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

[waitasec]

Money,power, and control is the reason we have impoverished people.
Doing away with that which is effected in no way will do away with the cause.

and mother theresa was not in a powerful controlling position?
besides, MT said suffering was a gift from god...


whenever a society seeks to empower women it's always for their benefit...

 

[painted wolf]

Sorry not arguing. I ask more sincerely then I am challenging.When I put what I say out there I usually say my convictions as someone can take it or leave it.

Ok... but what your are challenging had nothing to do with what I was saying.

Is this an emotional appeal?

Not entirely... The emotional well being of your peers directly effects your life. Also reduction of reprisals is beneficial for all of society. That's why we encourage neutral courts over vendetta fueled vigilantism.
Indeed there is a direct link between the stability of a culture/nation and the state of it's justice system.

Sorry I did jump in on your post #281.The discussion went into whether the behavior was natural or unnatural and I think that it's irrelevent.

Which is exactly what I was saying.

On what grounds do you base what you consider humane and moral and that which is just natural.

A great deal of thought and study... And as much evidence as is possible.
But I do admit there is a cultural aspect to my thinking, however I try to keep it as informing my framework rather than a bias.

wa:do

 

[Songbird]

Why were you discussing whether homosexuality is natural or not?

Cuz someone done did say homosexuality is unnatural, thus unacceptable. Morality didn't come up.

 

[Walkntune]

and mother theresa was not in a powerful controlling position?
besides, MT said suffering was a gift from god...


whenever a society seeks to empower women it's always for their benefit...

Pain and suffering is a signal that something is out of balance somewhere? I think its a good thing.

 

[Walkntune]

Cuz someone done did say homosexuality is unnatural, thus unacceptable. Morality didn't come up.

It is unnatural for many.

 

[Songbird]

It is unnatural for many.

No one need do what's unnatural to them.

 

[Walkntune]

No one need do what's unnatural to them.

True ,no need to debate it. Nature handles her own resistances beautifully.

 

[Songbird]

True ,no need to debate it. Nature handles her own resistances beautifully.

Hrm, I didn't think we were debating that at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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).

I'm not sure that's actually true, but why would it be bad if it was?

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.

But you're ignoring what I said before about psychological and emotional harm. These could both happen in incest.

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.

So you have a different system; what's it based on and how do you know it's better?

Also, it seems like your objection to open relationships is a bit circular... either that or it comes down to "I find them distateful personally, therefore they're immoral for everyone."

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.

Well, how do you define morality?

Personally, I don't see how an edict from some deity could possibly define right and wrong, so we still need to find some sort of rational basis for any moral system.

 

[waitasec]

Pain and suffering is a signal that something is out of balance somewhere? I think its a good thing.

your sense of compassion is noted...

 

[waitasec]

It is unnatural for many.

so what...

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Wow, this thread sure took a left turn, didn't it?

Unless it's the same, tired mantra of "ejaculatory-biased-heterosexual-procreative-sex-within-a-monogamous-and-religious-marriage" that continues to insist it is really the only way to intimacy and legitimacy.

Am I close? Do I get a cookie?

 

[Manfred]

Wow, this thread sure took a left turn, didn't it?

Unless it's the same, tired mantra of "ejaculatory-biased-heterosexual-procreative-sex-within-a-monogamous-and-religious-marriage" that continues to insist it is really the only way to intimacy and legitimacy.

Am I close?

No you're not; you're not even in the same ballpark. Have you even read the last few pages?

Do I get a cookie?

You strike me as an individual who takes a cookie without asking, so you might want to ease up on this precedence, as not to frighten the locals. I mean I'm fine with, I'm new here so your condescending tone is rather amusing, but seriously: keep those native affairs in check.

Is this where I add a smilie to soften the blow, thus disguising my true intent? :no: :yes:

 

[waitasec]

manfred,
what is your point...?

 

[Manfred]

manfred,
what is your point...

I could ask you the same question, but I won't.
Instead I'll ask another one: We done here?

 

[waitasec]

I could ask you the same question, but I won't.
Instead I'll ask another one: We done here?

i guess you don't have one....

 

[Manfred]

i guess you don't have one....

You can guess all day long, doesn't mean a thing.
Does it?

 

[waitasec]

You can guess all day long, doesn't mean a thing.
Does it?

you still here?

one wonders why...

 

[Manfred]

I don't wonder about it all.
So....what's your point?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

No you're not; you're not even in the same ballpark. Have you even read the last few pages?

You strike me as an individual who takes a cookie without asking, so you might want to ease up on this precedence, as not to frighten the locals. I mean I'm fine with, I'm new here so your condescending tone is rather amusing, but seriously: keep those native affairs in check.

Is this where I add a smilie to soften the blow, thus disguising my true intent? :no: :yes:

LOL....what a cutie pie. *pinches manfred's nose*

So, I'm off base. How is discussing what is "natural", the legitimacy of homosexuality, and what else might be considered "deviant" have anything to do with open marriages?

Oh and about the cookie....let me clarify - if it's oatmeal raisin, it's up for grabs, but if it's a chocolate chip cookie made with real butter, I'm taking it without asking and y'all are gonna have to pry it from my cold dead hands to get it.