"If it doesn't hurt anyone..."

[Winterwolf00]

Nice try at a dodge.
I stipulated that they “had no idea what had happened”
Care to answer on that basis?

What possible harm could there be from watching two adults do something that "doesn’t hurt anyone"
Ever heard of the Folsom St Fair?

They’d still be harmed by it.

 

[Winterwolf00]

There is not much point in talking about hypotheticals.

I am quite sure that there are many people who professed eternal love for the few months they were together.

Sex without love is at best a waste of time. There is a comedian who quipped something to the effect that you know you’ve got to make changes when you wake up in the morning to find some pretty woman beside you looking over at you with an expression that suggests she has hit rock bottom. If it was not clear earlier, it certainly is when you are that guy.

You are again assuming without cause that a relation that includes sex before marriage is not a loving one.
Can you base this on ANYTHING?

 

[Aloysium]

You are again assuming without cause that a relation that includes sex before marriage is not a loving one.
Can you base this on ANYTHING?

I am assuming nothing. In fact I stated that there are problems dealing merely with hypotheticals.

That said, it is a truth that what is meaningful in life is found in our relationships.
The rest, as nice and appealing as it may be, is rubbish, because that is what happens to all that is not love - it rusts, corrodes, deteriorates.
Sex without commitment is a waste of time at best. At its worst, it is painfully displayed in Family Courts everywhere.
The commitment and love required to continue in a relationship is beyond the capacity of two individuals alone to maintain. There must be a third party, and the third party who will always come through is God.

 

[Winterwolf00]

I am assuming nothing. In fact I stated that there are problems dealing merely with hypotheticals.

That said, it is a truth that what is meaningful in life is found in our relationships.
The rest, as nice and appealing as it may be is rubbish, because that is what happens to all that is not love - it rusts, corrodes, deteriorates.
Sex without commitment is a waste of time at best. At its worst, it is painfully displayed in Family Courts everywhere.
The commitment and love required to continue in a relationship is beyond the capacity of two individuals to maintain. There must be a third party, and the third party that will always come through is God.

How exactly can you say that doing something that is consensual, enjoyable, and non-harmful. a waste of time?
And no god is not required for a successful marriage or relationship, that’s just tripe.

And telling people that THEIR relationships have no meaning because they don’t meet your own arbitrary standards is extremely arrogant.

 

[Aloysium]

How exactly can you say that doing something that is consensual, enjoyable, and non-harmful. a waste of time?
And no god is not required for a successful marriage or relationship, that’s just tripe.

I’m telling you how it is. Take it or leave it.

It is a waste of time because it goes nowhere, existing solely for that momentary or temporal satisfaction or goal.
Where will that enjoyment be ten years later?
Live for the moment and that is all you have.

The harm lies in settling for so little, when so much is possible.

 

[Winterwolf00]

I’m telling you how it is. Take it or leave it.

It is a waste of time because it goes nowhere, existing solely for that momentary or temporal satisfaction or goal.
Where will that enjoyment be ten years later?
Live for the moment and that is all you have.

The harm lies in settling for so little, when so much is possible.

You’re telling it as you’ve been told I’m sure but that’s certainly not the reality.

It is a waste of time because it goes nowhere, existing solely for that momentary or temporal satisfaction or goal.

Complete and utter nonsense, there are many non-Christians in relationships who have long and loving relationships.

The harm lies in settling for so little, when so much is possible

So little? You think a loving relationship is ‘so little’ ?

 

[ynotzap]

Love has many faces,there is infatuation, falling in love with the idea of love, a shallow love or affection based on the psychological response to physical beauty, a Platonic sort of love, combined with a biological response, as is experienced by much of youth. There is the love of companionship, and a sharing of each other without any real commitment, a love of personal convenience, a self-centered love, one that you can walk away from. There is the love of each other that leads to a life commitment, for better or worse, when this is lived, it is unconditional love, a genuine, fruitful love.

