Oral Sex
Oral sex is a threat to institution of family
I was rather concerned that lawmakers are advocating a change in laws (such as that on oral sex) on the basis that social "norms" are changing. I fail to see the logic in such reasoning.
The "rightness" of an act is not determined by whether more people are practising it. For example, it is an established fact that more people are engaging in child pornography now. Should we then abolish laws against child pornography?
Rather, the "rightness" of an act should be based on whether it serves the natural function of the act and, in the process, promotes the good of the individual, group or society as a whole.
It does not take much for us to realise that the male and female sexual organs were designed by nature to be used in a complementary fashion. Sex involves an act capable of generating new life. And while pleasure is a part of the sexual act, it is not an end to be sought in itself.
If pleasure is sought as an end, then we shall be saying that sodomy, bestiality and even sado-masochism are all right.
If we permit oral sex on the basis that it gives rise to pleasure and that more people are practising it, then it is likely that more people will practise it.
As it becomes more of a "norm", we will, as a nation, pay a heavy price for it.
The number of pregnancies will decline and there will probably be a rise in alternative lifestyle practices that will threaten the institution of the family.
Dr Wee Sip Leong
___________________________________________________________________________________
To laugh or to cry? This letter just doesnt make sense to me.
Got it from 'Today'.
I was rather concerned that lawmakers are advocating a change in laws (such as that on oral sex) on the basis that social "norms" are changing. I fail to see the logic in such reasoning.
The "rightness" of an act is not determined by whether more people are practising it. For example, it is an established fact that more people are engaging in child pornography now. Should we then abolish laws against child pornography?
Rather, the "rightness" of an act should be based on whether it serves the natural function of the act and, in the process, promotes the good of the individual, group or society as a whole.
It does not take much for us to realise that the male and female sexual organs were designed by nature to be used in a complementary fashion. Sex involves an act capable of generating new life. And while pleasure is a part of the sexual act, it is not an end to be sought in itself.
If pleasure is sought as an end, then we shall be saying that sodomy, bestiality and even sado-masochism are all right.
If we permit oral sex on the basis that it gives rise to pleasure and that more people are practising it, then it is likely that more people will practise it.
As it becomes more of a "norm", we will, as a nation, pay a heavy price for it.
The number of pregnancies will decline and there will probably be a rise in alternative lifestyle practices that will threaten the institution of the family.
Dr Wee Sip Leong
___________________________________________________________________________________
To laugh or to cry? This letter just doesnt make sense to me.
Got it from 'Today'.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home