S
StTommyMore
Guest
Actually, that is precisely why they exist. That is their intended purpose. The resulting pleasure is a side-effect, not an end in itself.
- Status
S
Seeker2010
Guest
I disagree. More importantly, so did the court.
S
Seeker2010
Guest
Then you’re not doing it right.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
If the “spiritual” are this flippant about chastity, it is no wonder we have such a hyper-sexualized society.
S
Seeker2010
Guest
I’m not a fan of ‘chastity’, presuming you’re defining that more or less as (physical) monogamy. That said, I would say we live in a hyper-prudish society, not a hyper-sexualized one. We’re making progress, to be sure, but we’re still very much handcuffed with the baggage of our puritan ancestors.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Doing “it” “right”? Doing what “right”?
Pleasure is an element of sexual relations (i.e., relating to each other) because the human race would die out if it were not pleasurable to have sexual relations. The pleasure is a motivator for an end that goes beyond pleasure to relationship & reproduction.
J
John21652
Guest
Hedonist
L
Leela
Guest
If sex miraculously stopped having any physical pleasure, people would no longer have children?
L
Leela
Guest
You’ve been around long enough to know that we don’t do name calling here. If you have some point to make, please do so in a respectful way.
E
edwest2
Guest
There’s nothing wrong with being a prude. 24/7 porn not enough for you? Please. The needle on my baloney detector just moved into the Danger zone. The Church is making progress by warning people about the Dictatorship of Relativism.
God bless,
Ed
J
John21652
Guest
Is calling someone a hedonist disrespectful?! Well, then so is calling someone a utilitarian, or a capitalist even. Hedonism is a recognised philosophical view and anyone who espouses it is a hedonist.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Obviously they could be mechanical about it. I’m not comparing modern practices to ancient. I’m talking about the elemental principles which exist for particular purposes. So yes, it’s pretty important to include pleasure as an element of reproduction.
E
ERose
Guest
Calling Seeker a Hedonist is just pointing out who he is. A hedonist is someone that views pleasure as the ultimate end. I think we can all agree that Seeker is a hedonist and I would be surprised if Seeker denies this but that is up to him.
K
kenofken
Guest
Ah yes, our old nemesis, the Dictatorship of Relatavism. That would be the same regime that proposes to outlaw civil marriage on religious grounds for gays while turning a blind eye to state-sanctioned adultery among straight couples, because it’s politically expedient to do so. Those relatavistic dictators and their shenanagins!
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
kenofken
That would be the same regime that proposes to outlaw civil marriage on religious grounds for gays while turning a blind eye to state-sanctioned adultery among straight couples, because it’s politically expedient to do so.
The state does not sanction adultery. Indeed, in most states adultery is grounds for a divorce or legal separation. The Church does not sanction it either. Catholic heterosexual adulterers are required to confess their sin, as homosexuals are required to confess theirs.
Show me a state law that says adulterers have a civil right to commit adultery.
That would be the same regime that proposes to outlaw civil marriage on religious grounds for gays while turning a blind eye to state-sanctioned adultery among straight couples, because it’s politically expedient to do so.
The state does not sanction adultery. Indeed, in most states adultery is grounds for a divorce or legal separation. The Church does not sanction it either. Catholic heterosexual adulterers are required to confess their sin, as homosexuals are required to confess theirs.
Show me a state law that says adulterers have a civil right to commit adultery.
S
Seeker2010
Guest
I take no offense in the label, but someone (on this board, I think) pointed out that to be a true hedonist, one must seek pleasure, and pleasure only, and the fact that I seek other things (such as knowledge, wisdom, and love) disqualified me.
Nonetheless, I have labeled myself thusly, even if I’m using a bit of a flexible definition of the term.
S
Seeker2010
Guest
I would say Lawrence v. Texas establishes the ‘civil right’ of committing adultery, insofar as SCOTUS ruled that private sexual behavior of any kind is none of the states business. That doesn’t mean I like or endorse adultery, but you nonetheless have the right to do so without fear of arrest or imprisonment.Show me a state law that says adulterers have a civil right to commit adultery.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Seeker
I take no offense in the label, but someone (on this board, I think) pointed out that to be a true hedonist, one must seek pleasure, and pleasure only, and the fact that I seek other things (such as knowledge, wisdom, and love) disqualified me.
Seeker, this not quite right. Hedonism is the philosophy that one should seek pleasure as the highest good, not the only good.
Since the pursuit of knowledge, wisdom, and love yields pleasure to most people, you are not disqualified on that ground either.
I take no offense in the label, but someone (on this board, I think) pointed out that to be a true hedonist, one must seek pleasure, and pleasure only, and the fact that I seek other things (such as knowledge, wisdom, and love) disqualified me.
Seeker, this not quite right. Hedonism is the philosophy that one should seek pleasure as the highest good, not the only good.
Since the pursuit of knowledge, wisdom, and love yields pleasure to most people, you are not disqualified on that ground either.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Seeker
*I would say Lawrence v. Texas establishes the ‘civil right’ of committing adultery, insofar as SCOTUS ruled that private sexual behavior of any kind is none of the states business. That doesn’t mean I like or endorse adultery, but you nonetheless have the right to do so without fear of arrest or imprisonment. *
That’s quite a stretch and cannot be reconciled with the fact that SCOTUS never struck down state statues that allow suing for divorce on the grounds of adultery. The states clearly frown on adultery, and they agree with litigants who believe they have been sinned against. So yes, I think the state is not in favor of civil rights to commit adultery, even though it is not an imprisonable action. Lots of crimes go without criminal penalties, though when adulterous husbands get the judge’s ruling on dividing up property, you can pretty well imagine how the husband feels the punishment does not fit the crime. 
*I would say Lawrence v. Texas establishes the ‘civil right’ of committing adultery, insofar as SCOTUS ruled that private sexual behavior of any kind is none of the states business. That doesn’t mean I like or endorse adultery, but you nonetheless have the right to do so without fear of arrest or imprisonment. *
That’s quite a stretch and cannot be reconciled with the fact that SCOTUS never struck down state statues that allow suing for divorce on the grounds of adultery.
The states clearly frown on adultery, and they agree with litigants who believe they have been sinned against. So yes, I think the state is not in favor of civil rights to commit adultery, even though it is not an imprisonable action. Lots of crimes go without criminal penalties, though when adulterous husbands get the judge’s ruling on dividing up property, you can pretty well imagine how the husband feels the punishment does not fit the crime.
J
John21652
Guest
Charlemagne, kenofken is being disengenuous once again. A few pages back he called Natural Law “bunk” and yet then tried to use slavery as a metaphor for the legitamacy of homosexual behaviour, when it was Natural Law moral theory which bought down slavery. He never even offered a rebuttal of the arguments against his post. Here, once again, he persists in stating that a certain regime wants to outlaw homosexual marriage on religious grounds, even though he has been shown that the anti-homosexual argument transcends religion. you picked up on yet another of his false analogies, that of homosexuality and adultery. His arguments for moral relativity reek of a self serving political agenda devoid of any logic and of any reasoned morality.kenofken
That would be the same regime that proposes to outlaw civil marriage on religious grounds for gays while turning a blind eye to state-sanctioned adultery among straight couples, because it’s politically expedient to do so.
The state does not sanction adultery. Indeed, in most states adultery is grounds for a divorce or legal separation. The Church does not sanction it either. Catholic heterosexual adulterers are required to confess their sin, as homosexuals are required to confess theirs.
Show me a state law that says adulterers have a civil right to commit adultery.
- Status