It is human, in the present state of humanity to enjoy sexual pleasure in an irrational manner, in other words not in keeping with moral law which is the law of right reasoning regarding human conduct. We know this, and all are effected with this weakness. In our Faith there is a remedy supplied by our God-man Jesus Christ who instituted the Sacrament of “Reconciliation” we are forgiven for our transgressions as many times as we are contrite of heart (will), but what does some of the real world have to do with Faith, after all we acknowledge it is a “gift” of God and not all have this gift. Outside of this gift there is no resolution to the moral problems of the world Each generation that comes into this world will suffer the same condition. Life for a Christian is a real test of fidelity to God, a love of commitment to Him, and love for Him is shown by obeying His will for us, His will is to love Him with all our strength, and to love each other. His will is contained in His moral law. Do we live just for the present which is temporal, and enjoy all of llife’s pleasures, or do we live for our understanding and beliefs of an eternal state of enjoyment and happiness with God. Where does life lead you?

 

[tonyrey]

If you haven’t had sex just for pleasure, then…you are in a distinct and incredibly small minority. Can you tell us if that is so?

As Keats pointed out, if sex is not an expression of love it is bestial.

But then who is to say that sex outside marriage is not loving? Is it not loving an hour before you get married yet loving an hour after?

Sex outside marriage is often loving but it lacks commitment unless there is a good reason not to get married. It becomes an inferior form of love which is particularly harmful for the woman who risks becoming pregnant and lacking moral and financial support from the father - as has happened in countless cases. She is then obliged to have an abortion or bring up the child on her own, a common occurrence in our permissive society. Obviously marriage does not guarantee her financial support but the law usually compels the father to make a contribution. If they engage in intercourse without being married the man should at least ensure she has some form of security. When people regard themselves as being in love they often deceive themselves as well as their partner. That is just one of the reasons why marriage is universal in civilised societies.

 

[tonyrey]

Love has many faces,there is infatuation, falling in love with the idea of love, a shallow love or affection based on the psychological response to physical beauty, a Platonic sort of love, combined with a biological response, as is experienced by much of youth. There is the love of companionship, and a sharing of each other without any real commitment, a love of personal convenience, a self-centered love, one that you can walk away from. There is the love of each other that leads to a life commitment, for better or worse, when this is lived, it is unconditional love, a genuine, fruitful love.

It is human, in the present state of humanity to enjoy sexual pleasure in an irrational manner, in other words not in keeping with moral law which is the law of right reasoning regarding human conduct. We know this, and all are effected with this weakness. In our Faith there is a remedy supplied by our God-man Jesus Christ who instituted the Sacrament of “Reconciliation” we are forgiven for our transgressions as many times as we are contrite of heart (will), but what does some of the real world have to do with Faith, after all we acknowledge it is a “gift” of God and not all have this gift. Outside of this gift there is no resolution to the moral problems of the world Each generation that comes into this world will suffer the same condition. Life for a Christian is a real test of fidelity to God, a love of commitment to Him, and love for Him is shown by obeying His will for us, His will is to love Him with all our strength, and to love each other. His will is contained in His moral law. Do we live just for the present which is temporal, and enjoy all of llife’s pleasures, or do we live for our understanding and beliefs of an eternal state of enjoyment and happiness with God. Where does life lead you?

:clapping: It leads to all the needless misery and suffering of men, women and especially children in our secular society. “By their fruits you shall know them…”.

 

[tonyrey]

You’re telling it as you’ve been told I’m sure but that’s certainly not the reality.

Complete and utter nonsense, there are many non-Christians in relationships who have long and loving relationships.

So little? You think a loving relationship is ‘so little’ ?

A loving relationship is little when it lacks commitment.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion IRC;12472891:

Nate8080:

…“If it doesn’t hurt anyone there is nothing wrong with it.” I always get stuck here…how do I refute this point?

Would date rape be OK if the victim had no idea what had happened?

Would theft be OK if nobody noticed what was stolen?

Would it be OK let children watch a person doing something doesn’t hurt anyone?

Thats how I usually challenge such a claim.
How is there no harm being done in any of those cases?

There IS harm being done! That’s my point.
Claiming that no harm is done is exactly that - a CLAIM.

Here’s another supposedly ‘victimless crime’.
Selling/viewing pictures of naked children on the Internet.
Where’s the harm?
The human body is a natural thing. Animals don’t wear clothes. The children are happy. No force or coercion is involved. Only Puritan religious folks who hate sex would claim that this is an abomination…etc. etc. etc…

Perhaps you say they haven’t given consent. But why is consent needed when there’s “no harm”?
Perhaps you say they might not want to be identified (in later life). But would that mean it was OK if the faces were blurred/photoshopped?

