Subject:
|
Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 9 Jun 2004 21:47:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1903 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
| |
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.
|
Then we disagree.
| |
| |
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?
|
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.
| |
| |
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.”
|
Of course. Do you have another definition?
| |
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.
|
Well, ours is, and so is Western Culture in general.
| |
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?
|
It wouldn’t be the same society we have now. I like it the way it is, and I
don’t want to change it. Neither do the vast majority of Americans. You are
going to have to live with it or leave, because nobody wants to change to
accommodate your vision of society.
| |
| |
If you really believed we are animals, you would
notice that this survival strategy is pervasive in nature.
|
Pardon?
|
Many species mate for life. There are good reasons for it other than bigotted
religious ones;-)
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Pardon?
| |
All organisms “control” their
destinies as much as they are able.
|
Pardon? “Control”? Animals have no control-- they are governed by instinct.
| |
Why is it human, and not e.g. canine, to
suppress our “animal instincts”?
|
Animals can’t suppress instinct. We are able.
Honestly, I find this equivocation of humans and animals disturbing. Say the
last tiger alive on earth was attacking me and would indeed kill me if you
didn’t kill it first. Would you?
JOHN
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) Really? Do tell... (...) I don't exactly know what reality you live in anymore, John (if I ever did), but I've got news for you - the Nuclear Family is a 20th C construct, and it is falling by the wayside. It is anything BUT the norm anymore. (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) The line that I draw is at victimization. That's not arbitrary. If no one is being victimized then what they're doing is OK. I'm not offended by either incest or bestiality aside from the difficulties in obtaining informed consent. Why should (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) This, too, is moral relativism, which you have alternatively embraced and reviled in earlier posts. As far as incest goes, you have (URL) previously acknowledged> that incestuous relationships are wrong because they conflict with cultural (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) I don't think so. (...) You're "all for" sex with only one partner, of only one certain sex, in only certain ways, under only certain circumstances. Right? (...) To start, I'm assuming that you agree with American Heritage in that the nuclear (...) (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
|
|
|
|
