Subject:
|
Re: Family values?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 4 Jan 2001 01:55:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
258 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Maggie Cambron writes:
>
> Maybe he shouldn't plant the seed if he can't tend the garden. No really,...
But isn't this precisely the crux of the matter. This is why sex outside of
marriage is morally wrong. Because it causes all manner of hurt and
confusion on so many levels (as illustrated in the article). It is not
considered wrong because some want to limit the pleasure of others - it's
wrong because innocent people get hurt, sometimes devastatingly and
irreparably so. If one is not prepared or willing to be responsible for the
end result of an action - is it right for them to enjoy the pleasures of the
action. Everyone in this country knows that sex is reproductive - the fact
that it is pleasurable is an extra added benefit and not the point. Such
intimacy should be shared by two responsible, mature individuals willing to
be committed to the life which may result. Some will take my comments as
endorsement of a "pleasure police" or propagation of some sort of agenda -
not so. I am the child of a single mother (35 years ago it was a bigger deal
than it is today) - my mom married my stepdad when I was almost eight. He is
my "father". The sperm donor (whom I know nothing about) is not worthy of
this title. I'm sure I'm not the only one here with these circumstances, so
others may be able to identify with the emotional roller-coaster that
results from such a situation. My only motivation behind the remarks above
is to illustrate why extra-marital sex is deemed immoral - because it hurts
people. Period. Sex is far more than physical and should be respected as such.
P.S. Maggie, these remarks are not directed at you per se, I was just using
your comment as a jumping off point.
Bill
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) It isn't. (...) It needn't. (...) Well, I think that your main point here is that they should be prepared for the results. And I agree. But that doesn't mean that people have to get hurt. (...) Disagree. Most people, most of the time, are (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) Actually Bill, I agree with you to a greater extent than you might imagine. Which is why I made the flippant (hence the "no, really", meaning, "seriously") statement in the first place. I agree wholeheartedly that "intimacy should be shared by (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) Bill, I agree with you that sex outside of marriage is immoral, but I want to make a distinction as to its primary wrongfulness. It is not - as I understand the problem - primarily wrong because of any contingent circumstances that may or may (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Family values?
|
| Your case is not relevant - your mother and step-father obviously understood you were not "his". There was no fraud involved. (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) little (...) Maybe he shouldn't plant the seed if he can't tend the garden. No really, the same could be said for the biological father of the child in question. He may not even know he is the father to this child and may have a family of his (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- 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
|
|
|
|
