Subject:
|
Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 9 Jun 2004 17:56:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1845 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
It is a misnomer to characterize the Judeo-Christian tradition as antisexual.
|
I don’t think so.
| |
We are all for sex, but within the context of marriage.
|
You’re “all for” sex with only one partner, of only one certain sex, in only
certain ways, under only certain circumstances. Right?
| |
Sex outside of
marriage erodes at the institution of the nuclear family, upon which society
is built. If everyone were having free sex there would be no incentive to
marry and raise a family.
|
To start, I’m assuming that you agree with American Heritage in that the nuclear
family is “A family unit consisting of a mother and father and their children.”
As recently as three generations ago, the nuclear family as a self-contained
unit was newish. I don’t assume that the nuclear family is the ultimate peak of
social development. I also don’t believe that society is in any meaningful way
“built” upon the nuclear family. The same logic could have been used to fight
the transition from extended family/clan compounds to nuclear families. I don’t
see any evidence that free and open sex would disincent family raising -- I
personally know a small handful of families raising children in which the
parents have sex regularly with people other than their primary lover. And
finally even if you were right that people would stop “raising” families, so
what?
| |
If you really believed we are animals, you would
notice that this survival strategy is pervasive in nature.
|
Pardon?
| |
| |
That’s essentially what bothers me about the demonization of sexuality;
we’re animals, our parents were animals, and our grandparents were animals,
all the way back to the beginning. What is the benefit in denying this
aspect of ourselves?
|
I AM NOT AN ANIMAL! :-)
Seriously, isn’t that what being human is all about-- about suppressing
our animal instincts and controlling our own destinies? Being human means
differentiating ourselves from animals, not denegrating ourselves as equal
with them.
|
No. Being human isn’t about anything at all. All organisms “control” their
destinies as much as they are able. Why is it human, and not e.g. canine, to
suppress our “animal instincts”?
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) Then we disagree. (...) Yes, but neither are you "all for" sex either, unless you are willing to advocate beastiality, incest, etc. You draw your lines, I draw mine. There is no difference except in degree. (...) Of course. Do you have another (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: (snipping) (...) It is a misnomer to characterize the Judeo-Christian tradition as antisexual. We are all for sex, but within the context of marriage. Sex outside of marriage erodes at the institution (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
218 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
|
|
|
|
