How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 What exactly IS marriage anyway?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  ]
 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

What exactly IS marriage anyway?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


75 posted 04-15-2004 04:38 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
#3 cancels out # 2, since "not hurting someone" is, without question, a moral principle.

I've questioned it several times, Stephen. Never got an answer, either.  

Go kick a dog. If the dog yelps, does that mean it has a moral code?

Agreeing to not hurt someone is a simple social contact. I won't hurt you if you don't hurt me. When that seems to work pretty well, we just carry it to the next step. I won't let anyone hurt you if you won't let anyone hurt me. The step after that is called civilization.

Recognition of this principle is important, I think, because there's a very interesting corollary that seems to be universal. Any time you intentionally let someone else be hurt, regardless of who it is or why you do it, you inevitably open yourself to the same possibilities.

BTW, if you actually kicked that poor dog, ya got no morals, buddy.  

quote:
It must be hypocritical of me to feel disgusted about two men because the thought of two women does not disgust me, but it is natural for me to think that way.

When and where I was raised, Opeth, they said pretty much the same thing about a black man marrying a white woman. It was disgusting and perfectly natural to think that way.

quote:
With the same facts before us, one could just as easily argue that homosexuality is a sexual developmental disability.

When you get to my age, Jim, and start looking back at all the really stupid things you did because of hormones, I guess you start to think of ALL sexual development as a disability.  

I don't, however, see any reason why homosexuality should be any more of a disability than heterosexuality.
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


76 posted 04-15-2004 05:13 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Ron:

For one, we both know of neurobiological conditions that impair a person's ability to engage in meaningful, appropriate social interaction.  We know that such impairments typically manifest during the most rapid periods of brain development (toddler years and early adolescence).

One could regard homosexuality, which usually manifests (anecdotally) at or around early adolescence, as a neurobiological impairment that detrimentally affects a person's ability to enter into a procreative sexual relationship.

I personally see no more reason to regard the behavior as normal than to regard it as a social impairment.  Such a judgement as yours belies the utility of the homosexual relationship.

Jim
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


77 posted 04-15-2004 05:33 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ron:
quote:
Go kick a dog. If the dog yelps, does that mean it has a moral code?



Nope.  But a moral awareness, or moral conclusion of some kind, is necessary to decide whether or not it was a good thing to do.  "Yelping" is naked data, nothing more.  The morality becomes necessary in the interpretation.


quote:
Agreeing to not hurt someone is a simple social contact.



Indeed ... it has also become law.  And it is also firmly based upon a moral principle.


quote:
Recognition of this principle is important, I think, because there's a very interesting corollary that seems to be universal. Any time you intentionally let someone else be hurt, regardless of who it is or why you do it, you inevitably open yourself to the same possibilities.



It's never worked out quite so neatly as that.  It's never been quite so pragmatically compelling as that either ... or else laws would be unnecessary.  The innocent often get hurt.  The jerks often live in comfort and apparant security.  The moral principle I'll agree IS universal.  The corollary isn't so universal ... or we wouldn't have to compell people to behave in certain ways, at all ... through teaching or legislation.


Your self evident principle "Do no harm to your neighbor", which is the only thing you seem to allow prohibitive law to be based on, is firmly planted in the field of morality.  Though that field may yield some practical fruits.  


If you allow one moral principle into the arena of law, your forbidding of others is arbitrary.  Also your argument against others fail, when it is only upon the basis that they are "moral" laws.  Can you tell that I really want you to retract your generality that laws are never based on morals?  


Stephen.  
  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


78 posted 04-15-2004 07:47 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
One could regard homosexuality, which usually manifests (anecdotally) at or around early adolescence, as a neurobiological impairment that detrimentally affects a person's ability to enter into a procreative sexual relationship.

Without the word "procreative" in that sentence, Jim, do you really feel it would be true? Are human relationships only or even primarily about procreation?

quote:
Your self evident principle "Do no harm to your neighbor", which is the only thing you seem to allow prohibitive law to be based on, is firmly planted in the field of morality.

Nope. It's just a social contract that has been employed by even the most amoral people and societies in history. That it doesn't always work is irrelevant.

Think of it this way, Stephen. The law has no other purpose except to control actions. Do you really think morality can be forced upon someone? Do that and it stops being morality.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


79 posted 04-16-2004 01:45 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
One could regard homosexuality, which usually manifests (anecdotally) at or around early adolescence, as a neurobiological impairment that detrimentally affects a person's ability to enter into a procreative sexual relationship


Homosexuality is not a neurobiological impairment, a human social disorder or disease. It is a natural occurence,(while rarer in other species) within the animal kingdom.

