Sex is morally wrong?

[Kenneth R.]

my argument is not "fallacious" in any way. i feel you have misinterpreted it somehow then.

unless you read the first page (and i take it you did not) my initial reply was that sex is a necessary fact of life to continue a species and therefore CANNOT be immoral inherently. however, situational circumstance can render it immoral. i argue that without the motive of love, it is an immoral act. what is sex without love? it is self gratification. without the connection of love, it has what meaning beyond "feeling good" for a short time? none.

have i had sex without love? no, for the very reasons above that i have described. if i had, then i would be a hypocrite would i not? by your reasoning, how can you discuss the topic at all if you had not had sex with and without love to compare the two? i find that irrelevant as the discussion at hand is based on principle, not experimental data.

my basis for calling such behavior hollow is: if there is no love, if there is no driving force behind it other than self gratification, then what is left but a loss of that gratification? what is left but a desire to top such feeling? it is as greed. there will never be an end to the pit you dig. without some driving reasoning for why it is undertaken besides self-gratification, there is nothing to sustain its rational morality. if you wish, you may argue that we need nothing more than selfgratification if you see yourself and humanity as nothing more than primitive animals.

your example of the "Amish" is extraneous. your paragraph on "televangelism" is also extraneous. and your personal attack on my character shows you have nothing to argue with except insults, the lowest form of debate. if you wish to discuss televangelism and religion, go look at the religion thread in this forum. you'll find i won't have to type out pages upon pages of argument because i already have. feel free to debate that.

as for the "God does not have sex" argument, that is absolutely asinine. God, to those who believe in him, is the master of all things, creator of all things. to those who believe in him, he created humanity and all other creatures, and in such a way governed their characteristics, including sex. therefore, he "knows" far, far more about us than any past, current, or future physician ever will.

seeing how your argument of "God does not have sex" is based on the belief in God that he exists, and thus because he does not have intercourse is not the authority of such matters, is absolutely false as shown above.

and that, my friend, is why i was

 

[Silver Incubus]

well what if one person loves and the other doesn't? So one pleases the other, both are satisfied after climax, but on one did it for love the other did it for pleasure. Is it still immoral?

 

[Cythraul]

. Look kid, God doesn’t fuck, so he should not be going around and giving us sex advice.

Dude, God fucked the void and that's how the world was made. By the way, who wants to have sex with me?

 

[no country for old wainds]

Varg

teehee

 

[Kenneth R.]

well what if one person loves and the other doesn't? So one pleases the other, both are satisfied after climax, but on one did it for love the other did it for pleasure. Is it still immoral?

that is a very difficult situation. i would not be able to justify that, in my personal view it is moral from the perspective of the lover, immoral from the perspective of the loved to take advantage of such love. yet also if the lover knew they were unloved in return, that would complicate it further.

i don't have a clear answer for that, but i would lean towards immoral.

 

[Furious B]

my argument is not "fallacious" in any way. i feel you have misinterpreted it somehow then.

No, I understand it completely.

unless you read the first page (and i take it you did not) my initial reply was that sex is a necessary fact of life to continue a species and therefore CANNOT be immoral inherently. however, situational circumstance can render it immoral. i argue that without the motive of love, it is an immoral act. what is sex without love? it is self gratification. without the connection of love, it has what meaning beyond "feeling good" for a short time? none.

Okay, this is what you said:

sex is only morally wrong when it is without consent or without love.

The ONLY point that I'm arguing is the one that is in bold. I didn't discredit anything else you had said. I just feel that THAT PARTICULAR point is fallacious, especially without any sort of relevant reasoning behind it.

Again, who are you to assume that someone getting laid won't bring them a small amount of happiness, even if it is for a short time? It can certainly have meaning. The memory can certainly have meaning. Anything else that I may be missing?

And what does meaninglessness have to do with morality? Eating a candy bar is certainly meaningless and the pleasure only lasts for a short period of time, but I don't think anyone would argue that the act of eating a candy bar for that moment of pleasure is wrong morally. You seem to want to equate "meaning" and "morality" when there is a significant difference.

have i had sex without love? no, for the very reasons above that i have described. if i had, then i would be a hypocrite would i not? by your reasoning, how can you discuss the topic at all if you had not had sex with and without love to compare the two? i find that irrelevant as the discussion at hand is based on principle, not experimental data.

The reason I ask is because you make such a definitive claim with such conviction. Of course you'd be a hypocrite, but at least you'd have some empirical reason to point out that this topic (sex) is meaningless without love. You would not be able to really know whether it is ethical, but certainly argue its value (meaning).

my basis for calling such behavior hollow is: if there is no love, if there is no driving force behind it other than self gratification, then what is left but a loss of that gratification?

