Some law may be deemed "just" only in the sense that it proscribes an action that can reasonably be considered unjust on independent grounds (and/or because it institutes fairness for all concerned), while the prescribed penalty -- e.g. forced deportation and breakup of families, in this case -- is unjust due to its excessiveness, or due to an excessively long prescription period, or the lack of any such period. — Pierre-Normand

So you're telling me that I should license the breaking of the law for people who are smart enough to commit to actions, under cover, which makes them very difficult to remove from society, such as illegal immigrants getting married, and having children on American soil? If I license such behavior, then we will have no more laws.

The same as finding all sorts of ways to license immoral behavior, because the consequences of not licensing it are too harsh. This is nonsense. It's not practical, and it removes the legitimacy and power of the law.

Justice is a concept that is more fundamental than the bare idea of respecting the law; for if justice reduced to that, then the very idea of an unjust law would be incoherent. I think some the the Republican presidential candidates were aware of the need to reform immigration law until Trump came along with his poisonous rhetoric, and they suddenly felt uncomfortable standing on his left.

On edit: It seems that John Kasich, to his considerable credit, resisted the pressure, though. — Pierre-Normand

Yes, still, it is just that illegal immigration is wrong, so it follows that this, being a just law, must be enforced adequately.

In what sense is it understandable? To my mind, violence and breaking the law isn't understandable. No circumstance can justify this. And if you think about it, you will realise that it depends on the character of the person in question. People with good character would not resort to violence, even under oppression - Mahatma Ghandi for example. People with bad character, on the other hand, will. The thing is character to a large degree is influenced by the free choices that people make, and the habits that this choice making creates. So I wouldn't say it's understandable, nor inevitable - I'll say that given the circumstances it's more probable statistically speaking.

And I mean, what would you do in that situation if you were Carson? I would have a similar cautious stand on the issue. One cannot start blaming the policeman who shot the person prior to the investigation. Has Fox framed the issue in a biased way? Possibly but I cant say this betrays a hidden agenda unless I see it consistently happen. I don't follow Fox, so I wouldnt know.

This is indeed more to making a point. I still find the Russell insinuation that O'Reily is racist based on the way he has phrased his points to be sophistic, and should not be done. Because O'Reily simply hasn't made any racist statement, and why should anyone insinuate that he has? Sure, his words, if you're really crooked about it, can be viewed as such, but it's not the most plausible interpretation.

That there are poor black communities which have problems, largely because crime is more prominent in those regions (mainly due to poverty, and cultural reasons), so even policemen are generally more paranoid when dealing with them, is true, and it's something we should do something about. It must be a slow effort of integrating such communities through education.

The particular case brought forward is indeed unfortunate, that a black unarmed teenager was shot, probably for no real reason. Such mistakes can happen, but, ultimately, the policeman who has done this should bear responsibility for his actions if such a thing happens. That's why we have laws in countries, so that something wrong gets punished.

Overall, I fail to see how this really does anything to discredit Carson. Carson is just doing the right thing in his speech: there is an investigation going on, to prove the initial information recieved (namely that the teenager was unarmed, he did not pose a danger by threatening anyone, etc.), and then decide what must be done. Any person has no possibility of knowing, a priori, what the answer will be. So someone speaking about the case should take the cautious approach that Carson is taking.

The next point Russell makes, that somehow because historical issues relating to oppression have made the black community to react violently, etc. is true. But this in no way justifies the violence, and in no way does it justify not applying the law. Breaking the law must be punished, regardless of why the law was broken. Sure the people may have been oppressed. Still - this does not mandate that they kill others, that they break shops, etc. etc. Breaking the law still remains breaking the law.

Exactly. He talks and acts like a buffoon, and that gives me cause for concern, pure and simple. This is a potential president of the United States, for goodness sake. I don't believe it's all bluster, hot air and attention-seeking rhetoric. I think he has shown his true colours. — Sapientia

I don't think this is buffoon behavior quite frankly. His way of talking is quite effective at convincing people, and making people feel good. I wouldn't associate effectiveness with buffoonery.

They have a hard enough time as it. The last thing they need is him adding to their troubles. — Sapientia

Illegal immigrants should be out of the country though. The law is the law, and it must be respected. That's what justice is no? If someone does wrong and breaks the law, they deserve to be punished, and failing to punish them is a failure to do justice.

There's interview footage of him in 1999 calling them morons, and more recently, he said that poor people shouldn't play golf, but should aspire to be able to one day afford the privilege. Also, I know that he takes the typical hardline right-wing view on welfare, and I can't see him cracking down on big businesses and supporting workers. — Sapientia

Okay, but I don't take any of these remarks as seriously as you seem to. You seem to take what is a small matter and make it into something huge. Many of the remarks he has made are in specific contexts and have to be treated as such. Also you should remember that here is a man who often exaggerates when he speaks. Also you forget that he has said that people who can't take care of themselves must be taken care of - and that includes those who, because of poverty related circumstances, are unable to work.

Pah ha ha! This Dr. Carson? — Sapientia

Ummm what is wrong with Dr. Carson? I don't think Russell Brand has a point, he has totally missed the argument that Carson was making. And I agree with Carson - family is a pillar of society, and marriage is a religious institution, and should not be altered. Civil unions, etc. should be used for homosexual people, but marriage should remain, as it has traditionally been, a religious institution between a man and a woman. And this is not homophobic, and should not be made fun of. This humiliation of traditional views by the progressive media, especially by comedians, is extremely harmful. These people should understand that these are serious matters - not the stuff to make jokes about, or to laugh at people about. The fact that someone like Russell Brand treats this subject like this is morally reprehensible. I could likewise proceed to make fun of him for his lack of sufficient neurons to understand what homophobia is, and how homophobia is different from thinking that homosexual sex is wrong, or that marriage is a religious institution which must have religious laws.

Again - the fact that these people fail to respect conservatives, and to treat them with the dignity worthy of a human being, and to treat them as intelligent people, without insinuating that they are oppressive, or stupid etc. is very degrading. That's why we live in a society which is intolerant of conservative values, and conservative thinking. It's simply not cool to be a conservative because of what people like Russell Brand repeatedly do. So the only option is that us conservatives start making fun of, and degrading progressives, in the same way they are degrading us. There is no other way to win against this, because what is happening is that conservative views are discredited rhethorically, by making fun of them, which insinuates that conservative points aren't even worth thinking about seriously. This is the worst kind of assault that can happen on a piece of thinking. This is what Sophists do, and this is indeed buffoon behavior; instead of attacking the argument rationally, one makes fun of it, in an attempt to thereby brush it to the side.

And the disgraced brute and convicted rapist Mike Tyson? — Sapientia

Precisely because he is a brute, but he is also black, and Muslim, you would not expect him to support Trump a priori.

Trump refused to condemn actions taken and comments made by the Ku Klux Klan and one of its former leaders. — Sapientia

He did condemn them. He disavowed their support.

Of course not, but unlike Trump, I don't tar them all with the same brush, and I don't endorse proposals which would unjustly discriminate against them. — Sapientia

Depends. I've talked about this with quite a few Muslim friends, the thing is, a country, should ultimately have a right to decide who comes inside their borders, and they should be able to discriminate however they want. Of course citizens of the country should all be treated equally, but the people who come inside the country? I believe a country should be free to decide. I also believe that America banning Muslims would be ultimately America's loss, and even Trump has only proposed a temporary ban of Muslims who aren't citizens.

Would you have disrupted Hitler's rallies by appropriate protest actions, assuming you wouldn't have minded being taken out and shot afterwards? — Bitter Crank

No. I wouldn't disrupt anyone's rally. I would try to organise a different rally for protesters. Or, I would write and speak to people about my views, but not at the candidates' rally. Holding signs and asking questions is okay - but screaming, chanting, etc. is just rude at a rally which is meant to be for support.

Unless you're one of those rapey Mexicans or terrorist Muslims or inferior blacks or pesky poor. — Sapientia

Pesky poor? He has never spoken ill of the poor as far as I'm aware. Nor has he spoken badly about the blacks - quite the contrary he has said that the African-American youth is having a lot of problems that they need help with. Additionally he has been endorsed by quite a few important black people, including Dr. Carson, Mike Tyson (who by the way is also Muslim!), etc.

As for the Muslim terrorists and the rapey Mexicans (not all Muslims and/or Mexicans, just those qualified by the respective adjectives)... would you be FOR such people?

A ridiculous, ludicrous figure; a clown. I'd say that Trump fits the definition. Have you seen him on TV? Have you seen how he behaves and listened to what he has said? Have you read his controversial quotes? — Sapientia

He may sound out-landish and over the top with some things, but that's just how he is in the way he speaks. He simply talks that way, pure and simple, and anyone who has listened to his talks even before he ran for President knows this. I think overall he is a good man, he has defects, like all other people do, but I see nothing terribly malicious in him.

There are some things that are more important than money — Sapientia

Agreed.

IF a potential candidate is willing to admit wanting to punch a protester in the face or urge his supporters to aggressively oust someone from a public meeting--when making debut appearances as a candidate--THEN it doesn't bode well for the sort of responses he might have to citizens who might object en masse to something he has done. It doesn't speak well for Trump to have rather casually insulted so many people. — Bitter Crank

I agree, Trump encouraging violence at his rallies is something that is wrong. But that's not the whole man, so I'm willing to agree that this is something that is bad about Trump. There are also good things though, despite his encouragement of violence.

I said he leans toward the style of certain fascist dictators we have known and not loved — Bitter Crank

I wouldn't exactly go this far. He has shown a willingness to handle tough questions, and has not appeared to encourage violence against those who want to ask/argue. He has however encouraged violence against those who came there to disrupt his rallies and protest against him. He hasn't encouraged violence against everyone who disagrees with him, as a dictator would, but rather just those who interfere with his rallies. I guess, because he wants to keep the image of the tough guy, he wants to be totally in control of his rallies, and therefore wants to give a strong message to people: "don't interrupt my rallies". And in a way his point is correct (although using violence to make it is certainly wrong). People should not go to a rally meant to support a candidate in order to demean him. It's just rude. If you wanna protest, that's fine, but don't do it at a rally... the purpose of a rally is to support a candidate, not to have protests. So to a certain extent, people going there to protest were also asking for it. Nevertheless, I don't mean to ever justify the use of violence - he simply should not have encouraged violence. Ted Cruz, I believe, was right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmxBp4IFe_I

Trump is responsible for creating an environment that has encouraged violence from his supporters.

Indeed.

I don't think that's why Trump attracts much fire from the media. Much of American media leans to the right. I think that it's a similar situation to Britain in the late sixties, when there was a media backlash against Enoch Powell after his "Rivers of Blood" speech. He too had much popular support, even after the infamous speech, with a poll at the time suggesting that 74% of the UK population agreed with his opinions. Then too there was a left-of-center party in power. Then too there had been a recent economic crisis. Right-wing populism tends to gain popularity when the economy is suffering. The media backlash is an understandable and predictable reaction to controversy. And Trump is a buffoon that purposely stirs up controversy. The right-of-centre conservatives won the following election, by the way. — Sapientia

Funny that you say that a man who has done so well in business is a buffoon. Trump has always stood up for greatness, for believing in people, and for doing great work. And before the usual objection comes that he has done terrible in business and if he had invested in S&P500 stocks he would have had more money today - maybe that is true, but don't forget that Trump isn't someone who sat on his wealth, he is someone who has been actively involved in wealth management. Even to KEEP such wealth when you're investing it left and right the way Trump has been, even THAT is a huge achievement.

In recent times, there has been a surge in right-wing parties across Europe, which shouldn't come as much of a surprise, especially given the migrant crisis.

Yes, which is exactly what I am predicting as well. People are getting sick of how much communism and socialism have hurt our societies. People want to live the good life, and living the good life requires strong morality, and a society which fosters family life and all the other virtues, including confidence, faithfulness, integrity, courage, commitment, love-of-neighbor, personal responsibility, and freedom - virtues which by the way are required for good economic achievement. In 50 years time, Europe will switch back completely to its traditional virtues, I predict. And we will have a new golden age, where people live happily together in communities bound by friendships between families, and where the goal ceases to be personal career achievement.

First we had G.W. and that resulted in Obama and now we're getting Trump. I just see the pendulum that used to swing slightly left then slightly right swinging a bit more wildly.

I also think that the US political system is incredibly conservative by design, with so many checks and balances, that in times of turbulence, you end of with preservation of the status quo. As long as the Dems and the Republicans remain so far apart, nothing happens. — Hanover

That may be true politically, but culturally there has been a very large shift to the left. The left literarily dominates American culture. This is precisely why the media hates Trump but loves Bernie.

That it happens that socialism is becoming mainstream after all the red scares and propaganda on the issue of "communism" and "socialism"after only twenty-five years is a testament to the remarkable human spirit. — Question

No, I think this is simply a testament to human stupidity and failure to learn from history :)

I see the emergence of Bernie and Donald not to be a sign of the remarkable human spirit, but as evidence of the law of entropy in action. Why you can only see the left side of the ledger and not the right seems like selective analysis. — Hanover

Why do you see Donald that way?

No, the real arbiter of this is our natural reason. And our natural reason, if we anaylse it carefully, does indeed yield the conclusions that I have mentioned in this thread and in the other thread. Now you may disagree, if you do, you have to show where the reasoning presented is wrong. But keep in mind that what I have argued for, has, by and large, been argued for by literarily 80%+ of all thinkers historically. It's not just me saying this. Everyone has been saying this, all the major religions, all the major thinkers. If you want to present an argument against, please do so, but keep in mind that there's already a lot going against you.

Yes we all have some moral intuition when we are born, that is true. BUT, this moral intuition gets corrupted with time, unless we remind ourselves of the right principles. Anamnesis, as the Platonists called it :) This initial moral intuition that we have, just like all other abilities that we have, must be grown and developed with time. And this is the purpose of religion (for the masses) and philosophy (for those who have the time).

Without having such an intuition, we would never be able to discover moral right and wrong, as we do through religion and philosophy, neither would we be able to perfect our characters.

No, it isn't. It's redundant and often counter-productive. If you feel you need religion to determine what's right and wrong, then that's worrying. — Sapientia

I don't, but most people do. It is silly if you think that most people have the time and the intelligence required to discover moral right and wrong alone and by themselves without guidance. You don't expect people to discover Newton's laws of motion by themselves, why do you expect them to discover morality by themselves?? If science deserves to be taught in schools, then morality deserves to be taught EVEN MORE! So this progressive meme: "hurr hurr, we don't need religion to determine moral right and wrong, hurr hurr" is nothing but nonsense. It's like saying you don't need science textbooks to know and understand Newton's laws of motion. Yes you do!

And the separation of Church and State was relatively recent in history. The dominant role of the Church has a much longer history, and one which includes far more atrocities in the name of religion than the inquisition, so no, those committed in the name of Communism don't pale in comparison - they don't even compare. — Sapientia

Yes they do pale in comparison. You should be aware that without the Church, we wouldn't even have the society we do today. Single-handedly, the Church has probably been one of the most unifying forces in history. All the atrocities you cite (which by the way are mostly during the Inquisition, and are otherwise much fewer than you imagine) are mere footnotes to the good that the church has done.

Good, so despite the bad in religion, it is still the best option for society that we have, which is what I meant to say all along.

You are quite predictable, Agustino. No matter how many great things you claim of religion - some of which have some truth in them, some of which are exaggerated, one-sided, misleading, or even just plainly false - your claim that religion has a great track record is preposterous given it's exceedingly long track record of horror, backwardness and oppression. Hence my reaction. — Sapientia

What is this track record of horror, backwardness and oppression? 100 years of inquisition? What about the track record of secularism then? What about 100 years of communism? Count the number of people brutalised by the state, and this will make the Church seem as a small child!

It's true. Without religion there would be no morality in society. Philosophy works, but it works only for those who are very intelligent, and have a tremendous amount of free time to study and think. But the common people need to be taught morality by an institution which can guide them in their daily lives... they don't have time to study and to think, they're too busy with the affairs of life. And there's nothing wrong with this. But these people need moral principles and rules which will enable them to live a good life, a reasonable life, a life worth living. Leaving these people in the dark is not only stupid, it is extremely immoral and wrong. All the communists, because this is what communism is at heart, are the first people in history who have sought to systematically undermine religion, marginalise the historical moral values of people, and promote immorality and personal irresponsibility and disobedience among the masses. And in today's Western society, the communists have completely taken over the media, the education system, Hollywood, and our culture. This is a fact.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3338867/Universities-dominated-Left-wing-hate-mobs-Professor-says-free-speech-stifled-challenging-views-shouted-down.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10565264/Left-wing-thinking-still-prevails-in-schools.html
http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo1/kline.php
http://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/the-reason-why-hollywood-actors-are-predominantly-leftwing
etc. etc.

This is outrageous! Our moral values are undermined, day after day, and people are living worse lives, and suffering much more day after day. And everyday the media and Hollywood only advertises immorality - it is true. You cannot argue with this. And this is inadmissible - it has destroyed the lives of millions upon millions of people. Good men and women have to stand up - because the communists have for too long made communism sound and look cool. It is cool to cheat on your wife - it is cool to shag as many people as possible before marriage. We have to make conservatism cool again, so that people can stop being deceived by what looks attractive but is rotten at the core. If we don't, then we will not have a society anymore - Europe and the US will not exist anymore in 50 years. What I am saying here is the truth - look at the Roman Empire - the beginning of immorality was the beginning of collapse. An immoral society cannot exist. A society that isn't built around personal responsibility, family values, loving other people, and living a life of courage and integrity cannot survive. And religion is essential in doing that. It cannot be done without mobilising the strength of religion - the only force in history which has ever succeeded to teach people morals.

I am blessed to have had the free time required to study philosophy and study the entire history of human thought. And I have a responsibility to society because of this, to share the fruits of my investigations, and to be a light-bearer to the world. You may not feel the pressure of this responsability Sapientia. But I do. I cannot abandon these people in the darkness. I cannot abandon a man like this:

http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/what-open-marriage-taught-one-man-about-feminism.html

A man who is suffering greatly, and who feels like he has to suffer like this - that it is just that his wife do something like this to him, and that it is just for him to bear under it. I am here to protect these people, who cannot protect themselves, because of their low self-esteem, because they are financially dependent, or any other reason. I am here to make sure that these people recieve the human dignity and respect that all human beings deserve, regardless of race, color, religious views, etc. We have to stand up to this communist propaganda and reclaim our historical values, which have allowed human civilization to become what it is today. And people have been decieved by the media for the following reason: it is only the communists who have been interested in joining the media and joining politics. Good men and women have thought that they don't need to get involved to combat the radicals - after all, they were radicals, no one was going to believe them. But this, as Plato put it in his Republic - is how what is harmful befalls society - when good men become apathetic to what is happening in the polis.

People have to understand that these Hollywood values are values which were NEVER agreed to in the whole history of human thought - not by believers, not by atheists, not by anyone. I mean we have universities in the Western world, where left-wing hate mobs drive out anyone who speaks about religious or conservative values. We have universities where 50% or more of student leaders are LGBT. There is nothing wrong with some student leaders being LGBT, BUT, how is it possible that in universities where 85% of the student population is heterosexual, there are so many homosexual/lgbt leaders? I tell you how it is possible - the heterosexuals are no longer interested in politics. But the progressives militantly send their people into politics. The same with good men and women generally. Hollywood is producing left-wing propaganda because good men have been driven out, by force, out of their acting careers, by progressive extremists. It is seen as un-cool in Western society to express admiration and respect for moral values. No, if you don't bow down your head to the immorality and social anarchy promoted by the communists, you are labeled as backwards, and oppressive. If you think women should respect their bodies, you are labelled as a mysoginist. If you think that babies should be protected in their mother's womb, you're labeled as oppressive, and against woman healthcare.

These that I wrote about here - these are the real problems of the future. Not global warming. Not the rich becoming richer. But these. These are single-handedly the culprits of the evil we see in society, and of the suffering that people go through. This is why, you have women in this world, who waste their lives in promiscuity till they are in their 30s, and their bodies can no longer handle it, and they have no one to care about them, they have no one to love them, they have no one to be there for them, to care for them. This is an utterly sad and evil society, which poisons its people, and then leaves them to die in misery, at best stuffed with some prozac. And instead of fighting the root cause of the problem, the communists look to provide free pay to these women when they can no longer work. Or they want to give them free mental healthcare - the type of mental healthcare which, after they have ruined themselves, tells them "oh don't worry honey, you did your best, you just didn't find the right people, etc. etc.". This is not mental healthcare, this is humiliation and perpetuation of misery. Even psychology is controlled by left-wing extremists. As if providing free pay or free healthcare can somehow undo the violence that mis-education has done to them. You have to understand Sapientia, that people in the US, and in Europe too (although things in Europe always happen after they happen in the US, we will notice them in 15 years time), are starting to see through this marxist propaganda. They are starting to realise how they have been decieved to ruin their lives. To care about their careers, and not about their moral values. To care about money, and not about forming loving relationships with those around them. And this is why people are so angry.

Donald Trump is right. We have to stop being politically correct - this is exactly what the Marxists want us to do. To be politically correct, so they can keep destroying society. Good men and women need to get involved in politics, to get involved in culture, and to speak out against vice and immorality, and for virtue - the future of our society rests on our shoulders.

Where did liberte, egalite, fraternite originate, if not from the poor of Europe, or the anarchic tribes of Africa, America, Arabia, and Asia? — discoii

From the French Revolution, which by the way, for your information, was not started by the poor people. It was started by people like Georges Danton and Maximillien Robespierre (who by the way was the first to use the words liberte egalite fraternite) who came from well-to-do, respectable families - not wealthy, but nevertheless well-off, noble families. Robespierre's grandfather for example was a well-known lawyer at the time. So let's see how virtuous Robespierre was... yeah, he ordered people to be killed by the guillotine ...

We would not have even the proposition egalite if it weren't for poor people. — discoii

Nope, political philosophy, including the idea of equality, originated in the writings of rich people.

Vanderbilt and Carnegie — discoii

What does the Vanderbilt/Carnegie family own in the US today? :) They're not even in the billionaire list :) ...

These are not the actions of brilliant, virtuous individuals. — discoii

A leader has good and bad parts. People aren't perfect. Many of those leaders (including the Founding Fathers) were certainly much better than any of the modern leaders including Bush, Obama, Clinton, etc. This is after we include their defects in the analysis.

I repeat: no good political ideas that came out of the rich white men that founded the United States are there as ways to advance humanity as a whole, but these good ideas, free speech, religious freedom, originated from poor and oppressed peoples--not those assholes. — discoii

This is just historically false. Sorry to have to put it this bluntly. I understand that you may be upset, but it's just not true.

Once again, for the last 500 years of human history, the least trustworthy and the most brutal of all people were rich white men. Ideas that advanced humanity, brought humanity forward, were found among the poor and downtrodden, who conspired against them. They slowly incorporated these ideas, filtering out the good parts, and keeping them in name in legal form, while slowly forming an apparatus around them so that these human tendencies towards freedom can be controlled. — discoii

This is very socialistic, but I DOUBT even BC will agree with you, and we all know his motto is "workers of the world, unite!" :P ....

Again, this is simply untrue. The poor generally did not have the time to think and develop ideas. It's just the way things were. But most poor people through history have been respectful towards the rich, and have been grateful for what they had. Progressives like to throw stones at the rich, but if it wasn't for the rich, they wouldn't have anything they have today. They would still be playing with bows and arrows...

And I should be thankful for Newton, Leibniz, Wittgenstein, Hume? What of all the poor and dead thinkers, probably better thinkers--who knows?--whose potential was stifled through the hierarchy? — discoii

Yes, you should be thankful to those thinkers. The poor and dead thinkers that you want have never existed. Poor people work to get food, they don't have time to think. They were out there ploughing the fields, they didn't have time to sit down, learn to read and write, study philosophy, and develop ideas... You think the rich have a hatred for the poor or something. But this is not true...

There is nothing bad with this though. Being poor is not the worst thing that can happen. Lacking virtue is worse than lacking money.

No, what I was talking about was sexual morality. I was talking about the morality of certain sexual acts. Weren't you paying attention? I said that provided there's mutual consent, there's nothing wrong about, for example, sex outside of a relationship. That is, if a couple agree to have sex with other people, then there's nothing in itself wrong about that. What matters are the reasons behind that agreement and the foreseeable consequences, and they're not necessarily detrimental. — Sapientia

I've explained what is wrong with it, have you not read my previous post? Do you disagree with any of the points there? If so, why?

I reject your excessively narrow psychological interpretation of sex. It need not be about intimacy and growing together in love. If that's the way that you see it, then that's fine. But that's your personal view, and shouldn't effect those for whom it doesn't concern. If you expect that of a sexual partner, then by all means, make that clear to them before having sex with them. But otherwise, your view may be unwelcome for good reason. — Sapientia

It's not excessively narrow - I have taken into account both physical and psychological purposes of sex (excessively narrow would be saying sex is just for reproduction). And the purpose of sex is an objective statement by the way. This is the purpose not only for me, but for all people (whether they realise it or not), because it simply is the complete fulfilment of sexual potential, including the physical aspect (reproduction) and the mental one (intimacy). When you consider what sex is, you will inevitably come to this conclusion. So you are free to reject my view, but that is not an argument. Just a denial.

And by the way, my so called "narrow" interpretation of sex is the interpretation of most human beings who have ever lived. The fact that you and your progressive friends think differently about sex doesn't matter. You (progressives) are a blip in history, an accident. Millions before have thought just like me, and I can guarantee you that millions after me will think just like this, with this so called "narrow" interpretation. Of course you must be very arrogant to think that literarily everyone else's perspective is narrow, and only yours is "wide" and correct...

But you're wrong that I have no right to tell you if I feel judged. Talk about double standards! And you have clearly judged a group of people of which I might or might not be a part, so why deny it? — Sapientia

I expressed myself wrongly, my apologies. I meant that you feeling judged by my statement is just a feeling. It's not objectively valid to say that I have judged you personally, and so it's ridiculous to make that accusation from a rational point of view.

If you verify your information with credible sources, then I'll concede that it's not misinformation. But I doubt whether you can do so. And just because it doesn't encourage violence, at least explicitly, that doesn't mean that it isn't harmful. There are plenty of non-violent views and questionable or false information which is nonetheless harmful, and which would be seriously detrimental if widespread. This is the stuff that influences how we think and act and how we judge and treat people. It's important that we get it right, I'm sure you'll agree. Subjective opinion alone and prejudice are not good enough. Can you do better? You did mention objectivity, but I've yet to see any sign of it. — Sapientia

Let me give you objectivity. Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity all believe homosexual sex is immoral. This means that 90%+ of people who have ever lived historically have believed so. You must be very arrogant to believe, without any argument, that these people were all idiots, and you are the smart one. People from all corners of the Earth, independently of each other, have arrived at EXACTLY the same belief. People from different cultures, people of different races and ethnicities, people of all sorts of different backgrounds. You have to explain to me how people came to believe this falsehood in such large numbers, all independently from each other, from different corners of the world? Why don't people believe many other possible falsehoods? Then you have to tell me how some of the greatest minds who have ever lived, for example Schopenhauer, came to believe similar things as well, if such things are false. I'm going to enjoy seeing you try to disprove all of history, including some of the smartest people who have ever lived - it's certainly going to be fun to watch (and before you say it, I am aware of the Ancient Greek position on the issue, just to make that clear - nevertheless, this position remains a very very tiny minority, that nevertheless I respect - the Greeks at least had good arguments, which is why I consider homosexuality alone and of itself to be a minor vice compared to promiscuity for ex.)

As for promiscuity being bad. I won't even bother to prove the objectivity of this. Literarily all thinkers in history have believed this - believers and non-believers alike. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Kant, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein, etc. etc. literarily everyone, the smartest minds that have ever existed, the greatest people in history. It's such a joke that you say the opposite without bothering to provide any sort of argument.

Of course not. Don't be silly. I meant that it would be oppressive if people were to refrain from engaging in such sexual activity against their will and desire and good judgement. (Of course, you might not agree that it's good judgement). If they were to adopt such a moral standard, then they would be obliged to do so in order to be "virtuous". — Sapientia

Yes, but will anyone force them to adopt it? No. But I will tell them the truth. If they want to refuse the truth, they can do so, but they do it at their own peril. If someone wants to hurt himself, in the end there is nothing that others can do to stop him if he is determined to do it - and he is free to do it. That is the thing with freedom - you suffer the consequences of the choices you make! :)

Conservatives" have no monopoly on legal traditions. There are, side by side, liberal traditions and conservative traditions. Conservative courts are as likely to abolish someone's preferred traditional interpretation as liberal courts are. — Bitter Crank

There is no progressive tradition (at least not until the socialists like Marx). Such a thing does not exist. Liberal is a conservative word, applied to conservatives like John Locke, who thought that people should have individual freedoms for themselves. Of course this does not mean that traditions are not valuable and should not be kept, but rather that people should not be punished by law for disagreeing with them.

People living in it are unhealthy, in debt, and distracted by nonsense. How is that great? The fact is that it isn't all that great. There are greater places. I don't respect lies. — discoii

Yes it is not great anymore because it has lost virtue, and by losing virtue it has lost everything worth having. That's why people need a MORAL education first and foremost... they need to learn about the sins of gluttony for example, then they will no longer spend their money on food that makes them fat. They need to learn discipline, courage, integrity... then America will indeed be great again!

Of course it does. That's the difference between cheating and not cheating. Cheating is what makes it wrong. Without the cheating aspect, we're just left with your subjective waffle about it being a vice. Needless to say, I reject your assertions about it being a vice, so you're just wasting time with your tirade against vice from your presumed moral high ground. Once you've established that it's a vice, then I suspect I'll find your argument more compelling, but I won't be holding my breath. — Sapientia

No, what you're talking about is not sexual morality. Everything that involves another person should have the other's consent before going through. If I want to have dinner with you, I should get your consent before having dinner, and not force you. But I don't call that dinner morality - that would be stupid. So really, if consent is the only matter that you think is important for sexual morality, then in truth you are arguing for NO sexual morality whatsoever, and merely masking this.

