Without Walmart, the American mouth-breather would be thoroughly fucked. — photographer
As for Cruz, his homophobia is no better than Trump's fascism in my book. — Baden
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
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
We must treat each other with respect dignity and compassion, but thinking must remain free to judge what is right and wrong. — Agustino
Okay, let's not get off topic here — photographer
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.My position on your position depends on whether you are against homosexuality the state of being, or the sexual actions of homosexuals exclusively. — Baden
Yes I did mean this.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
I agree to this as well :)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
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
Character doesn't just mean being loud and obnoxious and arrogant and acting like a clown. — Sapientia
Why? Do you think promiscuity is a virtue that should be encouraged? Is it good for our society for people to be promiscuous?The term "illegitimate child" is outdated and offensive.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
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.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
Why? Do you think promiscuity is a virtue that should be encouraged? Is it good for our society for people to be promiscuous? — Agustino
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
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
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.That's a non sequitur. Marriage isn't necessary to have non-promiscuous relationships. Imagine a married couple without the marriage. — 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.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
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.It's good for society not to discourage this sort of freedom — 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.and it's good for people to have this freedom and not be or feel oppressed or judged by the narrow-minded. — 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 :)It is wrong to believe as you do if the belief is wrong. — Sapientia
Why is thinking morally repugnant to you?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
Correct!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
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
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
...if I tell a man who enjoys promiscuity that he is harming his own mind... — Agustino
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
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.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 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.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
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.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
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.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
Both of them are equally harmful. The navel gazer is just as pitiful as the promiscuous man.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
Intercourse is never a physical function, it is, first and foremost, a psychological one.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
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.and single people can not gain practical experience in sexual behavior without having sex. — 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.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
Agreed, and this is unfortunate.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
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.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
I disagree. Marriage is a psychological (or spiritual) arrangement between two people first, and only secondly a social arrangement.Marriage is a social arrangement — 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.Sex among single people is not a moral failing. — Bitter Crank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.