I don't get it.

[Daily]

Whats the point of having sex with multiple individuals? I think its disgusting and those who do it are sluts.

[Jinglebottom]

You mean group sex? Meh, I would never engage in it, but I'm not going the judge the people who do. They're free to do whatever they want, I don't think what they do in bed is any of my business.

[Abhorrence]

This could probably turn into a debate and it's not exactly related to puberty so
Puberty For All :arrow: ROTW

[Bull]

You are entitled to your opinion. However, your use of the word "slut" is too harsh in my opinion. Here at the university I hear a lot of girls called that while the guys who are just as sexually active are called "stud" and often admired for their ability to lay many girls. In my opinion, and in my personal life, intercourse is reserved for a special relationship, not a recreational activity or an event to warrant notches on a bed post (yeah that happens here in the great "conservative"? state of Oklahoma)!

[Babs]

Because people enjoy it? lmao

I try not to stick my nose where it doesn't belong. Like other people's personal lives, for example.

[Emerald Dream]

It's ok to have sex as much as you want, or to not have sex at all.

It's not ok to make someone else's business = your business. People take many different paths through life, love, relationships, and sex. Let them do it without judgment.

[Judean Zealot]

It's degrading and wrong. Sex is one of the most powerful human experiences, capable of uniting two people in a most profound way, but such fornicators turn it into merely a sensual entertainment.

[Jaffe]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But being judgmental and condemning never helps.

Whether I agree with you or not, I think that I have no right to judge others, and I will let them make their own decisions as to how to live.

[Judean Zealot]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But being judgmental and condemning never helps.

Whether I agree with you or not, I think that I have no right to judge others, and I will let them make their own decisions as to how to live.
(This objection is also addressed to Emerald Dream)

That's a wonderful cliché, but is it true?

Objection 1:
1. One ought not to condemn the actions of another.
2. Murder and theft are actions of another.
:. One ought not to condemn murder and theft.

Objection 2:
1. One ought not to condemn the actions of another.
2. The act of condemning is the action of another.
3. Thus one ought not to condemn the condemnation of others.
4. Yet proposition 1 is an exercise in the above.
:. Proposition 1 is undermined by it's own assertion.

You are entitled to your opinion. However, your use of the word "slut" is too harsh in my opinion. Here at the university I hear a lot of girls called that while the guys who are just as sexually active are called "stud" and often admired for their ability to lay many girls.)

I agree with you. Sexually loose men should be sharply criticised ("slut-shamed") as well.

[Kuroshiro]

(This objection is also addressed to Emerald Dream)

That's a wonderful cliché, but is it true?

Objection 1:
1. One ought not to condemn the actions of another.
2. Murder and theft are actions of another.
:. One ought not to condemn murder and theft.

Objection 2:
1. One ought not to condemn the actions of another.
2. The act of condemning is the action of another.
3. Thus one ought not to condemn the condemnation of others.
4. Yet proposition 1 is an exercise in the above.
:. Proposition 1 is undermined by it's own assertion.



I agree with you. Sexually loose men should be sharply criticised ("slut-shamed") as well.

I'm fairly sure that Emerald Dream wasn't trying to say that we shouldn't punish people for crimes, but assumed that others would use a bit of common sense to interpret what she said.

If it's not illegal or unreasonable why should we care what people do?

[Just JT]

If you do not like the fact that someone has multiple sex partners, you don't need to associate or have sex with them. You also don't need to be judgemental for how someone chooses to live their lives. Just because someone likes to have multie sex partners does not make them bad people. So long as they behave appropriately like using protection, and not harming someone else in the process.

[Judean Zealot]

I'm fairly sure that Emerald Dream wasn't trying to say that we shouldn't punish people for crimes, but assumed that others would use a bit of common sense to interpret what she said.
I understand that. What I am trying to accomplish with the above is to force Emerald Dream and Jaffe to discard the clichés and engage in a properly formal defense of sexual license.

If it's not illegal or unreasonable why should we care what people do?

The law itself doesn't define propriety. The law reflects our conception of propriety. I am maintaining that the law should clamp down on sexual licentiousness on the grounds of it being detrimental to both the individual and society.

So long as they behave appropriately like using protection, and not harming someone else in the process.

But I maintain that sexual license is profoundly detrimental to society at large, as it leads to the overall cheapening of sex and ultimately the breakdown of domestic stability in general (such as an over 50% divorce rate).

In addition to that, we have a moral obligation to protect people from unwittingly harming themselves, much as we prevent a child or madman from running down the freeway.

[Kuroshiro]

we have a moral obligation to protect people from unwittingly harming themselves.

Would care to elaborate on the great pain these people are mercilessly subjecting themselves to?

[Judean Zealot]

Would care to elaborate on the great pain these people are mercilessly subjecting themselves to?

Not mercilessly, accidentally. Either learn to read or learn to employ intellectual honesty.

1. They undermine the potential meaningful relationship through wanton sex, thus depriving themselves of what has been the bedrock of personal stability through the ages.
2. Sexual license is a manifestation of hedonism, which inevitably leaves the human spirit unsatisfied, as well as crushes the potential greatness and nobility of the soul which might have flourished minus the sensuality.

Regardless, the individual toll hedonism exacts is hardly my main concern. My main concern is the harm it does to the very fabric of society.

[Kuroshiro]

Not mercilessly, accidentally. Either learn to read or learn to employ intellectual honesty.

1. They undermine the potential meaningful relationship through wanton sex, thus depriving themselves of what has been the bedrock of personal stability through the ages.
2. Sexual license is a manifestation of hedonism, which inevitably leaves the human spirit unsatisfied, as well as crushes the potential greatness and nobility of the soul which might have flourished minus the sensuality.

Regardless, the individual toll hedonism exacts is hardly my main concern. My main concern is the harm it does to the very fabric of society.

I have a funny feeling that you didn't detect my exaggeration.

Either way monogamous relationships have not been the bedrock of personal stability throughout the ages:

The Greeks and Romans danced hand in hand with polygamy; not to mention the Spartans that were able to maintain marriages while also maintaining the same intimacy with their peers.

If you look at other mammals polygamy is common place in both primates and dolphins.

Secondly, I would wager a large sum that the majority of people who have group sex don't believe they have a "soul" or that the this "soul" would any less noble for having group sex.

[Just JT]

Sounds more like a debate than a general conversation, think I'll step outa this one, not interested in debates much

[Emerald Dream]

The law itself doesn't define propriety. The law reflects our conception of propriety. I am maintaining that the law should clamp down on sexual licentiousness on the grounds of it being detrimental to both the individual and society.



But I maintain that sexual license is profoundly detrimental to society at large, as it leads to the overall cheapening of sex and ultimately the breakdown of domestic stability in general (such as an over 50% divorce rate).

In addition to that, we have a moral obligation to protect people from unwittingly harming themselves, much as we prevent a child or madman from running down the freeway.

Wow.

I merely stated an opinion on this thread.

The thought of equating having sex with an undefined quantity of other people to theft and murder (which are, you know....ACTUAL punishable crimes) is so unbelievably laughable that I will probably bookmark this thread to come back and entertain myself with it continuously. Also, trying to apply steps of logic to something which is an opinion of "it's not your business?" You are hitting grand slams trying to force your own morality on others in this thread.

The only fact in this entire thread (so far) is that there are no facts whatsoever to even try and argue.

I've stated my opinion on the matter. Your "morality" is your own opinion. Just like mine. Opinion. Nothing to prove here. You're going way out on a limb with overanalyzing when there is nothing to analyze.

All I said was that it is no one else's business what someone else does (or not) in their own sex life. Yes, I also believe it's ok to either be a virgin, or to have sex with many other people. Your opinion is yours, and mine won't change.

With that, I am also done with the matter as well. :hanging: I'm not getting in a debate, complete with "logic trees" - when it's an opinion vs opinion.

[Judean Zealot]

Either way monogamous relationships have not been the bedrock of personal stability throughout the ages:

The Greeks and Romans danced hand in hand with polygamyFirst of all, I haven't opposed formal polygamy. I have no particular objection to polygamy per se when done officially. What I am objecting to is the way people casually flit from lover to lover, with no sense of commitment or duty. Now, the Romans and Athenians both suffered from sexual license, in the case of Athens we don't know what would've been the results, owing to the cataclysmic Peloponnesian War, and in the case of Rome we clearly see the destruction such hedonism wreaked on their society.

The intellectual Athenians were divided between two primary groups, the hedonists and the Platonists. The Hedonists would match your description, while the Platonists would be the antithesis of it. But, as I've said, the fact that the city was so abruptly cut off deprived us of the opportunity to witness the decline their hedonism would've brought upon them.

Rome is a far more instructive example. One only needs to read Suetonius (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/6400/6400-h/6400-h.htm) to see the horrors such sexual profligacy brought on the imperial dynasty. Or one can read Cicero (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cicero/de_Finibus/2*.html), Plutarch (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Cato_Minor*.html), or Juvenal's (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/juvenal_satires_06.htm) Satires (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/juvenal_satires_10.htm) to see how deeply that hedonism destroyed Roman civic life and the Republic. Or one can read Gibbon (http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/home.html) and see how hedonism destroyed Imperial Rome. Although hedonism is a slow rot, eventually the bearer of it will crumble into dust. I can furnish more examples if you like, for example from Renaissance Italy.

not to mention the Spartans that were able to maintain marriages while also maintaining the same intimacy with their peers.

Whoah there. Do you actually know how prudish Spartan marriage was? Here's an excerpt from Plutarch's Lycurgus (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Lycurgus*.html):

Moreover, there were incentives to marriage in these things, — I mean such things as the appearance of the maidens without much clothing in processions and athletic contests where young men were looking on, for these were drawn on by necessity, "not geometrical, but the sort of necessity which lovers know," as Plato says. Nor was this all; Lycurgus also put a kind of public stigma upon confirmed bachelors. They were excluded from the sight of the young men and maidens at their exercises, and in winter the magistrates ordered them to march round the market-place in their tunics only, and as they marched, they sang a certain song about themselves, and its burden was that they were justly punished for disobeying the laws. Besides this, they were deprived of the honour and gracious attentions which the young men habitually paid to their elders. Therefore there was no one to find fault with what was said to Dercyllidas, reputable general though he was. As he entered a company, namely, one of the younger men would not offer him his seat, but said: "Indeed, thou hast begotten no son who will one day give his seat to me."

