Subject:
|
Re: Family values?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 6 Jan 2001 21:34:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
283 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> 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
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 why.
People are not hurt by extra-marital sex. They are hurt by being lied to. By
finding that they can't trust someone whom they thought they could. By
learning that they and their beloved have different ideas about the appropriate
level of marital fidelity.
But when couple openly accept that there will be extra-marital sex and realize
that it can broaden their experience instead of causing grief, then that's what
happens. There are tons of people engaged in productive non-monogamous
relationships. I would include successful polyamorous relationships as well as
couples who just sleep around or actively swing.
If Bill's claim to the immorality of non marital sex is based solely on the
grief caused, then the claim is limp. Immoral behavior hurts people all the
time. Lying and cheating are immoral. Banging the babysitter _with_ your
spouse too is not.
> > > 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.
Of course. So?
Bill pretty clearly says that the point of sex is not pleasure. You seem to be
agreeing, by disagreeing with my disagreement. But at the same time you
indicate that your sexuality is not for procreation. So what is the 'point'
when you have sex with your wife James? It certainly says to me that your goal
in initiating the sex act is to feel good (physically, emotionally, socially,
etc). If that is your goal, then that is your point. And it is the point of
your sex act.
> > > 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.
Doesn't matter. He says that "it hurts people...period." Since I can point to
at least one instance in which it hurts no one, then the claim that it hurts
people all the time is false.
> > > 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.
Fine. That's your experience. What about other people who have other
experiences? What if I tell you that at least one time in my life I had sex
that _was_ purely a physical act? Unless you contend that I am lying or
delusional, then my claim that it can be, but isn't always emotional in
addition to physical stands unchallenged.
As an aside, I prefer sex with lots of emotional content. It is satisfying to
a much greater degree than is a purly physical relationship.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) 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. (...) (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
|
|
|
|
