Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Totalitarianist · 02-23-2003, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl
Know it - yes. Understand it? Not a chance.

How do you feel about the following acts:

1) Sex between a man and a woman when she is not ovulationg.

2) Sex between a married couple after the woman has gone through menopause.

3) Sex with a woman or man, for various medical reasons, has become sterile.

4) wet dreams (a man has a sexual experience completely out of his control

5) sex with a pregnant woman

If you think any of these situations are ok - than why do you justify some, and not other, sex acts that are not going to lead to babies?

scigirl

All wrong, save for number four, since morality presupposes a potential to choose. I am saying that man-boy love is neither worse nor better than any of these. But, of course, that is not my point. As you can tell, my argument has hitherto been based upon the grounds of the moral beliefs of others. It only changed when someone asked a personal question about my beliefs.

lunachick · 02-23-2003, 09:06 PM

I asked you a question about education - "correct" education, for that matter. Will I get an answer?

Bree · 02-23-2003, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Totalitarianist
Yes, but so is all heterosexual sex which does not result in an embryo.

So, sex is only OK if it is heterosexual in nature and results in an embryo. How can you be 100% sure that your copulation will result in an embryo? If you're not 100% sure, then any sexual act is immoral.

Totalitarianist · 02-23-2003, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lunachick
Education, or manipulation? And what is "correct" in that 'education' context?

Answer to first question: Education. Answer to second question: Scientific.

beoba · 02-23-2003, 09:13 PM

Reply to poll:

What the hell? Got a fixation there, eh Totalitarianist?

Totalitarianist · 02-23-2003, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bree
So, sex is only OK if it is heterosexual in nature and results in an embryo. How can you be 100% sure that your copulation will result in an embryo?

We feed the poor with the intention of making their lives better. But, under certain circumstances, the result could be the opposite, as for example when the nourishment contains an ingredient which causes undesirable effects upon the person, perhaps owing to an allergy, or whatever: but what makes the act moral is the intention. One should have sexual intercourse with the intention of having a child as a result of that activity.

Bree · 02-23-2003, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Trebbie Vir:...but what makes the act moral is the intention. One should have sexual intercourse with the intention of having a child as a result of that activity.

So, shouldn't you want to do everything possible to make the outcome of your sexual act fruitful? Meaning, wouldn't you want to have sex with someone who has more chance of conceiving a child? Meaning someone older?

Doesn't personal preference sort of go out the window when it comes to sex? You say you are attracted to younger individuals, but that it's "OK" because you yourself are young. Isn't that immoral as well? You're desiring something. Shouldn't you purge your body of that desire? Paul himself said the holy shouldn't marry. Are you suggesting you're not holy? If you are, are you OK with that?

Totalitarianist · 02-23-2003, 09:21 PM

Also, I would have to say that both parties have to be sufficiently attractive, since a boy would not wish to have sexual relations with an unattractive person. If a boy does have sexual relations with an unattractive person, that is evidence of a certain degree of force.

Bree · 02-23-2003, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Totalitarianist
If a boy does have sexual relations with an unattractive person, that is evidence of a certain degree of force.

Ah, okay. So the unattractive person gets punished.

Totalitarianist · 02-23-2003, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bree
[COLOR=indigo]So, shouldn't you want to do everything possible to make the outcome of your sexual act fruitful? Meaning, wouldn't you want to have sex with someone who has more chance of conceiving a child? Meaning someone older?

That is exactly what I mean.

Quote:

Doesn't personal preference sort of go out the window when it comes to sex? You say you are attracted to younger individuals, but that it's "OK" because you yourself are young. Isn't that immoral as well?

It is just as wrong as any other attraction that I have. I find nearly all healthy-looking males attractive. It is all equally wrong, for reproduction is impossible.

View Poll Results: Is man-boy love right or wrong?
It is always right	1	1.20%
It is always wrong	60	72.29%
It is sometimes right, and sometimes wrong	22	26.51%
Voters: 83. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-23-2003, 09:06 PM	#22
lunachick Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: NZ Posts: 7,895	I asked you a question about education - "correct" education, for that matter. Will I get an answer?

02-23-2003, 09:13 PM	#25
beoba Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Boston Posts: 699	Reply to poll: What the hell? Got a fixation there, eh Totalitarianist?

02-23-2003, 09:21 PM	#28
Totalitarianist Banned Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 1,234	Also, I would have to say that both parties have to be sufficiently attractive, since a boy would not wish to have sexual relations with an unattractive person. If a boy does have sexual relations with an unattractive person, that is evidence of a certain degree of force.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.