As I mentioned earlier, humans closest relative(98.4% identical DNA) is the Bonobo monkey. More important than shared DNA, for the purpose of this conversation, is a shared attitude towards sexuality.

Unlike most species, Bonobos, like their human relatives, enjoy a distinct seperation between social and reproductive sex. They enjoy non procreative sexual relationships that include face-to-face mating, oral sex, masturbation, and homosexuality.

This challenges the assertion that homesexuality and other 'sinful' acts are 'unnatural' and may also offer proof to a 'genetic' predisposition rather than a socially learned trait in human beings.

All I know is after reading some of the things I've read I'd like to, (on behalf of heterosexuals comfortable enough in their sexuality to not feel a need to cling to outdated morals, through fear or religious propaganda) apologize to all homesexual/bisexual members and friends on PIP.

[This message has been edited by Aenimal (04-16-2004 11:47 AM).]

Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


80 posted 04-16-2004 06:55 AM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

"It must be hypocritical of me to feel disgusted about two men because the thought of two women does not disgust me, but it is natural for me to think that way."

"When and where I was raised, Opeth, they said pretty much the same thing about a black man marrying a white woman. It was disgusting and perfectly natural to think that way."

~ But the difference, Ron, (and I can't believe you didn't realize this) is this...

I wasn't raised "when and where" it was acceptable to not feel disgusted about two women "being together."  No person, whether it be parent, teacher, etc., ever told me that it was okay for two women to be together... therefore it must of been natural for me to think that way.

Unlike "when and where" you were raised, it was acceptable, it was taught, it was a way of life - parents, family members, teachers, etc., passed on to generations the disgust by the thought of a black man and white woman marrying. [Of course we all know that white slave owners had no problem having sex with black women].

So, what one may have considered to be "natural" was merely a conditioning of the society and culture of which one was raised.

Jim, I'll get back with your questions later.

  


"You sleep in the night yet the night and the silent water still so dark."
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


81 posted 04-16-2004 12:50 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

From “THE CULTURE OF AUTISM: FROM THEORETICAL UNDERSTANDING TO EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE” by Dr. Gary B. Mesibov http://www.teacch.com/teacch_i.htm

quote:
Culture refers to shared patterns of human behaviour. Cultural norms affect the ways people think, eat, dress, work, understand natural phenomena such as weather of the passage from day to night, spend leisure time, communicate, and other fundamental aspects of human interactions. Cultures vary widely in these respects, so that people in one group might at times find those from another culture to be incomprehensible or very unusual. Culture in the strict anthropological sense is passed on from one generation to the next; people think, feel, and behave in certain ways because of what others in their culture have taught them.

Autism is of course not truly a culture; it is a developmental disability caused by neurological dysfunction. Autism too, however, affects the ways that individuals eat, dress, work spend leisure time, understand their world, communicate, etc. Thus, in a sense, autism functions as a culture, in that it yields characteristic and predictable patterns of behaviour in individuals with this condition. The role of the teacher of a student with autism is like that of a cross-cultural interpreter: someone who understands both cultures and is able to translate the expectations and procedures of the non-autistic environment to the student with autism. So to teach students with autism, we must understand their culture, and the strengths and deficits that are associated with it.

… Because the organically-based problems that define autism are not reversible, we do not take "being normal" as the goal of our educational and therapeutic efforts. Rather, the long-term goal of the TEACCH programme is for the student with autism to fit as well as possible into our society as an adult. We achieve this goal by respecting the differences that the autism creates within each student, and working within his or her culture to teach the skills needed to function within our society. We work to expand the skills and understanding of the students, while we also adapt environments to their special needs and limitations.


Aenimal:

While Mesibov’s article is about autism and not homosexuality, I think Mesibov illustrates well enough the modern tendency to lay aside attempts at remediation in deference to the more politically correct practice of changing cultural norms.  I happen to disagree strongly with his approach because of the low expectations it engenders, but I disagree just as strongly with the notion that the focus ought to be myopically on remediation.

So what do I think?  I think we ought to consider developing therapeutic technologies aimed at remediating homosexual behavior when it begins to develop as an alternative to PC "acceptance" WHILE encouraging cultural compassion for the struggles homosexuals face.