Uhh, memories? The enjoyment of your life, youth, body, sexuality, etc. while you still have it? Everything passes. Even precious love.

what is left but a desire to top such feeling? it is as greed. there will never be an end to the pit you dig. without some driving reasoning for why it is undertaken besides self-gratification, there is nothing to sustain its rational morality. if you wish, you may argue that we need nothing more than selfgratification if you see yourself and humanity as nothing more than primitive animals.

And what's your point exactly? You eat a sandwhich and two hours later you're hungry again? That's the reality of being human. What's morally wrong with that?

your example of the "Amish" is extraneous. your paragraph on "televangelism" is also extraneous. and your personal attack on my character shows you have nothing to argue with except insults, the lowest form of debate. if you wish to discuss televangelism and religion, go look at the religion thread in this forum. you'll find i won't have to type out pages upon pages of argument because i already have. feel free to debate that.

Heh, please. I pointed out exactly what I saw was weak about your arguments. Sure, I threw in some sarcastic and snide remarks, but the points that I had made are completely relevant. If you'd like me to point them out, I'd be more than happy to:

Why does love have to be present for something to have meaning?

What makes a meaningless act like sex without love immoral?

Sure, could argue that the televangelist one was rude. Fine, whatever. But the amish correlation still stands. For the points being discussed, it fits completely.

as for the "God does not have sex" argument, that is absolutely asinine. God, to those who believe in him, is the master of all things, creator of all things. to those who believe in him, he created humanity and all other creatures, and in such a way governed their characteristics, including sex. therefore, he "knows" far, far more about us than any past, current, or future physician ever will.

seeing how your argument of "God does not have sex" is based on the belief in God that he exists, and thus because he does not have intercourse is not the authority of such matters, is absolutely false as shown above.

Okay, first and foremost, I'd like to point out that the comment at face value is nothing more than a joke (which I had already stated). I do however feel that it does make sense if you think about it. For instance, how can God "almighty" understand what it is like to be a human? How would he know what it is like to desire sex? Of course, because he programmed it within us. Okay, well, why would God expect us to feel these innate desires and not act on them (he obviously didn't design love as a requisite for sex) without love?

I'd just like to put an afterthought out here for you to address (or ignore it, which you seem compelled to do much like with my other points):

Sure, God can "know" everything about man. But, because man is inherently flawed and carry limitations (like, for instance, knowledge), God can never understand what it is actually like to BE HUMAN. It's my personal belief that it is wrong for God to judge mankind for, not only something that is insignificant like sex and inherent within us (which he created nonetheless!), but for something he (It maybe?) can never fully understand.

Any objections?

 

[Kenneth R.]

yes i have objections. i'm sorry, but you did not understand.

you said it yourself. i'll capitalize it for you: EVEN IF IT IS JUST FOR A SHORT TIME.

i'll even copy and past my argument from before, so that you can read it again (and hopefully get it this time):
my basis for calling such behavior hollow is: if there is no love, if there is no driving force behind it other than self gratification, then what is left but a loss of that gratification? what is left but a desire to top such feeling? it is as greed. there will never be an end to the pit you dig. without some driving reasoning for why it is undertaken besides self-gratification, there is nothing to sustain its rational morality. if you wish, you may argue that we need nothing more than self gratification if you see yourself and humanity as nothing more than primitive animals.

further, i disagree. true love is not a passing affair.

beyond that even, i'm sure your partners would love to hear that you find sex a "meaningless" act that does not require love. that is what makes it immoral.

describe how the "Amish" argument even matters to this discussion. you've done nothing but name drop thus far.

how can God know what it is like to be human? If he made humanity, he would understand humanity. obviously sex is a form of procreation and that act is desirable so that it is enjoyable to continue the species. if he created it as repulsive, perhaps it would have been better from a creator's aspect, in that it would limit such instances to those of only extreme need. however, by making it desirable he gives it a chance to be something enjoyable. this is also a difficult position in that it creates temptation for humanity to be immoral. it is as any other device. sex is not immoral. love is not immoral. lust is immoral as laid out in the seven deadly sins, which make sense even to nonbelievers, unless you wish to also contest the validity of greed, sloth, excessive pride, envy, gluttony, and the last as well.

God created mankind and all other creations as "good" and "pleasing" to his intention, but with flaws. for if they were perfect, they would regard themselves as gods and he would have created rivals who might damage his plan.

you are correct in assuming that he may not know what it is like to feel flawed, but upon manifesting Jesus on earth, he would know all too well what it is like to BE mankind.

those are my objections.