For their marriages the women were carried off by force, not when they were small and unfit for wedlock, but when they were in full bloom and wholly ripe. After the woman was thus carried off, the bride's-maid, so called, took her in charge, cut her hair off close to the head, put a man's cloak and sandals on her, and laid her down on a pallet, on the floor, alone, in the dark. Then the bride-groom, not flown with wine nor enfeebled by excesses, but composed and sober, after supping at his public mess-table as usual, slipped stealthily into the room where the bride lay, loosed her virgin's zone, and bore her p251in his arms to the marriage-bound. Then, after spending a short time with his bride, he went away composedly to his usual quarters, there to sleep with the other young men. And so he continued to do from that time on, spending his days with his comrades, and sleeping with them at night, but visiting his bride by stealth and with every precaution, full of dread and fear lest any of her household should be aware of his visits, his bride also contriving and conspiring with him that they might have stolen interviews as occasion offered. 5 And this they did not for a short time only, but long enough for some of them to become fathers before they had looked upon their own wives by daylight. Such interviews not only brought into exercise self-restraint and moderation, but united husbands and wives when their bodies were full of creative energy and their affections new and fresh, not when they were sated and dulled by unrestricted intercourse; and there was always left behind in their hearts some residual spark of longing and delight.
After giving marriage such traits of reserve and decorum, he none the less freed men from the empty and womanish passion of jealous possession, by making it honourable for them, while keeping the marriage relation free from all wanton irregularities, to share with other worthy men in the begetting of children, laughing to scorn those who regard such common privileges as intolerable, and resort to murder and war rather than grant them. For example, an elderly man with a young wife, if he looked with favour and esteem on some fair and noble young man, might introduce him to her, and adopt her offspring by such a noble father as his own. And again, a worthy man who admired some woman for the fine children that she bore her husband and the modesty of her behaviour as a wife, might enjoy her favours, if her husband would consent, thus planting, as it were, in a soil of bountiful fruitage, and begetting for himself noble sons, who would have the blood of noble men in their veins. For in the first place, Lycurgus did not regard sons as the peculiar property of their fathers, but rather as the common property of the state, and therefore would not have his citizens spring from random parentage, but from the best there was. In the second place, he saw much folly and vanity in what other peoples enacted for the regulation of these matters; in the breeding of dogs and horses they insist on having the best sires which money or favour can secure, but they keep their wives under lock and key, demanding that they have children by none but themselves, even though they be foolish, or infirm, or diseased; as though children of bad stock did not show their badness to those first who possessed and reared them, and children of good stock, contrariwise, their goodness. The freedom which thus prevailed at that time in marriage relations was aimed at physical and political well-being, and was far removed from the licentiousness which was afterwards attributed to their women, so much so that adultery was wholly unknown among them. And a saying is reported of one Geradas, a Spartan of very ancient type, who, on being asked by a stranger what the punishment for adulterers was among them, answered: "Stranger, there is no adulterer among us." "Suppose, then," replied the stranger, "there should be one." "A bull," said Geradas, "would be his forfeit, a bull so large that it could stretch over Mount Taÿgetus and drink from the river Eurotas." Then the stranger was astonished and said: "But how could there be a bull so large?" To which Geradas replied, with a smile: "But how could there be an adulterer in Sparta?" Such, then, are the accounts we find of their marriages.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the wild debauchery we find nowadays. Your average Westerner would have been expelled from Sparta on account of hedonism.

If you look at other mammals polygamy is common place in both primates and dolphins.

Okay. What's that supposed to suggest? ' Other mammals' don't have the intellectual capacity that humans have, and as such don't have the obligations either.

Secondly, I would wager a large sum that the majority of people who have group sex don't believe they have a "soul" or that the this "soul" would any less noble for having group sex.

Why should what they believe factor in my considerations regarding what's best for them and society?
Wow.

I merely stated an opinion on this thread.

The thought of equating having sex with an undefined quantity of other people to theft and murder (which are, you know....ACTUAL punishable crimes) is so unbelievably laughable that I will probably bookmark this thread to come back and entertain myself with it continuously. Also, trying to apply steps of logic to something which is an opinion of "it's not your business?" You are hitting grand slams trying to force your own morality on others in this thread.

The only fact in this entire thread (so far) is that there are no facts whatsoever to even try and argue.

I've stated my opinion on the matter. Your "morality" is your own opinion. Just like mine. Opinion. Nothing to prove here. You're going way out on a limb with overanalyzing when there is nothing to analyze.

All I said was that it is no one else's business what someone else does (or not) in their own sex life. Yes, I also believe it's ok to either be a virgin, or to have sex with many other people. Your opinion is yours, and mine won't change.

With that, I am also done with the matter as well. :hanging: I'm not getting in a debate, complete with "logic trees" - when it's an opinion vs opinion.

Hey, no need to lose your hair. I know that prima facie the two are incomparable. I just tried getting you to formulate your position accurately- from your "We shouldn't condemn anything" to the more defensible "We shouldn't condemn anything which doesn't hurt us".

But hey, I get it. I suppose not everyone has the intellectual maturity to see their opinions challenged.

[Just JT]

Judean Zealot, I may be wrong here, but I think you may be a little unfair to Daily here in his thread.
Like I said, might be me but I think he woulda posted in the debates section if he wanted a debate, rather a general discussion

[Judean Zealot]

Judean Zealot, I may be wrong here, but I think you may be a little unfair to Daily here in his thread.
Like I said, might be me but I think he woulda posted in the debates section if he wanted a debate, rather a general discussion

Perhaps, although from his tone it appears that he would have no objection to my contribution to this thread. I mean, OP was practically begging for a debate.

[Kuroshiro]

Ok, I'm done debating Judean Zealot it's 10 'O' clock and I am not reading an entire extract from Lycurgus. Your entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine so goodbye and goodnight

[Judean Zealot]

And this above thread, ladies and gentlemen, is the fiasco which results when people get more interested in exercising their bellies and penises than their brains.

[StoppingTom]

For me, it all comes back to:

Why do I care what other people do with their freaky bits? I'm not being forced to have sex with these people.

[Babs]

Like, I get that for some people sex is a really big deal. But even so, why do you care what consenting adults do in their own homes? If a couple of people wanna bang, no skin off my ass. Why get all worked up simply because other people's life choices differ from yours? Not your fuckin problem bos'n.

[Jaffe]

(This objection is also addressed to Emerald Dream)

That's a wonderful cliché, but is it true?

Objection 1:
1. One ought not to condemn the actions of another.
2. Murder and theft are actions of another.
:. One ought not to condemn murder and theft.

Objection 2:
1. One ought not to condemn the actions of another.
2. The act of condemning is the action of another.
3. Thus one ought not to condemn the condemnation of others.
4. Yet proposition 1 is an exercise in the above.
:. Proposition 1 is undermined by it's own assertion.

I agree with you. Sexually loose men should be sharply criticised ("slut-shamed") as well.

You speak of actions. The OP spoke of persons. There is a huge difference.

I do agree with you, we NEED to judge/sometimes condemn the actions of others. But I do not think we should judge/condemn the PERSON.

[Judean Zealot]

You speak of actions. The OP spoke of persons. There is a huge difference.

I do agree with you, we NEED to judge/sometimes condemn the actions of others. But I do not think we should judge/condemn the PERSON.

Very good. I apologize for misrepresenting your opinion. Although I don't fully agree with that I'm going to leave it. Once again, sorry.

Although I think I may be excused for mistaking the implications of this:
Whether I agree with you or not, I think that I have no right to judge others, and I will let them make their own decisions as to how to live.

[phuckphace]

I'm a huge proponent of equal-opportunity slut shaming. bona-fide whores are not happy people and anyone who has ever met a vagina-hound knows this. it's like heroin addiction, but made worse by the society around them that enables it.

how do female sluts get so much D to begin with? obviously because there are enough dudes out there willing to cast their line in that murky pond. I've shamed a fair number of male sluts by pointing out that, when you dip your brush in a communal bucket, you might as well cut out the middleman and have sex with 50 other dudes yourself. here's hoping this goes viral (so to speak).

then there's Grindr and craigslist. it's like "why Hitler needs to come back" in handy list form

[Abhorrence]

I mean, technically those who do have sex with lots of people frequently are "sluts" as OP said. I don't really see how that is slut-shaming in any way, it is just the definition of the word. Like if you describe a gay person as gay or a black person as black, it's not a lie or derogatory it is just fact.

I think this whole Tumblr craze of not offending anyone is absolutely stupid. Everyone has opinions and everyone can agree or disagree with opinions but getting offended over someone's view is kind of moronic in my eyes. Overall, a person's opinion does not change anything in your life. If you want to fuck a bunch of people, then do it. But you're gonna have to expect people to judge, just as they judge everything in life. If you can't deal with the consequences of your actions, then don't do the action. It isn't as simple as ethical thinkers like Kant say it is, an action always has a consequence and morals rely on both the action and the consequence to be fully deemed good or bad. If you believe that having multiple sex partners is detrimental to society then do not do it and discourage those that do because those are your subjective morals. But as the word subjective suggests, it is completely relative. There's no absolute answer for the good of a lot of things in the world, there can even be an excuse for murder in very rare situations.

Overall, I've gone off on a massive tangent. Honestly, I don't even know what I've written because it's 7am and I have a very bad hangover. Although, I kind of just wanted to put my opinion out there. If it is completely illegible or nonsensical then please disregard everything I have said and virtually slap me in the face.

[tonymontana99]

I'm a huge proponent of equal-opportunity slut shaming. bona-fide whores are not happy people and anyone who has ever met a vagina-hound knows this. it's like heroin addiction, but made worse by the society around them that enables it.

how do female sluts get so much D to begin with? obviously because there are enough dudes out there willing to cast their line in that murky pond. I've shamed a fair number of male sluts by pointing out that, when you dip your brush in a communal bucket, you might as well cut out the middleman and have sex with 50 other dudes yourself. here's hoping this goes viral (so to speak).

then there's Grindr and craigslist. it's like "why Hitler needs to come back" in handy list form

I'm sure our Fuhrer will come back one day... One day...

But sluts are still arguably treated as sluts. Despite that shameless Slut Walk (a pride show for sluts), I think society as a whole still has the brains to say that a girl who sleeps with 50 dudes before settling down is and always will be a disgusting, worthless whore. And this applies to male sluts aswell. In school people think it's cool and all that he/she gets so much action, but when it comes the time to settle down, those people will be shunned upon.

phuckphace I suggest we use this PC-era to our advantage. We should write our pronouns in job applications/colleges as "His/Your Holiness," "His/Your Highness" or "His/Your Majesty" and have people treat us like royalty because we identify as kings.

[Judean Zealot]

I'm sure our Fuhrer will come back one day... One day...

But sluts are still arguably treated as sluts. Despite that shameless Slut Walk (a pride show for sluts), I think society as a whole still has the brains to say that a girl who sleeps with 50 dudes before settling down is and always will be a disgusting, worthless whore. And this applies to male sluts aswell. In school people think it's cool and all that he/she gets so much action, but when it comes the time to settle down, those people will be shunned upon.

That vitriol tho.

[tonymontana99]

I mean, technically those who do have sex with lots of people frequently are "sluts" as OP said. I don't really see how that is slut-shaming in any way, it is just the definition of the word. Like if you describe a gay person as gay or a black person as black, it's not a lie or derogatory it is just fact.

I think this whole Tumblr craze of not offending anyone is absolutely stupid. Everyone has opinions and everyone can agree or disagree with opinions but getting offended over someone's view is kind of moronic in my eyes. Overall, a person's opinion does not change anything in your life. If you want to fuck a bunch of people, then do it. But you're gonna have to expect people to judge, just as they judge everything in life. If you can't deal with the consequences of your actions, then don't do the action. It isn't as simple as ethical thinkers like Kant say it is, an action always has a consequence and morals rely on both the action and the consequence to be fully deemed good or bad. If you believe that having multiple sex partners is detrimental to society then do not do it and discourage those that do because those are your subjective morals. But as the word subjective suggests, it is completely relative. There's no absolute answer for the good of a lot of things in the world, there can even be an excuse for murder in very rare situations.