 

[PseuTonym]

they will simply refer to the adage, “If it doesn’t hurt anyone there is nothing wrong with it.” I always get stuck here…how do I refute this point? Abstract logic and philosophical answers never seem to satisfy, I need something more concrete…

Consider cruelty to animals.

If the animal gets status as “someone”, then cruelty to the animal directly hurts someone. However, does the adage really mean that we can morally evaluate a contemplated action without distinguishing between human beings and non-human animals? For example, if it does not hurt anyone for you to eat a chicken sandwich made from a free-range chicken that was humanely killed, then does it not hurt anyone for the owner of a zoo to feed you to a hungry lion, provided that you were a free-range person who was humanely killed?

If the animal does not get status as “someone”, then somebody who claims that cruelty to animals is morally wrong needs to create some argument to demonstrate that cruelty to animals hurts some human being.

In any case, an advocate of the adage has some difficult work to do.

 

[Aloysium]

You’re telling it as you’ve been told I’m sure but that’s certainly not the reality.

Complete and utter nonsense, there are many non-Christians in relationships who have long and loving relationships.

So little? You think a loving relationship is ‘so little’ ?

I have not been told. It is what I know. I am telling you. God is love.
I never said Christian. But, yes Christ is God incarnate. And, yes He did demonstrate His infinite love for us.
He told us that love is what it is all about. That we should love Love above all else and each others as ourselves.
That is a good starting point to begin questioning what you have been told.

 

[Winterwolf00]

As Keats pointed out, if sex is not an expression of love it is bestial.

An unfounded assertion, nothing more.

 

[tonyrey]

As Keats pointed out, if sex is not an expression of love it is bestial.

Your negation is unfounded. The onus is on you to explain how loveless sex differs from that of animals. Its sole purpose is to obtain genital pleasure from the body of a person or animal.

 

[tonyrey]

As Keats pointed out, if sex is not an expression of love it is bestial.

Sex outside marriage is often loving but it lacks commitment unless there is a good reason not to get married. It becomes an inferior form of love which is particularly harmful for the woman who risks becoming pregnant and lacking moral and financial support from the father - as has happened in countless cases. She is then obliged to have an abortion or bring up the child on her own, a common occurrence in our permissive society. Obviously marriage does not guarantee her financial support but the law usually compels the father to make a contribution. If they engage in intercourse without being married the man should at least ensure she has some form of security. When people regard themselves as being in love they often deceive themselves as well as their partner. That is just one of the reasons why marriage is universal in civilised societies.

It is significant that there has been no response. Silence implies assent or impotent dissent!

 

[tonyrey]

An unfounded assertion, nothing more.

Can you explain how loveless human sex differs from that of animals? Is it solely because it can be planned cunningly?

 

[Aloysium]

Can you explain how loveless human sex differs from that of animals? Is it solely because it can be planned cunningly?

A very astute observation. Animals cannot commit adultery and they also do not lie. It would seem then, that when people are said to behave like animals ithey are actually behaving more like demons.

 

[tonyrey]

A very astute observation. Animals cannot commit adultery and they also do not lie. It would seem then, that when people are said to behave like animals they are actually behaving more like demons.

Indeed. Keats was used “bestial” to describe persons who act **as if **they are animals - in the same way that John Stuart Mill pointed out that that it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied rather than a satisfied pig! There’s nothing wrong with pigs who live as they are **intended **to live. There is something radically wrong with men and women who believe they can ignore morality with impunity.

 

[whatdoesthefox]

Who knows…I’ve got an associate that accidentally wondered into a Furries convention. He got to ask many of them about their lifestyle before security (dressed as racoons) escorted him and his girlfriend out.

If you go to any of the comic conventions (Dragon Con, Comic Con) the Furries show up in large numbers. I go to Dragon Con because it’s a cool place to people watch and the parking for my day job is close enough without being in the congested area. Bronies are also another interesting group at those conventions. But I get the impression the Bronies are living chaste lives.

Not so. There is a subset of Bronies that enjoy adult art,don’t ask me how i know this stuff. I just know it.