 

[Furious B]

*sigh*

yes i have objections. i'm sorry, but you did not understand.

you said it yourself. i'll capitalize it for you: EVEN IF IT IS JUST FOR A SHORT TIME.

No, no... Trust me, I fully understand. You, however, I'm not so sure do. Let's take a look at the definition of morality (courtesy of dictionary.com):

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

NOWHERE in those FOUR definitions does it state anything related to a length of time and/or meaning. NEITHER of those are relevant to this discussion of morality.

i'll even copy and past my argument from before, so that you can read it again (and hopefully get it this time):

Why bother? I have already addressed them and you have ignored my arguments. There is nothing more for me to get as I already responded to that ENTIRE paragraph. Understand?

further, i disagree. true love is not a passing affair.

My point was not to discuss the nature of love, but to merely point out that everything passes at some point.

Love, with everything other emotion that is contingent on human consciousness, will fade once death occurs. If there is such an afterlife, you must concede that once we change forms that love must change as well, to fit that form? The perspective changes and therefore the emotion would surely follow. Anyway, enough digression…

beyond that even, i'm sure your partners would love to hear that you find sex a "meaningless" act that does not require love. that is what makes it immoral.

I never said sex was a meaningless act. YOU were the one that said that unless love was involved, it was meaningless. Somehow I’m assuming you mean actually being in love (because there is a significant difference) and just loving (more like caring about a person, actually) someone. Again, the meaning or lack of meaning does not define the morality of an action.

describe how the "Amish" argument even matters to this discussion. you've done nothing but name drop thus far.

The Amish feel that the only reason for sex is for procreation and a BIG requisite for said act is to be married, and, you guessed it, would entail love. Explain how that is different from your views.

how can God know what it is like to be human? If he made humanity, he would understand humanity. obviously sex is a form of procreation and that act is desirable so that it is enjoyable to continue the species. if he created it as repulsive, perhaps it would have been better from a creator's aspect, in that it would limit such instances to those of only extreme need. however, by making it desirable he gives it a chance to be something enjoyable. this is also a difficult position in that it creates temptation for humanity to be immoral.

What are you getting at exactly? So, okay, God created these desires in man, but yet doesn’t want to see man carry these desires out? And if they do it’s “immoral”? Wow…

it is as any other device. sex is not immoral. love is not immoral. lust is immoral as laid out in the seven deadly sins, which make sense even to nonbelievers, unless you wish to also contest the validity of greed, sloth, excessive pride, envy, gluttony, and the last as well.

I actually tend to like the seven deadly sins because they are a rough guideline of some disgusting behaviors that should be avoided. Do I think they are immoral? Not really. With the exception of maybe wrath, I can only say they are major annoyances at most. Take greed for instance; I feel that it is a waste of life and a disgusting trait for a person to have, to be so bound by the almighty dollar, but if it is not intrusive on anyone else’s well-being, then I can not justify the title of immorality on it. I don’t see it as wrong, but if you can justify it, be my guest.

God created mankind and all other creations as "good" and "pleasing" to his intention, but with flaws. for if they were perfect, they would regard themselves as gods and he would have created rivals who might damage his plan.

Apparently, there have been a change of plans.

you are correct in assuming that he may not know what it is like to feel flawed, but upon manifesting Jesus on earth, he would know all too well what it is like to BE mankind.

Uhh, but Jesus never sinned? From my understanding SIN is the source of man’s perdition and thus its limitations. God cannot fully fathom what it is like to be man because he CANNOT be of sin. It would negate his (again, it? her?) existence. At least in the omnipotent portrayal displayed in modern Christian dogma.

those are my objections.

And quite the objections, I must say. But hey, next time, please read and then make counterarguments. Not regurgitate older statements you had made that I already dissected and addressed. Don’t expect a response from me otherwise.

Anywho, back to academia.

 

[Kenneth R.]

please refrain from the personal attacks and insulting "holier than thou" crap you so seem to love. you seem to like the lightbulb icon, so i'll give you one too.

1. as we all know, dictionary.com is the absolute authority on all things. (hah, as if.)

2. while you're at it, go get the definitions of "virtuous conduct" etc if you really want to get technical, but of course, these are things everyone understands and your point is pedestrian. what matters is that virtuous conduct and the like be upheld in such situations as that which we discuss. you and i seem to be arguing different things because your original rebuttal was askew from my point.

3. again i disagree. love in the purest sense transcends death.

4. i disagree because unlike the Amish, i don't find procreation the only purpose for sex, though i do see love as a moral necessity.

5. no, you misunderstand. God grants us the enjoyment of such action, but it is up to us to do so morally and justly. because it exists does not make it evil, evil is manifested in its misuse.

