Subject:
|
Re: tolerant morals are a blueprint to disaster (but I don't force a change)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Jul 2002 04:09:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2449 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > > Nailing your neighbours wife is not morally right, even if you, your
> > > neighbours wife and your neighbours wife's husband think it's okay.
> >
> > Why not? You'll have to present an argument other than "from authority" to
> > convince me differently.
> If I just have sex with my wife, and she just has sex with me, and
> everyone does the same thing...in one generation all *sexually*
> transmitted diseases would be gone. One generation.
Except those passed from mother to child, like HIV, right? And those with
other transmision vectors right?
And anyway, let's imagine that everyone on earth got an authoritative bill of
health and a list of their transmissible infections was tatooed on their belly,
and everyone only had sex with those others with the same set of infections,
then in one generation all *sexually* transmitted diseases would be gone. One
generation. Right?
Or even, if we just taught all our kids (and adults) how to avoid infection.
Or if people organized in groups of larger than two, but stayed "true" to that
group.
Or if we just developed treatments for all STDs.
IF sexually transmitted infections are your sole foundation for the immorality
of banging the neighbor's wife, then all of these solutions are equally moral.
Right?
> That is why you shouldn't sleep around.
Unless you can "sleep around" without infection -- like most people. Right?
> i have no problem with teenagers having sex. I prefer they don't but hey, I
Isn't that a contradiction?
I prefer they have lots and lots of sex, but do so safely. As early in life as
they get the urge!
> was a teenager once and I remember the yearnings... telling them not to is
> ludicrous at best. If they want to, we shouldn't admonish them and we
> shouldn't make it difficult for them to 'get protection', but my goodness,
> we should live as examples.
Good point! We should screw in front of them and display safe orgy procedures
from the earliest age so that they come to think of the safety measures as just
part of the gig.
> We should educate and say, 'if you have sex, you run the risk'
And explain all the real risks and their real magnitude, not use the spectre of
risk to scare them off.
> Safe sex is a euphemism for 'I wanna do what feels good
> and deal with the consequenses later'
Uh...safe sex is avoiding consequences.
> Well, the impact of that is taking my
> tax dollars which should be paying the space prgram and getting me to Mars
> and putting it into STD treatment (my stupid way of looking at it but hey,
> is my post...)
What the hell? How has my sex, safe or not, impacted your (or anyone's) taxes?
> He went in a differnt direction and tried to twist it to say that the laws
> of the bible deny pleasure--they don't and moreover, you know they don't.
Actually, I didn't. But the laws of the Bible do deny some pleasure...like
nailing my neighbor's wife (actually, my neighbors are bad examples, I'm not
sure it would be a pleasure :-).
> Mine don't cause
> pain either physcially due to STD's or emotionally by breaking the covenant
> of marraige.
Yours cause the pain of missed opportunity. And how does this "covenant of
marriage" come about? Did I sign up for it when I got married?
> Instant gratification is not all that there is to life.
That's true. Some time should be set aside for planning future gratification.
> 'Adult' lifestyles is a euphemism for not wanting to grow up and take
> responsibility,
I'm not actually familiar with the phrase. But I bet I'd disagree with you.
> and denying instant pleasure now for a more secure life with
> your spouse 'No dear, i never want to cheat on you, even if we all agree' is
> the truly 'adult' thing to do.
The _truly_ adult thing to do is to _not_ deny any pleasure and still have an
ultimately secure life with your spouse(s) if you choose to elevate some of
your lovers to that status. Why must you buy security with the coin of
pleasure?
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
