You don't create movements in America by running for office. America has an unjustified faith in its electoral system. Most people think voting actually matters in America. Apart from certain local elections and ballot-based issue voting, it really doesn't. Americans don't really understand how to street organize in a sustainable way, at least not since the 1960s (and early 70s), and even then, that 'organizing' was nothing compared to the Wobblies and the Communist Party in its heyday, and of course no where near where Eugene Debs, the Railway workers, early Teamsters, and so on. This was deliberate, of course: the masters of organizing people are communists, and America has since thrown the commies out and left a no-trespassing sign.

Either communism or bust, that's the lesson. Communists, millions and millions of them, is what we need.

Every single foreign policy decision Hillary has made has resulted in massive instabilities, worse off conditions for the people, tens of thousands of deaths. This is the Kissinger-mind. So, no one can possibly claim she has been a good secretary of state, nor that she has ever been correct with any foreign policy decision she has ever made.

I find Hilary's ties to Walmart deeply concerning, but that's probably just my inherent sexism at play. Sometimes I forget that being a woman grants immunity to fair criticism. Poor old Thatcher, eh? Entirely the innocent victim of sexism, rather than the recipient of rightful condemnation.

Without Walmart, the American mouth-breather would be thoroughly fucked. Just imagine when president Trump puts a 45% duty on all of those Chinese goods. As for Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State I see no parallel with Kissinger whatsoever. Too bad the Arab Spring turned out to be a disaster, but I don't see any resemblance between Kissinger and Clinton.

Without Walmart, the American mouth-breather would be thoroughly fucked. — photographer

Who's saying that we should get rid of Walmart? I'd be quite content with a reformed Walmart that doesn't treat it's employees so poorly. But that wouldn't erase it's notorious track record and Hilary's involvement.

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...

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.

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.

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.

Okay, let's not get off topic here. Didn't Hillary murder someone in those dark days at the Rose Law Firm? Isn't she under investigation by the FBI? Didn't Putin laugh at her dog imitation? Putin knows how to handle homos, and Chechens.

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

I remember an interview with Clinton on some big news program around 2011. She was asked directly whether the US had any role in funding ISIS, (back when people noticed how well funded and armed they were). She answered that the situation on the ground was very complex and it was hard to know how people were aligned and who received the money. That immediately brought to me the definition of a "traitor" as someone who knowingly gives aid or comfort to the enemy, (and I made the distinction that since the US is in a "war on terror", terrorists like ISIS would fit the definition as the "enemy"). It was part of a long line of incidents where the administration had gone headlong into war, even with huge resistance from the US populace. They hit Libya, (my oil company friends saw it as an attempt to take over their oil reserves while Europe was back home avoiding the violence). They wanted to hit Syria really bad and made a tough case on chemical weapons, but when 95% of the US public refused, they had to back down temporarily. From what I read, there was no interest in helping out Syrians, the US just wanted to get a strategic hold on one of the main entry points for Russian oil. It was essentially a "proxy war", especially when the Russians started bombing anti-Asad groups, (including the very groups the US had funded). As a pacifist, I realized there was no way I could ever vote for Clinton.

I know that a lot of people who are critical have misogynist tendencies. I think I can call myself exempt, since I'm probably going to vote for the same candidate I voted for last election -- Dr. Jill Stein. She is the only one left who seems interested in ending the war which is the *real* reason the US is being drawn into debt. Every war ever fought by the US drained the treasury, and this "war on terror" is the longest war the US has ever been involved in, (if you don't count the "Cold War").

As for Trump, well when he said he wanted to have a database of Muslims, a lot of us thought we should sign up. Maybe someday, we could get gun owner databases and police shooting databases built, (I even thought of writing the code for that database). When he said we should wear special symbols, most Muslims I know didn't mind that either. In a way, wearing a headscarf, or having a beard is already a symbol for that purpose. Then he wanted to stop immigration, even deport American-born Muslims. Well, I've left the country before, and I suppose if Trump were president, I would want to leave the country anyway before he sells all his supporters out. But then it gets surreal, with him praising someone who, (fictionally), shot Muslims with bullets dipped in pigs blood, or another time when he said he would kill the relatives of Muslims to send a signal -- and of course, the coward immediately backed down on all of that.

My criticism was directed against Ted Cruz, particularly in light of his flirtation with hate preacher Kevin Swanson. My position on your position depends on whether you are against homosexuality the state of being, or the sexual actions of homosexuals exclusively. The word "homosexuality" is used to describe both or either. If it's the former then your position would be no better than thinking being black is immoral or inferior as in:

{ You didn't say what follows but it would be no better than saying }>>I asked you to realise that there is a difference between assessing the morality of being black, which is a purely objective question, and answering the question of how blacks should be treated. I can easily believe that being black is wrong, and someone who is black harms themselves first and foremost, even if they do not realise this.

But the last sentence suggested you think the latter as in:

{ You may have meant } >>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.