Interestingly, behaviorally-based therapeutic alternatives to Mesibov’s approach that have a high rate of success in removing the future need to adapt environments to accommodate the debilitating effects of the neurological dysfunction.  Incidentally, because Mesibov’s approach is roughly 1/3rd the cost of behavioral therapy, it is the most commonly used.  While on its face, Mesibov’s approach in touting “acceptance” may appear compassionate, I believe it is unnecessarily forcing people to live with the dysfunction’s debilitating effects.

In the same way, your apology, while seemingly compassionate, actually contributes toward a culture that would force people to live with the debilitating social and sexual effects of homosexuality without any other alternatives.  

You can say all you want that I'm clinging to outdated morals as the result of fear, but that doesn't make it true.  Why can’t a discussion regarding remediation of homosexuality as a sexual dysfunction be driven by compassion just as much so as your position?  Don't you think such an option to homosexuals would be conducive to choice?

Jim
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


82 posted 04-16-2004 01:16 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

From what I understand humans are omnivores.  And yet some people choose to be vegetarians.  Does that mean those are only herbivores or converted into herbivores when they are vegetarians?  My own thoughts are not towards that.  I think if they didn't have reason and mind to differ, the most basic and most initial "interests" would probably move the human to eating as an omnivore.   Therefore I also feel when humans choose to be homosexual, it probably doesn't "convert" the native sexuality of human.  
It seems to be a cultivated and reasoned choice to make a difference, what seems natural to humans;  and where it is more natural in the higher nature of things , is that turns like these shall not come and increase if there's not flexibility in nature to afford and continue to afford them.  
Shall there be such flexibility in nature, if there is not for it some flexibility in God's Will?
If we were all supposed to do the same why do we  have this ability to do differently at all?


"For ever it was and ever it shal bifalle
That love is he that alle may binde;
For may no man for-do the law of kind"
--Chaucer

[This message has been edited by Essorant (04-16-2004 03:02 PM).]

Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


83 posted 04-16-2004 04:58 PM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

Jim,

"But Opeth, why should we be forced to assume that because something has a genetic basis it ought to be regarded as "normal."

~ I don't think we should be forced to assume the normality of homosexuality. I personally don't think it is a normal trait, but a natural one.

"With the same facts before us, one could just as easily argue that homosexuality is a sexual developmental disability."

~ Perhaps

"Perhaps we ought to explore the ramifications of that possibility before assigning homosexuals the additional right to marry someone of the same sex."

~ Here is where I disagree with you. Should a disabled heterosexual person be denied the right to marry?




"You sleep in the night yet the night and the silent water still so dark."

[This message has been edited by Opeth (04-16-2004 06:16 PM).]

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


84 posted 04-16-2004 10:43 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
In the same way, your apology, while seemingly compassionate, actually contributes toward a culture that would force people to live with the debilitating social and sexual effects of homosexuality without any other alternatives.  

You can say all you want that I'm clinging to outdated morals as the result of fear, but that doesn't make it true.  Why can’t a discussion regarding remediation of homosexuality as a sexual dysfunction be driven by compassion just as much so as your position?  Don't you think such an option to homosexuals would be conducive to choice?



Because Jim, I disagree with a line of thinking that works on the assumption that homosexuality is a neurological dysfunction, a malady to be cured and treated.

Is a heterosexual male, whose sexual attraction is limited to say, skinny redheads, neurologically impaired? Should this behaviour be remediated so that his preferences expand to include all types of women regardless of hair colour or body type?
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


85 posted 04-17-2004 02:46 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

If people didn't think about and indulge in sex so much today, I don't think  so many of these sexual complexities and differences should come about.  Instinct without such excesses upon it is usually not so full of doubt and question.  
People are excessively and dangerously sexual today, and so casual that it always needs to dilate and convert to new things.  Sexuality is treated like an amusement park, people go there too often, so of course they get tired of tradition.  they always need new rides to try to keep them impressed because they become very cloyed with the old ones.  That's another chapter to all sexualites, part of the tale.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


86 posted 04-17-2004 07:12 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Raph, your apology assumes that those who hold a different view point than yours about the issue are somehow uncomfortable in their own sexuality, that their religious and/or moral convictions are outdated and/or they are the victims of fear and propoganda. That's an awful lot of assuming, in my opinion.
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


87 posted 04-17-2004 08:38 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

'One could regard homosexuality, which usually manifests (anecdotally) at or around early adolescence, as a neurobiological impairment that detrimentally affects a person's ability to enter into a procreative sexual relationship'

Jim... so what? First of all, I'm in a very nice non-procreative relationship right now... and it's actually my opinion that adolescents would be significantly better off without that procreation drive- we wopuldn't have too many teen moms if they wer all fooling around with other girls. Second of all, I have to echo Opeth's point... would you support limiting the marriage rights of people with other developmental diabilities, like autism or fetal alcohol syndrome?

Does it matter so much why people are homosexual?

I (sort of) see where you're coming from with the rehabilitation point of view.... except that the only (supposed) handicaps put on homosexuals are related to their sexual orientation. To me, the only obvious one is social ostracization, but I understand that some people might consider religious ramifications and inherent wrong damaging to the homosexual as well. The thing is, you could only rehabilitate those who wanted... there's no way to say they are incompetent or unable to make their own decisions unless other preoblems are present. I don't have a problem with a voluntary rehab program for gays.... if they really want to change that's fine. But somehow I doubt that a whole lot of them will.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


88 posted 04-17-2004 09:48 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Hush,

Yes, I think it is very important to determine the why of homosexuality. Those who see it as being a matter of genetics build their case of "discrimination" in the current law based on that belief. Those who see it either as a developmental disorder and/or as one of the symptoms of man's sin-prone nature see it as a behavior that can be dealt with therapeutically and/or spiritually.

And I can think of plenty of activities that young girls could be involved in, other than mutual masterbation, that could prevent teen pregnancy.     
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


89 posted 04-17-2004 12:15 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Being left-handed is technically more of a dysfunction than is homosexuality. Especially for those who find themselves frequently forced to use a right-hand mouse.  

There's no evidence suggesting sexual orientation, in and of itself, debilitates a person's life or makes them less satisfied with said life. There's even less evidence that sexual orientation adversely affects a person's contributions to society. In short, homosexuality does not in any possible way meet the criteria for a dysfunction. It doesn't hurt the individual, or any other individual. It simply is.

Personally, I think our resources could be better utilized by curing freckles. Then I wouldn't experience this overpowering urge to count them every time I meet someone "afflicted" by this horrid disorder.  
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


90 posted 04-17-2004 02:10 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

[deleted]
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


91 posted 04-17-2004 04:51 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Denise let me reword the initial statement, regarding safety with sexuality, it wasn't directed at anybody in this particular conversation but the common instance of hatred/fear fueling people's beliefs. It should be a seperate statement from the second piece. My opinion that religious beliefs and morals are, when dealing with anything sexual, incredibly archaic and sometimes outright insane.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


92 posted 04-17-2004 09:12 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

You are entitled to your opinion, Raph, regarding religion and morals as it relates to things of a sexual nature, but I still think you are making assumptions...the common instance of hatred/fear fueling people's beliefs? How does one actually tell what fuels another's beliefs? The way I see it a disagreement with something can exist without hatred and fear entering into the equation.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


93 posted 04-17-2004 09:20 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
My opinion that religious beliefs and morals are, when dealing with anything sexual, incredibly archaic and sometimes outright insane.



60 years ago in these United States, your views on sexuality were considered to be insane.  Such a short time does not warrant the desciption "archaic".  However, the origins of this view, that there are real "rights" and "wrongs" in the areas of personal conduct (including sexuality), are very ancient.  Because a particular view has endured, does not mean that it is wrong, unreasonable, or foolish.


My wager is on the reverse view.  If you believe that there are no binding morals in the area of sexuality, then your views are much closer to insane.  This is evidenced by the fact that the "sexual revolution" has lead to insane outcomes.  STDs ... Divorce ... Children born out of wedlock ... rape ... pedophilia ...  All of these have increased since the national moral view has moved away from the idea of a real right and wrong in the area of sexuality.


Stephen.    


Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


94 posted 04-18-2004 02:50 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Denise again, not all beliefs, not YOUR beliefs, but some beliefs are fueled by hatred and fear. Seperate statements from my opinion on archaism.

quote:
This is evidenced by the fact that the "sexual revolution" has lead to insane outcomes.  STDs ... Divorce ... Children born out of wedlock ... rape ... pedophilia ...  All of these have increased since the national moral view has moved away from the idea of a real right and wrong in the area of sexuality



STD's have existed throughtout history and part of their spread can easily be attributed to catholicism's/christian's frowning upon condoms in third world countries where those christian views on sexuality are most strongly held. Not to mention soaring birthrates for the same reason.

I'd attribute divorce more to the changing roles of men and women in society, than on sexuality. I think it's based on the fact that marriage, as it exists, is on of the most outdated institutions in society. An instituion which, like many aspects of religious society holds women below men.

Children born out of wedlock and rape? Do you read history and enjoy literature? Do you honestly think they are more prevalent now than anytime in history? Do you honestly think that even at the apex of any secular/moral power these do not occur? Not just by the subjects of those societies but by it's leaders. Read some of the bios on the early Popes or the Crusaders conquests.

Pedophilia? I don't mean to be mean but honestly, should we really go there considering the scandals involving priests and church, the very adherents and enforcers of the morals you speak of?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


95 posted 04-18-2004 10:06 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Raph, "some beliefs" is a world of difference away in meaning from "the common instance" that you earlier stated. I'd certainly grant that "some beliefs" are fueled by hatred and/or fear, but I have a big problem with it being considered a "common instance", that's all.

I guess the folks that you mentioned who had a problem using condoms because of the Catholic Church's teachings didn't have as much of a problem engaging in the sexual activities that it teaches against that brought about the STDs in the first place? Remember, the church also teaches abstinence before marriage and fidelity afterwards, so where did all these folks come from who were contracting and spreading STDs for lack of condom use, supposedly in obedience to the teachings of the church? I find it hard to believe that  these folks felt compelled to obey the church regarding condom use and not obey it in the areas regarding fornication and adultery. In other words, if someone is that devoted to the teachings of their church that they would refrain from using condoms, they would certainly also be refraining from pre-marital and extra-marital relations and wouldn't be contracting and spreading STDs, with or without a condom. I rather think it makes more sense that the lack of condom use, in most cases, is merely a dislike of condoms, plain and simple, and not something done to obey a church's teaching.

Just a note, pedophilia is sex with a pre-pubescent child. That's not what has been happening in the Catholic Church for the most part. In most instances it has been happening to adolescent boys, post puberty, which still makes it sexual abuse by the homosexual priests, but it can't truly be called pedophilia. But no matter what it is called though it is tragic and it never should have happened and never should have been swept under the rug. That there were those who perpetrated such abuse and those who covered it up does not diminish in any way the moral ideals taught by the church, it just means that there were people in leadership in the church who didn't live up to those ideals. I think it is fair to say that the majority of them do try live what they teach, and I don't think that an entire church or its teachings can be dismissed because of the failings of the few.

I think one reason divorce is on the rise is because of the change in thinking regarding life-long commitment and a decrease in selflessness, with an increased focus on meeting one's own present needs and desires at the expense of the needs and desires of one's partner and a lack of vision of the potential benefits of a life-long commitment. I think more people today are more "me" focused and want instant gratification of their needs and desires and are more apt to not want to do the "work" required to make a relationship last.

People doing their own thing sexually and the results of that have been around forever, it's true, but I agree with Stephen that things have accelerated in those areas since the sexual revolution, not that they never happened before that, even in the best of times.


Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


96 posted 04-18-2004 11:58 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Sodomy is a sin. Sodomy includes oral sex, which millions of people(even the devout) partake in. What do you think an ultra religious person would react to or scorn more, a man/women who claimed to have oral sex with their partner or the admission of homosexual acts? It is not on par with other sins, and therein lies the hypocricy of religious or moral beliefs against homsexuality which in many cases is driven by a deeply ingrained fear, hatred and disgust.

No Denise I wasn't claiming that STD spread is solely the result of the catholic church, simply flipping Stephanos' claim. To simply point at the sexual revolution as the cause,which Stephanos has done is ludicrous. The widespread of STDs and other diseases can just as easily be blamed on soldier movement and sailors moving port long before the revolution occured. My point is that the spread of STD's is rampant in third world countries and the church's stance on condoms and contraception is making things worse.

quote:
Just a note, pedophilia is sex with a pre-pubescent child. That's not what has been happening in the Catholic Church for the most part


First of all those last four words, for the most part, means some cases of pedophilia, as you've defined, have occured. Now look, I don't for a second believe its ALL members of the church acting in this manner, but if you're going to blame the sexual revolution for pedophilia, as Stephanos seems to be claiming, then one should a long hard look at the actions of the church, the antithesis of the sexual revolution. I've also never agreed that the line between children and adolescents defines pedophilia, I think there are more important factors than using the onset of puberty as a marker.

quote:
I think more people today are more "me" focused and want instant gratification of their needs and desires and are more apt to not want to do the "work" required to make a relationship last.


