pug846

Luvluv said:

(in a time warp back in the 1950s)

(I know you aren’t racist, I’m merely trying to make a point.)

Your objections are that a certain act generally ends up with bad consequences. So, I assume you would accept casual sex if the general outcome was good? Is this your real objection to causal sex?

Viti

In the US over half of all marriages end in divorce. I don't understand how this is somehow less harmful that casual sex. Responsible people can and do prevent bad outcomes from casual sex all the time; luvluv, I would like some data in rgards to this and your other assertions

And how does marriage or "non-casual" sex prevent these?

luvluv

pug: The adverse consequences of interracial sex are by products of our flawed society. The adverse consequences of casual sex are intrinsic in the act.

Mageth:

"One could make the same argument about marriage; it often, if not always, causes someone some form of harm. Since the odds of you engaging in marriage and never hurting anyone are almost nil, should marriage be considered immoral?"

I suppose because, sexuality being inevitable, marriage between faithful, commited partners is the expression of sexuality which offers the least possibility of adverse consequences.

If the partners abide by the rules, divorce rates notwithstanding, it has a better than even chance of not causing hurt and widespread adverse consequences.

Lady Shea:

"In the US over half of all marriages end in divorce. I don't understand how this is somehow less harmful that casual sex. Responsible people can and do prevent bad outcomes from casual sex all the time; luvluv, I would like some data in rgards to this and your other assertions."

If you mean responsible people prevent unwanted pregnancies and veneral diseases, I would agree. But a) these are not the only adverse consequences of casual sex, and b)given the prevelance of unwanted pregnancies and veneral diseases, there are a lot of irresponsible people out there. In fact, they may outnumber the responsible. How many people that you know of who engage in causal sex have NEVER had an adverse consequence, physical or emotional?


As far as the divorce rates go, I would assume that much of it is because of the abundance of casual sex that is committed by the married. By marriage, I am assuming we mean a faithful committed marriage. Obviously, marriage in and of itself does not preclude casual sex.

"And how does marriage or "non-casual" sex prevent these? "

Doesn't prevent them, but inasmuch as there are only two people involved, it would lessen the odds of all of the afforementioned adverse consequences. And again, I am referring to faithful marriages. I probably consider marital infidelity to be worse than casual sex between uncommitted partners.

Samhain

I'll agree with free12thinker on this one.
There cannot be any moral standing with any of these examples, only responsibility and accountability. To say that these things are immoral would be to say that they are inherently wrong regardless of the consequences, so even with a good outcome, the act is still evil. That doesn't make must sense considering the only true potential victims in these situations are those who willingly engage in these acts knowing possible consequences. Reminder: casual sex does not mean infidelity.

EDIT: As an example of true casual sex look at the Swinger's society. No jealousy, and if preformed safely no negative side effects. Only sexual pleasure, one could argue that pure "pleasure-seeking" is immoral, but we'd have to discuss hedonism as opposed to just casual sex in such a situation.

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>

Mageth

luvluv:

Sounds like the problem is with irresponsible people, not casual sex or marriage. That was my point, and I think LadyShea's as well.

Being irresponsible may be considered morally objectionable, whatever one's choice in lifestyle; choosing to responsibly engage in marriage or casual sex is not morally objectionable unless one adds the caveat that for (religious) reasons casual sex is morally objectionable.

luvluv

How about this:

Is incest wrong?

David Gould

In what sense can it be described as wrong?

I wouldn't want to do it but if others want to &lt;shrug&gt;

The negative consequences could be the production of a deformed child but I do not know what the odds of such an occurrence is.

If they are responsible or are infertile, what possible bad could result except for society's dissapproval? And if the dissaproval has no basis, then it is the society that has created the bad outcome and not the act itself.

ex-preacher

It depends on which kind. Please choose from the following list:
-Adam and Eve's children mating.
-Noah's grandchildren mating.
-Abraham and Sarah.
-Lot and his daughters.
-Isaac and Rebekah.
-Jacob and Leah and Rachel.
-heavenly father and his virgin daughter.

JL

That was pretty damn smooth ex-preacher. LOL. Sorry luvluv you left the door wide open.

luvluv

Okay ex-preacher, lets assume all of those were fine. Would you hang out with a man who routinely had consensual sex with his daughter? I'm not even talking about child abuse, I'm talking she's of age and it's consensual, but she is his 21 year old daughter.

David Gould, same question?