Swinging: Right or wrong?

[codanblad]

oli:"If science has discovered something new then belief isn't required, any more than belief in my chair required.
And as for the sun rising tomorrow, I don't believe it, I assume it."
"I'm an engineer: I don't need belief."

oli, you're heading towards an argument about defining reality. are you saying anything that can be observed using scientific method is reality? because that's just your belief in scientific method, and also your belief on what reality is.

saying you assume the sun will rise tomorrow is the same as saying you believe it will. i understand and agree with your argument that the sun will operate independent of your beliefs, but that's still a belief.

you appear to believe in engineering. "It's a working hypothesis. It fits observed phenomena." this seems to be a summing up of scientific method. no amount of supporting evidence makes a theory infallible. you just believe in the permanence of certain constants.

before you said to use the 'actual' definition of religion, which you said was in 'the' dictionary. free your mind neo.

 

[Cortex_Colossum]

Its wrong because there is always the risk of diseases.

 

[Baron Max]

Its wrong because there is always the risk of diseases.

There's risk in just living and breathing, but does that make living and breathing wrong?

Baron Max

 

[Oli]

oli, you're heading towards an argument about defining reality.

No I aren't

are you saying anything that can be observed using scientific method is reality?

Nope.

saying you assume the sun will rise tomorrow is the same as saying you believe it will. i understand and agree with your argument that the sun will operate independent of your beliefs, but that's still a belief.

No, I didn't even say the sun will operate independently of my beliefs.
I assume it will: if it doesn't it doesn't.
See the difference?

you appear to believe in engineering.

Believe?
The vast majority of what I use in engineering I have personally proved.
I accept it.
I assume it will work next time I use, and add safety factors, run tests etc. to ensure that it will.

"It's a working hypothesis. It fits observed phenomena." this seems to be a summing up of scientific method. no amount of supporting evidence makes a theory infallible. you just believe in the permanence of certain constants.

Believe in the permanence of constants?
Nope.
If the constants do change then everything will be different won't it?
I wouldn't even be around to take the consequences...
(That's an assumption, by the way).
I have an operational view of reality.
If that's the term: if it works it works.
But before you use it again, check it still works.

 

[scott3x]

I believe you're thinking of another roman emperor: Constantine. Why does Chistianity have such an aversion to sexuality? I'll theorize a bit here: sexuality can be seen as a divider; it can be a strong factor in the initiation of wars, such as that of Troy. I have a strong feeling that there's more to it then this, but I can't place my finger on it just yet... I think I remember hearing something about the church not wanting their congregations to focus too much energy in sexual relationships, as that would take away from the energy they would have for the church.. perhaps someone can help me out here.

the church takes sex away from people so it has something to offer them. you want sex you gotta come pay us to marry you. you can't use contraception, else how will we make money from christenings etc. and how will we have a fresh supply of children to brainwash.

Surely it can't be this bad...

there needn't be any evil intentions behind it, for whatever reason no sex til marriage is implemented, the results are lucrative and conducive to additional conversions. churches with more money and followers is more likely to expand. survival of the fittest, a church with sex rules is better suited to the environment.

I actually think it makes sense to have rules concerning sexuality. The problem is that a lot of conservative christianity has absurd rules concerning sexuality.

 

[Randwolf]

I actually think it makes sense to have rules concerning sexuality. The problem is that a lot of conservative christianity has absurd rules concerning sexuality.

What sort of rules beyond "informed consent" do you contemplate, scott?

 

[codanblad]

Believe?
The vast majority of what I use in engineering I have personally proved.
I accept it.

no one can ever 'prove' anything. you can say 'given we've observed this happening with some regularity, we assume it'll happen again'. i think i've got a better understanding of where you're coming from though, differentiating between assumption and belief.

 

[Oli]

Yup.
That's one definition of proved.
The way a gun barrel is.

