whats wrong with a little wine?

[_why me]

I've never yet met a sex addict who didn't start with moderation.

This is one of the stupidest arguments possible. To wit: people may abuse something, so it is necessary to forbid it.

Sex addiction is a psychological symptom. However, I can say that I have never met a porn addict who didn't start by watching just one porn film. Sex addiction however is very complicated and multi-faceted.

[_guy sajer]

Of the literally hundreds of millions of people on this planet who drink, a relatively small percentage are alcoholics. And for that you want to place the prohibition of alcohol at the center of your moral universe?

I can see that you haven't been to Russia or the Baltics or Finland. Alcohol related desease can be the leading cause of death in men. And tragedies in the home.

I've been to Russia 3 times no less, as well as to numerous other former Soviet countries. I'm aware of the toll that alcoholism takes on its victims, both direct and indirect. I'm not naïve.

This doesn't make your argument any less imbecilic.

Obesity or other eating related disorders probably kill as many or more people than alcoholism. Should God, in his infinite wisdom, prohibit Big Macs too?

[_Imwashingmypirate]

I once read, "Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man." " And in my days of studying such things, I made a cross reference link with "Jesus said, "This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away. The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. In the days when you consumed what is dead, you made it what is alive. ..." "

[_Imwashingmypirate]

Just go by, everything in moderation.

[cinepro]

I have been an unbeliever for 10 years. I've had alcohol half a dozen times in that time period. Somehow I don't think my drinking constitutes alcoholism.

[_why me]

Here is an interesting article about Boozy Britain:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/A ... nted=print

We should be grateful for the WoW but we need to get people to listen to the wisdom.

[_guy sajer]

Here is an interesting article about Boozy Britain:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/A ... nted=print

We should be grateful for the WoW but we need to get people to listen to the wisdom.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? No one is disputing the potential harm from alcohol abuse.

What we are disputing is the argument that it follows, therefore, that alcohol consumption should be prohibited.

We are also disputing the transformation of alcohol consumption from a health issue into a moral one--indeed in Mormonism, of the highest moral significance.

For those with tendencies toward alcohol abuse, avoiding alcohol is the prudent choice. For the millions and millions of the rest of us, moderation works just fine and dandy.

[_why me]

Here is an interesting article about Boozy Britain:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/A ... nted=print

We should be grateful for the WoW but we need to get people to listen to the wisdom.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? No one is disputing the potential harm from alcohol abuse.

What we are disputing is the argument that it follows, therefore, that alcohol consumption should be prohibited.

We are also disputing the transformation of alcohol consumption from a health issue into a moral one--indeed in Mormonism, of the highest moral significance.

For those with tendencies toward alcohol abuse, avoiding alcohol is the prudent choice. For the millions and millions of the rest of us, moderation works just fine and dandy.

My point is simple: if people would obstain, the problems as in the NYTimes would go away as they would in Russia and other parts of the world. Alcohol is destructive. I also know that moderation is fine. That is not my point. But for many moderation turns into an indulgence.

[_guy sajer]

Here is an interesting article about Boozy Britain:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/A ... nted=print

We should be grateful for the WoW but we need to get people to listen to the wisdom.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? No one is disputing the potential harm from alcohol abuse.

What we are disputing is the argument that it follows, therefore, that alcohol consumption should be prohibited.

We are also disputing the transformation of alcohol consumption from a health issue into a moral one--indeed in Mormonism, of the highest moral significance.

For those with tendencies toward alcohol abuse, avoiding alcohol is the prudent choice. For the millions and millions of the rest of us, moderation works just fine and dandy.

My point is simple: if people would obstain, the problems as in the NYTimes would go away as they would in Russia and other parts of the world. Alcohol is destructive. I also know that moderation is fine. That is not my point. But for many moderation turns into an indulgence.

Well, they would go away in part. In many cases alcoholism is part of a more complex pathology. It won't magically make all the problems go away.

For those who cannot indulge in moderation, then perhaps they should abstain altogether. No problem. But in order to protect those prone to excess from themselves, forcing all others to abstain (or exhaulting abstinence to highest moral significance and holding their eternal salvation hostage for complying with it) is adressing the problem with an unecessariy and excessively blunt instrument.

[_Brackite]

Hello,

Basically Nothing is really wrong with a little wine, just as long as you are 21 years of age or over, and that you do Not go driving any vehicle right afterwards. If you are going to have a littler wine, it is the best time to do it right before you go to bed for some good sleeping.