Overall, I've gone off on a massive tangent. Honestly, I don't even know what I've written because it's 7am and I have a very bad hangover. Although, I kind of just wanted to put my opinion out there. If it is completely illegible or nonsensical then please disregard everything I have said and virtually slap me in the face.

Actually the SJWs and tumblrfreaks' snake will eventually start to eat its own tail. First you had to call negroes as "black people". Then it became offensive because they weren't 100% black. So then they were "people of colour". But that also became offensive because it implies that we whites were the only ones without a colour (ie. superior). So then it changed to black again, and then POC, and then black, etc. It's really funny to watch because since these people are not guided by empiricism or any other type of real science, they have to make up rules along the way as they dig deeper into the shithole they create. So then its no surprise that they contradict each other all the time, it's beautiful to watch.

Also, "subjective morals". Top lel m8

[Vlerchan]

Actually the SJWs and tumblrfreaks' snake will eventually start to eat its own tail. First you had to call negroes as "black people". Then it became offensive because they weren't 100% black. So then they were "people of colour". But that also became offensive because it implies that we whites were the only ones without a colour (ie. superior). So then it changed to black again, and then POC, and then black, etc. It's really funny to watch because since these people are not guided by empiricism or any other type of real science, they have to make up rules along the way as they dig deeper into the shithole they create. So then its no surprise that they contradict each other all the time, it's beautiful to watch.
I find historical semantics [and semiotics] interesting.

Is this coming from a comprehensive source that can be cited [please cite]? Or are you just speaking from experience of spending time reading SJW blogs?

[Judean Zealot]

It isn't as simple as ethical thinkers like Kant say it is, an action always has a consequence and morals rely on both the action and the consequence to be fully deemed good or bad.
As of yet, I'm unaware of any major thinker who doesn't believe that good and bad can be influenced by multiple considerations. However, that does not make moral judgements arbitrary. I would say it's analogous to Newton's first law of motion- although an object maintains it's inertia, in no way does that make it impervious to other forces exerted upon it, and it's course is changed proportionate to the aggregate sum of all forces exerted.
If you believe that having multiple sex partners is detrimental to society then do not do it and discourage those that do because those are your subjective morals. But as the word subjective suggests, it is completely relative. There's no absolute answer for the good of a lot of things in the world, there can even be an excuse for murder in very rare situations.

I'm going to answer this on the most empiricist account possible of knowledge, because I believe it unnecessary to introduce my metaphysics.

You are right that we cannot demonstrate mathematically what is in our best interests, yet we still can make such judgements on the basis of history. Our accumulated experience can be used to give us a rough image of what certain things lead to. Our experience tells us that overeating will make us sick, and as such I can reasonably predict that I will get sick if I overeat. Similarly, I am making a historical case that a hedonistic society will be ruined by their hedonism.

Such probabilistic judgements based on experience and scholarly consensus are hardly 'subjective'. Take for example a member of the quiverfull movement who maintains that having as many children as is physically possible with no means of sustenance will not compromise the physical well being of those children.

We would refer him to statistics and data, we would explain the dynamics of economy to him, we would show him scholarly opinion. But suppose the fellow doesn't honestly engage the information presented to him, with the apologetic that the truth is 'subjective', and nobody can mathematically demonstrate to him QED that his family won't be different. Would you claim that that fellow is 'entitled' to his 'subjective truth'?

[tonymontana99]

I find historical semantics [and semiotics] interesting.

Is this coming from a comprehensive source that can be cited [please cite]? Or are you just speaking from experience of spending time reading SJW blogs?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/30999175/warning-why-using-the-term-coloured-is-offensive

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/260552/u-wisconsin-bans-politically-correct-politically-daniel-greenfield

I also speak from experience of dealing with SJWs face-to-face and just watching YouTube videos of feminists bitching about everything. I don't really read any blogs, though.

[Vlerchan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/30999175/warning-why-using-the-term-coloured-is-offensive
Far as I'm aware 'coloured' and 'PoC' do not hold the same connotations amongst SJWs.

Coloured implies a non-coloured, 'default' race exists. It seems hierarchal.

Consider 'beaten', that implies that there is a state of not being beaten. But 'beaten' is also a positive referral and so insists that it's outside the norm.

People of Colour implies that others people that aren't of colour exist. It directs towards difference but has no connotations towards the labelling or categorisation of these differences.

---

Full disclosure, I also just refer to my black friends as black.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/260552/u-wisconsin-bans-politically-correct-politically-daniel-greenfield
Would you mind quoting the relevant passage? I couldn't quite find it. Thank you.

I also speak from experience of dealing with SJWs face-to-face and just watching YouTube videos of feminists bitching about everything. I don't really read any blogs, though.
Ok. I sort of prefer to deal with written sources if you can find them.

I've also never came across a SJW in real life. I'm not sure whether that's because they don't exist in Ireland though.

[tonymontana99]

Far as I'm aware 'coloured' and 'PoC' do not hold the same connotations amongst SJWs.

Coloured implies a non-coloured, 'default' race exists. It seems hierarchal.

Consider 'beaten', that implies that there is a state of not being beaten. But 'beaten' is also a positive referral and so insists that it's outside the norm.

People of Colour implies that others people that aren't of colour exist. It directs towards difference but has no connotations towards the labelling or categorisation of these differences.

---

Full disclosure, I also just refer to my black friends as black.


Would you mind quoting the relevant passage? I couldn't quite find it. Thank you.


Ok. I sort of prefer to deal with written sources if you can find them.

I've also never came across a SJW in real life. I'm not sure whether that's because they don't exist in Ireland though.

They only exist in the US and the cucked EU countries. Maybe some in China because of that human rights thingy, but those are just frustrated workers.

[phuckphace]

@phuckphace (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=72511) I suggest we use this PC-era to our advantage. We should write our pronouns in job applications/colleges as "His/Your Holiness," "His/Your Highness" or "His/Your Majesty" and have people treat us like royalty because we identify as kings.

my preferred pronouns are "er", "ihn", "ihm" and "seiner" and I personally identify as a polite, brave and adventurous Boy Scout from the Fifties. if you don't like it I guess you can go fly a kite, pal~

[Jaffe]

Very good. I apologize for misrepresenting your opinion. Although I don't fully agree with that I'm going to leave it. Once again, sorry.

Although I think I may be excused for mistaking the implications of this:

It is nice to hear from someone who actually listens, thank you.
But definitely, no need to apologise, for I agree that I really did not complete that thought very clearly.

I suppose it is like this: I may not -- and often do not -- approve of how people act. But those actions do not tell me who that person is. Perhaps a girl or boy is a "slut" as the slang term is. I may not approve of that action. But I do not know their background. I do not know if the person's father raped them repeatedly for years, causing them to have no self-worth, or perhaps even to believe that their actions are correct and proper. I do not know how their family teaches them about sex and society....

We can only see people's actions, we cannot see what is inside of them. I may, and often do, judge people's actions, but I try not to judge them on the inside, because I have no way of knowing what causes them to act that way. I am no better than they; I cannot see into their minds, and I can in now way pretend to be superior to them, so I have no right to judge them.

[Judean Zealot]

It is nice to hear from someone who actually listens, thank you.
But definitely, no need to apologise, for I agree that I really did not complete that thought very clearly.

I suppose it is like this: I may not -- and often do not -- approve of how people act. But those actions do not tell me who that person is. Perhaps a girl or boy is a "slut" as the slang term is. I may not approve of that action. But I do not know their background. I do not know if the person's father raped them repeatedly for years, causing them to have no self-worth, or perhaps even to believe that their actions are correct and proper. I do not know how their family teaches them about sex and society....

We can only see people's actions, we cannot see what is inside of them. I may, and often do, judge people's actions, but I try not to judge them on the inside, because I have no way of knowing what causes them to act that way. I am no better than they; I cannot see into their minds, and I can in now way pretend to be superior to them, so I have no right to judge them.

I think we agree fundamentally, despite my approaching of the matter from a slightly different angle. I leave judgements regarding how "good" someone else is up to God- such judgements are of no use to me.

That does not mean that I frown on penalization for those who do bad things, nor does it mean that I will not condemn it.

[tonymontana99]

It's ok to have sex as much as you want, or to not have sex at all.

It's not ok to make someone else's business = your business. People take many different paths through life, love, relationships, and sex. Let them do it without judgment.

Le libertarian meme xD xD

[Vlerchan]

They only exist in the US and the cucked EU countries. Maybe some in China because of that human rights thingy, but those are just frustrated workers.
I dunno. I get the feeling that SJWs just have a loud internet presence similar to MRAs and austro-libertarians.

The Hong Kong protesters were democrats.

[sqishy]

It's ok to have sex as much as you want, or to not have sex at all.

It's not ok to make someone else's business = your business. People take many different paths through life, love, relationships, and sex. Let them do it without judgment.

I basically agree with this. I don't understand any categorical problem (or otherwise) with people doing their own thing in private, and it not harming anyone involved.
I'm open to debate on this (as usual), partially because I feel I will get a response.

[tonymontana99]

I dunno. I get the feeling that SJWs just have a loud internet presence similar to MRAs and austro-libertarians.

The Hong Kong protesters were democrats.

MRAs and austro-libertarians are just as much SJW as the feminists and tumblrdykes.

[Judean Zealot]

I basically agree with this. I don't understand any categorical problem (or otherwise) with people doing their own thing in private, and it not harming anyone involved.
I'm open to debate on this (as usual), partially because I feel I will get a response.

The question of whether anyone is being harmed by sexual license is the question we're dealing with here.

[sqishy]

The question of whether anyone is being harmed by sexual license is the question we're dealing with here.

Alright. If these certain sexual acts are being done in private, and everyone involved is in consensus and knows what is going on, then I don't see anyone being harmed by this.

[Judean Zealot]

Alright. If these certain sexual acts are being done in private, and everyone involved is in consensus and knows what is going on, then I don't see anyone being harmed by this.

Do you not see the harm caused by the cheapening of marriage and the familial unit?

As far as I know America has an over 50% divorce rate. Do you think that doesn't harm society?

[sqishy]

Do you not see the harm caused by the cheapening of marriage and the familial unit?

What has this to do with marriage?


As far as I know America has an over 50% divorce rate. Do you think that doesn't harm society?

A 40-50% rate, as far as I know from the estimate given for 2012 in wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_in_the_United_States#cite_note-21

Any harm divorce has on society is intra-family. Any larger scale harm is negligible.

[Judean Zealot]

What has this to do with marriage?

Because when a person has had several affairs prior to his marriage and sex to him is a matter of entertainment, how do you expect him to maintain the integrity necessary for marriage?


A 40-50% rate, as far as I know from the estimate given for 2012 in wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_in_the_United_States#cite_note-21

Any harm divorce has on society is intra-family. Any larger scale harm is negligible.

You sound as if a huge segment of the children growing up in broken homes will merely have a 'negligible' effect on society at large. I say it will likely hurt their emotional health, education, and social skills to build their own families.

[Vlerchan]

The literature agrees that children of divorced parents tend to suffer worse Outcomes. Far as I'm aware though the literature is unable to determine whether the outcome would have been better or worse has the child grown up in the home of parents that desired divorce but couldn't.