As for sexual morality. Sex has two purposes; one physical (reproduction) and the other psychological (intimacy). Failure to meet at least one of those purposes is wrong, end of story. Promiscuous sex does not facilitate intimacy, and a growing together in love, and is therefore a failure to actualise the potential that exists in sex. Because one who engages in this 1. fails to fulfill the potential of sex, and 2. damages their mind by training it to become blind to the real potential of sex and 3. harms the other partner in the same way s/he harms himself, and 4. harms their own future committed partner and/or the future committed partner of the other person. Fact remains, that no rational person would sacrifice intimacy + pleasure for pleasure. Only an irrational, or at least a rational but ignorant person would do so.

Take a small child, and watch his development, to the age when he learns about sex. You will see, that a child finds it morally horrendous to think about having sex with someone if they don't love them, and are committed to them. Why? Because this is natural for human beings. The one who is seeking to impose extremist values on others is not me, but you. You should be aware that literarily 80%+ of thinkers, including atheists, have thought as I say about sex. Check out Epicurus for example. They don't make atheists like that anymore, do they? The man realised that consent isn't the only important matter when it comes to sex. The effect it has on your mind is more important - that's why Epicurus encouraged non-sexual relationships between people, because he understood the dangers of non-commitment.

Edit: I might add the Kantian argument here which is also valid:

1. It is wrong to use another person solely as a means for personal satisfaction - this objectifies them, and treats them as an object and not a person.
2. Promiscuous sex involves using another person for personal satisfaction, treating them effectively as a temporary object to help one gain something (pleasure) for themselves.
THUS: promiscuous sex is wrong, as it objectifies the other person, and does not lead to the spiritual/psychological betterment of the other, as sex in a committed relationship would.

The facile objection that having sex involves giving the other person pleasure as well won't cut it. Why? Because the intention is to use the other to get pleasure for yourself, the fact that the other may also enjoy it is only of secondary concern to you, and ultimately accidental if it happens. Committed sex on the other hand treats the person not as a means to an end, but rather as an end in itself - through having sex you seek unity with that person.

I did clearly state that it's not good for people to BE (or feel) oppressed. I said so because neither are good, and to emphasise that even if you don't advocate oppression by force, the mental oppression caused by judgementalism is still concerning, especially if unwarranted, as it is in this case. — Sapientia

I have a freedom to express my thoughts about any subject, including the morality or immorality of homosexuality and/or anything else, and you have no right to tell me that I should hold my thoughts to myself - neither do you have a right to tell me you feel judged, because I have not judged you or anyone else. I have just made a statement. If the statement makes you feel bad, perhaps your conscience is telling you something...

It's wrong because it's harmful misinformation. — Sapientia

In your opinion it's misinformation, that is one, and secondly, does it encourage violence towards anyone? No, it encourages respect towards everyone including homosexuals, but takes a moral stand on homosexual sex, thereby teaching people morality. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, in fact there would be something wrong if we did not teach other fellow men morality.

Are you implying that whether or not they're married isn't important, but that whether or not they're "married" (i.e in a committed relationship) is important? — Sapientia

Yes.

I also find it odd that you so readily agree that the respective genders of the couple aren't important. That implies that you don't think that gender effects whether or not the relationship is virtuous. — Sapientia

Gender is important, but not as important. That's why I've said that I consider homosexual sex to be a relatively small vice, compared to the danger of a vice like promiscuity.

If you don't think that gender is important, then how, in your view, would a same-sex relationship be virtuous? Must they refrain from any sexual activity with each other? That would indeed be oppressive, not to mention utterly wrongheaded. — Sapientia

I don't think this, but I fail to see how it would be oppressive if I thought so. You think two people who are attracted to each other cannot be attracted to each other without having sex?? They cannot have a satisfying relationship without sex?

Here's the thing: America has almost never been 'great' for brown people or most poor white people. So, the benefits that you received have almost all gone to you and no one else. I'd advise you drop the entire notion of America being great. America was built on the back of slaves, and today it is profiting off the back of world-slavery. People living in it are unhealthy, in debt, and distracted by nonsense. How is that great? The fact is that it isn't all that great. There are greater places I don't respect lies. — discoii

Yes it has. There's many brown, black, Asian and all other colors and races that have done well in America. The period of slavery was an unfortuante period in history, but you cannot keep blaming that forever from now on for the condition of people. Slavery has ended. And some people have done amazingly well. There's many black millionaires in the US, people of color, people who have worked really hard to do something great for themselves and for their communities. There are many black people today who aren't doing well - that is true. But that to a large degree is the result of the environment they have grown in, combined with the wrong choices that they have made.

As for scientific advances, you can't just stroll on down and give all credit to rich white people. These advances came from thousands of years of effort from people globally, and didn't require divine right rule, slavery, or any of that other nonsense to come into fruition. — discoii

Well these advances did come from rich people, full stop. Only rich (not white, but rich - we've had some amazing geniuses coming from other parts of the world, especially China, India and the Middle East) people have ever had the time to be thinkers and scientists. Everyone else has been pre-occupied with the jobs of daily life, and this isn't something bad - the world can't be full of scientists and nothing else. So you should at least be thankful for these people, and realise that a large part of the good that you share in today is due to rich people. Sure, rich people have also done a lot of harm to the lower social classes, but that doesn't mean there was no good.

Because we don't live in 1776 anymore and it turns out that almost every idea rich white people had were bad ideas that should be shredded and thrown into a nuclear waste dump? — discoii

I hear this childish remark all the time: we don't live in 1776, or we don't live in the Middle Ages anymore, etc. etc. Of course. But what does this have to do with our conservative tradition, which is what made us great in the first place? You know, without those rich white people that you hate, you wouldn't even have the nuclear waste dump to throw their ideas into. Where has the respect gone in today's world?

People somehow think this is a shut-down answer. It has been a progressive meme for far too long, and it's absolutely stupid. Just because we're not in 1776 doesn't mean I should stop using Newton's laws when designing a house! In fact, quite the contrary, I should use them, because they are working and they have a great track record. So does religion, so do our traditional values, which by the way, were endorsed by 90%+ thinkers in history, including atheists, very important.

Why do you think that virtually all the major religions have promoted the same values? (for example, all religions see homosexual sex as immoral and damaging to the one who engages in it... yes, even Buddhism, and progressives have been very annoyed when Dalai Lama has stated this). Why has Epicurus, Lucretius, and the atheists promoted virtually the same values as the religious people across the whole world? You know why? Because those values work, and those values make our societies work. Without virtue, nothing, all the stars and the galaxies of this universe, all the plants, the animals and the beautiful people, all is as nothing!

Yes, the SCOTUS is key, and it needs a couple more liberal judges, at least. By "liberal" i mean, understanding that the constitution was framed in 1776, the founders addressed the situation as they saw it in 1776 (figuratively speaking), and 200+ years later, possibly -- just possibly -- new circumstances abolish old certainties. By "liberal" I mean taking the position that corporations are not persons with rights to behave as they wish; that individuals and organizations who control a great deal of money shouldn't be able to sped any amount of money as they see fit on political campaigns. And so on... — Bitter Crank

Traditions should not be abolished for foolish reasons. What reasons do we have to put in "liberal" judges?

It was twenty-five years ago America defeated communism and any ideas of socialism with it. Yet, here we are today with a serious Democratic candidate arguing, successfully, for socialism in America. Isn't that rather amazing? I find this relieving as opposed to the rather constant pessimism hereabouts about the human spirit/condition/nature.

Times are changing for America, possibly for the better?

