Do holy texts impede moral progress?

[-Peacemaker-]

Irrelevant to my point. And you totally ignored both the question of what you know of ancient pagans, and the opportunity to elaborate on what you think was improved. Why is that?

Off the top of my head, two improvements would've been elimination human sacrifices in worship as well as providing a framework for sexual purity including the elimination of temple prostitution. If you're asking this question with a sincere desire to learn, I'd be more than happy to dig through some of my resources for the details I haven't committed to memory.

 

[Quintessence]

I never understand the fixation of supposed Pagan human sacrifice. It was never that common, it's horribly misunderstood, and on top of that, we have analogous practices today anyway.

Sexual purity... that is a perfect example of why I think "moral progress" is a nonsense term. To one, demanding "sexual purity" is a step backwards, to another it's a step forwards. Truly, it is neither; either judgement rests upon arbitrary social constructs.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I never understand the fixation of supposed Pagan human sacrifice. It was never that common, it's horribly misunderstood, and on top of that, we have analogous practices today anyway.

Sexual purity... that is a perfect example of why I think "moral progress" is a nonsense term. To one, demanding "sexual purity" is a step backwards, to another it's a step forwards. Truly, it is neither; either judgement rests upon arbitrary social constructs.

Everybody has at least an "argument", even the people from NAMBLA.

 

[Quintessence]

Er... what the blazes is "NAMBLA" exactly?

 

[Drolefille]

I never understand the fixation of supposed Pagan human sacrifice. It was never that common, it's horribly misunderstood, and on top of that, we have analogous practices today anyway.

Sexual purity... that is a perfect example of why I think "moral progress" is a nonsense term. To one, demanding "sexual purity" is a step backwards, to another it's a step forwards. Truly, it is neither; either judgement rests upon arbitrary social constructs.

Precisely what I'm saying.

Everybody has at least an "argument", even the people from NAMBLA.

Can we not compare things to pedophilia, please? Seriously.

I disagree. While there are certainly a few challenges, there is plenty of objective measures that can be used to compare moral standards among different times and cultures.

But how do you craft an objective measure that is independent of your own culture?

Perhaps. But I thought we were talking about earthlings, or at least humans.

I was using it as an example of how culture is everything.

To some extent. But see how much is in fact independent of any circunstantial cultural values: there is an universal understanding that harmonious communication is superior to conflict, that infants should be protected to some degree, that families are a core unit of society and must be respected and protected as well.

But is this not more biological and even again still cultural? What about the exposure of infants due to any number of cultural reasons - not enough resources or perceived deformity? I don't think everyone agrees that harmonious communication is preferred or superior - I have clients who don't even consider it - and communal raising of children without a family unit isn't impossible and I believe has been done historically but I don't have time to hunt my sources right now so someone can correct me.
My point is that sacrificing an infant for the sake of the family/clan/tribe/group was not an unreasonable action to many cultures:
Infanticide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I mean, Egypt was considered weird for raising all of their children. Were they morally wrong for acting in this way or were they acting in a way that best guaranteed the survival of their people? Or both?

The point is that if we - you, me and our tribe, found ourselves in such a situation again, would we consider it moral progress or regress to commit infanticide to help our tribe survive? What about in 10 generations?

Can we still say it's wrong now? Sure. Can we state unequivocally it is progress or regress? I don't think so.

There are social impulses, physiological effects, needs for affection and respect. While there is a variety of approaches for dealing with those needs and values, it is possible to compare them in many cases. In fact, it is our moral responsibility to try.

I agree, but I find our approval of these to be driven by culture.

 

[LuisDantas]

Drole, read Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape" if you have the opportunity. Much of that book is devoted to answer your kind of objections.

 

[Dingbat]

Er... what the blazes is "NAMBLA" exactly?

North American Man/Boy Love Association. A pro-pedophile organization.

 

[Storm]

Off the top of my head, two improvements would've been elimination human sacrifices in worship as well as providing a framework for sexual purity including the elimination of temple prostitution. If you're asking this question with a sincere desire to learn, I'd be more than happy to dig through some of my resources for the details I haven't committed to memory.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I know a good deal mora than you, having read sources not based on the Bible. You do realize that when it comes to ancient paganism, Scripture is just propaganda, right?

As to your points, Quintessence summed up my take on it. And you shot back with NAMBLA. Classy.

 

[F0uad]

It is a bit unfortunate that the word evolution has been used to the biological concept.

I agree.