Most people also don't cheat for reasons relating to sex. I can cite as required. But even if that's the case it's difficult to claim that of these people cheat it's as a result if being promiscuous prior to the marriage as opposed to some deeper factor [that might cause them to be promiscuous in the first place]. Like genetics which has some amount of support.

[Judean Zealot]

The literature agrees that children of divorced parents tend to suffer worse Outcomes. Far as I'm aware though the literature is unable to determine whether the outcome would have been better or worse has the child grown up in the home of parents that desired divorce but couldn't.

Most people also don't cheat for reasons relating to sex. I can cite as required. But even if that's the case it's difficult to claim that of these people cheat it's as a result if being promiscuous prior to the marriage as opposed to some deeper factor [that might cause them to be promiscuous in the first place]. Like genetics which has some amount of support.

Generally speaking, socially accepted promiscuity will facilitate the lusts (or deep seated desire to wield control or what have you) of those 'on the fence'. Given that, I am saying that the cavalier contemporary attitude towards sex does much to trivialise the severity of sexual impropriety, and thus is dangerous to a great many marriages.

By all means, if divorce is necessary I support the option, but the issue here is the sexual tension that brings the couple to this unfortunate juncture.

[sqishy]

Because when a person has had several affairs prior to his marriage and sex to him is a matter of entertainment, how do you expect him to maintain the integrity necessary for marriage?

I will attempt to list out assumptions that I see, from what you have said.


Firstly, there is an assumption that everyone who has several relationships (of a sexual and/or romantic kind) will get married sometime in the future.

Secondly, there is an assuption that people who engage in multiple relationships (at different times or at the same time) view sex as a purely entertaining experience. If a person is in multiple affairs where not everyone involved knows of everyone else involved, then that is a case of dishonesty which gives more rationale behind sex being seen as purely entertaining. Otherwise, the assumption I just outlined still stands, as the exception does not justify the assumption.

Thirdly, there is an assumption that people who once were in multiple relationships and then enter marriages/etc, will violate the agreements of that marriage.


You sound as if a huge segment of the children growing up in broken homes will merely have a 'negligible' effect on society at large. I say it will likely hurt their emotional health, education, and social skills to build their own families.

The fourth assumption: Divorce will lead to metaphorically broken homes. There is nothing in the definition of divorce that entails interpersonal damage will happen. This is not a case of in-theory-but-not-in-practise either, because a divorce can happen between two people who agree to be friends or be along some 'lower' relationship level afterwards. This can be the case with or without children. Damaged relationships are not part of the theoretical and practical definiton of divorce.

I was referring to the direct effects divorce can have. Indirectly, yes, problems can of course happen. Absolutely, I do not disagree with that at all.
However, to view divorce as a thing which should be stopped because negative things can occur as a result of it, is quite the metaphorical leap.

Holding that view, there is an assumption that divorce will break good marriages. What about cases where divorce ends abusive/etc marriages?
Also, if you are worried that bad marriages will occur due to certain people you mentioned, then do you hold that with the view that divorce should not be a thing, at the same time?

I'm not here to break down your argument and replace it with one I have. I am here questioning many assumptions that I see, which, in my opinion, makes leaps of black-and-white generalist statements.

[Hope I explained my POV okay]

[Jinglebottom]

I just personally don't care what other people do under the sheets. But that's just me, you know... If their activities bothered me that much, I'd just disassociate myself with them and move on.

[phuckphace]

"everything would be great at home if it was against the law for wives to get a divorce" lol not in 2015. serious longterm marriage is declining anyway because people don't care and it's become too expensive to raise a family anyway.

"make divorce illegal" is a pseudocon favorite but I'm thinking the best way to reduce divorce is to get a better society (starting with forum posts) and give people an actual chance at life.

[Professional Russian]

I seriously don't see how this is even a debate. I mean damn if a girl wants to go and fuck multiple times, whether it be one by one or all at once, who gives a fuck? It's her body. If she wants it and can get it let her. Jesus Christ if this is societys biggest problem I'm very worried for the future world. Your opinion, along with everyone else's including mine, is irrelevant since it isn't you or your body engaging in these activities.

[phuckphace]

I seriously don't see how this is even a debate. I mean damn if a girl wants to go and fuck multiple times, whether it be one by one or all at once, who gives a fuck? It's her body. If she wants it and can get it let her. Jesus Christ if this is societys biggest problem I'm very worried for the future world. Your opinion, along with everyone else's including mine, is irrelevant since it isn't you or your body engaging in these activities.

/

http://i.imgur.com/uYGIoqK.pngHEY that's my demilitarized zone you're stepping on buddy

200-proof lolbertarian horseshit. how are the actions and behavior of individuals "irrelevant" when the nature of a society is the sum of its parts?

[Professional Russian]

/

image (http://i.imgur.com/uYGIoqK.png)HEY that's my demilitarized zone you're stepping on buddy

200-proof lolbertarian horseshit. how are the actions and behavior of individuals "irrelevant" when the nature of a society is the sum of its parts?

It's irrelevant to the person the OP is talking about. No matter what you say or what you do you can't change somebody's mind. If they're set on doing something they're gonna do it. Therefore your opinion is irrelevant because its not your body or you doing it.

[Judean Zealot]

It's irrelevant to the person the OP is talking about. No matter what you say or what you do you can't change somebody's mind. If they're set on doing something they're gonna do it. Therefore your opinion is irrelevant because its not your body or you doing it.

Whaa?

The OP expressed disgust. Why shouldn't one express disgust at something disgusting, even if it's not within his power to change?

And what does the fact that it's not his body have to do with feelings of disgust anyhow?

[Bull]

Whaa?

The OP expressed disgust. Why shouldn't one express disgust at something disgusting, even if it's not within his power to change?

And what does the fact that it's not his body have to do with feelings of disgust anyhow?

While I do not always agree with zealot's post, I do support the concept that one has the right to express opinion: positive, negative, support, disgust. I am an American citizen and live with/under the protection of the First Amendment.

[Cadanance00]

Man, this is far too existential for me.

I don't think I would care for group sex, but I would like to have had several sexual partners before I decide on one to marry, and I would like the woman I pick for my wife to have had several before she decides I'm the one for her.

[phuckphace]

I seriously don't see how this is even a debate. I mean damn if a girl wants to go and fuck multiple times, whether it be one by one or all at once, who gives a fuck? It's her body. If she wants it and can get it let her. Jesus Christ if this is societys biggest problem I'm very worried for the future world. Your opinion, along with everyone else's including mine, is irrelevant since it isn't you or your body engaging in these activities.

no need for server backups of the /ROTW directory, all you need is a script that will copy this post a couple hundred thousand times

[Professional Russian]

no need for server backups of the /ROTW directory, all you need is a script that will copy this post a couple hundred thousand times

Shit I just realized how much that post sbowed I've changed. I used to be like "oh yeah they're total sluts and its stupid" now I'm defending them....god damn have I changed

[Vlerchan]

Generally speaking, socially accepted promiscuity will facilitate the lusts (or deep seated desire to wield control or what have you) of those 'on the fence'. Given that, I am saying that the cavalier contemporary attitude towards sex does much to trivialise the severity of sexual impropriety, and thus is dangerous to a great many
I alsodon't see the reasoning legitimising promiscuous behaviour further legitimises affairs. I agree that it would seem to cause dispositional changes in people's increasing willingness to see monogamous relations as improbable, see promiscuous behaviour as a norm, and see marriage more in terms of confinement. That - at least - is what a paper reporting on the high consumption of porn indicates (Zillmann 2000). But it would seem to me that being promiscuous and having an affair are on separate moral plains. I would see being promiscuous as an enabler of the other but not a cause.

I might look for papers though and then come back.

If it helps I don't see being promiscuous as a good thing regardless.

I don't think I would care for group sex, but I would like to have had several sexual partners before I decide on one to marry, and I would like the woman I pick for my wife to have had several before she decides I'm the one for her.
Might I ask why?

[phuckphace]

^I missed that post :lol3:

instead of a ring, give her a few birth control tablets and say "hit the clubs and don't come back until you've racked up 20 more notches"

my millennials.txt is getting too long, need to start a millennials.xls for max size

[Cadanance00]

My definition of a fascist is someone who puts their beliefs ahead of someone else's life and well being.

[Judean Zealot]

My definition of a fascist is someone who puts their beliefs ahead of someone else's life and well being.

My definition of a fascist is someone who likes to wear the color green.

That may be your definition, but sadly, we can't go about gerrymandering definitions to suit our own beliefs.

I alsodon't see the reasoning legitimising promiscuous behaviour further legitimises affairs. I agree that it would seem to cause dispositional changes in people's increasing willingness to see monogamous relations as improbable, see promiscuous behaviour as a norm, and see marriage more in terms of confinement. That - at least - is what a paper reporting on the high consumption of porn indicates (Zillmann 2000). But it would seem to me that being promiscuous and having an affair are on separate moral plains. I would see being promiscuous as an enabler of the other but not a cause.

Which is exactly what I'm saying. I said promiscuity will facilitate the breakdown of homes, not be the end-all cause.

[Cadanance00]

"There is more on heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy."
-Shapespeare, Henry V

[Judean Zealot]

'Snowball often won over the majority by his brilliant speeches, but Napoleon was better at canvassing support for himself in between times. He was especially successful with the sheep. Of late the sheep had taken to bleating "Four legs good, two legs bad" both in and out of season, and they often interrupted the Meeting with this. It was noticed that they were especially liable to break into "Four legs good, two legs bad" at crucial moments in Snowball's speeches.'
-George Orwell, Animal Farm

[Vlerchan]

Which is exactly what I'm saying. I said promiscuity will facilitate the breakdown of homes, not be the end-all cause.
It would seem more to me that people socialised into this behaviour wouldn't be so inclined to create these homes in the first place.

So long as we can agree that being promiscuous isn't going to cause familial breakdown though. That's all I wanted to jump into this thread and mention.

---

"Fascism is nothing but capitalist reaction." L. Trotsky.

This is fun.

[Miserabilia]

Wow i'm so late into this thread but seems to me it's pretty much human instinct. I think I even remember reading about how primitive humans / humans before societies actualy mated in orgies. Not sure if that's fact as much as just theoretical though.

[Arkansasguy]

By all means, if divorce is necessary I support the option

If you encourage behavior you'll just get more of it.

If people knew that when they said "I do" there was no way out, they would take more care not to ruin their marriages in the first place.

Really outlawing divorce and outlawing/stigmatizing fornication are both necessary to restore good mores.

"everything would be great at home if it was against the law for wives to get a divorce" lol not in 2015. serious longterm marriage is declining anyway because people don't care and it's become too expensive to raise a family anyway.

"make divorce illegal" is a pseudocon favorite but I'm thinking the best way to reduce divorce is to get a better society (starting with forum posts) and give people an actual chance at life.

I've yet to hear one neocon support outlawing divorce. And returning to how things were a few hundred years ago would hardly be fake conservatism.

[Judean Zealot]

If you encourage behavior you'll just get more of it.

If people knew that when they said "I do" there was no way out, they would take more care not to ruin their marriages in the first place.