6. i agree about the 7 sins however i would consider them immoral. there is hardly any possible basis to see it as otherwise as i have already stated, unless one supports such unvirtuous conduct.

7. what do you mean "a change of plans"? that remark has no basis nor validity to this argument.

8. Jesus did not sin, correct. and that is why he is the prime example of conduct.

9. you may have "dissected" my argument but you have shown little more than joking insults and misinterpreted or flawed arguments. though you "dissect", you have yet to show the results of such "dissection". you have certainly not convinced me of anything you say. "please read" and i won't have to re-post what has been previously said, i would rather discuss an ongoing topic.

 

[AlexGuinness]

I have always seen sex and making love as totally different things.

To either, I would only consider them immoral if not in the situation of consenting people of legal age.

One other question though, what is wrong with self-gratification?

 

[Kenneth R.]

what is moral about it? one pleases oneself. thus is also true with the other 6 deadly sins, in addition to lust. these things are actions of selfishness and are thus immoral.

 

[Silver Incubus]

what is moral about it? one pleases oneself. thus is also true with the other 6 deadly sins, in addition to lust. these things are actions of selfishness and are thus immoral.

remember when i said evil was selfishness..... there is another example of it:Spin:

 

[Silent paragon]

Furious B,
You speak my mind. As I suffer from dyslexia (did I spell that right?) I find it difficult to communicate through this medium. I can not type such long posts myself, but I agree with you’re above posts.

 

[Alwin]

why do the posts get longer and longer when it's so simple really? sex feels good and is okay if the people having sex agree upon the form(s) of sex they are having and are old enough legally. okay, one other condition: be honest about your sexual behavior to all sexual partners. ENJOY !!!!

 

[Kenneth R.]

why do the posts get longer and longer when it's so simple really? sex feels good and is okay if the people having sex agree upon the form(s) of sex they are having and are old enough legally. okay, one other condition: be honest about your sexual behavior to all sexual partners. ENJOY !!!!

i'd agree with this, except in honesty if the situation is "i dont really love you, just wanna get some" and the other agrees, what good is that? my final requirement is mutual genuine love. and that one last point has caused all this debate because some people would rather not care about such things and just satisfy their selfish momentary impulses.

 

[Furious B]

why do the posts get longer and longer when it's so simple really?

Because people make claims that need to be dismantled and in order to do that, specifics in the post need to be analyzed, then confronted. I agree with your post otherwise as this issue seems so blatantly obvious to those with their heads out of the sand.

 

[Furious B]

i'd agree with this, except in honesty if the situation is "i dont really love you, just wanna get some" and the other agrees, what good is that?

None whatsoever. It's not bad either. The correct term would be AMORAL.

my final requirement is mutual genuine love. and that one last point has caused all this debate because some people would rather not care about such things and just satisfy their selfish momentary impulses.

Right, your final requirement. But you have yet to justify your requirement as something that is NOT subjectively based. Furthermore, perhaps you care to address my candy bar parallel and tell me where the difference lies.

I really thought that once we hit that brick wall this thread would have died, but here we are. I can't let it go by as if my points have been confronted, when they so clearly haven't.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Because people make claims that need to dismantled and in order to do that, specifics in the post need to be analyzed, then confronted. I agree with your post otherwise as this issue seems so blatantly obvious to those with their heads out of the sand.

this post reminds me of another certain user, Darth Kur, who in his anger, hardly says anything worth discussing.

remember that the obvious is not always right, and though you may "dismantle" you may not discover what drives that which you have taken apart. there, i have "dismantled" your post. :Smug:

 

[Kenneth R.]

None whatsoever. It's not bad either. The correct term would be AMORAL.

Right, your final requirement. But you have yet to justify your requirement as something that is NOT subjectively based. Furthermore, perhaps you care to address my candy bar parallel and tell me where the difference lies.

I really thought that once we hit that brick wall this thread would have died, but here we are. I can't let it go by as if my points have been confronted, when they so clearly haven't.

1. i disagree. immoral would be more appropriate.

2. i have justified it over several pages, and have already addressed everything you have had to say up to this point.

3. if you feel they haven't been addressed, see previous pages.

 

[Furious B]

this post reminds me of another certain user, Darth Kur, who in his anger, hardly says anything worth discussing.

Anger?

remember that the obvious is not always right, and though you may "dismantle" you may not discover what drives that which you have taken apart. there, i have "dismantled" your post. :Smug:

You just don't get it. In order to debate, one person makes a claim. After that the person addresses that claim and attempts to refute it. The other person then addresses their rebuttal with a counterargument and so forth.

You have not addressed many of my questions. Instead, I make a claim, you ignore it and pretend as if you have addressed it by passing it off as "laughable". That's not how it works.