tend to get divided into two but most people actually fall somewhere in the middle. For many cases, this is the right place to be, but that depends on what you consider are the extremes. Concerning the Indiana Law that fueled so much anger, though in my opinion was unjust anger taken to an extreme, the "controversy" was caused by extremists. The law itself was very much in the middle as it paved way for business rights. As Rick Santorum pointed out, though if you just read headlines, you probably just thought it was hate speech, that it would make it so gays running companies would be forced to produce something they would consider "anti-gay". Likewise, it would allow other restaurants to refuse to cater a KKK ceremony on moral grounds. If you read the law, you should realize that there is nothing against tolerance but rather being tolerant of business owners' morals and opinions. In this case, you either support the law or not, there's no middle ground. It's a shame that the non-supporters have done such a poor job of trying to get rid of hate due to their own hate crimes.
    Now I pointed out in a previous letter that the whole root for gay marriage debate is how you view sex. Here I will provide what must follow based off your choice. If you do not agree with any of the results, then you need to consider how you truly view sex and the reasoning behind it.

If you view sex to be as nature intended:

• You cannot use birth control or any sexual action that does not lead to connecting the two parts as nature designed. This means no to oral sex, anal sex, and no masturbation
• Pornography is a big no-no.
• You should be concerned with modest clothing
• Bestiality is definitely wrong

If you view sex primarily as a tool for pleasure

• You cannot have a problem with porn or prostitution
• You must have no qualms with adultery or cheating.
• Statutory rape is no problem. Whether or not Roman Polanski raped that 13 year-old girl or if she was consenting, there was nothing wrong. After all, he had the support of so many celebrities such as Penelope Cruz. Oh! That means there was nothing wrong with all of those cases we have been hearing about lately. And those Catholic priest scandals mean nothing.
• You have to accept gay sex as legitimate as well as incest and bestiality
• If you approve of gay marriage on the basis of "love", what logical argument could you possibly have against polygamy and incestuous marriages? There also is no point to marriage existing as a practice either. Perhaps that's why you never hear of any prior cultures ever attempting to approve the idea of "gay marriage" even in cultures where gay sex was abundant.
• Rape could be argued as an okay or acceptable practice. Especially if you are okay with dismissing some groups rights such as the case to refuse business to something they find objectionable. It would certainly only become more common. The more a mind is focused on gaining his own pleasure, the less he will care about others displeasure. Consider the boy in the U. K, who raped his younger sister just to "try it out" after watching porn. Likewise, that Roman Polanski case (though I don't dare dive into whether it was rape or not. He apparently acknowledged that he at least had sex with her even though she was 13). With so many celebrities supporting him, what can you expect?

Something I find interesting was to learn that many sexual diseases exist because the sexual act was not done as nature had prescribed. Now whether my sources were correct is another question, but it does warrant investigation. If they are true, does beg the question, why don't we simply do it properly and then the diseases will die out?

N. D. Moharo