Really outlawing divorce and outlawing/stigmatizing fornication are both necessary to restore good mores.

Outlawing fornication I'm all for. There are no circumstances in which wanton fornication is good.

Divorce is more complex. What are we supposed to tell someone whose spouse has fallen into a heroin addiction or or cannot have children? I agree that random 'we're just bored of each other/she burnt my food"' divorces ought to be frowned upon. I just don't see how we can plausibly ban the one while keeping the other.

[Vlerchan]

I find Ireland is an illustrative case to look at for the effects of divorce legislation since it legalised in 1995.

If you encourage behavior you'll just get more of it.
It thus stands as a case where liberalisation of divorce had little impact because it came too late to play a significant role in the transformation of family life along lines broadly similar to what had happened in other western countries.

https://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/WP21%20Fahey%20Small%20Bang.pdf

People used to just separate. This led to a lot more unhappiness.

If people knew that when they said "I do" there was no way out, they would take more care not to ruin their marriages in the first place.
In Ireland marriage trends continued the same as before the introduction of divorce. It seemed to have a minor impact on the number of marriages.

The crude (unadjusted) marriage rate was 4.8 per 1,000 of population in 1864, the first year for which records exist. There was a general decline in the marriage rate in the 1870s falling to a low of 3.6 marriages per thousand population in 1880. The rate increased gradually over the next 90 years reaching an all-time high of 7.4 marriages per thousand population in the early 1970s. The rate began to drop from 1974 falling to a rate of around 5.2 in the late 1990s before reaching 4.8 in 2014 (the same rate as 1864). All of the historical reports from 1864 are available on the CSO website.

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/mcp/marriagesandcivilpartnerships2014/
It seems to follow socio-economic trends. You can find 150 years worth of data on this page (http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/birthsdeathsandmarriages/archive/annualreportsonmarriagesbirthsanddeathsinirelandfrom1864to2000/).

It does seem though that people are getting married at an older age. So perhaps more thought it being put into it.

[Arkansasguy]

Outlawing fornication I'm all for. There are no circumstances in which wanton fornication is good.

Good. And what do you think of the five hour to one week temporary marriages that the Iranians can have? You disapprove of those as well?

Divorce is more complex. What are we supposed to tell someone whose spouse has fallen into a heroin addiction or or cannot have children?

If a person is creating a grave danger to spouse or children, I can perhaps see allowing separation. Unless it was deliberately concealed, I don't see why infertility should allow one to default on one's obligations.

I agree that random 'we're just bored of each other/she burnt my food"' divorces ought to be frowned upon. I just don't see how we can plausibly ban the one while keeping the other.

That doesn't follow at all, of course one could allow divorce for XYZ while not allowing it in general.

[Judean Zealot]

Good. And what do you think of the five hour to one week temporary marriages that the Iranians can have? You disapprove of those as well?
I do.



If a person is creating a grave danger to spouse or children, I can perhaps see allowing separation. Unless it was deliberately concealed, I don't see why infertility should allow one to default on one's obligations.
Here (http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html) you have an encyclical stating that the end of marriage is procreative. I imagine we both share that belief.



That doesn't follow at all, of course one could allow divorce for XYZ while not allowing it in general.
You're right that was carelessness on my part. I apologise. However, I would still maintain that disallowing divorce would simply see a rise in infidelity and domestic abuse.

[Arkansasguy]

I do.

If they made it so that instead of it being for X length of time, it was until the parties decided otherwise, would you still disapprove?


Here (http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html) you have an encyclical stating that the end of marriage is procreative. I imagine we both share that belief.

Yes. That is the reason marriage exists, and it is wrong to deliberately go against it. But a natural condition is not the same as deliberate obstruction.


You're right that was carelessness on my part. I apologise. However, I would still maintain that disallowing divorce would simply see a rise in infidelity and domestic abuse.

Regarding infidelity, I'm sure that's correct if you exclude divorcee remarriage from the definition of infidelity. But if you count it as infidelity, then surely you'd agree divorce prohibition would decrease infidelity?

[Shiny Moon]

Whats the point of having sex with multiple individuals? I think its disgusting and those who do it are sluts.

Do you mean with multiple individuals at the same time? Never tried, so I don't know.
But if you mean at different times, well, I enjoy it. I guess I'm a slut then lol :yes: :lol3:

[Judean Zealot]

If they made it so that instead of it being for X length of time, it was until the parties decided otherwise, would you still disapprove?
I would disapprove if there was either a social norm to take on temporary marriages with such in mind, or if the switching of spouses were done without any sort of formalisation.



Yes. That is the reason marriage exists, and it is wrong to deliberately go against it. But a natural condition is not the same as deliberate obstruction.
Correct. One is sinful, as was Onan, and the other is, by no fault of his own, excluded from what you would call 'the sacrament of marriage'.
'He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.'
(Deuteronomy 23:1)


Regarding infidelity, I'm sure that's correct if you exclude divorcee remarriage from the definition of infidelity. But if you count it as infidelity, then surely you'd agree divorce prohibition would decrease infidelity?
'If' is the operative word here.
'When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.'
(Deuteronomy 24:1-2)

[Arkansasguy]

I would disapprove if there was either a social norm to take on temporary marriages with such in mind, or if the switching of spouses were done without any sort of formalisation.

But this is just the point. The allowance of divorce makes it so that such is a possibility for everyone. You cannot have a culture in which marriage is presumed permanent if there is an easy out.

And philosophically, please explain why fornication is bad, and you should see that divorce being wrong follows from that.

Correct. One is sinful, as was Onan, and the other is, by no fault of his own, excluded from what you would call 'the sacrament of marriage'.
'He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.'
(Deuteronomy 23:1)

Impotence prohibits marriage by its very nature. But this is not the case with mere infertility. See Sarah.

'If' is the operative word here.
'When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.'
(Deuteronomy 24:1-2)

Moses allowed you this because of the hardness of your hearts, but in the beginning it was decreed that a man and his wife are one flesh, so what God has joined together no man should put asunder.

[Judean Zealot]

But this is just the point. The allowance of divorce makes it so that such is a possibility for everyone. You cannot have a culture in which marriage is presumed permanent if there is an easy out.
See Orthodox Judaism.

And philosophically, please explain why fornication is bad, and you should see that divorce being wrong follows from that.[quote]

Although the same case of hedonism can be presented for both fornication and divorce, we draw the distinction between fornication, which is necessarily hedonist, and divorce, which at times is commendable.

Essentially what I'm saying is that the legal framework of marriage must provide a means for it's dissolution, and that once there, the mechanism for dissolution is present in every marriage. Granted, the man who divorces his wife unnecessarily is behaving sinfully, but that doesn't make the actual divorce a sin. I would bring as an analogy the drunkard. While we both agree that his behaviour is sinful, he is essentially not commiting a formal sin, as drinking in moderation isn't a sin. I apologise for not being very clear here.


[QUOTE]Impotence prohibits marriage by its very nature. But this is not the case with mere infertility. See Sarah.
We don't rely on miracles. Man is commanded to 'be fruitful and multiply, and that obligation, which is the very purpose of marriage, must not be hindered by the institution made to further it.



Moses allowed you this because of the hardness of your hearts, but in the beginning it was decreed that a man and his wife are one flesh, so what God has joined together no man should put asunder.

Man and wife are unified in two ways, via fulfillment of the natural end of there procreative organs (which are 'incomplete' without the other sex), and via the child which is the unitive manifestation of both parents. Neither interpretation would necessitate your reading. I simply disagree with your interpretation of 'and they shall be as one flesh'.

In addition, God doesn't unite the two. They unite themselves, in accordance with God's Will. Perhaps you can say that God has united the sexes, but that would best be explained by the natural law reading I gave above.

[Arkansasguy]

See Orthodox Judaism.

Not a valid analogy. I'm talking about a country's culture, which is not comparable to a subculture within it.

Although the same case of hedonism can be presented for both fornication and divorce, we draw the distinction between fornication, which is necessarily hedonist, and divorce, which at times is commendable.

Essentially what I'm saying is that the legal framework of marriage must provide a means for it's dissolution, and that once there, the mechanism for dissolution is present in every marriage. Granted, the man who divorces his wife unnecessarily is behaving sinfully, but that doesn't make the actual divorce a sin. I would bring as an analogy the drunkard. While we both agree that his behaviour is sinful, he is essentially not commiting a formal sin, as drinking in moderation isn't a sin. I apologise for not being very clear here.

You say fornication is hedonist. I agree but that's not a philisophical reason why it's bad.

Why is fornication hedonist?

We don't rely on miracles. Man is commanded to 'be fruitful and multiply, and that obligation, which is the very purpose of marriage, must not be hindered by the institution made to further it.

So should Abraham have divorced Sarah?



Man and wife are unified in two ways, via fulfillment of the natural end of there procreative organs (which are 'incomplete' without the other sex), and via the child which is the unitive manifestation of both parents. Neither interpretation would necessitate your reading. I simply disagree with your interpretation of 'and they shall be as one flesh'.

In addition, God doesn't unite the two. They unite themselves, in accordance with God's Will. Perhaps you can say that God has united the sexes, but that would best be explained by the natural law reading I gave above.

How can they be one flesh if it is readily possible to dissolve their union?

BTW, just to be clear, you're position is that divorce is permitted by natural law, not any sort of special permission given to the Jews, correct? Because if your position is the latter (I don't think it is), then we're just going in circles.

[Judean Zealot]

Not a valid analogy. I'm talking about a country's culture, which is not comparable to a subculture within it.

For what reasons?


You say fornication is hedonist. I agree but that's not a philisophical reason why it's bad.

Why is fornication hedonist?

Because it is the exaltation of the sensual desires above duty (both of the body and soul). Fornication is always such an affair, whereas divorce is not. At times the dissolution of a marriage is in fact one's duty, and as such the legal transaction that is marriage has the possibility for it's dissolution in it.



So should Abraham have divorced Sarah?According to tradition, Abraham was sterile as well, thus making their marriage strictly unitive.





How can they be one flesh if it is readily possible to dissolve their union?
They are one insofar as they are married. Any union of two components can be undone, however.

BTW, just to be clear, you're position is that divorce is permitted by natural law, not any sort of special permission given to the Jews, correct? Because if your position is the latter (I don't think it is), then we're just going in circles.

Natural law. I'm also defending the possibility from a scriptural angle.

[Arkansasguy]

For what reasons?

The dregs can work themselves out of a subculture. If you had an Orthodox Jewish society, you would have many impious people marrying with the full knowledge that their particular marriage would probably not be permanent. When it's just a subculture, a large number of impious people will simply leave and join the larger hedonistic culture.


Because it is the exaltation of the sensual desires above duty (both of the body and soul). Fornication is always such an affair, whereas divorce is not. At times the dissolution of a marriage is in fact one's duty, and as such the legal transaction that is marriage has the possibility for it's dissolution in it.

You say it is contrary to duty, and I agree. But you still haven't explained how it is contrary to duty.

According to tradition, Abraham was sterile as well, thus making their marriage strictly unitive.

He had many children. Were they all miracles?




They are one insofar as they are married. Any union of two components can be undone, however.

If you take that to its logical conclusion, fornication should be ok as long as you're only for coating with one person at a time. After all they're one while they're fornicating, and any Union of two components can be undone.

Natural law. I'm also defending the possibility from a scriptural angle.

Ok. That's what I thought.

[Judean Zealot]

The dregs can work themselves out of a subculture. If you had an Orthodox Jewish society, you would have many impious people marrying with the full knowledge that their particular marriage would probably not be permanent. When it's just a subculture, a large number of impious people will simply leave and join the larger hedonistic culture.

In my ideal state, they wouldn't have the option of doing so. There would be something like the Roman censorship or the Holy Office of Inquisition to do whatever necessary to maintain public mores.

Give the degenerates the Sanhedrin Shakedown and move on.



You say it is contrary to duty, and I agree. But you still haven't explained how it is contrary to duty.
It is a man's duty to not take for his body that which does not strengthen the soul. It is also his duty to maintain domestic tranquillity in his home.



He had many children. Were they all miracles?
There were two miracles, that he was healed and Sarah was healed.




If you take that to its logical conclusion, fornication should be ok as long as you're only for coating with one person at a time. After all they're one while they're fornicating, and any Union of two components can be undone.
Any union can be undone, but this is precisely why we have an institution of marriage and divorce, to set in place an inviolable formality. Again, the system can be abused, but it is necessary to have a non arbitrary mechanism for dissolving the bonds of marriage should the situation call for it.

[Arkansasguy]

In my ideal state, they wouldn't have the option of doing so. There would be something like the Roman censorship or the Holy Office of Inquisition to do whatever necessary to maintain public mores.

Give the degenerates the Sanhedrin Shakedown and move on.

But you said you would allow people to divorce for frivolous reasons. So my point stands.


It is a man's duty to not take for his body that which does not strengthen the soul. It is also his duty to maintain domestic tranquillity in his home.

Yes. And fornication is bad for the soul. But you haven't explained why fornication is bad for the soul while marital sex is good.


There were two miracles, that he was healed and Sarah was healed.

That seems very ad hoc. If he had to be healed before he married Hagar, why was Sarah not healed then too? And why would he have married Hagar if he was infertile too?



Any union can be undone, but this is precisely why we have an institution of marriage and divorce, to set in place an inviolable formality. Again, the system can be abused, but it is necessary to have a non arbitrary mechanism for dissolving the bonds of marriage should the situation call for it.

If it's just a matter of having formalities, then there's nothing wrong with the Shiite practice of temporary marriage. And allowing people to divorce for any reason whatsoever is arbitrary.

[Judean Zealot]

Arkansasguy: Let me lay out my position like this.

1) Sexual relations have in them two primary ends- the procreative (that of producing more servants of God) and the unitive (that of the completion of of both one's own physiology, as obviously the procreative organs are incomplete without the partner, as well as the literal unification of flesh as expressed in their joint child).

2) These two ends are both sacred duties a man has, and are both expressed in the conception of a child. With conception, man becomes (so to speak) a 'partner with God'. Sexual relations have a tremendous potential to unify body and spirit in the service of God, yet the unique intensity of their sensual gratification provides risks as well. One can easily get so caught up with the physical aspect of sex that he forgets the divinity inherent to the act and it turns into a mere act of self-indulgence, thus destroying both the positive results to his psyche as well as propelling him towards a more general hedonism in which he will indulge himself while avoiding the duties he has (examples would be destroying his seed, both in and out of the womb, and the more general abandonment of reason which we see so often in those gripped by lust).

3) As a result, we have a formal and legal institution in which man and woman are joined in sacred union, in order to give a framework for sex, that it not be a thing taken lightly. A man can no longer think of every woman he meets in terms of sex, and even his relations with his wife are only permissible when she is a week out of her period (as per Mosaic law, anyhow). At this point we see the reason why extra or pre-marital sex is wrong: it undermines the legitimacy of the institution of marriage.

4) The monogamous ideal of marriage is borne solely as a result of the above safeguard, and has no relation to the essential sexual act. This is unlike the procreative and unitive aspects of sex, which are qualities essential to the sexual act.

5) Thus we would arrive at the conclusion that the monogamous ideal ought to be legally dissolved in scenarios where there is a necessity for it, either due to one spouse's infertility, severe domestic strife or abuse, or similar situations wherein it is better for one (for his soul) to be relieved of this extrinsic institution of "marriage".

6) Yet the creation and dissolution of marriage is not simply a matter between man and God. There are many interpersonal affairs at play, including the husband's obligation to financially support the wife. As such marriage and divorce are not purely in the realm of the ecclesiastical establishment, but they have many legal components as well. As a matter of fact, I would tend to the position that this institution of marriage is primarily a financial institution, while the actual consummation is the ecclesiastical element. As such, there must be a formal legal framework within which marriages can be arranged and dissolved. Once this is the case, than divorce becomes possible, even if it may be reprehensible, for even frivolities.

I wrote this all in a very specific order, so let me recap here:
1) The inherent divinity in procreation
2) The potential pitfalls of free marriage, sexual profligacy
3) The solution- monogamy and laws regarding the period.
4,5) Given that monogamy is nerely an extrinsic safeguard to the actual sanctity of sex, under circumstances stated above it is proper to provide the framework for it's dissolution.
6) Given the legal intricacies of marriage and divorce, marriage and divorce must both be legal processes.
7) If that is so, then an unfortunate side effect is that the above legal mechanism can be abused by the bad people in society.
8) As I've said previously, the courts must be watchful that abuse of divorce doesn't grow too widespread, and if it does they must quell it.

Objection 1- With the possibility of divorce, the entire institution of marriage fails in it's primary goal- to prevent sexual profligacy.

Objection 2- Why would you oppose a legal marriage intended to be of short duration?

Answer 1- It doesn't. The institution of divorce at the very least requires a legal process wherein the man may free himself. This is a far cry from being able to walk down the street and copulate with whosoever he wishes. Morever, the courts will investigate any extensive abuse of the practice and crush it.

Answer 2- Such a temporary marriage defeats the entire purpose of the institution, as has been explained above.

-------

Abraham was promised a son at the covenant he made, and as such Sarah should've had faith that she would have children through Abraham. She didn't, however, and she offered Hagar to Abraham with the rationale that "If Abraham has a son, let it at least be through my maidservant". Because of this lack of faith, Ishmael, future rival of Isaac, was born.

Later on, when the angels came to Abraham en route to Sodom and Gommorah, Abraham said of Sarah that she was 'in the tent', implying a modesty to Sarah. For this Sarah was finally deemed worthy of bearing Isaac.

[Arkansasguy]

Arkansasguy: Let me lay out my position like this.

1) Sexual relations have in them two primary ends- the procreative (that of producing more servants of God) and the unitive (that of the completion of of both one's own physiology, as obviously the procreative organs are incomplete without the partner, as well as the literal unification of flesh as expressed in their joint child).

2) These two ends are both sacred duties a man has, and are both expressed in the conception of a child. With conception, man becomes (so to speak) a 'partner with God'. Sexual relations have a tremendous potential to unify body and spirit in the service of God, yet the unique intensity of their sensual gratification provides risks as well. One can easily get so caught up with the physical aspect of sex that he forgets the divinity inherent to the act and it turns into a mere act of self-indulgence, thus destroying both the positive results to his psyche as well as propelling him towards a more general hedonism in which he will indulge himself while avoiding the duties he has (examples would be destroying his seed, both in and out of the womb, and the more general abandonment of reason which we see so often in those gripped by lust).

3) As a result, we have a formal and legal institution in which man and woman are joined in sacred union, in order to give a framework for sex, that it not be a thing taken lightly. A man can no longer think of every woman he meets in terms of sex, and even his relations with his wife are only permissible when she is a week out of her period (as per Mosaic law, anyhow). At this point we see the reason why extra or pre-marital sex is wrong: it undermines the legitimacy of the institution of marriage.

4) The monogamous ideal of marriage is borne solely as a result of the above safeguard, and has no relation to the essential sexual act. This is unlike the procreative and unitive aspects of sex, which are qualities essential to the sexual act.

5) Thus we would arrive at the conclusion that the monogamous ideal ought to be legally dissolved in scenarios where there is a necessity for it, either due to one spouse's infertility, severe domestic strife or abuse, or similar situations wherein it is better for one (for his soul) to be relieved of this extrinsic institution of "marriage".

6) Yet the creation and dissolution of marriage is not simply a matter between man and God. There are many interpersonal affairs at play, including the husband's obligation to financially support the wife. As such marriage and divorce are not purely in the realm of the ecclesiastical establishment, but they have many legal components as well. As a matter of fact, I would tend to the position that this institution of marriage is primarily a financial institution, while the actual consummation is the ecclesiastical element. As such, there must be a formal legal framework within which marriages can be arranged and dissolved. Once this is the case, than divorce becomes possible, even if it may be reprehensible, for even frivolities.

I wrote this all in a very specific order, so let me recap here:
1) The inherent divinity in procreation
2) The potential pitfalls of free marriage, sexual profligacy
3) The solution- monogamy and laws regarding the period.
4,5) Given that monogamy is nerely an extrinsic safeguard to the actual sanctity of sex, under circumstances stated above it is proper to provide the framework for it's dissolution.
6) Given the legal intricacies of marriage and divorce, marriage and divorce must both be legal processes.
7) If that is so, then an unfortunate side effect is that the above legal mechanism can be abused by the bad people in society.
8) As I've said previously, the courts must be watchful that abuse of divorce doesn't grow too widespread, and if it does they must quell it.

Objection 1- With the possibility of divorce, the entire institution of marriage fails in it's primary goal- to prevent sexual profligacy.

Objection 2- Why would you oppose a legal marriage intended to be of short duration?

Answer 1- It doesn't. The institution of divorce at the very least requires a legal process wherein the man may free himself. This is a far cry from being able to walk down the street and copulate with whosoever he wishes. Morever, the courts will investigate any extensive abuse of the practice and crush it.

Answer 2- Such a temporary marriage defeats the entire purpose of the institution, as has been explained above.

-------

Abraham was promised a son at the covenant he made, and as such Sarah should've had faith that she would have children through Abraham. She didn't, however, and she offered Hagar to Abraham with the rationale that "If Abraham has a son, let it at least be through my maidservant". Because of this lack of faith, Ishmael, future rival of Isaac, was born.

Later on, when the angels came to Abraham en route to Sodom and Gommorah, Abraham said of Sarah that she was 'in the tent', implying a modesty to Sarah. For this Sarah was finally deemed worthy of bearing Isaac.

Temporary marriages are also formal legal institutions. And someone who participated in one could say that it was sufficient for him to understand the significance of sex. Clearly just being within a formal legal institution is not sufficient. I've been trying to get you to acknowledge it, but the reason why fornication (and temporary marriage) is wrong is because of its non-permanence. It is contrary to the good of the offspring for the father and mother not to be united. Now this harm to the offspring is the same in the case of fornication as in the case of divorce.

If Abraham had also been sterile, then the marriage to Hagar wouldn't have resulted in offspring. Ergo he was not sterile.

[Judean Zealot]

Temporary marriages are also formal legal institutions. And someone who participated in one could say that it was sufficient for him to understand the significance of sex. Clearly just being within a formal legal institution is not sufficient.

You have to understand the distinction between frowning upon a practice and denying it validity. I fully grant that such a temporary marriage is legally binding, yet I still frown upon it. It doesn't matter that the man claims that the marriage "has given him the understanding in regards to sex", as it's not about him. It's about a social phenomenon of insincere marriages which he is reinforcing by doing it himself. He could be Socrates for all I care, but he's still reinforcing a norm which undermines the purpose of monogamy, which serves as a bulwark against profligacy.

I've been trying to get you to acknowledge it, but the reason why fornication (and temporary marriage) is wrong is because of its non-permanence. It is contrary to the good of the offspring for the father and mother not to be united. Now this harm to the offspring is the same in the case of fornication as in the case of divorce.

Is fornication than technically permitted where contraception is used (I understand that contraception is a problem in itself, but I'm asking in the abstract)? If the problem is merely for the well being of the offspring, what if one of the spouses can't have children? Can (s)he go about fornicating freely? After all, there's no offspring.

If Abraham had also been sterile, then the marriage to Hagar wouldn't have resulted in offspring. Ergo he was not sterile.

Perhaps you should reread my post:

Abraham was promised a son at the covenant he made, and as such Sarah should've had faith that she would have children through Abraham. She didn't, however, and she offered Hagar to Abraham with the rationale that "If Abraham has a son, let it at least be through my maidservant". Because of this lack of faith, Ishmael, future rival of Isaac, was born.

Later on, when the angels came to Abraham en route to Sodom and Gommorah, Abraham said of Sarah that she was 'in the tent', implying a modesty to Sarah. For this Sarah was finally deemed worthy of bearing Isaac.
Although I should've clarified. I was referring to the covenant of Genesis 15, which is right prior to his marriage with Hagar. It was then that he was healed, when God told him:
And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
(15:4-5)

[Arkansasguy]

You have to understand the distinction between frowning upon a practice and denying it validity. I fully grant that such a temporary marriage is legally binding, yet I still frown upon it. It doesn't matter that the man claims that the marriage "has given him the understanding in regards to sex", as it's not about him. It's about a social phenomenon of insincere marriages which he is reinforcing by doing it himself. He could be Socrates for all I care, but he's still reinforcing a norm which undermines the purpose of monogamy, which serves as a bulwark against profligacy.

So entering a temporary marriage is insincere? So then part of the marriage vow is permanence?

Is fornication than technically permitted where contraception is used (I understand that contraception is a problem in itself, but I'm asking in the abstract)? If the problem is merely for the well being of the offspring, what if one of the spouses can't have children? Can (s)he go about fornicating freely? After all, there's no offspring.

By its nature, sex exists for the purpose of procreation. In human beings, children are best off in a permanent family. Thus sex is only to occur in a manner capable of resulting in offspring in the context of a permanent marriage. Sterility doesn't justify fornication any more than it justifies divorce.

As a side note, do you acknowledge that contraception is morally wrong?

Perhaps you should reread my post:


Although I should've clarified. I was referring to the covenant of Genesis 15, which is right prior to his marriage with Hagar. It was then that he was healed, when God told him:
And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
(15:4-5)

Okay. So after that should Abraham have divorced Sarah for being infertile?

[Judean Zealot]

So entering a temporary marriage is insincere? So then part of the marriage vow is permanence?
Of course. The institution of marriage is specifically designed to encourage permanence. That still doesn't mean that that bond can never be broken, as that permanence is not intrinsic to the sexual relations, but rather a general public safeguard. That said, divorce is obviously not ideal, and one who enters marriage knowing full well that he plans on divorcing her in a short while is doing wrong, on account of his subversion of the public institution.

By its nature, sex exists for the purpose of procreation. In human beings, children are best off in a permanent family. Thus sex is only to occur in a manner capable of resulting in offspring in the context of a permanent marriage. Sterility doesn't justify fornication any more than it justifies divorce.

I don't understand your position. If sex serves solely as procreation, and sexual impropriety is only bad insofar as it harms the children, then why can't a man who can't have children fornicate? Your last sentence is merely begging the question.

As a side note, do you acknowledge that contraception is morally wrong?

Yes, but not on the scale as do the Catholics. Contraception proper (and spilling seed) is not full murder, but it is active violation of God's commandment to procreate.



Okay. So after that should Abraham have divorced Sarah for being infertile?

I'm going to shift position here. I've been thinking on the topic, and I recall that the Talmud, as well as Maimonides, state that an impotent man who was simply born that way or became such by disease is still allowed to marry. Only one who is actually wounded on the genitalia may not marry (the reason being that the Torah was commanding us not to practice the castration frequently practiced in the orient).

So I would say that a person unable to bear children is allowed to marry in order to keep him out of sin by providing him with a legal way to satiate his desires.

[Arkansasguy]

Of course. The institution of marriage is specifically designed to encourage permanence. That still doesn't mean that that bond can never be broken, as that permanence is not intrinsic to the sexual relations, but rather a general public safeguard. That said, divorce is obviously not ideal, and one who enters marriage knowing full well that he plans on divorcing her in a short while is doing wrong, on account of his subversion of the public institution.

But permanence is intrinsic to it, because the purpose of sexual relations is procreation, and it is best for the offspring for father and mother to be permanently attached. Thus having sex with a transient partner is contrary to the end of sex just as contraception or sodomy is (albeit less so).

I don't understand your position. If sex serves solely as procreation, and sexual impropriety is only bad insofar as it harms the children, then why can't a man who can't have children fornicate? Your last sentence is merely begging the question.

The primary purpose of sex is procreation, so all the rules regarding it proceed from this point. And fornication is an intrinsically wrong, so it can't be done in any case. The reason why it is an intrinsic wrong is because it tends by nature to the detriment of the offspring.

Yes, but not on the scale as do the Catholics. Contraception proper (and spilling seed) is not full murder, but it is active violation of God's commandment to procreate.

Another side note, but Catholics don't hold contraception to be murder either, unless it is actually an abortifacient (e.g. Plan B).



I'm going to shift position here. I've been thinking on the topic, and I recall that the Talmud, as well as Maimonides, state that an impotent man who was simply born that way or became such by disease is still allowed to marry. Only one who is actually wounded on the genitalia may not marry (the reason being that the Torah was commanding us not to practice the castration frequently practiced in the orient).

So I would say that a person unable to bear children is allowed to marry in order to keep him out of sin by providing him with a legal way to satiate his desires.

And so your statement that one should divorce a sterile (not impotent) person was incorrect?

[Judean Zealot]

But permanence is intrinsic to it, because the purpose of sexual relations is procreation, and it is best for the offspring for father and mother to be permanently attached. Thus having sex with a transient partner is contrary to the end of sex just as contraception or sodomy is (albeit less so).

The primary purpose of sex is procreation, so all the rules regarding it proceed from this point. And fornication is an intrinsically wrong, so it can't be done in any case. The reason why it is an intrinsic wrong is because it tends by nature to the detriment of the offspring.

Here's where you're going wrong. The intrinsic end of sexual relations is procreation, and as such only that which is an inherent property of the procreative process can be called intrinsic to the act. Procreation ends with the birth of the child- beyond that is no longer procreative. It may be a separate duty, but it is not that of procreation, nor is it inherent to the organs function.

The natural function of the male member is not to send the child it produces to a good school, nor is it to ensure that the child grows up in a stable home. The inherence of both the anatomy and the act of sex is strictly that which necessarily arises from said act when done naturally. Now, one may have a separate duty to raise that child which he has produced, but the raising of that child is not an inherent aspect of the procreative process. Thus, the aspect of permanence (which we call marriage) is not intrinsic to the sexual act- qua the action it makes no difference whether it was done in a bridal suite or a brothel. Fornication is as such a wrong extrinsic to the sexual act, and is as such merely a wrong on a social level, as opposed to natural law.

We can also say that fornication is wrong on a natural law level if we assume a dualist approach to natural law, which we do. Nonetheless, fornication is simply incomparable to divorce, as with regards to the individual divorce may in fact be the right thing, and with regards to the societyit is done within the legal mechanism of the institution of marriage.

And so your statement that one should divorce a sterile (not impotent) person was incorrect?

Absolutely. I would at this point maintain that marriage is beneficial even for the sterile, if only to prevent himself from the sin of profligacy and a decline in social morality.

[Arkansasguy]

Here's where you're going wrong. The intrinsic end of sexual relations is procreation, and as such only that which is an inherent property of the procreative process can be called intrinsic to the act. Procreation ends with the birth of the child- beyond that is no longer procreative. It may be a separate duty, but it is not that of procreation, nor is it inherent to the organs function.

Well if that's your argument, why not say procreating ends with conception? After all, at conception you have a new being, gestating the child may be a seperate duty, but it's not that of procreation right? Thus is the folly of trying to draw a fine distinction between the duty of procreation and the duty of parenting.

Fornication is as such a wrong extrinsic to the sexual act, and is as such merely a wrong on a social level, as opposed to natural law.

So then if fornicators were to keep their act secret, and were willing to marry should pregnancy result (so no one would ever know what they had done), it would be licit?

[Judean Zealot]

Well if that's your argument, why not say procreating ends with conception? After all, at conception you have a new being, gestating the child may be a seperate duty, but it's not that of procreation right? Thus is the folly of trying to draw a fine distinction between the duty of procreation and the duty of parenting.

I don't consider a fetus to be a full human being. I would give it status higher than an animal, on account of it's potential, yet lower than a human, on account of that being merely in potentia and not in actua.



So then if fornicators were to keep their act secret, and were willing to marry should pregnancy result (so no one would ever know what they had done), it would be licit?

No, because (1) they also weaken the institution qua themselves, and (2) because one cannot count on secrecy to excuse an action that would've otherwise been wrong. If one cannot do it publicly, one cannot either risk it becoming public.

[SkyClad33605]

There's a lot of dangerous reasoning in this thread.

Sex is a perfectly healthy and natural actively. And as long as it is engaged in a safe and consensual manner then there is no problem in my estimation.

Sexual repression has always lead to the evils we see in the world. You don't even need to look into the history books for examples. Look at the problems that plague India or Saudi Arabia. Women are frequently murdered because they were raped. The same line of thought I've been reading in this thread is used in places to justify the torture and murder of women who committed no real crime.

If you don't like people who have sex/enjoy sex then by all means do not engage with them. But until you can prove, medically prove, that there is harm in the engagement of sex (again, consensual and safe sex) then this is a matter of your opinion only.

King Lear, Act IV, Scene 6:
"Thou rascal beadle, hold thy bloody hand.
Why dost thou lash that whore? Strip thine own back.
Thou hotly lust’st to use her in that kind
For which thou whipp’st her. The usurer hangs the cozener."

[Judean Zealot]

There's a lot of dangerous reasoning in this thread.

Sex is a perfectly healthy and natural actively. And as long as it is engaged in a safe and consensual manner then there is no problem in my estimation.

Sexual repression has always lead to the evils we see in the world. You don't even need to look into the history books for examples. Look at the problems that plague India or Saudi Arabia. Women are frequently murdered because they were raped. The same line of thought I've been reading in this thread is used in places to justify the torture and murder of women who committed no real crime.

If you don't like people who have sex/enjoy sex then by all means do not engage with them. But until you can prove, medically prove, that there is harm in the engagement of sex (again, consensual and safe sex) then this is a matter of your opinion only.

King Lear, Act IV, Scene 6:
"Thou rascal beadle, hold thy bloody hand.
Why dost thou lash that whore? Strip thine own back.
Thou hotly lust’st to use her in that kind
For which thou whipp’st her. The usurer hangs the cozener."

Of course, the second paragraph is begging the question. Both Arkansasguy and myself would disagree on your premise that consensual sex is never bad, from a philosophical point of view.

You create a standard- we must prove medically that sexual licence is detrimental to the individual and society. However, we're asserting a philosophical danger here, and as such your standard is equivalent to me asking you to prove set theory via biological data.

[Arkansasguy]

I don't consider a fetus to be a full human being. I would give it status higher than an animal, on account of it's potential, yet lower than a human, on account of that being merely in potentia and not in actualia.

I disagree obviously, but I won't argue it now as its irrelevant to my point. It is a distinct being from its parents, whatever its moral status.



No, because (1) they also weaken the institution qua themselves, and (2) because one cannot count on secrecy to excuse an action that would've otherwise been wrong. If one cannot do it publicly, one cannot either risk
it becoming public.

They might say that they understand the divinity of the act and respect it's significance. Since you define sexual morality based on attitude rather than object, I don't see how you can dispute their self-analysis.

And what if they remove all danger of it becoming known?

There's a lot of dangerous reasoning in this thread.

Sex is a perfectly healthy and natural actively. And as long as it is engaged in a safe and consensual manner then there is no problem in my estimation.

Sexual repression has always lead to the evils we see in the world. You don't even need to look into the history books for examples. Look at the problems that plague India or Saudi Arabia. Women are frequently murdered because they were raped. The same line of thought I've been reading in this thread is used in places to justify the torture and murder of women who committed no real crime.

If you don't like people who have sex/enjoy sex then by all means do not engage with them. But until you can prove, medically prove, that there is harm in the engagement of sex (again, consensual and safe sex) then this is a matter of your opinion only.

King Lear, Act IV, Scene 6:
"Thou rascal beadle, hold thy bloody hand.
Why dost thou lash that whore? Strip thine own back.
Thou hotly lust’st to use her in that kind
For which thou whipp’st her. The usurer hangs the cozener."

'Snowball often won over the majority by his brilliant speeches, but Napoleon was better at canvassing support for himself in between times. He was especially successful with the sheep. Of late the sheep had taken to bleating "Four legs good, two legs bad" both in and out of season, and they often interrupted the Meeting with this. It was noticed that they were especially liable to break into "Four legs good, two legs bad" at crucial moments in Snowball's speeches.'
-George Orwell, Animal Farm

[SkyClad33605]

Biology and Set Theory are still dependent on the same factors: data. The same basic processes govern both.

If a philosophy cannot be supported with empirical data then the foundation is no stronger than a sheet of wet paper.

But then again, I was raised to be a free thinker, independent from ancient superstitions. So I probably just can't see the world through that lens. :)

[Judean Zealot]

I disagree obviously, but I won't argue it now as its irrelevant to my point. It is a distinct being from its parents, whatever its moral status.


And the end of procreation is not the creation of a separate entity, it is the creation of a new human being. I don't see how this helps your point at all.

They might say that they understand the divinity of the act and respect it's significance. Since you define sexual morality based on attitude rather than object, I don't see how you can dispute their self-analysis.
Just to clarify, I view the institution of marriage in terms of attitude, not sexual morality per se. Homosexuality, for example, or a threesome, is inherently wrong as debauchery.

In any event, as regards your point: I cannot gauge the truth of that self analysis. Only they themselves and God know. If their analysis is true, I would hold them guilty, albeit for a far lesser crime. As a stickler for legality, I would maintain that one must act within the law even if it's underlying reason is inapplicable, for the simple reason that it is the law. But other than that, yes, you're right.

'Snowball often won over the majority by his brilliant speeches, but Napoleon was better at canvassing support for himself in between times. He was especially successful with the sheep. Of late the sheep had taken to bleating "Four legs good, two legs bad" both in and out of season, and they often interrupted the Meeting with this. It was noticed that they were especially liable to break into "Four legs good, two legs bad" at crucial moments in Snowball's speeches.'
-George Orwell, Animal Farm

You're learning, my young padawan. :P

[Judean Zealot]

Biology and Set Theory are still dependent on the same factors: data. The same basic processes govern both.

If a philosophy cannot be supported with empirical data then the foundation is no stronger than a sheet of wet paper.

But then again, I was raised to be a free thinker, independent from ancient superstitions. So I probably just can't see the world through that lens. :)

Snarky. Oh my.

Please, enlighten me. On what empirical data is set theory based?

[SkyClad33605]

I'm not Google.

I shouldn't have to explain how numbers work.

Ask a mathematician if they would consider their field to be empirically based.

[Judean Zealot]

I'm not Google.

I shouldn't have to explain how numbers work.

Ask a mathematician if they would consider their field to be empirically based.

I'm familiar with advanced mathematics. It is absolutely not empirically based. As a matter of fact, I have been planning on starting a thread on the myths of empiricism and falsifiability in 'scientific method' for some time now. I've just been busy both on here and in real life, but stay tuned.

[Miserabilia]

Biology and Set Theory are still dependent on the same factors: data. The same basic processes govern both.

If a philosophy cannot be supported with empirical data then the foundation is no stronger than a sheet of wet paper.

But then again, I was raised to be a free thinker, independent from ancient superstitions. So I probably just can't see the world through that lens. :)

> raised to be something

> a free thinker

pick one.

I aggree with you on the rest of it though.

[Arkansasguy]

And the end of procreation is not the creation of a separate entity, it is the creation of a new human being. I don't see how this helps your point at all.

Is an unborn child human? Is it a being?


Just to clarify, I view the institution of marriage in terms of attitude, not sexual morality per se. Homosexuality, for example, or a threesome, is inherently wrong as debauchery.

In any event, as regards your point: I cannot gauge the truth of that self analysis. Only they themselves and God know. If their analysis is true, I would hold them guilty, albeit for a far lesser crime. As a stickler for legality, I would maintain that one must act within the law even if it's underlying reason is inapplicable, for the simple reason that it is the law. But other than that, yes, you're right.

Ok. You've accepted my reductio ad absurdum. I'm not really sure where to go with it now.

You're learning, my young padawan. :P

It is amazing how simple-minded people can be when they want.

I'm not Google.

I shouldn't have to explain how numbers work.

Ask a mathematician if they would consider their field to be empirically based.

If you understood how numbers work, you wouldn't claim that math is an empirical field.

[Judean Zealot]

Is an unborn child human? Is it a being?

It is a unique being, an animal in actua, but a human in potentia. You'll notice that the penalty proscribed in Exodus for killing a fetus is a fine, as opposed to the death penalty once that fetus is born.

Ok. You've accepted my reductio ad absurdum. I'm not really sure where to go with it now. Might I crossexamine your position, now that you see my full system?

[Arkansasguy]

It is a unique being, an animal in actua, but a human in potentia. You'll notice that the penalty proscribed in Exodus for killing a fetus is a fine, as opposed to the death penalty once that fetus is born.

In what sense is it not an actual human?

Might I crossexamine your position, now that you see my full system?

Sure.

[Judean Zealot]

In what sense is it not an actual human?

It is incapable of abstraction. Considering as that is what differentiates us from animals, I would say that it's present actuality is that of an animal. The fact that it can react to pain or audio stimuli is no different then your pet dog.

Would you care to address the relevant scriptural point?

I'll get to questions later.

[Arkansasguy]

It is incapable of abstraction. Considering as that is what differentiates us from animals, I would say that it's present actuality is that of an animal. The fact that it can react to pain or audio stimuli is no different then your pet dog.

Would you care to address the relevant scriptural point?

I'll get to questions later.

Newborns and the severely retarded are also incapable of abstraction. Are they not people either?

The problem is that you are not considering the general special nature. It is in human nature to be capable of abstraction, and membership in our species confers status as human. Status as a human is not conferred by individual reasoning ability, as if it were many absurdities would follow.

[Judean Zealot]

Newborns and the severely retarded are also incapable of abstraction. Are they not people either?

Newborns are able to abstract, as this study (http://m.pnas.org/content/106/25/10382.full) shows. Granted, it takes a month or two until that abstraction yields a definite cognizance of numbers and ratio, but the mechanism of abstraction is immediately present from birth, whereas even a developed fetus shows no such ability.

In regards to severely retarded people you will have to substantiate that claim, as I am highly dubious of it. But even if I grant you that point, the fetus is not comparable to a mentally ill person or a person in a coma. A mentally ill person is a formal man, but has a disorder or condition that would prevent him from abstraction. Yet without this condition, he would be fully able to abstract. His condition is not essential to his nature as man, it is incidental. Not so the fetus. The fetus is essentially that intermediate developmental stage between sperm and infant, and as such, the infirmities which arise from fetus' lack of development are essential to the fetus' form as such.

The problem is that you are not considering the general special nature. It is in human nature to be capable of abstraction, and membership in our species confers status as human. Status as a human is not conferred by individual reasoning ability, as if it were many absurdities would follow.

Absolutely correct. Yet considering as the fetus is essentially lacking in that defining trait of humanity, it ought not to be properly called 'part of the species'.

[Arkansasguy]

Newborns are able to abstract, as this study (http://m.pnas.org/content/106/25/10382.full) shows. Granted, it takes a month or two until that abstraction yields a definite cognizance of numbers and ratio, but the mechanism of abstraction is immediately present from birth, whereas even a developed fetus shows no such ability.

The reason that I can't site studies of that sort performed on fetuses is because their are none, because it would be impossible to do one. So there's no reason, other than a preexisting assumption, to assume that the child acquires such cognitive processes at birth rather than earlier.



Absolutely correct. Yet considering as the fetus is essentially lacking in that defining trait of humanity, it ought not to be properly called 'part of the species'.

Unsubstantiated. And what species is it if not human?

[Judean Zealot]

The reason that I can't site studies of that sort performed on fetuses is because their are none, because it would be impossible to do one. So there's no reason, other than a preexisting assumption, to assume that the child acquires such cognitive processes at birth rather than earlier.

It is possible- in theory- to test the fetus's grasp or reaction to relations between number based sensory stimuli (among other tests).


Unsubstantiated. And what species is it if not human?
What's unsubstantiated? That a fetus is inherently developmental. As regards it's classification, I said 'species' to loosely paraphrase yourself, of course my real intention (and the measure that you, as a scholastic, ought to prefer) is the fetus's form which is distinct.

[Arkansasguy]

It is possible- in theory- to test the fetus's grasp or reaction to relations between number based sensory stimuli (among other tests).

And has this been done?

What's unsubstantiated? That a fetus is inherently developmental. As regards it's classification, I said 'species' to loosely paraphrase yourself, of course my real intention (and the measure that you, as a scholastic, ought to prefer) is the fetus's form which is distinct.

That it lacks the abstraction powers of an infant is what is unsubstantiated.

And it's form is that of a human, specifically a human in the fetal stage of development. I maintain that a fetus that is about to be born has about the same mental capabilities as a newborn.