Are there Reasonable Moral Grounds to Oppose Open Relationships and Marriages?

[muslim-]

So... one needs religion to worry about emotional and psychological impacts?

I edited my previous post before you replied and mentioned a thought related to the idea of anything that doesn't cause direct harm, being moral.

To answer the question... No, but one needs religion to cover issues related to morality that do necessarily cause any harm, as in the example I mentioned. Also please note "sexual gratification" isn't limited to intercourse.

In other words, religion covers things that humans without religion don't.

Without recognizing religion as a source of morality, then it must follow that many actions like the one mentioned and many many more, are perfectly moral.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I edited my previous post before you replied and mentioned a thought related to the idea of anything that doesn't cause direct harm, being moral.

I see that now.

Why do you say "direct" harm? Why can't a non-religious moral system take into account any harm, whether direct or indirect? Why would you need a god for that?

To answer the question... No, but one needs religion to cover issues related to morality that do necessarily cause any harm, as in the example I mentioned. Also please note "sexual gratification" isn't limited to intercourse.

I don't think you've really explained your point. And the fact that non-religious moral systems (e.g. mine) can come to the conclusion that having sex with one's sibling is a bad idea seems to contradict your idea that you need religion to do this.

In other words, religion covers things that humans without religion don't.

Can you expand on this? So far, your argument is less than clear to me.

Without recognizing religion as a source of morality, then it must follow that many actions like the one mentioned and many many more, are perfectly moral.

Well, no, it doesn't follow.

I think you need religion if you're going to have a basis for religious rules, but not for morality. I can see how you need a belief in God to come to the conclusion "we need to pray five times a day and avoid eating pork", but I don't see how you need it to come to the conclusion "we need to help other people and avoid having sex with our siblings"... and I think the clearest evidence of this is the huge number of non-believers who are just as moral (and in some cases, more moral, IMO) than believers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just going back to the part of this post that got added after I originally replied:

So if one doesn't believe in religion, or the family institution ( marriage being a religious concept), then I can see why some could consider "open marriages" moral, and prostitution as well.

How do you tell the difference between a religious edict and a moral principle?

Why do you think that open marriages are a matter of morality at all and not, say, simply a non-moral rule that God has given people like, say, the prohibition on eating pork?

Or do you consider pork-eating to be "immoral", too?

 

[muslim-]

I see that now.

Why do you say "direct" harm? Why can't a non-religious moral system take into account any harm, whether direct or indirect? Why would you need a god for that?



I don't think you've really explained your point. And the fact that non-religious moral systems (e.g. mine) can come to the conclusion that having sex with one's sibling is a bad idea seems to contradict your idea that you need religion to do this.


Can you expand on this? So far, your argument is less than clear to me.


Well, no, it doesn't follow.

I think you need religion if you're going to have a basis for religious rules, but not for morality. I can see how you need a belief in God to come to the conclusion "we need to pray five times a day and avoid eating pork", but I don't see how you need it to come to the conclusion "we need to help other people and avoid having sex with our siblings"... and I think the clearest evidence of this is the huge number of non-believers who are just as moral (and in some cases, more moral, IMO) than believers.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I didn't say a non religious moral system can't take harm into account, rather I was saying that a non religious moral system, can ONLY take harm into account. (Even thats debatable but I won't dispute it, not now at least).

Sexual relations among the closest family members for instance, if it didn't involve penetration (therefore with no risk of pregnancy), would be perfectly moral in a non religious moral system.

In addition to incest, the same goes with open relationships, lying when no harm is done (say making up stories to make people laugh), no one can say they cause harm. So if someone is willing to say all of these examples are moral, then fine, you have a non religious moral system. Not one that I accept, but it is a system.

But I don't think one can accept certain things like open relationships on the basis that they aren't harmful, and reject other things like the ones mentioned that don't cause any direct physical harm, but are still immoral. Why would they be immoral? In such a system they would probably be more "pragmatic" than immoral.

 

[Me Myself]

But I don't think one can accept certain things like open relationships on the basis that they aren't harmful, and reject other things like the ones mentioned that don't cause any direct physical harm, but are still immoral. Why would they be immoral? In such a system they would probably be more "pragmatic" than immoral.

Yes you can. Votes should be enough to do it actually.

 

[Manfred]

However, I would say homophobia is fundamentally immoral. It is also an acute type of bigotry that is irrational.

It's immoral for a person to feel disgusted when their idea of unnatural sex is presented to them? This is irrational bigotry, how?

How about the people who point a finger at those who are just being honest about something that bothers them; being honest despite the political correctness of it, are they immoral?

 

[Me Myself]

I would argue that there is no moral reason to oppose any type of sexuality, except padeophilia.

However, I would say homophobia is fundamentally immoral. It is also an acute type of bigotry that is irrational.

Homophobia isn´t immoral.

Acting on it may be, but the fear itself is just a personal reaction.

It´s like saying the bubonic plague was immoral.

the thing is homophobia is undesirable, but as long as it is in a controlable degree and the person doesn´t actively hurt homosexuals in any way, well he is not being immoral. He has a right to feel how he want´s about anything.

Phobias aren´t that chosen anyways.

 

[painted wolf]

It's immoral for a person to feel disgusted when their idea of unnatural sex is presented to them? This is irrational bigotry, how?

It's not immoral but it is irrational. It's not a feeling arrived at by rational thought, but gut feeling. The very term "unnatural sex" is irrational given the explicitly wide range of sexual behaviors in nature.

It's only bigotry if you decide that your discomfort justifies treating the other person as inferior or dangerous. And thus, they needs laws to restrict their freedoms and remove them from "proper" society.