I don't disagree, but that means societies focus, for better or worse, has shifted which makes marriage, outdated. Also, consider how many people are forced into marriage due to mistakes,arrangements and unforeseen circumstances. Should those people continue in loveless marriages? There are many reasons the divorce rate has risen I simply argued against it being a matter of open sexuality. I'm not completely dismissing the teachings of the church, only there stance on sex and sexuality which is archaic.

I'd also argue against that acceleration, we're simply more open and informed about the existence of these matters than ever before. I think that's lead to a false perception that things are worse than ever.

[This message has been edited by Aenimal (04-19-2004 12:14 AM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


97 posted 04-19-2004 01:43 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I don't know the views of the ultra religious regarding oral sex within marriage. If they consider it sodomy then I would think they would be as much against that as against homosexuality. But I really don't know, I never asked for anyone's thoughts on it.

The clinical definition of pedophilia is that of a man or woman, at least 16 years of age, fantasizing about and/or engaging in sexual activity with a child under the age of 13 and who is at least 5 years their junior and can include same-sex and opposite-sex attractions. Activity involving post-pubescents, whatever it could be considered, is not clincially considered pedophilia.

And that society's focus has shifted doesn't indicate to me that marriage is outdated, it just indicates to me that society's focus has shifted.

I don't think that Stephen was suggesting that the sexual revolution caused any of these things, but only contributed to their increase.

Each generation seems to think it is more open minded and informed than the previous one. I think I was around 40 or so before I realized that what my parents had taught me was wise counsel, and that my thinking that I knew better than they did was just my immature arrogance.
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


98 posted 04-19-2004 12:08 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Ron (and Aenimal):

quote:
It doesn't hurt the individual, or any other individual. It simply is.


It doesn't?  I'm surprised that someone who's struck me as a "cause and effect" kind of guy would so readily declare something as "simply is."

I remember watching a television news magazine story some time ago regarding a married man who "discovered" he's gay and divorced his wife.  This caused harm on many levels, and I believe the physical urges (or lack thereof) that cause such an upheaval in a marriage could very well fall under the definition of dysfunction.  

At the risk of sounding like the broken record, asserting the "normalcy" of homosexual urges on facts with multiple possible interpretations unnecessarily limits the choices available to those who find themselves in similar situations.  I'm not advocating compulsary treatment - at the individual level I'm advocating options.

I think it is far easier to express disagreement with my interpretation of the facts than to argue that my interpretation of them is not a valid one.

Regarding the procreative/non-procreative counterpoints, assuming all the parts are working correctly and contraception isn't being used, heterosexual sexual activity has the potential for being procreative.  Homosexual sex doesn't.  I think that alone is a sharp distinction between the two.  If one places a value on parenthood and family, exclusively homosexual preferences present as a significant barrier.

Jim


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


99 posted 04-19-2004 01:16 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
I remember watching a television news magazine story some time ago regarding a married man who "discovered" he's gay and divorced his wife.  This caused harm on many levels, and I believe the physical urges (or lack thereof) that cause such an upheaval in a marriage could very well fall under the definition of dysfunction.

First, I think there is a difference between being gay and expressing gay behavior, though I suspect the difference is only important to the individual. Obviously, I have no idea which is the case in your anecdote, nor does it matter except in passing.

Second, the physical urges are no more responsible for an upheaval in the marriage than if the same man suddenly discovered he liked younger women. The man clearly made choices he shouldn't have made, commitments he couldn't keep, andwhohe preferred over his wife plays very little role in that. Homosexual or heterosexual, Jim, the dysfunction plays no favorites.

quote:
I'm not advocating compulsary treatment - at the individual level I'm advocating options.

Me, too. Including  ALL of the options that you and I enjoy.

quote:
Regarding the procreative/non-procreative counterpoints, assuming all the parts are working correctly and contraception isn't being used, heterosexual sexual activity has the potential for being procreative.  Homosexual sex doesn't.  I think that alone is a sharp distinction between the two.  If one places a value on parenthood and family, exclusively homosexual preferences present as a significant barrier.

Your point might be stronger, Jim, with a few less provisions attached.

But of course the provisions are necessary to account for all those millions of marriages where procreation isn't at issue. Would you have refused to marry your wife had she told you she could never have kids? Would you divorce her tomorrow if her reproductive equipment stopped working? Marriage, for most if not all, is a bit more than opening a baby factory. Your sharp distinction, I think, is a badly blurred one, but mostly it's just not a determining one. With or without the possibility of procreation, people who want to commit to each other should be allowed to do so without any more hurdles placed in their path than any other two people face.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> What exactly IS marriage anyway?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors