Fidelity, Monogamy and all that jazz...

[WRJames]

Are we talking about homosexuality and pedophilia in the context of marriage? I firmly believe that two people of the same gender should be allowed to sanctify their relationship in marriage. I also think that marriage should be a free, deliberate, and serious decision, which to my mind rules out "child" marriage.

 

[flavortang]

I coulda sworn the name of the thread was Fidelity, Monogamy and all that jizz...

 

[BlackShanglan]

You know as well as I do that in the annals of psychology, homosexuality and pedophilia were viewed as dysfunctional attributes to be treated, not accepted
and tolerated.

Indeed, I am familiar with the annals to which you refer. The classification of homosexuality or "inversion" as a disease became popular at the same time that people were looking for "stigmata" to classify "degenerate" innate criminals and using such useful tools as phrenological examination. It shared its rise in popularity with racial science, magnetism, and the use of cocaine as a pleasant pick-me-up. Do you happen to notice a theme uniting all of these ideas?

What is it about you folks that makes you so intolerant of traditional and conventional ethics and morals. What are you frightened to admit?

And here a moment ago, I thought we were talking about science. Well, I thought I was talking about science; I thought you were talking about long-exploded pseudo-scientific prattle. But still, some attempt was made to call it science, wasn't it?

So the logic and the factual grounding is intact as it is in all my arguments.

To this, of course, I could not possibly raise an objection. Your logic and factual support are as persuasive and winning as they have ever been.

 

[amicus]

Indeed, I am familiar with the annals to which you refer. The classification of homosexuality or "inversion" as a disease became popular at the same time that people were looking for "stigmata" to classify "degenerate" innate criminals and using such useful tools as phrenological examination. It shared its rise in popularity with racial science, magnetism, and the use of cocaine as a pleasant pick-me-up. Do you happen to notice a theme uniting all of these ideas?



And here a moment ago, I thought we were talking about science. Well, I thought I was talking about science; I thought you were talking about long-exploded pseudo-scientific prattle. But still, some attempt was made to call it science, wasn't it?



To this, of course, I could not possibly raise an objection. Your logic and factual support are as persuasive and winning as they have ever been.

~~~

Up to this point Shanglan, have had some respect for your intellect and wit but I sense you are fairly well pressed to call upon stigmata and Phrenology to make a point.

That Vermilion, the threadstarter could ask a serious question about fidelity in marriage, to me exposes a vast vacuum between faith and modern concepts of morality.

You hinted at some intimate errors earlier in your life and not to bring them back in specific but to generalize, I sense that same ambiguity exists yet today.

Others have suggested that a relativistic approach to moral and ethical problems is the norm and that absolute morality, faith based or logic based, is restricting and artificial.

In a discussion under your rules and the rule of most here, my position of being opposed to homosexuality, gay marriage and abortion as a 'norm', should be as respected as the opposite opinion that those issues are positive and progressive and an advance on past societal norms, should hold equal weight regardless of the source of either position.

I do agree that some aspects of ethics and morality change with the passage of time and technology; it is an evolving science, the relationships between people and between people and technology.

There are serious questions concerning embryonic stem cell research and cloning of human beings; questions that are difficult to deal with unless one has a firm understand of basic principles of ethics and morality and human life.

Proper conduct within a contractual relationship such as formal marriage is fairly simple for a 'faith based' couple who know what they are permitted to do and what they are not and still retain the sanctity of that marriage.

For social/moral/ethical relativists, to whom there is no self evident, axiomatic understanding of logic based morality, it is a more difficult matter to perceive.

Almost everyone who has contributed to this thread acknowledges that it is immoral to 'cheat' on a marital partner and keep it secret. That in itself is an indication, as many have said, that you 'just know', that something is wrong/immoral/unethical.

I agree, you do 'know' when you do something wrong; my quest has always been to understand and explain how and why you 'know' it is wrong, and I claim it is a rational and logical means, not faith, not intuition and surely not by consensus morality.

In stating that, I also acknowledge that humans are subject to passions, great and small, and subject to 'spur of the moment', or impetuous behavior, sometimes aided and abetted by substance usage.

In other words, yes, we are fallible and and do make errors, sometimes very costly ones. T'is the price we pay for free will, as some wit said long ago.

A few years back on this forum I received a private message from a 'lurker' who applauded me for taking on the overwhelming left wing influence on this site and batting them down, like flies, one at a time, argument after argument, point by point. From time to time I get similar communications on this and other venues and it makes me wonder why they do not participate and engage the enemy.

Not that you, Shanglan, are considered the 'enemy', and I can't even assert your consistency in secular humanist doctrine as from time to time you express doubt in your convictions.

So be it.

Amicus...

 

[BlackShanglan]

~~~

Up to this point Shanglan, have had some respect for your intellect and wit but I sense you are fairly well pressed to call upon stigmata and Phrenology to make a point.

I'm not the one calling upon antiquated pseudo-science to support my point, Amicus. That's you. I'm just observing the context within which your particular point of view was developed. You asked me to look to the annals of science to support you; I'm pointing out which particular annals your support is rooted in.

Others have suggested that a relativistic approach to moral and ethical problems is the norm and that absolute morality, faith based or logic based, is restricting and artificial.

Possibly. I do see a certain tendency toward an absolute ethics, however. People disagreed on a number of points, but I didn't see anyone seriously aruging that partners should not be honest about their actions and forthright wit each other.

In a discussion under your rules and the rule of most here, my position of being opposed to homosexuality, gay marriage and abortion as a 'norm', should be as respected as the opposite opinion that those issues are positive and progressive and an advance on past societal norms, should hold equal weight regardless of the source of either position.

And why would you imagine that that should be the case? Please tell me that you're not going that tired old "respecting other people's decisions means respecting me for hating people" route.

There are serious questions concerning embryonic stem cell research and cloning of human beings; questions that are difficult to deal with unless one has a firm understand of basic principles of ethics and morality and human life.

I realize that you personally believe not only that there are absolute morals and ethics, and not only that you personally are privy to them, but also that you are privy to the blessed knowledge that you are completely and unquestionably correct on these topics. Having, however, seen your general inability or unwillingness to support your positions with either fact or logic, I respectfully decline to believe the last two parts of that proposition, at least. I think it very important to investigate and contemplate the basis of morals and ethics; I think it highly unlikely that any one person has a clear and definite, absolute answer to them.

Proper conduct within a contractual relationship such as formal marriage is fairly simple for a 'faith based' couple who know what they are permitted to do and what they are not and still retain the sanctity of that marriage.

For social/moral/ethical relativists, to whom there is no self evident, axiomatic understanding of logic based morality, it is a more difficult matter to perceive.

I agree. However, I do not believe that "more difficult" or "less clear" necessarily means "incorrect." Some things are simply trickier than others.

Almost everyone who has contributed to this thread acknowledges that it is immoral to 'cheat' on a marital partner and keep it secret. That in itself is an indication, as many have said, that you 'just know', that something is wrong/immoral/unethical.

I agree, you do 'know' when you do something wrong; my quest has always been to understand and explain how and why you 'know' it is wrong, and I claim it is a rational and logical means, not faith, not intuition and surely not by consensus morality.

I see that many people agree upon that ethical issue. That suggests to me that consensus seems to play a role. You argue that there is a rational basis for that agreement, and I agree that there is a rational basis as well - reason can drive consensus. However, when you have neither consensus nor reason, which alas is all too often the case, then I tend not to follow along with you. Such, so far as you have presented it, has been your case on homosexuality. You go with your own personal "gut" feeling and appear to have decided that that must guide the rest of humanity.

A few years back on this forum I received a private message from a 'lurker' who applauded me for taking on the overwhelming left wing influence on this site and batting them down, like flies, one at a time, argument after argument, point by point. From time to time I get similar communications on this and other venues and it makes me wonder why they do not participate and engage the enemy.

Not that you, Shanglan, are considered the 'enemy', and I can't even assert your consistency in secular humanist doctrine as from time to time you express doubt in your convictions.

So be it.

Amicus...

I'm trying to connect this to what went before it, Amicus, but for the life of me I can't work out how you've gotten from point A to point B. But as for doubt, yes, I'm quite fine with that. In my experience, a lack of doubt has not been a positive sign when speaking of complex matters like human behavior. Those to whom the answers seem obvious and simple usually don't know enough about the questions.

 

[amicus]

I'm not the one calling upon antiquated pseudo-science to support my point, Amicus. That's you. I'm just observing the context within which your particular point of view was developed. You asked me to look to the annals of science to support you; I'm pointing out which particular annals your support is rooted in.



Possibly. I do see a certain tendency toward an absolute ethics, however. People disagreed on a number of points, but I didn't see anyone seriously aruging that partners should not be honest about their actions and forthright wit each other.



And why would you imagine that that should be the case? Please tell me that you're not going that tired old "respecting other people's decisions means respecting me for hating people" route.



I realize that you personally believe not only that there are absolute morals and ethics, and not only that you personally are privy to them, but also that you are privy to the blessed knowledge that you are completely and unquestionably correct on these topics. Having, however, seen your general inability or unwillingness to support your positions with either fact or logic, I respectfully decline to believe the last two parts of that proposition, at least. I think it very important to investigate and contemplate the basis of morals and ethics; I think it highly unlikely that any one person has a clear and definite, absolute answer to them.



I agree. However, I do not believe that "more difficult" or "less clear" necessarily means "incorrect." Some things are simply trickier than others.



I see that many people agree upon that ethical issue. That suggests to me that consensus seems to play a role. You argue that there is a rational basis for that agreement, and I agree that there is a rational basis as well - reason can drive consensus. However, when you have neither consensus nor reason, which alas is all too often the case, then I tend not to follow along with you. Such, so far as you have presented it, has been your case on homosexuality. You go with your own personal "gut" feeling and appear to have decided that that must guide the rest of humanity.



I'm trying to connect this to what went before it, Amicus, but for the life of me I can't work out how you've gotten from point A to point B. But as for doubt, yes, I'm quite fine with that. In my experience, a lack of doubt has not been a positive sign when speaking of complex matters like human behavior. Those to whom the answers seem obvious and simple usually don't know enough about the questions.

~~~

Interesting and thoughtful post Shanglan, thank you.

I want to deal with just two issues you made, 'psuedo-science', and 'gut feeling'.

Not sure of the best way to make this point but the liberal community shows, I think, a disconnect between the chronological discovery or invention or research of a subject and the imposition of societal understanding. They usually place blame on the wealthy, or property owners, or businessmen or corporations, those entities in any society that actually function to further mankind.

The human learning process is cumulative and not without error and dead ends.

The study of medicine, as an example proceeded from basically 'witch doctory' to sooth sayers, to medicine men (and women) and eventually to a more precise study of the essence of medicine and human ailments.

I suggest that holds true in every human endeavor; we learn by doing and experimenting, by making mistakes and correcting them and building upon positive results.

I know you understand, so to shorten this, the 'pseudo science' of psychology you accuse me of referencing also had its share of wrong paths to follow. And like every other endeavor, is fraught with human frailties,(to use a cliche), wherein greed, corruption, ignorance, religion, faith and convention stalled progress.

Nonetheless, psychology has become, (in some areas), more of a science than an art. (again, disregard a sizable proportion that depends upon drugs to solve problems) and as such has made progress in understanding the human psyche.

Human acquisition of knowledge in all areas is not linear; rather a series of cyclic events without any particular rhythm that has thus far had a general upwards trend towards a better understanding of all things.

Perhaps in X number of years in the future, humanity will discover and utilize an efficient, economic, non polluting form of energy, I would bet on it. And in X number of years in the future, psychology will understand the nature and causes of autism in children, which I understand affects one in 166 children in the US.

Perhaps.

Perhaps it is accurate to refer to early psychology as 'pseudo-scientific', and it would have been nice to have invented the jet engine before the internal combustion propeller driven aircraft, but...it didn't work out that way.

And if the Brit's had nuclear energy instead of burning coal, then London wouldn't have had black sooty buildings during the industrial revolution...again...it didn't work out that way as science and all knowledge, builds upon itself and accumulates. (at least it does in a free society where men and women are free to create and experiment)

Sigh...much too verbose...

'Gut feeling' about homosexuality.

Dunno quite where you garnered that from my comments.

By definition, non pro-creative sex does not fulfill natures imperative of continuation of species. Thus, homosexuality is not in accordance with human nature and is thus 'un-natural', again, by definition.

No 'gut feeling' there, my friend, simple logic.

As a corollary, nature would not naturally permit homosexuals to survive the process of evolution as they do not add to the gene pool nor increase the population.

Just as prostitutes satiate sexual desire for heterosexuals, I suppose one could justify the continued existence of homosexuals as a solace for those who cannot relate to a 'natural' heterosexual existence.

How bout them apples?


Amicus...

 

[Pure]

interesting how ami can sound rather reasonable for short periods, while not doing his poor man's ann coulter routine. but... can the leopard change his spots?

as to the core:

amiBy definition, non pro-creative sex does not fulfill natures imperative of continuation of species. Thus, homosexuality is not in accordance with human nature and is thus 'un-natural', again, by definition.

No 'gut feeling' there, my friend, simple logic.

As a corollary, nature would not naturally permit homosexuals to survive the process of evolution as they do not add to the gene pool nor increase the population.

Just as prostitutes satiate sexual desire for heterosexuals, I suppose one could justify the continued existence of homosexuals as a solace for those who cannot relate to a 'natural' heterosexual existence.

P: How many logical mistakes are possible in FIVE sentences. How many scientific howlers?

ami By definition, non pro-creative sex does not fulfill natures imperative of continuation of species.

P: [Not true by definition.] Not true [as a matter of fact]. Not shown [in the subsequent argument]. indeed the opposite possibility is admitted [i.e., fulfilling nature's imperative] in mentioning homosexuals might help increase the population. [Non procreative sex in several obvious ways contributes to the continuation of the species:] For instance, in married couples, 'non procreative sex' may help keep them together, to raise the kids. Even the Pope recognizes this point.

NOTICE "non procreative sex". this means sex on the birth control pill, masturbation, sex undertaken at infertile times, including after menopause. ALL are unnatural by this argument.

The same claim might apply to animals, that homosexuality is "not in accord with animal nature". Yet it's common in many animals including higher primates, e.g., Bonobo monkeys.

The corollary nature would not naturally permit homosexuals to survive the process of evolution as they do not add to the gene pool nor increase the population.

If homosexuals do not "naturally ... survive" why are they here? The corollary is at best a half truth, because of the issue of indirect contributions. Doing calculus or painting pictures do not directly "increase population," but arguably there are indirect connections.

The corollary is partly false in that "dual function" is ignored. A given gene and its manifestation may hurt in some ways, but help in others, e.g. the sickle cell gene. Hence the gene continues despite the apparent non life furthering consequences, as in "sickle cell anemica."

The last sentence brings into question the "continued existence" of homosexuals, as being analogous to prostitutes; it is entirely speculative and probably purposefully offensive. The leopard does not change its spots.

As to the general point about furthering the continuance of the human species. Arguably gays do so in the same way that post menopausal nannies do. They make life better and easier for the procreators and child rearers, and indeed may well devote unpaid* as well as professional time in the service of child rearing. One example would be a gay child psychologist helping families deal with difficult children. *{Unpaid as for example with gay uncles and aunts and their neices and nephews}

"Against nature" arguments are almost always fallacious and are generally proposed to back up pre existing prejudices, as in claims that were made that women attending university was against nature--- which ami probably also agrees with.

 

[Vermilion]

Thank you all so much for your contributions, perhaps a separate thread coule be started withint which this off-shoot discussion could be housed.

To return to the original topic - I must specify that I did not at any point state 'marriage'... I am interested in the concepts of fidelity and monogamy...

I remember once expressing an interest in a man and saying what a shame it was he had a girlfriend. Someone then remarked - 'well, it's not as if he's married'.... well no, he wasn't married, but does that make it any more acceptable for me to seduce him?
I decided not, but it does bring up that point... is marriage the ultimate commitment which you should make only if you can be faithful, but outside marriage it's ok to have multiple relationships?

For that matter - how important/relevant is marriage in this day and age? When women can own their own property, sex/children outside marriage is acceptable and very few tax breaks are available for married couples is it an outdated institution.

As someone getting married next year I obviously don't think so, but I'd like to hear your comments on the matter.

Oh, and if contributors could stay away from paedophilia in this thread that'd be appreciated as I really can;t see its relevance...

x
V

 

[Recidiva]

I decided not, but it does bring up that point... is marriage the ultimate commitment which you should make only if you can be faithful, but outside marriage it's ok to have multiple relationships?

For that matter - how important/relevant is marriage in this day and age? When women can own their own property, sex/children outside marriage is acceptable and very few tax breaks are available for married couples is it an outdated institution.

As someone getting married next year I obviously don't think so, but I'd like to hear your comments on the matter.

Oh, and if contributors could stay away from paedophilia in this thread that'd be appreciated as I really can;t see its relevance...

For me marriage is an agreement. It's not necessarily sacred or holy in any sense beyond what the two people agree between themselves, to focus their energy on each other. I don't think it should be permanently binding. If I had an option of marriages with options of "five years" say, renewable and expiring after a point, I'd take that.

Husband and I got married because "domestic benefits" cost four times more than married benefits, so rethink the legal benefits.

 

[amicus]

Thank you all so much for your contributions, perhaps a separate thread coule be started withint which this off-shoot discussion could be housed.

To return to the original topic - I must specify that I did not at any point state 'marriage'... I am interested in the concepts of fidelity and monogamy...

I remember once expressing an interest in a man and saying what a shame it was he had a girlfriend. Someone then remarked - 'well, it's not as if he's married'.... well no, he wasn't married, but does that make it any more acceptable for me to seduce him?
I decided not, but it does bring up that point... is marriage the ultimate commitment which you should make only if you can be faithful, but outside marriage it's ok to have multiple relationships?

For that matter - how important/relevant is marriage in this day and age? When women can own their own property, sex/children outside marriage is acceptable and very few tax breaks are available for married couples is it an outdated institution.

As someone getting married next year I obviously don't think so, but I'd like to hear your comments on the matter.

Oh, and if contributors could stay away from paedophilia in this thread that'd be appreciated as I really can;t see its relevance...

x
V

~~~

I trust you have read and noted that I attempted to keep the thread on topic, but was required to answer challenges, which always seem to occur.

"...To return to the original topic - I must specify that I did not at any point state 'marriage'... I am interested in the concepts of fidelity and monogamy... "

Surely you do not think that 'marriage, fidelity, and monogamy..." can be discussed in a vacuum?

As you discovered, those questions, those issues expand and evolve, by necessity to include all things as 'marriage' is the core concept.

"...For that matter - how important/relevant is marriage in this day and age? When women can own their own property, sex/children outside marriage is acceptable and very few tax breaks are available for married couples is it an outdated institution...."


First off, you want to limit the discussion, then you want to expand the perimeters but only on your terms...? Not possible as all do not have your mindset.

Political efforts enabled women to own property; contested and debated legislation.

Sex/Children outside marriage is not acceptable to a majority of the population in this society and you know that.

"Tax breaks",... again, a political consideration, not within the province of basic human nature as we are not ruled by others, but seek a different drummer from time to time.

Whether you like it or not, and I do not say either, it is 'politics' that has enabled, 'empowered' women to even have those choices. In the raw world of existence, men and women are role players and act to survive.

I thought you were asking basic human questions concerning the nature of the beast...are you only seeking approval?

Amicus...

 

[amicus]

Posted by Pure Evil: "...ami By definition, non pro-creative sex does not fulfill natures imperative of continuation of species.

P: "...Not true. Not shown, indeed the opposite possibility is admitted in mentioning homosexuals might help increase the population...."

Someone want to explain that to me?


Thanks...


Amicus

 

[WRJames]

Oh my. You are mired in a classic nature vs. nurture debate. Good luck on ever resolving that one -- but I suppose that isn't really the point?

Why are you arguing over whether homosexuality is "natural?" I would assume that, on the left, the rationale would be that if it is "natural", we as human beings have a "natural" license, perhaps even an obligation, to allow its expression. And on the right, the counter arguments -- first, that it is not a "natural" activity, and second, that not all "natural" activities are socially permisible (hence to jump to pedophilia?).

Well, so what and so what?

Let me pose a different set of questions --

1. Do have, in our current society, a signficant number of individuals with a desire for same gender relationships?

2. Do you think that making such relationships more socially acceptable would increase that number? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

3. Is there an ethical or moral rationale for encouraging or discouraging same gender relationships -- don't hide behind "natural" law -- come right out and tell me what your REAL reasons are!

4. Is there any possible social harm (or benefit) to permitting, legalizing, sanctifying, etc. same gender marriages.

Okay ladies and gentlemen -- whose got the guts to answer? I'm not going to post my own opinions right away, but you can probably guess where I stand.

 

[Recidiva]

1. Do have, in our current society, a signficant number of individuals with a desire for same gender relationships?

2. Do you think that making such relationships more socially acceptable would increase that number? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

3. Is there an ethical or moral rationale for encouraging or discouraging same gender relationships -- don't hide behind "natural" law -- come right out and tell me what your REAL reasons are!

4. Is there any possible social harm (or benefit) to permitting, legalizing, sanctifying, etc. same gender marriages.

1. Yes.

2. Yes. Same problems as differently gendered couples. Idealism and lack of reality about how much work it is.

3. Civil unions should be standard for any adult in possession of their faculties, same or other gendered. I'm even fine with polygamy. Let people tailor their lives and get legal coverage for it.

4. No. The main harm is to the institutions that have otherwise been the bastions of morality, the church. Bypass them, get a civil union. Deal with the state.

 

[bluebell]

"I immediately regret this decision." -Ron Burgundy from Anchorman

 

[WRJames]

4. No. The main harm is to the institutions that have otherwise been the bastions of morality, the church. Bypass them, get a civil union. Deal with the state.

There is a big split in the church over this issue, also. There are "holy union" ceremonies to sanctify same gender relationships which are not even recognized as civil unions.

 

[Recidiva]

There is a big split in the church over this issue, also. There are "holy union" ceremonies to sanctify same gender relationships which are not even recognized as civil unions.

There's a big split in the church over every issue. I'd say the bible's pretty clear about what it thinks about same gender unions. It's a 2000 year old document, though. I really can't base any decision on those who want to honor a 2000 year old tradition that doesn't honor them in any way.

 

[WRJames]

There's a big split in the church over every issue. I'd say the bible's pretty clear about what it thinks about same gender unions. It's a 2000 year old document, though. I really can't base any decision on those who want to honor a 2000 year old tradition that doesn't honor them in any way.

Actually, the Bible is not nearly that clear cut. There are a few isolated (and somewhat ambiguous) passages which have been TRANSLATED and FOOTNOTED to form the basis of the what the fundamentalists are so convinced is the divine word of God. Here is an interesting article on the subject.

The Church and the Homosexual: An Historical Perspective, 1979

 

[Recidiva]

Actually, the Bible is not nearly that clear cut. There are a few isolated (and somewhat ambiguous) passages which have been TRANSLATED and FOOTNOTED to form the basis of the what the fundamentalists are so convinced is the divine word of God. Here is an interesting article on the subject.

The Church and the Homosexual: An Historical Perspective, 1979

I made up my mind based on the opinions toward women. Therefore, gay women have no rights biblically. That's enough for me to give it a thumbs down.

 

[WRJames]

I made up my mind based on the opinions toward women. Therefore, gay women have no rights biblically. That's enough for me to give it a thumbs down.

Well, women's rights in general are a comparatively recent development in Western society. Some Christian denominations as still struggling with ordination of women. Certainly the Bible reflects a more repressive society. However, other denominations are at the forefront of promoting women's rights worldwide.

 

[BlackShanglan]

How bout them apples?


Amicus...

It's actually a beautifully thoughtful and nuanced approach to science and social integration of scientific knowledge, Amicus - right up to the point at which you decide to ignore the most recent big step, i.e., deciding that homosexuality isn't a disease. I agree, really, that good things can grow from unpromising beginnings, as we learn and develop and evolve. But why deny the last step, when you embrace all that leads to it?

But I'll bow this out of this thread - feel free to bring another. I just wanted to acknowledge your post, which was interesting.

Shanglan

 

[Recidiva]

Well, women's rights in general are a comparatively recent development in Western society. Some Christian denominations as still struggling with ordination of women. Certainly the Bible reflects a more repressive society. However, other denominations are at the forefront of promoting women's rights worldwide.

And that's the problem that the Pope says he has with everyone. All this progressive thought.

It's fine to pick and choose what you want to believe, but you really can't use the bible as your source material and call the whole thing holy, and then follow about 2% of it.

It's disrespectful.

 

[Vermilion]

~~~

I trust you have read and noted that I attempted to keep the thread on topic, but was required to answer challenges, which always seem to occur.

"...To return to the original topic - I must specify that I did not at any point state 'marriage'... I am interested in the concepts of fidelity and monogamy... "

Surely you do not think that 'marriage, fidelity, and monogamy..." can be discussed in a vacuum?

As you discovered, those questions, those issues expand and evolve, by necessity to include all things as 'marriage' is the core concept.

Amicus, I don;t mind if people choose to make marriage the core of thier exploration of the topic, I merely wanted to point out that I had not limited the discussion to married relationships only.

"...For that matter - how important/relevant is marriage in this day and age? When women can own their own property, sex/children outside marriage is acceptable and very few tax breaks are available for married couples is it an outdated institution...."


First off, you want to limit the discussion, then you want to expand the perimeters but only on your terms...? Not possible as all do not have your mindset.

I only want to limit the discussion inasmuch as this is a thread with a specific title and area of discussion - not much point having it open to any subject people choose to discuss, is it? Then it would just be a general discussion thread.

Political efforts enabled women to own property; contested and debated legislation.

Sex/Children outside marriage is not acceptable to a majority of the population in this society and you know that.

It's acceptable in England. Not preferred, perhaps, but it wouldn;t cause anyone to be ostracised from society as it would have used to. As far as the USA goes I cannot make any comment - I have never lived there.

"Tax breaks",... again, a political consideration, not within the province of basic human nature as we are not ruled by others, but seek a different drummer from time to time.

Whether you like it or not, and I do not say either, it is 'politics' that has enabled, 'empowered' women to even have those choices. In the raw world of existence, men and women are role players and act to survive.

I do not understand your point. Once again you have created such convoluted sentences that your point has become lost in your words.

I thought you were asking basic human questions concerning the nature of the beast...are you only seeking approval?

Amicus...

Now now Amicus, not very nice to make this personal. I was asking people their personal opinions on the topics mentioned, I didn;t expect any universal answer (which you seem to be trying, fruitlessly, to provide) nor was I seeking 'approval' - I have no interest in cheating on my fiance... why marry him if I didn;t want to be *with* him? Should I decide to make any such personal decisions I certainly wouldn;t base my decision upon the approval, or otherwise, of others.
It was in considering the nature of marriage and it's prescriptions that I thought I would ask fellow Litizens their opinions. Now please try not to insult me Amicus, it was undeserved and unfriendly.

x
V

 

[Recidiva]

It's acceptable in England. Not preferred, perhaps, but it wouldn;t cause anyone to be ostracised from society as it would have used to. As far as the USA goes I cannot make any comment - I have never lived there.

America's a very big place. I come from a family where one side (Southern New Orleans Creole) shunned the funeral of my brother (gay) and the other is stubborn Yankee and doesn't care what you think.

You can even find places where being straight and a breeder is distasteful and unfashionable. (San Francisco or NY)

 

[amicus]

Oh my. You are mired in a classic nature vs. nurture debate. Good luck on ever resolving that one -- but I suppose that isn't really the point?

Why are you arguing over whether homosexuality is "natural?" I would assume that, on the left, the rationale would be that if it is "natural", we as human beings have a "natural" license, perhaps even an obligation, to allow its expression. And on the right, the counter arguments -- first, that it is not a "natural" activity, and second, that not all "natural" activities are socially permisible (hence to jump to pedophilia?).

~~~

Ah, if you wish to begin a new thread...?

Amicus

 

[BlackShanglan]

Actually, the Bible is not nearly that clear cut. There are a few isolated (and somewhat ambiguous) passages which have been TRANSLATED and FOOTNOTED to form the basis of the what the fundamentalists are so convinced is the divine word of God. Here is an interesting article on the subject.

The Church and the Homosexual: An Historical Perspective, 1979

Thank you very much for the link, WRJ. I haven't had time to do more than skim it just yet, but it looks very interesting. I'll lay it side by side with Benedict's ecyclical on homosexuality and see if I can get any more sense out of the new. Honestly, I found the old a poor sample of reasoning.



Shanglan