I disagree with both, but I wouldn't feel I should be in a position to judge someone holding the latter view for religious reasons. So, if the following is what you meant:

We cannot say, as liberals do, that thinking about the morality of homosexuality {homosexual acts} is wrong, and this question is off limits, and must be answered a priori in the affirmative, that homosexuality {homosexual acts} is morally correct. — Agustino

Then fine. And I would agree with the following:

We must treat each other with respect dignity and compassion, but thinking must remain free to judge what is right and wrong. — Agustino

As it would boil down to a difference over what is considered a moral act. 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.

As an aside, a personal story. One of my favourite students who happens to be Russian once revealed to me that he is extremely homophobic. He wanted me to help him protest against the University policy of allowing gay students to march on University grounds as they were "spreading homosexual propaganda". He was pretty upset about the whole thing. I explained to him I wouldn't help because I totally agreed with their right to march, and that besides, because it was a British University his protest would fall on deaf ears. And it did. He's generally a very nice guy and has told me lately his attitude has mollified somewhat. I don't hold it against him because I think his homophobia is a result of his upbringing and is really out of sync with the rest of his character. I'm hoping it will eventually whither and die completely.

Okay, let's not get off topic here — photographer

Sorry, I kind forgot what thread we were on there for a while. If it goes on, I'll cut it out and put it somewhere else.

I beg to differ with the title of this thread. Bernie isn't out of this race, things are going to go downhill for Clinton soon. Just watch all her e-mails being made public by wikileaks and Republicans pouncing on everything the FBI has to say about the matter.

Many Republicans would rather see Bernie elected than Trump or Clinton so you can expect a lot of shuffling amongst people on who they want in office.

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 :)

8-)

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... — Agustino

They all have character, though some stand out amongst the others - sometimes for the wrong reasons. Character doesn't just mean being loud and obnoxious and arrogant and acting like a clown.

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.

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.

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.

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

That's a non sequitur. Marriage isn't necessary to have non-promiscuous relationships. Imagine a married couple without the marriage. It isn't that difficult. 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. It's good for society not to discourage this sort of freedom, and it's good for people to have this freedom and not be or feel oppressed or judged by the narrow-minded.

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? — Agustino

It is wrong to believe as you do if the belief is wrong. I suspected that it was wrong, and I still do, in both senses, as untrue and as 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. But that doesn't mean that I think that you should be arrested for a thought crime, so don't play the victim. You're no less human; you're all-too-human.

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. — Agustino

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. Neither of those qualities are virtuous in of themselves, but only in the right context. It's not just more important than whether or not the couple is gay, whether or not the couple is gay doesn't matter at all. That should not be your concern.

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!

Discussions of sex and politics are always "on topic".

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. — Agustino

I think this particular field was rather thoroughly plowed a while back here and elsewhere, nevertheless...

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.

Honest self-examination reveals that I have experienced both success and fulfillment and flat-out failure in various aspects of life, at different times. That seems to be the case with most people. It is probably true for you too.

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... — Agustino

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.

Whether Sanders has a child conceived while not married or not, and whether Bill behaved well or not, is scant evidence as to Sanders' and Hillary's qualifications to be president.

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?" For women, I think it is poor morality to deliberately conceive children one doesn't have the means to support, and for men, it is poor morality to abandon children without adequate support. It tends to be difficult for a single woman to adequately care for children without a partner to contribute time, talent, and resources. Inadequate support can have quite negative consequences.

As far as I know, Sanders' child was not abandoned without support.

...if I tell a man who enjoys promiscuity that he is harming his own mind... — Agustino

Except in the case of late stage syphilis--nothing to sneeze at--little sex or a lot of sex has no known effect on the mind. My guess is that plentiful sex (even among the boys) is probably as beneficial to mental health as a strong interest in morality is. Or, possibly, too much sex or too much interest in morality are equally unhealthy for the mind. 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.

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. — Agustino

The virtue of promiscuous sex, or the lack of it, is something I have spent decades thinking about.

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.

The morality of a given sexual act depends on the state of the participants, for one thing. Single people are not bound by a marriage contract, and single people can not gain practical experience in sexual behavior without having sex.

Is it good for morality to have experience in sexual behavior? That would depend on what you expect of the performers. It might be the case that married partners without prior sexual experience will find each other totally satisfactory because they have nothing to compare. In which case ignorance is bliss. 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).

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.

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.

People, whether married or not, are entitled as human beings to satisfying self-expression, including physical sexual expression (of course, as long as it isn't deliberately destructive to the partner). If satisfying physical sexual expression can be obtained within marriage, great. If not, then it is appropriate to seek it outside of marriage.

"Marriage" should not be morally fetishized. Marriage is a social arrangement; it isn't divinely ordained (nothing is). Marriage does not guarantee virtue; it may not even facilitate virtue (when it fails). Singleness is not a moral failing. Sex among single people is not a moral failing.

Sex becomes a moral failing when it is abusive (rape), when it is cruel and exploitative (human trafficking for sexual purposes), when it is destructive (for example, adult/pre-pubertal child sexual relationships), deceitful ("Yes, I have always used a condom in all previous sexual encounters" when in fact one wouldn't even think of using a condom; "Yes, I am taking birth control pills and I can not get pregnant" when in fact one wasn't on birth control and one intended to get pregnant) and so on.

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.

What the hell is it with you and sexual policing?

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...

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