DeepSight:
Noetic –

I am not sure you are reading me carefully.

I stated that  - “it is incongruous to imagine conscience acting in direct opposition to natural urges springing forth from the core of the human nature and indeed the metaphysical principle of duality which is the spiritual anchor for the necessity of sexual relations in existence.” –

Thus implying –

1. Conscience cannot militate against natural instincts given for survival
2. Conscience thus cannot militate against eating food, for example
3. Conscience cannot militate against response to stimuli – as this is natural
4. Se.xu.al intercourse is a function of response to stimuli as well as a natural instinct which ensures the propagation of the species
5. Conscience can therefore not militate against seksual intercourse

The foregoing is iron-cast and I challenge you to dispute it.

Secondly I hold that the principle of duality inherent in existence is pivotal to se.xu.ality, and renders it inescapable – an absolutely ineluctable and involuntary aspect of our nature which we cannot repudiate.



Don’t you think the reverse is the case - namely conscience which is influenced by beliefs?



Have you not noticed that there is the same universal tendency to criminalize all things which are intensely pleasurable?

Anyway, lets not be distracted – define fornication and then we proceed.

Conscience can object against abuse - e.g overeating, oversleeping, over indulgence in anything.
Besides who are you to speak on the conscience as an authority. All you are saying are nothing but conjectures. So tone down the finality in your tone.