How about the people who point a finger at those who are just being honest about something that bothers them; being honest despite the political correctness of it, are they immoral?

No, honesty isn't immoral, it's a good first step in reaching consensus.

However using your bias/distaste to decide that laws need to be passed that prevent the other person from participation in society and deny them access to rights held by people like yourself is immoral.

wa:do

 

[Manfred]

The very term "unnatural sex" is irrational given the explicitly wide range of sexual behaviors in nature.

So you're saying only certain acts of sexually behavior fall under the banner of unnatural?

It's only bigotry if you decide that your discomfort justifies treating the other person as inferior or dangerous. And thus, they needs laws to restrict their freedoms and remove them from "proper" society.

I agree with this.

No, honesty isn't immoral, it's a good first step in reaching consensus.

So the person who points at another and then exclaims irrational bigotry, is on the right path?

However using your bias/distaste to decide that laws need to be passed that prevent the other person from participation in society and deny them access to rights held by people like yourself is immoral.

I never once said I had a problem with homosexuals, or their life style. I was simply pointing out that member's own irrational bigotry; pointing out yours, as well.
You don't have to apologize, though. I'm not easily offended.

 

[painted wolf]

So you're saying only certain acts of sexually behavior fall under the banner of unnatural?

No... I think I said essentially the opposite. If you look at nature, you will find that there is very little sexually speaking that is "unnatural". Thus, using the "it's unnatural" argument is pretty silly.

I agree with this.

So the person who points at another and then exclaims irrational bigotry, is on the right path?

I never once said I had a problem with homosexuals, or their life style. I was simply pointing out that member's own irrational bigotry; pointing out yours, as well.
You don't have to apologize, though. I'm not easily offended.

I didn't say you did (Your was being used in a general sense)... I was clerifying the difference between being honest about how you feel and being a bigot. If you didn't want the clarification on this point you shouldn't have asked.

It's too bad you personally took this as an attack against you, I'll keep in mind your sensitivity in the future.

wa:do

 

[Manfred]

No... I think I said essentially the opposite. If you look at nature, you will find that there is very little sexually speaking that is "unnatural". Thus, using the "it's unnatural" argument is pretty silly.

Because homosexuality occurs in nature on a scale that would validate it being a natural occurrence? Is that why it's a silly argument?

If you didn't want the clarification on this point you shouldn't have asked.

Perhaps you could do a better job of identifying who you're talking to/about in the future, then. May cut down on my clarification issues.

It's too bad you personally took this as an attack against you, I'll keep in mind your sensitivity in the future.

I have an irrational bigotry towards people trying to put words in my mouth, is all.
You obviously know better than that, so my bad.

 

[Songbird]

Because homosexuality occurs in nature on a scale that would validate it being a natural occurrence? Is that why it's a silly argument?

What makes something natural or unnatural?

Apart from homosexuality occurring in nature, there always has been, always will be, a percentage of the population that is homosexual, regardless of society's view and treatment of it.

 

[Manfred]

What makes something natural or unnatural?

Its functionality, I believe.

Apart from homosexuality occurring in nature, there always has been, always will be, a percentage of the population that is homosexual, regardless of society's view and treatment of it.

I know.

 

[painted wolf]

Because homosexuality occurs in nature on a scale that would validate it being a natural occurrence? Is that why it's a silly argument?

Because it's a disingenuous argument. It's a rhetorical attempt at justification for the position not an argument in itself.

Perhaps you could do a better job of identifying who you're talking to/about in the future, then. May cut down on my clarification issues.

I'll try to keep that in mind.

I have an irrational bigotry towards people trying to put words in my mouth, is all.
You obviously know better than that, so my bad.

Well, try not to be irrational about it... rational thinking is much better.

wa:do

 

[Songbird]

Its functionality, I believe.

Nature has a lotta 'splainin to do, then.

 

[painted wolf]

Nature has a lotta 'splainin to do, then.

No kiddin'

wa:do

 

[Sunstone]

Apart from homosexuality occurring in nature, there always has been, always will be, a percentage of the population that is homosexual, regardless of society's view and treatment of it.

Is that cause lesbian nurses turn kids homosexual and there will always be lesbian nurses?

 

[Songbird]

Is that cause lesbian nurses turn kids homosexual and there will always be lesbian nurses?

Yes. Absolutely. Sexy lesbian nurses influencing innocent children.

 

[Manfred]

Because it's a disingenuous argument. It's a rhetorical attempt at justification for the position not an argument in itself.

You mean like the above statement?

 

[blackout]

Things that are natural to people are a description of their nature.

Now to rephrase,
Things that are natural to people, are a part of nature.
or
Things that are natural to people are natural.
or
Person's natures are reflections, or examples... pictures of nature,
... pictures of what is natural to those persons, who are a part of nature.

yeesh.

It doesn't matter at all what is or isn't natural to any other particular animals
when discussing what is natural to humans.
It is natural for humans to self reflect, and reason and create and construct,
both ideas and things.
It is natural for humans to label, speak and write and read and communicate.
To continually and consistently invent things.
To utilize complex math, and design and implement large scale structures and systems.
The nature of human beings is the nature of human beings.
Not dogs or cats or even monkeys.

If it is the nature of some people to love and partner with others of the same sex...
(which obviously it is)
then that IS THEIR NATURE. ie... Their nature is natural, a part of nature....

If it is the nature of some people to love and partner with more than one other person...
(which it is)
then that is THEIR NATURE. ie... Their nature is natural, a part of nature.

This seem so remedially simple to me.