Happy 4rth of July Samuel Adams style!!

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Hate to sound like vishva here, but all societies built on false, oppresive hirearchies that are not in tune with basic universal laws and are bound to fall sooner or later. Morality is just one of these factors. Subjagation of women. Slavery(in all its forms).
Basically if its an "upside down pyramid" , it wont stand. Any clearer?

For example we'v ...[text shortened]... I admit I haven't explained myself very well here. The words aint flowing this mornin.🙂 )

Spot on!! Although they may not start out like this, they inevitably fall into the trap of balancing the pyramid on an ever shrinking stand of collectivism by eventual oligarchs/tyrants.

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]Which is why I separate sexuality as it is largely to do with customs and not to do with harming others. Though cheating on a 'loved one' is in both categories, as is child abuse, rape and similar crimes.

But if you have sex outside of wedlock and you produce children or produce and STD, are people not harmed? In fact, should you be allowed to harm yourself? Does the Golden rule only apply to others and not how you treat yourself? If you choose "bad" behaviors doesn't this eventually effect the society in which you live?

Originally posted by twhitehead
For example, the slaves of the deep south were dehuminized by calling them "monkeymen", thus they could trat them like live stock.
Notice how all your main examples came from History? No present society examples? Yet you claim morals are in decline?

I used the terms fetus and infidel and this does apply to present day society.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are they? Not where I come from. Besides, having children out of wedlock is hardly the height of sexual immorality. I know plenty of married people who have affairs without having children. I consider affairs to be far worse morally than sex outside marriage because with an affair you are directly hurting someone.

I would love to see some statistics where you come from. So single parent homes are not plagued by poverty? Children have stable families and are not negatively effected by not having their dad or mom around? Fascinating, I must here more about it and I trust you have the data with you.

As far as adultry is concerned, it too decays the societal family unit. I don't see the point in trying to ascertain what decays it worse.

Originally posted by twhitehead
STD's run rampant in a promiscuous society etc.
So are they on the increase? If your claims are correct, then they should be.

Who says they need to be on the increase? Don't you know people who are dying of AIDS or cervical cancer? Everyone does, but if people were not promiscuous these things simply would not be happening.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As for family units, a large percentage of the people I know in Cape Town are single parents. But as far as I know, so were many of their parents and their parents parents. Also, I am not convinced a society that forces couples to stay in bad marriages is better than a society that allows divorce. In fact I would be a lot stronger and say I unequivocally support divorce.[/b]

I never said that people should not be allowed to divorce, but I think we can both agree that it would be better if they did not feel compelled to do so. Having said that, what is the difference between someone who is divorced and someone who is a single parent?

Originally posted by twhitehead
This has nothing whatsoever to do with morals or the family unit. It has to do with the easy credit lifestyle made available in the US. Its hardly unique to the US either, its just easier to get deeper in over there.
In Zambia, you couldn't get much credit, those who couldn't think ahead simply remained broke all their lives. Thats started to change rece ...[text shortened]... lending which I think has helped a lot, but of course some people still manage to over do it.

So if this is the case, why havn't the Amish, for example, climbed aboard the sinking ship of never ending debt? Could it be that they teach those in their respective family units the folly of such avarice? Isn't materialism or living beyond your means something of a moral problem?

Originally posted by whodey
But if you have sex outside of wedlock and you produce children or produce and STD, are people not harmed? In fact, should you be allowed to harm yourself? Does the Golden rule only apply to others and not how you treat yourself? If you choose "bad" behaviors doesn't this eventually effect the society in which you live?

I fully agree that normal "right / wrong", "do not harm others" morality can be applied to situations where sex is concerned, but I entirely dispute your claim that it is the sole justification for sexual morals. Sexual morals are altogether much more complicated with tradition taking a large role, as well as things like 'age of consent' where we want to be sure that a person knows what they are doing before entering what can be a very emotional experience.
Certainly when it comes to STDs you are getting dangerously close to the claim that associating with someone known to have a cold is likely to spread the cold and thus just as immoral as sex outside marriage. Yet I guarantee you do not give the two cases the same weight.

Harm to yourself? Of course one could argue that drinking, smoking, drugs, fast cars and other behaviors that may lead to self harm are all immoral, but again I think that would be in a separate class of morality, though related.

You are yet to show however that two consensual adults with no other current relationships having sex is harming anyone. Certainly, you haven't shown good reason for having such behavior so high on your list of 'immorality'. Surely things like dishonesty and pirating DVDs would be more harmful to society, yet you didn't mention them.
Equally, I would say that emotional abuse in a marriage is probably just as harmful as having an affair - and certainly more harmful than getting separated and going off to have other relationships.

Originally posted by whodey
I would love to see some statistics where you come from. So single parent homes are not plagued by poverty?

I am a single parent, and no, I am not plagued by poverty.
Does having two working parents provide more income? Of course it does. But that is not in any way equivalent to your claim:
Women today who have children out of wedlock are typically poverty striken.

In fact, most single parents I know had children in wedlock and got divorced. Many women who have children out of wedlock, get married.

Children have stable families and are not negatively effected by not having their dad or mom around?
Children are negatively affected by many things. It is my belief that they are less affected by having separated parents than they are by having constantly fighting parents.
Over 90% of my sons friends are from single parent families and they all seem reasonably fine to me. In fact, I cannot think of a single one of his friends that I know lives in a traditional family unit with their biological father and mother. The only one I can recall was a German boy, but their family went back to Germany several years ago.

Fascinating, I must here more about it and I trust you have the data with you.
No, I don't have any statistics, all I have is personal experience. What do you have?

Originally posted by whodey
Who says they need to be on the increase? Don't you know people who are dying of AIDS or cervical cancer? Everyone does, but if people were not promiscuous these things simply would not be happening.

Of course I don't dispute that STDs are harmful. I am from Africa. I have lost several friends and associates to AIDS.
What I am disputing is whether or not:
1. sexual immorality is on the increase as originally claimed by you.
2. sexual immorality is inherently harmful to others and thus can be categorized as equivalent to 'do not harm others' type of morality.

AIDS and other STDs are often spread from spouse to spouse. So by your argument, it is equally immoral to have sex inside marriage.

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]I fully agree that normal "right / wrong", "do not harm others" morality can be applied to situations where sex is concerned, but I entirely dispute your claim that it is the sole justification for sexual morals. Sexual morals are altogether much more complicated with tradition taking a large role, as well as things like 'age of consent' where we want to ...[text shortened]... mmoral as sex outside marriage. Yet I guarantee you do not give the two cases the same weight.

Not so fast. I have heard plea after plea on these boards in condemnation of the Catholic church for their refusal to lift the ban on contraceptives. The claim is that they are spreading AIDS across the globe to those who listen to the Catholic church regarding this teaching. So the question begs, if you are going to have sex outside of wedlock that gets you infected, which goes against the teaching of the church, then why are these idiots holding on to their teaching about contraceptives?

I don't expect those outside my faith to understand my position on the matter. For them not having sex outside of wedlock is not only impracticle, it is close to impossible. In addition, the consequences for doing so are not as apparent in most cases. In addtion, they are simply responding to a biological urge.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course I don't dispute that STDs are harmful. I am from Africa. I have lost several friends and associates to AIDS.
What I am disputing is whether or not:
1. sexual immorality is on the increase as originally claimed by you.
2. sexual immorality is inherently harmful to others and thus can be categorized as equivalent to 'do not harm others' type of ...[text shortened]... rom spouse to spouse. So by your argument, it is equally immoral to have sex inside marriage.

Again, why do STD's need to be on the rise for it to be a major issue? If we both know of people dying from AIDS, like we both do, it seems to be a major issue, no?

So the question begs, how were they infected? Would it be a world wide epidemic if people were not permissive?

Originally posted by whodey
Not so fast. I have heard plea after plea on these boards in condemnation of the Catholic church for their refusal to lift the ban on contraceptives. The claim is that they are spreading AIDS across the globe to those who listen to the Catholic church regarding this teaching. So the question begs, if you are going to have sex outside of wedlock that gets y ...[text shortened]... hing of the church, then why are these idiots holding on to their teaching about contraceptives?

Obviously it is a complicated issue. When a disease is spread, who is responsible? The person who spreads it by not taking reasonable precautions? The person who argues against such precautions? Nobody? Everybody? Who, and to what extent?
Simply labeling the act of sex outside marriage as the culprit is far too simplistic.

I don't expect those outside my faith to understand my position on the matter. For them not having sex outside of wedlock is not only impracticle, it is close to impossible. In addition, the consequences for doing so are not as apparent in most cases. In addtion, they are simply responding to a biological urge.
So, if it takes faith to see all these consequences etc, then is it truly immoral, as you claim, based on the 'don't harm others' morality? I just cant see where your faith comes into it. How does your faith stop you from explaining who gets hurt? How does not having faith make those consequences harder to see?

Originally posted by whodey
Again, why do STD's need to be on the rise for it to be a major issue? If we both know of people dying from AIDS, like we both do, it seems to be a major issue, no?

I never said, nor implied that STDs were not a major issue. But so are most life threatening diseases. Until recently (I don't know whether it is still true) malaria was a bigger killer in Africa. Does that make not sleeping under a mosquito net more immoral than sex outside marriage? Is it immoral at all, and to what extent?

My references to the increase had to do with your claim that morals were getting worse.

So the question begs, how were they infected? Would it be a world wide epidemic if people were not permissive?
Of course not. But the same applies to mosquito nets above. And washing your hands after using the loo. Is that too immoral? On a par with sex outside marriage?