EDIT: Wow, I must be high. I first wrote 16. Had to revise that to 25. I guess I can't do math. Haha. — Question

I find it sad that some Americans have failed to learn from the Soviet experiment with socialism and communism. Alas, I think it's safe to say that Bernie Sanders stands virtually no chance to win against Hillary, or in the general election. This flirtation with socialism is a one-time event.

It is certainly the case that the West (and much of the world) has been undergoing a large shift in the norms of social, sexual, marital, behavior and fulfillment. — Bitter Crank

I think this isn't so true about the rest of the world. If you look at countries like Brasil, China, Russia, etc. you're seeing a shift back towards traditional values nowadays. It's only Europe and parts of the US which are different. Again, I don't think this is anything more than a blip in history. In fact the US I think is slowly going to turn back to traditional values. I don't think either Hillary or Bernie are going to win in the US. What's happening at the moment is that the media and Hollywood is largely controlled by "liberals" (I put it in quotation marks, because liberal never used to mean "leftist"; rather it was a word applied to conservatives like John Locke) who are extremely vocal. In fact, this has always been the weapon of socialists, and social reformers - a lot of screaming, which makes a small minority appear as the majority. There's a large majority of people that is not represented by these people and is at the moment being unheard and ignored.

Being born homosexual (and later electing what to do with it) frequently carries with it the cost of not passing on one's genes. Of course, with technology or by a willing suspension of disbelief, a gay man can father children. Lots of gay men have--though probably many of them were actually bisexual. I've thought about that. It isn't necessary that everyone pass on their genes. With 7+ billion genetic donors, we will somehow have to survive without mine. Would I have made a good father? Now--with maturity and the settled mind of early old age, yes. But I was in way too much turmoil not related to sexuality at all when I was of the usual breeding age. Everyone was better off by me dealing with my own mishegas and not getting married. I didn't set up a happy gay home with Bob until I was 36, and that lasted for just about 30 happy years (cancer ended it).

I haven't been fulfilled a good share of my life -- I didn't fulfill the potential of my nature -- not my sexual nature (that got fulfilled in spades) -- which I think was to be a somewhat contemplative change agent who early on gravitated toward leftist politics. I didn't fulfill this feature because, putting it succinctly, I didn't know how. Now I know how, but am running out of steam. That's life, again.

There wasn't much missing my long term relationship. It was strictly voluntary (no marriage vows holding it together), it had the "deep intimacy that can exist between loyal and faithful lovers" per your description. I also had along the way quite a few short relationships which I would not want to have missed -- I would not want to have missed your dreaded promiscuous sex, either -- it was just great more often than not.

It should be obvious to you, but the thing that keeps most gay men from marrying women and having children is a near total lack of interest in the female body. Gay men having sex with often just doesn't work well. — Bitter Crank

Well BC, thanks for sharing your story, I'm sorry to hear about the loss of your partner. There's elements of good in every life, and I am sure you have developed a lot of good traits going through what you have gone through, and in the end character is what matters. However, neither of us can know how things would have ended had you decided to get married to a woman and have children - but I would wagger that now you would have felt more fulfilled than you currently say you feel. Alas, I am not in a position to judge you or your life - first of all I am younger than you, and I generally hold older people in respect, and second of all you have a right as all people do to make your own choices and bear their benefits and/or consequences that they bring.

You are not permissive toward sexual behavior. — Bitter Crank

I think this is untruthful. I have said numerous times that people should have the freedom to decide what to do in sexual matters for themselves. This of course does not mean that all decisions are equally good, and it does not mean that everyone will make the right decision. However, it is precisely for this reason, and we can both agree that sexuality plays a very important role for well-being, that sexual morality must be one of the most important topics of discussion.

You, however, have not achieved the nonexistent ultimate in human existence. You just achieved your best. — Bitter Crank

I don't think the ultimate in human existence doesn't exist or is unachievable (Socrates, by and large, is an example of achieving that). But I do agree that I haven't achieved it yet.

If you you like being gay, then engage politically to protect yourself and your brothers from predatory legislators who have nothing better to do with their time in office but to harass homosexuals. — Bitter Crank

Which is a pity, because those who do violence to homosexuals literarily force homosexuals to become even more homosexual in their desires. What should instead happen is that a moral argument is put forth, and people allowed to decide for themselves.

And don't forget to militate against the right wing preachers who think it is Christlike to specialize in denouncing gay sexual toothpick sins (which they presumably are not involved in) while ignoring the barked logs of corporate and individual sins -- greed, hypocrisy, predatory lending, environmental devastation, war, et al. — Bitter Crank

I do tell these people when I meet them that it does no good either to them or to homosexuals to denounce them - certainly it doesn't convince homosexuals to change their ways. No violence can, only reasonable argument and loving discussion can do that.

That's what they said about masturbation. They lied. — Bitter Crank

Masturbation does blind you as well to a certain extent... not as much as other forms of vice though.

Oh come now! People talk about sex, politics, and religion all the time. What circles are you traveling in where all this isn't talked about? — Bitter Crank

Yes but not serious talk. The make fun of sex, politics and religion very often. The favorite subjects of comedians unfortunately. But serious talk about either three is very rare, because it makes people uncomfortable.

I din't say anything about the state raising the child. I think it is the parents' job (emphasis on the plural there) to raise their child(ren). I think the state should encourage procreation among married partners, because that objectively seems like the best setting for successful childrearing. It can do this by such things as mandating maternity leave, paternity leave, prenatal care, tax rebates, and the like. I'm not interested in having the state open up baby farms. — Bitter Crank

It's good to see you think this way :)

We don't agree on the morality of promiscuity, of course. But we both favor a moral approach to sexuality. — Bitter Crank

Sure we don't. I cannot agree with it after the number of people I have seen being destroyed by it, the number of people who just did it because they didn't know any better - they didn't recieve a good education about it, because society doesn't discuss it anymore.... Also my whole study of human history reveals that promiscuity has always been socially dangerous and ultimately goes against man and woman's own nature and best interest. This includes atheistic, non-religious philosophers such as Epicurus and Spinoza, and includes absolutely all of the world's religions. I think it's quite safe that the vast majority of people, whether religious or not, have historically agreed to this. Not to mention that the investigation of my own soul allows me to understand how promiscuity can initially seem tempting to some, upon thorough investigation one can see that it is a poison for the soul.

Well, don't know about you, but intercourse has always been a physical function for me and my partners. Of course there is a critical psychological piece too. — Bitter Crank

I think that when intercourse becomes a physical function we have lost what is most important in it.

That is why vice is dangerous - it blinds one to its effects until it is too late...

Discussing and teaching people sexual morality is not policing. They are free to do what they want. But surprisingly, you will find that when you talk to people about these matters and explain it to them, it helps them live better and make wiser decisions.

There's only 3 important topics which can make or break your life but not many in the West find it "polite" to discuss them. Sex, Politics and Spirituality. People who do wrong in these 3 fields hate being criticised or shown that they are wrong. Of course this only causes them to go to their own destruction...

Hi BC, thanks for your replies!