At the same time, all kinds of odd fears have been associated to the mistrust of Atheism by way of the belief that we are some sort of... well, some sort of hate cult of fanatical believers in predatory "evolution" among humans, I suppose. A psychotics club, if you will.

Well i don't belief this, there have also been hard attacks on religions in the past and it continues i think the West has become more secular in time and accepting secularism in general.

One wonders what the people who associate Atheism with lack of moral or social responsibility make of the Scandinavian countries.

Well i am not saying that Aheist lack moral i hope your not getting this out of it, i am also not sure how Easteren-Europe has anything to do with this since the US was in the most of wars in recent years and probaly killed the most in history and modern time.

The same way anyone else can do the same, I assume. I don't see why being an Atheist would make any difference. Morals are one of the, if you don't mind me borrowing a fine Muslim word, pillars of society. Beliefs about the development of morals are an important and necessary matter; they must be questioned, debated and tested if at all possible, because they are so very important and we can't in good faith afford not to care about them.

Well don't you see it as a problem? When a society has social problems as an whole..

I would rather use the expression "tragically found itself" instead of "evolved" in this particular case, since outside of biology there is a general feeling that "evolution" is desirable change. It should be obvious that a society that develops a taste for killing of human beings is not at all going by desirable change.

Well i think there is such a thing history has shown it over and over, in Africa, Germany and the list continues. Killing Jews was seen as a ''Ok'' thing to do back then so with all respect i think history has the facts.

With a passion, of course

Uh? Ok..

Just like anyone else that found himself not quite morally bankrupt while also truly aware of such a situation, really.

How can one feel himself ''morally bankrupt'' when society teaches it its a natural thing to do or a good thing to do? I would say the ideas are only promoted in a sense..

The very idea of a supposedly secular state daring to state, even as a joke in bad taste, that it supports genocide because the desire for it "evolved naturally" or somesuch is as odious as it is absurd.

I didn't link the two i used it as a example, please show me wrong?

It would take some sort of dogmatic - and quite frankly, all out criminal - political system to actually support the slaughter of people out of their ancestry alone.

Societys shares a dogma itself ill give you a lose and small example. In Europe its cool to have new clothes and be expensive why? Because of the Advertising and the society as a whole beliefs in it to be ''Cool'' making you ''Superiour'' in a sense. Inviduals always want to fit into society how strange it may be. In Holland we have many NSB'ers who actually joined the Germans because they believed in something called a UBER-Race.

One can say that, and I am well aware that there is Stalinist URSS as an example to support that.

But really, I doubt that such a statement is quite true. If for no other reason, because secularism is still so unfortunately rare among governments - and, as it turns out, it is most solid and established among the most peaceful of all countries.

Sorry what? Secular states have been devolped for a long time now since Europe broke its chains from the Church. I would consider the Islamic caliphate much more peacefull then the current secular goverments in the west or even that of the past.

 

[Drolefille]

Drole, read Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape" if you have the opportunity. Much of that book is devoted to answer your kind of objections.

While it's on my list, it's a very long list, and I really can't read just to argue on the internet

 

[LuisDantas]

It is a bit unfortunate that the word evolution has been used to the biological concept.

I agree.

At the same time, all kinds of odd fears have been associated to the mistrust of Atheism by way of the belief that we are some sort of... well, some sort of hate cult of fanatical believers in predatory "evolution" among humans, I suppose. A psychotics club, if you will.

Well I don't belief this,

I noticed as much. You are a very reasonable person.

there have also been hard attacks on religions in the past and it continues

Far as I can tell, attacks on religion are almost without exception motivated by other religions (or sects of the same religion).

Yes, we secularists and atheists do question and even denounce religious dogma and religious actions often enough. But very little of that can be construed as attacks as I understand them.

i think the West has become more secular in time and accepting secularism in general.

That is hard to dispute, although I don't think we will find much agreement on how fast it happened, which countries are to be considered secular, or even if it is a good thing.

I happen to think that secularism is in fact a dire need, among other reasons because it is ultimately safer for religious groups. I'm aware that many Muslims see it as a threat to be contained, and it is certainly true that the goal of a Islamic State is contrary to the goals of Secularism. The truth of the matter is that I flat out don't believe that a non-Secular state is a good idea - for anyone.

One wonders what the people who associate Atheism with lack of moral or social responsibility make of the Scandinavian countries.

Well i am not saying that Aheist lack moral i hope your not getting this out of it,

I'm not. You are far too sensible to imply such a thing.

i am also not sure how Easteren-Europe has anything to do with this since the US was in the most of wars in recent years and probaly killed the most in history and modern time.

That is my point. Secular states such as the Scandinavian countries hardly ever wage war out of religiously motivated hysteria. Which, to a significant degree, the Middle East conflicts started by GWB are.

I take it that you consider the USA a secular state? I'm afraid it is so only marginally, if even that much. It is certainly not too representative of secular states.

The same way anyone else can do the same, I assume. I don't see why being an Atheist would make any difference. Morals are one of the, if you don't mind me borrowing a fine Muslim word, pillars of society. Beliefs about the development of morals are an important and necessary matter; they must be questioned, debated and tested if at all possible, because they are so very important and we can't in good faith afford not to care about them.

Well don't you see it as a problem?

Of course not. Why would the recognition of morals as a significant value of secular societies be a problem?

When a society has social problems as an whole..

Then it must address them and do its best to solve them. That is just as true for secular states as for any others.

I don't think I understood what you wanted to imply.

I would rather use the expression "tragically found itself" instead of "evolved" in this particular case, since outside of biology there is a general feeling that "evolution" is desirable change. It should be obvious that a society that develops a taste for killing of human beings is not at all going by desirable change.

Well i think there is such a thing history has shown it over and over, in Africa, Germany and the list continues.

No argument there. But I am certainly not saying that it should be accepted.

Killing Jews was seen as a ''Ok'' thing to do back then so with all respect i think history has the facts.

That societies often lose their way? Of course they do. That is not to be accepted passively, however.

With a passion, of course

Uh? Ok..

Surprised?

Just like anyone else that found himself not quite morally bankrupt while also truly aware of such a situation, really.

How can one feel himself ''morally bankrupt'' when society teaches it its a natural thing to do or a good thing to do?

By being honest with oneself. By questioning tradition and authority. And by using of critical reasoning, which is the best source for solid morals.

I would say the ideas are only promoted in a sense..

Which ideas? I must have lost the context, because I don't understand what you mean here.

The very idea of a supposedly secular state daring to state, even as a joke in bad taste, that it supports genocide because the desire for it "evolved naturally" or somesuch is as odious as it is absurd.

I didn't link the two i used it as a example, please show me wrong?

I don't really remember the examples (Nazi Germani and Africa?), but I don't think I defended them.

It would take some sort of dogmatic - and quite frankly, all out criminal - political system to actually support the slaughter of people out of their ancestry alone.

Societys shares a dogma itself ill give you a lose and small example. In Europe its cool to have new clothes and be expensive why? Because of the Advertising and the society as a whole beliefs in it to be ''Cool'' making you ''Superiour'' in a sense. Inviduals always want to fit into society how strange it may be. In Holland we have many NSB'ers who actually joined the Germans because they believed in something called a UBER-Race.

That is more a search for acceptance than quite a dogma. But yes, that does happen. So does the dissidence and internal conflict, it is almost automatic. And when it happens at a secular level, it is that much easier to correct the troubles, if they even happen in the first place.

One can say that, and I am well aware that there is Stalinist URSS as an example to support that.

But really, I doubt that such a statement is quite true. If for no other reason, because secularism is still so unfortunately rare among governments - and, as it turns out, it is most solid and established among the most peaceful of all countries.

Sorry what? Secular states have been devolped for a long time now since Europe broke its chains from the Church.

How long a time? The countries have varied situations, and the secular mentality isn't very well established in many of them.

Besides, how many of those have actually developed regrettable social situations fueled by secularism? I don't recall any, truth be told.

I would consider the Islamic caliphate much more peacefull then the current secular goverments in the west or even that of the past.

Maybe it was, I wouldn't know. But is it a good idea to reestablish a caliphate at the present time? Do the existing Muslim theocracies encourage such an idea by their results? I don't think so and I am willing to explain why if you want me to.

 

[F0uad]

I noticed as much. You are a very reasonable person.

Thank you sir, so are you.

Far as I can tell, attacks on religion are almost without exception motivated by other religions (or sects of the same religion).

In a sense i would agree

Yes, we secularists and atheists do question and even denounce religious dogma and religious actions often enough. But very little of that can be construed as attacks as I understand them.

I think it just depends on which side your sitting.

That is hard to dispute, although I don't think we will find much agreement on how fast it happened, which countries are to be considered secular, or even if it is a good thing.

Lets agree on that hehe.

I happen to think that secularism is in fact a dire need, among other reasons because it is ultimately safer for religious groups. I'm aware that many Muslims see it as a threat to be contained, and it is certainly true that the goal of a Islamic State is contrary to the goals of Secularism. The truth of the matter is that I flat out don't believe that a non-Secular state is a good idea - for anyone.

Well they don't see it as a threat to be contained since most of the ''Islamic countries" have a secular based system. But yes in General muslims (as far as i know) would rather have a Sharia ''Islamic Law'' in there country since its for them God's law logic says: God knows everything and is perfect therefore hes Law is perfect.. Humans aren't perfect therefore Human-laws are not perfect. Offcourse as a Atheist or a follower of a other religion you wouldn't agree however the Sharia Law also has a answer for that to give the inviduals choose there own court-system. As in for the Islamic economical laws i think it would be a huge improvement if would imply that in secular laws we have now.

That is my point. Secular states such as the Scandinavian countries hardly ever wage war out of religiously motivated hysteria. Which, to a significant degree, the Middle East conflicts started by GWB are.

I didn't get this.. Bush started a religious war on the middle-east? How is this possible when a country is considerd to be secular.. see my point? I would say that Easteren-Europe countries also have some violence in history and certainly towards Muslims. 9/11 gave America social pressure, without thinking America invaded two countries and bombed over 500/600,000 Innocent people and are still bombing people with drones daily.

I take it that you consider the USA a secular state? I'm afraid it is so only marginally, if even that much. It is certainly not too representative of secular states.

I would consider it as a secular state there are probaly more "Peacefully" ones in Europe however just by saying one is more "Peacefully" doesn't changes anything.

Of course not. Why would the recognition of morals as a significant value of secular societies be a problem?

Well i think i have pointed this out a couple of times, value's in societies changes therefore its dangerous when a society changes to think killing or have superiour thoughts over certain people to be ok. But a scripture that is not changeable even in interpretations could find no justifcations for that kind of behaviour only condemnation wherein societies cant since they already think like that.

Then it must address them and do its best to solve them. That is just as true for secular states as for any others.

When your indocrnated by society to do something or how to think, do you really think that you have a problem?

No argument there. But I am certainly not saying that it should be accepted.

I was actually hoping for a counter-argument on how in a secular society it would be condemned and based on what?

That societies often lose their way? Of course they do. That is not to be accepted passively, however.

Well sometimes its good to lose there ways and sometimes it isn't however how do you as a society know it isn't good and how would you solve such problems in general when one thinks differently then you do?

By being honest with oneself. By questioning tradition and authority. And by using of critical reasoning, which is the best source for solid morals.

Well i think that the germans did so.. If one group has stronger arguments the one who is stronger always wins.

That is more a search for acceptance than quite a dogma. But yes, that does happen. So does the dissidence and internal conflict, it is almost automatic. And when it happens at a secular level, it is that much easier to correct the troubles, if they even happen in the first place.

Not entirly true, could you possible give me a example on how it would be fixed easier then for example a ''Real'' Islamic Country?

How long a time? The countries have varied situations, and the secular mentality isn't very well established in many of them.

Besides, how many of those have actually developed regrettable social situations fueled by secularism? I don't recall any, truth be told.

Well France was a early one and i would say that secularism is most of Europe atleast west, north and south that have been implentend as it should be as far secularism can go (i think). However this isn't important.

Maybe it was, I wouldn't know. But is it a good idea to reestablish a caliphate at the present time? Do the existing Muslim theocracies encourage such an idea by their results? I don't think so and I am willing to explain why if you want me to.

No but people do there actually has been an survey in Egypt, Morocco and Turkey and most of them would have agreed on a Caliphate with these three countries. But imagine such kind of world do you think that the world will stay as it or it would be more peacefully?

 

[LuisDantas]

I think it just depends on which side your sitting.

I hope not. In all honesty, if it turns out that at some point I find out that a Sharia-based theocracy is in some sense the best political arrangement for some or all Muslims, I will have a very difficult time dealing with that. I don't even know that I am capable of such.

Which is my way of saying that while I doubt I can convince you or most if not all Muslims that a Secular State is the best arrangement for Muslims, I can assure you that I do believe that it is so.

Then again, I very much doubt such a statement can be accepted at all easily by most Muslims.

I don't think I am being unfair or inaccurate when I say that the idea that Religion and Politics should go hand in hand is very much ingrained into the doctrine and practice of Islam and it is not necessarily possible to remove it without causing some sort of significant, perhaps major, damage. It may well not be possible at all. I don't presume to understand the specifics, but the feeling comes rather clearly from my talks with Muslims.

The unfortunate reality is that for all that I may respect and even admire the sincere devotion of so many Muslims, I must still disagree in no uncertain terms about the convenience of having a religiously-based government.

Well they don't see it as a threat to be contained since most of the ''Islamic countries" have a secular based system.

It is clear that my understanding of what a secular government would be is far more restrictive than yours. I don't consider a government that uses religious concepts in any significant way to be secular; my ideal government would not dictate even with weekly rest day or which holidays people should observe, choosing instead to allocate a certain number of days and letting the people choose on their own.

Of course, that will seem rather extreme from a Muslim perspective. Even so, I figure that even for Muslims the actual ability of (say) observing Fridays even if most people around them are Christians and chose Sundays instead can't very well be considered a loss of religious freedom.

Such an arrangement does present challenges of its own, mind you, but it still seems the best of all possible approaches to me. I see no good reason why religious minorities must become majorities before having such rights.

But yes in General muslims (as far as i know) would rather have a Sharia ''Islamic Law'' in there country since its for them God's law logic says: God knows everything and is perfect therefore hes Law is perfect..

Eh, let's just say that I most certainly don't see human law as perfect, for what it is worth.

Actually, I find the very idea of a perfect law of any kind somewhat contradictory.

Still, I had been told that Sharia Law is in fact accepted in otherwise secular countries (as are Rabinic and Christian Law) for matters of a more personal nature that don't conflict with civilian law - mostly matters of family law, as I understand it.

I happen to believe that such an arrangement is likely the best of all possible. Of course, odds are that the actual situation is far more complex and less ideal than that. Law matters usually are.

Humans aren't perfect therefore Human-laws are not perfect.

That I promise never to deny...

Offcourse as a Atheist or a follower of a other religion you wouldn't agree

Maybe I wouldn't, but I prefer not to take that as a given. For one thing, it is not clear to me to which degree Sharia can be made or is meant to coexist with civilian, secular law.

however the Sharia Law also has a answer for that to give the inviduals choose there own court-system. As in for the Islamic economical laws i think it would be a huge improvement if would imply that in secular laws we have now.

I know very little about that - basically, that Islamic society has some very specific ideas about how banks should operate. Something to do with how proper it is to lend money and to earn interests from that money. I also heard that there is no bankrupcy in Muslim culture; people are not expected to be allowed to take oher people's money just like that.

It does sound like something that we might well learn a lot from, if not adopt outright.

I didn't get this.. Bush started a religious war on the middle-east?

In my opinion, he did. He used false pretense and religiously-motivated fears. He actually claimed that God was on his side, you know.

Of course, it is not quite so simple as that, either; GWB displayed a dismaying lack of basic knowledge (or perhaps even honesty) of the important distinctions among Shia and Sunni sects, even. Not really a forgivable trait for someone who made such important decisions that relied on that kind of knowledge.

I support secularism, not arrogant ignorance. Those who deal with Muslims should make an effort to understand what they want and value. One shouldn't wait until an eventual conversion to Islam before offering Muslims good will and respect.

There are also the complex political and religious realities of Iraq and Afeghanistan. While I tend to see them as a result of too much influence of religion in their politics, I am aware that Iraq had a secular government - albeit also a very much Muslim one, and one plagued by serious internal conflict due to a Shia majority and a Kurd minority both repressed by a Sunni minority that nevertheless held military and political power. And then there is the argument that such a delicate situation was inherited from the designs of Winston Churchill. Politics are a complicated matter.

How is this possible when a country is considerd to be secular.. see my point?

I guess I believe it would have an easier time if it were "more" secular.

No, I don't expect you to agree, but I ask you to believe my sincerity.

I would say that Easteren-Europe countries also have some violence in history and certainly towards Muslims.

Of course, and it is important to gauge how often and how seriously, as well as the exact causes. It is my understanding that some people are simply xenophobic, while others are to some degree unconfortable with the cultural clash and perhaps also with the fears of having a fast-growing community of immigrants with dissimilar, even unknown values.

That violence must of course be contained. And as it turns out, the best remedy is to spread knowledge and dialog so that the fears may subside.

9/11 gave America social pressure, without thinking America invaded two countries and bombed over 500/600,000 Innocent people and are still bombing people with drones daily.

A major shame. I don't know that such serious mistakes can ever be fully repaired.

I would consider it as a secular state there are probaly more "Peacefully" ones in Europe however just by saying one is more "Peacefully" doesn't changes anything.

Quite frankly, not too many of USA's voters even understand what a secular state would be. Nor do the politicians.

Yes, the intent is there... but the Americans are simply not too mature yet. Not when it comes to secularism. Perhaps in a generation or two they will be ready to truly embrace it.

Well i think i have pointed this out a couple of times, value's in societies changes therefore its dangerous when a society changes to think killing or have superiour thoughts over certain people to be ok.

That is true, but lack of change is if anything even more dangerous. Change allows for adaptation. It allows laws to be somewhat less imperfect, and people to be that better defended from law's mistakes.

But a scripture that is not changeable even in interpretations could find no justifcations for that kind of behaviour

While I respect your appreciation of the beauty of a stable, unchanging system, I fear it is not reasonable to want one. See how controversial even the Mutah (very much a tradicional Islamic concept) is.

only condemnation wherein societies cant since they already think like that.

Hey, this is very interesting, thanks!

You are saying that a society that convinces itself that some sort of abominable behavior (such as genocide, or compulsive drinking) is acceptable won't have the means to overcome that (easily, at least)?

I beg to respectfully differ. Societies are made by individuals, and unfairness in society is usually easy to notice. Give enough individuals an adequate space for consideration, and eventually they will realize the error of their ways and self-correct.

It may sound a bit naive, but consider that damage to a community is often very obvious.

When your indocrnated by society to do something or how to think, do you really think that you have a problem?

Yes, I do. A society needs some freedom of argumentation and questioning to break indocrinations. If it lack it, there is a price, a price not worth paying.


(I'm a bit tired, I will try to return later)

 

[F0uad]

I was trying to reply but came to the conclusion that we agree on most parts, some things as the Mutah and other little things offcourse not. Thanks for sharing.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

As to your points, Quintessence summed up my take on it .

Here's her take on it:

I

Sexual purity... that is a perfect example of why I think "moral progress" is a nonsense term. To one, demanding "sexual purity" is a step backwards, to another it's a step forwards. Truly, it is neither; either judgement rests upon arbitrary social constructs.

This is basically saying that sexual purity doesn't exist. You agree with this?

 

[Quintessence]

This is basically saying that sexual purity doesn't exist.

No, it's not. It's saying that standards of "sexual purity" and especially judgements regarding "sexual purity" are a social construct and therefore entirely relative or arbitrary (this is opposed to, say, objective or laws/rules of the universe/nature like gravity).

 

[-Peacemaker-]

No, it's not. It's saying that standards of "sexual purity" and especially judgements regarding "sexual purity" are a social construct and therefore entirely relative or arbitrary (this is opposed to, say, objective or laws/rules of the universe/nature like gravity).

Wording it like this makes your position sound a little more sophisticated but it is essencially a license to throw the concept of sexual purity out the window.

 

[Storm]

This is basically saying that sexual purity doesn't exist. You agree with this?

More or less, the Quin put it better in his correction:

No, it's not. It's saying that standards of "sexual purity" and especially judgements regarding "sexual purity" are a social construct and therefore entirely relative or arbitrary (this is opposed to, say, objective or laws/rules of the universe/nature like gravity).

To throw in my own commentary, there simply is no one size fits all sexuality or sexual ethos. So long as people are responsible, I got no beef.

Why in the world would you think it was your place to force someone else's sexuality into your mold?

And "sexual purity" in particular strikes me as little more than code for patriarchy at its most oppressive.

 

[Quintessence]

Wording it like this makes your position sound a little more sophisticated but it is essencially a license to throw the concept of sexual purity out the window.

If that's how you choose to take it, yes. All morality is based on constructs that can be utilized or not as a person chooses. I'm not particularly threatened by this, but I can understand why others would be. Many people love to control other people's behavior by all sorts of means. In general, I prefer to live and let live. I don't give a crap about "sexual purity" because someone else's sex life frankly isn't any of my business in the first place. If you want to hold yourself to that standard, go for it. If you don't, go for it. It is a choice, and make it as you will.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

So you are ok with groups that think that stoning and wife beating are good things?

Do you think that cruelty can ever be a good thing? If not, you refute your own argument.

What evidence do you have that they are a bad thing?