 

[codanblad]

Yup.
That's one definition of proved.
The way a gun barrel is.

touche, i was assuming proved meant unquestionable truth i guess. my bad lol.

 

[Oli]

touche, i was assuming proved meant unquestionable truth i guess. my bad lol.

Hey!
If I say it, it IS an unquestionable truth.
Okay?

 

[swarm]

no one can ever 'prove' anything.

If that's true then you can't know that its true. Your proposition is self denying.

Basically you are just spouting some dogma to cover your lack of understanding concerning what constitutes necessary and sufficient proof.

 

[lucifers angel]

as long as you have protected sex, why is it wrong then?

its not wrong, why shouldn't people who are like minded get together and have fun with each other, after al isnt sex a part of human nature?

and seriously its better than cheating, and it can be fun.

 

[Baron Max]

its not wrong, why shouldn't people who are like minded get together and have fun with each other,....

So just who is stopping all this swinging that you're advocating? I know of no laws against swinging, do you? I've never heard of an arrest for swinging, have you?

... after al isnt sex a part of human nature?

As I've said before ....shitting is part of human nature, but you wouldn't want someone to shit in your front yard, would you?

...and seriously its better than cheating, and it can be fun.

So, do it! Do it all you want, no one is stopping you.

Or is this thread intended to help you find new partners in your sexual adventures???

Baron Max

 

[scott3x]

I actually think it makes sense to have rules concerning sexuality. The problem is that a lot of conservative christianity has absurd rules concerning sexuality.

What sort of rules beyond "informed consent" do you contemplate, scott?

No cheating would be another. This doesn't mean you can't have more then one sexual partner at a time, just that you have to be open about your relationships with your partner; and if your partner doesn't want you to be with anyone else, I think that generally the only ethical choice to make is stay monogamous or break up with your partner.

 

[scott3x]

... after al isnt sex a part of human nature?

As I've said before ....shitting is part of human nature, but you wouldn't want someone to shit in your front yard, would you?

Are you comparing sex with shitting?

 

[John99]

So just who is stopping all this swinging that you're advocating? I know of no laws against swinging, do you? I've never heard of an arrest for swinging, have you?

ha ha ha...thats an interesting assessment though. I guess it is like making a deceleration.

 

[scott3x]

its not wrong, why shouldn't people who are like minded get together and have fun with each other,....

So just who is stopping all this swinging that you're advocating? I know of no laws against swinging, do you? I've never heard of an arrest for swinging, have you?

Actually, the law has entered into the lives of swingers at polyamorous people at times, atleast if what they do becomes part of neighbourly knowledge. Here's 2 examples I found:
Swinging Couple Fights Law (Newsweek)

Ban sought for 2 swingers' clubs (Toronto Star)

And then there's the issue of the social isolation that swingers and polyamorous people can face. I think that all of this can be ameliorated by trying to figure out why people disagree as to the morality of these types of relationships.

 

[John99]

clubs and bars get closed all the time, also there are health issues involved.

 

[scott3x]

clubs and bars get closed all the time, also there are health issues involved.

Any potential health issues are between consenting adults; if they don't protect themselves, that's their problem. The articles mentioned make no mention of health issues as well. They make mention of families and more to the point, of kids; the idea, I believe, is that they don't want their kids to think that that type of lifestyle is 'ok', just as some people think that homosexuals shouldn't be too open about their attractions list kids think that -that- is ok. I think, in essence, that past generations are having a hard time letting go of past customs. However, old generations are always being replaced by new ones and I think this issue will be resolved as the issue of homosexuality is being resolved today.

 

[codanblad]

If that's true then you can't know that its true. Your proposition is self denying.

Basically you are just spouting some dogma to cover your lack of understanding concerning what constitutes necessary and sufficient proof.

its not self denying because it never claims to be an exception. it doesn't say that nothing can be true either, you've misunderstood my argument. in a post before yours i already stated that my definition of proof was poor, try and keep up.