It is presumptuous for you to flatly claim that someone may think themselves fulfilled but actually not be fulfilled. "Feeling fulfilled" is a subjective experience. If I say I have fulfillment, you pretty much are obligated to accept the statement -- unless you have substantial evidence that I am self-deceived. Objectively, or at least less subjectively, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, and not least--homosexuals themselves--think they achieve fulfillment in life and regularly perform various social roles with the same success as heterosexuals. NOTE: this formulation allows room for flat out failure, which a proportional percentage of people, both homosexual and heterosexual, achieve. — Bitter Crank

I don't think fulfilment is only about a subjective experience. Again, this simply is not how we use the word in our daily language. We don't say that the drug addict is fulfilled, even though, according to his remarks he is. Neither do we say the psychopath is fulfilled, even though, according to his own remarks, he is. There are certain objective standards which have to be met, as well as accompanied by the subjective experience to call someone fulfilled. Among these standards are that the person should strive to learn more and develop their mind, develop their body to its full potential, form meaningful and lasting relationships with those around them, grow and cultivate character, do good for their community, form (or seek to form) a strong family and have children, help those in need, etc. - and someone who does not fulfil those standards is not fulfilled, regardless of how they feel about it. These standards come from the very nature of what it means to be human - what a human's potentials are. Someone fulfilled is someone who fulfills the potential of his nature. So a homosexual according to this will satisfy his desire for pleasure by having homosexual sex but at the cost of neglecting his potential to have a family with a woman, have a child which is his own, and possibly at developing the kind of deep intimacy that can exist between loyal and faithful lovers.

There does seem to be a belief among some heterosexuals that it is women's job to keep men under control. I don't recollect hearing that in traditional wedding ceremonies. — Bitter Crank

I don't think it's their job, but it's certainly shameful if their men cheat on them, and they don't do anything about it, especially when it happens repeatedly like in Hillary's case. She should have divorced Bill long ago. Any sensible woman would have. You have to be a self-serving snitch, looking only for personal interest and money not to.

My guess is that plentiful sex (even among the boys) is probably as beneficial to mental health as a strong interest in morality is. — Bitter Crank

Plentiful sex in a committed relationship is very beneficial, and people should not avoid having it. Rather than search for promiscuous sex, why not search for a meaningful relationship and do your own self a favor? Why would you hurt your own mind? This is not about eliminating what is good, but rather eliminating what is bad and keeping what is good.

I think there is a moral issue in having children outside of marriage: "Will the child be adequately cared for by both partners for at least the first 18 years of life?" — Bitter Crank

Well, as all other socialists, you seem to think that the state, or a single parent, can provide adequate care for the child. I will say that it is possible for a single parent to (not for the state), but very difficult. Someone who, after having a child, does not marry that person, therefore commits himself to a very risky position, and thus threatens the well-being of the child.

If one spends ones days doing nothing but fucking OR doing nothing but contemplating morality, the results will be equally unfortunate. One of them will at least be more amusing. — Bitter Crank

Both of them are equally harmful. The navel gazer is just as pitiful as the promiscuous man.

Sexual activity, per se, is first a physical function without any moral implications. It gains moral reproach or approval as a result of additional considerations. — Bitter Crank

Intercourse is never a physical function, it is, first and foremost, a psychological one.

and single people can not gain practical experience in sexual behavior without having sex. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, that's why single people would do well and get in a committed relationship so that they can learn, together with their partner, and grow together through their sexual exploration, as well as through other means.

Or, it might mean that people with sexual experience should be franker about what they want in a partner and what they, themselves, can deliver BEFORE they marry. Or it might mean that a virtuous relationship will require agreement to one or both partners having sex outside of the relationship (practically this probably won't work well). — Bitter Crank

Committed relationships are not business transactions. You're interested in a person as they are, not in getting "what you want". What you want should be to know another person deeply to begin with.

Promiscuous sex makes sense for gay men (in most parts of the world) because there is absolutely no support for declared gay partnerships--because many people think gay sex is, per se, immoral. The same people are likely to doubt the goodness of homosexuality as a state of being, tolerable only if there is no expression of the state of being -- something that is definitely harmful to the mind. — Bitter Crank

Agreed, and this is unfortunate.

Single heterosexuals who can't find a suitable mate have little choice but to be promiscuous. If morality views unmarried heterosexuality the same way it views homosexuality -- OK as a state of being, but if not, don't express heterosexuality behaviorally -- then "morality" just adds to the sum-total of misery in the world. — Bitter Crank

This is false. They do have a choice, which is to look for a suitable mate. To develop relationships with others, and to focus their single time on developing themselves and becoming virtuous people, so that when the right person comes along, they will be at their best. Alternatively there is masturbation for relieving sexual tension that cannot be otherwise controlled, which is less harmful than promiscuous sex.

Marriage is a social arrangement — Bitter Crank

I disagree. Marriage is a psychological (or spiritual) arrangement between two people first, and only secondly a social arrangement.

Sex among single people is not a moral failing. — Bitter Crank

It is, because they train their minds with the wrong habit, to associate sex with mere pleasure as opposed to intimacy and growing together with another person. Thus they make themselves blind to the potential that sex has, and in so doing ruin their lives. I have known many people, especially women, who are having trouble having any sort of meaningful relationship because of their past promiscuity. They only realise that now - long after. But it just follows to show that virtue is its own reward, and vice is its own punishment. These matters are serious matters BC. It's got nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with well-being. Ancient peoples were firmly against promiscuous sex, even those that were not religious (Epicurus one simple example). Why? Not only because you could have an unwanted child, but because of the effect it would have on your mind. Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus repeatedly reproach it. We need to organise society in a way that takes these matters into account. Not by letting everyone free without any instruction, that's what the West has done for the last 100 years, and look where we are! We're more miserable than ever. Not by encouraging them to have as much sex as possible with random people to gain "experience". That's what got us where we are. We must provide our young people with good instruction and ideals to aspire to, we must teach them about virtue and morality, and we must be compassionate towards their failings, as they will inevitably fail at first.

If we do this, we will be less likely to have people completely broken down in their early 30s, alone, with no one to care for them, and totally confused, with nothing to look forward to. It's not acceptable that so many are suffering because of this. And it's a simple matter - all it takes is a little moral education. In the Western world people recieve 0 moral education nowadays. That's not right. It's got to change if we are to have a society at all.

We've created Tinder and all sorts of insanities, would it not be better if we focused the same brains that created Tinder on creating ways for people to get together in committed relationships? That way people would have as much sex as possible (which by the way is good), and also fulfil the other needs of their nature.

That's a non sequitur. Marriage isn't necessary to have non-promiscuous relationships. Imagine a married couple without the marriage. — Sapientia

A committed relationship counts as marriage for me, in the spirit, if not in the letter. In fact, in ancient times, people were married quite often when their families declared them married :) . I don't see the need of a Church to institute marriage. Marriage is spiritual, first and foremost.

But I don't see anything wrong with casual sex or sex outside of a relationship or sex outside of marriage, provided there's mutual consent — Sapientia

Mutual consent or not doesn't change the wrongness of it. It is wrong because participants who engage in it hurt their own psyche, in ways that prevent them from fully enjoying intimacy. Sex has the potential to bring people together, but misused, it just shuts one inside of themselves even more. Someone who has sex without being committed loses out. Also, promiscuous sex betrays a character defect - it shows someone who cannot control their passions, and does not respect their body and mind and is easily lured by easy pleasure. In the end, Sapientia, regardless of what you think, virtue is its own reward, and the virtuous man, as Socrates said, "cannot be harmed, either in life or in death!". Or as Jesus said, "seek first the Kingdom of Heaven [Virtue] and ALL things shall be added unto you". Or to come back to Socrates: "Wealth does not bring about excellence, but EXCELLENCE MAKES WEALTH AND EVERYTHING ELSE GOOD FOR MEN, both individually and collectively". It is not sex that is bad, but the lack of virtue that underlies promiscuous sex that is bad. And if you think it's otherwise, then I think you are decieved and under the spell of an illusion, so I advise that you think carefully about this. By abandoning virtue, a man or a woman abandons that which makes everything else good in this world. That is why the first Biblical commandment was: "have no other Gods before me" - because virtue (God) makes ALL other things good, and nothing can be good without virtue.

