Subject:
|
Re: Family values?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 4 Jan 2001 18:16:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
276 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
>
> > This is why sex outside of marriage is morally wrong.
>
> It isn't.
Why not? Bill gave reasons for why it is morally wrong - as a debate reader and
sometime participant, I prefer well-reasoned rebuttals to "that's just the way
it is" statements. Granted, something may fundamentally just Be, but tell me
why.
>
> > Because it causes all manner of hurt and confusion on so many levels
>
> It needn't.
Lots of things needn't be that are.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
> > Everyone in this country knows that sex is reproductive - the fact
> > that it is pleasurable is an extra added benefit and not the point.
>
> Disagree. Most people, most of the time, are having sex because it is
> pleasurable, not to procreate.
That may be an individual's motivation at any given time (and my motivation has
never been to procreate in my marriage thus far), but biologically, the pleasure
response is a great part of the mechanism that motivates biological creatures to
reproduce. The pleasure and the result cannot be separated into
compartments that are mutually exclusive. Humans simply have the intelligent
wherewithall to prevent pregnancies by timing and contraceptive means that other
lower creatures do not.
> > intimacy should be shared by two responsible, mature individuals willing to
> > be committed to the life which may result.
>
> Should? Says you. Pleasure should be had where it can, so long as no one is
> getting hurt.
>
> > My only motivation behind the remarks above
> > is to illustrate why extra-marital sex is deemed immoral - because it hurts
> > people. Period.
>
> Wrong. I know of lots of instances of extramarital sex that has hurt no one.
And doubtless there is at least one example of extramarital sex that has hurt
someone for every example that you can give where it has not. Because something
with dangerous fails to inflict harm, does not therefore mean that it ceased to
be inherently dangerous. For example: New Year's Eve. Every year in certain
neighborhoods in H-Town, Texas (and in every big city as well, I suspect), it
sounds like Bosnia at midnight. People have even opened up with live rounds in
the air from automatic weapons next door to my grandmother's house before. What
comes up must come down. I grew up fairly close to the edge of town. I wasn't
a suburbanite, but it was fairly close. Even there, one New Year's Eve my mom
was walking our cat, and a bullet whizzed by mom and struck the ground inches
from her. A random bullet fired off by some idiot. Premarital sex is often
much like that random bullet. Sure, it might not cause harm, but it has a great
deal of potential to do so; harm that isn't always physical like STD's, but
emotional. I'm sure a whole horde of girls could attest to that, and even I
could to; it was the "soul-ties" that premarital sex created that led my wife
and I to get married, though we both had a lot of "baggage" and probably
shouldn't have.
> > Sex is far more than physical and should be respected as such.
>
> It can be. But it isn't always.
My experience with sex is that while it rarely is an earth-shattering bombs and
fireworks thing, it is never solely, purely, and only physical - because I, my
wife, and indeed every human are emotional beings, and the emotional experience
and emotional repercussions (spelling?) are never divorced from the phyical act.
james
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) I can't speak for Chris, but I will point out that as a human invention (and in the form we're discussing, a Modern Western Invention at that), marriage does not determine the moral correctness of anything. That is, of course, unless morality (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) Bill doesn't give supportable or reasonable reasons. He said it's wrong "Because it causes all manner of hurt and confusion on so many levels...[and] because innocent people get hurt." And the entirety of the rest of my note addressed exactly (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
