Subject:
|
Re: Family values?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 Jan 2001 21:03:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
351 times
|
| |
|
|
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message
news:G6t0JK.3Jw@lugnet.com...
> > I believe that there is a compelling case to be made as to the intrinsic • or
> > necessary wrong of sex outside of marriage. Perhaps I'll invite Mr. • Weeks
> > to think through one or two arguments with me (in another post or • thread),
> > if he's interested. ;-)
>
> I've been waiting to see the new thread. Did I need to respond to get it? • If
> so, then shoot. (Bad choice of words given the other thread :-)
Chris,
Before we begin, could I ask you to be a little more explicit as to your
position as regards sexual morality? I think I understand you, but would
just like to make sure. From various posts of yours that I've read, I would
guess that you hold to what I would call a "consent-only" ethic: that is, if
two people consent to a sexual relationship - whatever that entails - then
it is perfectly appropriate/moral/justified. Do you agree? Any exceptions?
Thanks,
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) Mostly. You may also have contractually obligated yourself to other limitations of behavior. If I agree with my wife that we won't sleep around, then violating that agreement is bad. Chris (24 years ago, 11-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) I've been waiting to see the new thread. Did I need to respond to get it? If so, then shoot. (Bad choice of words given the other thread :-) (24 years ago, 7-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
|
|
|
|