It's good for society not to discourage this sort of freedom — Sapientia

No, it's good for society not to discourage any kind of freedom. People should be free to make their choices simply because, as I said before, moral excellence cannot be achieved without the possibility of moral failure. This is ofcourse not to mean that people should not feel the weight of moral decisions. I cannot be an excellent husband if I am somehow forced by circumstance not to cheat. On the other hand, I am an excellent husband when the possibility of cheating exists, and I freely refuse it. Nevertheless, this does not preclude moral education and teaching others about the dangers of promiscuous sex.

and it's good for people to have this freedom and not be or feel oppressed or judged by the narrow-minded. — Sapientia

Not to "feel" oppressed? There we have it. You're not worried about them BEING oppressed, you want them to not FEEL oppressed. So if I tell a man who enjoys promiscuity that he is harming his own mind, would that oppress him? Of course not. But he may FEEL oppressed. The only way to prevent him from feeling bad is to keep him under his moral blindness, and I, Sapientia, am not willing to do that. You may be willing, but I have a responsability towards my fellow human beings, to advise them to think carefully about their lives, and take care of their bodies and minds. You may not want people to think, because thinking may hurt, but I think the rewards of thinking outweigh the initial pain. As for you thinking that this is narrow minded - not at all. I accept that people can choose differently, but I will warn them that they do so at their own peril.

It is wrong to believe as you do if the belief is wrong. — Sapientia

So it's morally wrong to believe that there's a lion in the adjacent room (when there really isn't one)? We were trying to discuss moral right and wrong there, so please don't equivocate :)

And if you were not equivocating, and you used them both in the sense of moral wrong, then please explain to me what is morally wrong about the belief I put above? What is morally wrong in thinking homosexual sex harms the participants, regardless of what they think?

morally damaging and repugnant; and it's the latter sense in particular which angers and offends me, which is why I said that I don't want to know. — Sapientia

Why is thinking morally repugnant to you?

What matters in that scenario is not the gender of those in the relationship, nor whether or not they're married, nor whether they live together, nor the legth of the relationship. What matters is whether or not the relationship has been virtuous, and whether those involved have been faithful and loyal for the right reasons. — Sapientia

Correct!

Character doesn't just mean being loud and obnoxious and arrogant and acting like a clown. — Sapientia

Of course it doesn't, and in some of those points Donald Trump (though not Ted Cruz) is lacking.

The term "illegitimate child" is outdated and offensive. That the child was born outside of marriage is not in itself morally wrong or even morally relevant, despite it seeming otherwise to people inside their little bubble of old-fashioned discrimination. — Sapientia

Why? Do you think promiscuity is a virtue that should be encouraged? Is it good for our society for people to be promiscuous?

I am somewhat curious why you think that homosexual acts are harmful to those who engage in them, but I don't even want to know your answer. — Sapientia

I simply think that ultimately homosexuality can't lead to flourishing and fulfillment, even though someone who feels homosexual urges may THINK otherwise. I believe someone's well-being is ultimately an objective matter, which does not depend on what one himself thinks. A miser is still miserable, even if he feels happy - the happier he feels in fact, the more miserable he is.

And for not wanting to know my answer. Do you mean that it is wrong to believe as I do? Do you think that I am any less worthy as a human being because I believe so? I think morality, and by that I mean traditional morality plays an essential role in the well-being of society. So many people are suffering today because they have forgotten what is most important: virtue. That's why there are so many people who are very angry in the US election. They have been decieved over and over, they have been promised the good life over and over, but it never got delivered to them. The more our culture has pushed for cultural relativism, the more unhappy our people have become. And moral knowledge has nothing to do with intolerance. I can believe that abortion is wrong, and a woman who decides to have an abortion has committed a grave moral mistake, and STILL hold that women should have the right to have abortions because the state has no right to enforce morality - because, afterall, there can be no moral excellence without the possibility of moral failure. In fact, what is wrong with people like Sanders isn't that they're fighting for freedom of choice - but rather that they are not upholding a moral stance on things while fighting for freedom of choice.

Having said all this, I think homosexuality is a relatively minor vice compared to promiscuity for example, which is both more rampant and a much more serious problem. I respect for example, the Ancient Greeks, who thought well of homosexuality. And I don't think homosexuality is anywhere near close to lust and promiscuity in endangering someone's own well-being.

I mean, if I saw two homosexuals who were married and have lived with each other faithfully their whole lives, I would see something to applaud - the virtues of loyalty, faithfulness and integrity are much more important than sexual orientation.

My position on your position depends on whether you are against homosexuality the state of being, or the sexual actions of homosexuals exclusively. — Baden

The latter. The former is impossible to agree to, because I can see someone having homosexual tendencies and not giving in to them, and I would think such a person has made the right moral choice, even though it is difficult.

I asked you to realise that there is a difference between assessing the morality of homosexual sex which is a purely objective question, and answering the question of how homosexuals should be treated. I can easily believe that homosexual sex is wrong, and someone who engages in homosexual sex harms themselves first and foremost, even if they do not realise this. — Baden

Yes I did mean this.

So, I agree with the liberal that we should be free to do what we want with our bodies as long as we are in consent. I disagree that others have to like it or that we all have to like each other. — Baden

I agree to this as well :)

Yeah, how about we check out what Putin thinks:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/putin-no-major-gaps-with-washington-over-efforts-to-end-syria-conflict/2015/12/17/a178255e-a431-11e5-8318-bd8caed8c588_story.html

Yes homophobia is wrong in my view. Discriminating against people because of their sexual preference is wrong. As is going to conferences and shaking hands with people who think homosexuals deserve to be executed. That's not only wrong, it's disgusting — Baden

So your refusal to be friends with X person because you don't like their character is wrong because it discriminates against them? Do I discriminate against gay people when I refuse to date them?

The truth is, I didn't even ask you about discrimination. I asked you to realise that there is a difference between assessing the morality of homosexuality, which is a purely objective question, and answering the question of how homosexuals should be treated. I can easily believe that homosexuality is wrong, and someone who is a homosexual harms themselves first and foremost, even if they do not realise this. At the same time, I can also believe that homosexuals must be treated with dignity and respect, as all others human beings must be, and their choice, even if it is a mistake, must be respected.

This to me is the most important aspect. We must treat each other with respect, dignity and compassion, but thinking must remain free to judge what is right and wrong. We cannot say, as liberals do, that thinking about the morality of homosexuality is wrong, and this question is off limits, and must be answered a priori in the affirmative, that homosexuality is morally correct. This has led us as a society to become morally blind, and this is why so many people are angry in the US at the moment.

So thinking that homosexuality is morally wrong is not homophobia (and if you think that's homophobia then you're morally blind). Homophobia is doing violence to homosexuals and treating them as less than human beings; not recognising their right to make their choices and be who they want to be so long as they do not harm others.

As for Cruz, his homophobia is no better than Trump's fascism in my book. — Baden

So thinking homosexuality is immoral is wrong? Why? Cruz accepts that there are homosexuals, and it is their right to be homosexuals, but nevertheless believes that people who make this choice are harming themselves first and foremost. Of course people should have the freedom to make mistakes, including moral mistakes, but that does not mean that we cannot have sensible moral discourse around those mistakes. That's one point. The other point is that if I am a priest, and I do not want to marry two homosexuals, then I should not be forced to. Marriage is a religious institution, and so long as homosexuals want to marry in a church, they have to obey the requirements of the church.

Trump and Ted Cruz are the only great people running for President in the US.

Sanders and Hillary both have no character, and cannot build a great nation. Hell, they can't even build a family... one of them having an illegitimate child, and the other can't even keep her husband in control. What a sham...