Skip to comments.
Not a path to promiscuity, but to sanity
Times OnLine ^
| October 30, 2005
| Minette Marrin
Posted on 10/30/2005 9:24:21 AM PST by gcruse
Traditional sexuality morality meaning sexual restraint, particularly for women was based on that connection between sex and conception: it evolved to protect paternity and patrimony. Now the connection has all but disappeared, as has patrimony, and the less connection, the less restraint and the more empty the morality.
For this reason Christian moralists and others are doomed to failure with their quixotic hopes of getting people to say no to sex or to save themselves for married monogamy; they might as well try to put a genie back in his lamp. Because higamous, hogamous we are mostly not monogamous, and we no longer have any reproductive reason even to try to pretend that we are.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: antichristian; christianbashing; culturewar; delusional; doasthouwill; hedonism; ifitfeelsgooddoit; itsjustsex; libertines; moralabsolutes; nihilism; religion; religiousintolerance; sex; sexpositiveagenda; sexualizingchildren
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 next last
To: Clint N. Suhks
Did you bump your head before you wrote that? Are you drunk? Hmmm... powerful argument.
Why is it "immoral" to bring an "unplanned" baby into the world?
61
posted on
11/02/2005 8:06:55 AM PST
by
Aquinasfan
(Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
To: gcruse
This article presupposes that modern contraception has eliminated all unwanted pregnancies, as well as all negative effects of promiscuous sex.
That's all we need to know about what utter BS it is.
62
posted on
11/02/2005 8:08:49 AM PST
by
Skooz
(If you think Adolf Hitler was a Christian, you are a blithering idiot.)
To: Aquinasfan
Why is it "immoral" to bring an "unplanned" baby into the world?Didn't say that did I?
So answer my question...are you drunk or did you just bump your head?
63
posted on
11/02/2005 8:11:57 AM PST
by
Clint N. Suhks
(If you don't like Jesus, you can go to hell.)
To: gondramB
Or the Humongous?
64
posted on
11/02/2005 8:12:14 AM PST
by
Skooz
(If you think Adolf Hitler was a Christian, you are a blithering idiot.)
To: CitizenUSA
How many happy hippies do YOU know? I can't think of any, and I live on a college campus, so I'm generally up to my eyeballs in hippies.
To: ccmay
You really oughtn't use FR as a spousal messaging tool. :D
To: Clint N. Suhks
Taking the chance of bringing an unplanned child in the world, no matter how low the risk, is still immoral Do you mean to say that taking the risk of bringing an unplanned child into the world is immoral? If so, then bringing an "unplanned" child into the world must be a great evil.
67
posted on
11/02/2005 8:17:27 AM PST
by
Aquinasfan
(Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
To: gcruse
Traditional sexuality morality meaning sexual restraint, particularly for women was based on that connection between sex and conception: it evolved to protect paternity and patrimony.
What a steaming load.
68
posted on
11/02/2005 8:21:08 AM PST
by
aruanan
To: Aquinasfan
Do you mean to say that taking the risk of bringing an unplanned child into the world is immoral? I'm terribly sorry...I assumed you were literate enough to have read the article. The CONTEXT of the article was about having sex outside of wedlock.
69
posted on
11/02/2005 8:23:08 AM PST
by
Clint N. Suhks
(If you don't like Jesus, you can go to hell.)
To: Clint N. Suhks
I'm terribly sorry...I assumed you were literate enough to have read the article. The CONTEXT of the article was about having sex outside of wedlock. I'm sorry. I thought you meant what you said:
There is no "contraception" that doesn't have a failure risk. Taking the chance of bringing an unplanned child in the world, no matter how low the risk, is still immoral no matter what the liberals spew.
70
posted on
11/02/2005 8:26:50 AM PST
by
Aquinasfan
(Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
To: Recovering Hermit
To: after dark
One of the bonuses of going to a big church, eh? :)
To: Aquinasfan
I'm sorry. I thought you meant what you said: I said it's immoral to risk/chance bringing an unplanned child into the world outside of wedlock given the "context" of the article.
NOT that unplanned babies should be "killed" as you originally inferred.
Sober up.
73
posted on
11/02/2005 8:35:13 AM PST
by
Clint N. Suhks
(If you don't like Jesus, you can go to hell.)
To: ccmay
I think that most people should get married in their late teens or early twenties, get the child bearing out of the way, and only then worry about long-term career goals. How outrageously irresponsible. (Or do you want the taxpayers to pay the bills when the idiots who failed to make proper plans find themselves unable to do so?)
74
posted on
11/02/2005 8:38:21 AM PST
by
steve-b
(A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
To: Clint N. Suhks
I said it's immoral to risk/chance bringing an unplanned child into the world outside of wedlock given the "context" of the article. That part wasn't in your original post.
75
posted on
11/02/2005 8:44:04 AM PST
by
Aquinasfan
(Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
To: Aquinasfan
Why is it "immoral" to bring an "unplanned" baby into the world? For the same reason it is immoral to plan to successfully manage any other obligation one has assumed.
76
posted on
11/02/2005 8:45:10 AM PST
by
steve-b
(A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
To: steve-b
For the same reason it is immoral to plan to successfully manage any other obligation one has assumed. So what should we do with the ones that escaped artificial sterilization?
77
posted on
11/02/2005 8:49:31 AM PST
by
Aquinasfan
(Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
To: Aquinasfan
That part wasn't in your original post. If you had read the article you would have understood the "context" of my post. Saying I wanted "unplanned babies to be 'killed' is reprehensible.
78
posted on
11/02/2005 8:52:53 AM PST
by
Clint N. Suhks
(If you don't like Jesus, you can go to hell.)
To: Aquinasfan
The question of how to deal with the ramifications of an immoral act has no bearing on whether or not the act was, in fact, immoral in the first place.
To take another example of the same principle, if a fast-talking incompetent manages to slip through the employment screening process (instead of doing the moral thing, which is to actually learn the skills expected of an entry-level employee in the field), there are various possible ways of addressing the problem after the fact. None of them changes the fact that the guy is a weasel.
79
posted on
11/02/2005 8:55:59 AM PST
by
steve-b
(A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
To: gcruse
personally, i'm more of the opinion that monogamy saves the father and taxpayers from raising a child they don't know.
80
posted on
11/02/2005 9:06:41 AM PST
by
absolootezer0
("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson