Breaking the Moral Contract
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-09-2012, 05:57 PM
RE: Breaking the Moral Contract
(02-09-2012 04:58 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(02-09-2012 04:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  I've been married. Trust me, marriage negatively affects sex.Drinking Beverage

At an evolutionary standpoint, it doesn't. Whether or not you are happy married is of no concern to me. Drinking Beverage

Marriage has nothing to do with evolution.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 06:18 PM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2012 06:34 PM by Logica Humano.)
RE: Breaking the Moral Contract
(02-09-2012 05:16 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Until you're in a committed relationship where you promise each other that you are going to fool around.

In which case, all the power to you. I don't care.

(02-09-2012 05:16 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  There is a reason why people long to be in a relationship, but find it hard to be in an open sexual relationship, but also find it hard to stay exclusive in an exclusive sexual relationship.

Yes, and a lot of things are difficult. If you are willing to make such a commitment, you will have to work at it.

(02-09-2012 05:16 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Now to the point, what it seems like you are doing is adding 'being sexually exclusive' into the definition of marriage.

If you read anything of what I posted above, you'd know that I have no strict definition of marriage. Whatever the fuck the couple promises, they should uphold. If you are going to promise on your wedding day that you will take the dog out, take the damn dog out. If the two both promise to remain exclusively focused on each other, who the fuck cares?

(02-09-2012 05:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-09-2012 04:58 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  At an evolutionary standpoint, it doesn't. Whether or not you are happy married is of no concern to me. Drinking Beverage

Marriage has nothing to do with evolution.

It influences evolution.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Now for the last fucking time:

IF the TWO AGREE and PROMISE TO EACH OTHER that their relationship (marriage or not) includes that they can only have sex with each other, and they break that promise, they are in the wrong.

Can people stop misinterpreting my position for fuck's sake?

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 06:25 PM
RE: Breaking the Moral Contract
(02-09-2012 06:18 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(02-09-2012 05:16 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Until you're in a committed relationship where you promise each other that you are going to fool around.

In which case, all the power to you. I don't care.

(02-09-2012 05:16 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  There is a reason why people long to be in a relationship, but find it hard to be in an open sexual relationship, but also find it hard to stay exclusive in an exclusive sexual relationship.

Yes, and a lot of things are difficult. If you are willing to make such a commitment, you will have to work at it.

(02-09-2012 05:16 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Now to the point, what it seems like you are doing is adding 'being sexually exclusive' into the definition of marriage.

If you read anything of what I posted above, you'd know that I have no strict definition of marriage. Whatever the fuck the couple promises, they should uphold. If you are going to promise on your wedding day that you will take the dog out, take the damn dog out. If the two both promise to remain exclusively focused on each other, who the fuck cares?

(02-09-2012 05:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  Marriage has nothing to do with evolution.

It influences evolution.

Now for the last fucking time:

IF the TWO AGREE and PROMISE TO EACH OTHER that their relationship (marriage or not) includes that they can only have sex with each other, and they break that promise, they are in the wrong.

Can people stop misinterpreting my position for fuck's sake?

I'm pretty sure that I agreed with your ethical position many posts ago.

Marriage is a cultural invention and does not influence evolution in any meaningful way. It just hasn't been around nearly long enough.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 06:33 PM
RE: Breaking the Moral Contract
(02-09-2012 06:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-09-2012 06:18 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  In which case, all the power to you. I don't care.


Yes, and a lot of things are difficult. If you are willing to make such a commitment, you will have to work at it.


If you read anything of what I posted above, you'd know that I have no strict definition of marriage. Whatever the fuck the couple promises, they should uphold. If you are going to promise on your wedding day that you will take the dog out, take the damn dog out. If the two both promise to remain exclusively focused on each other, who the fuck cares?


It influences evolution.

Now for the last fucking time:

IF the TWO AGREE and PROMISE TO EACH OTHER that their relationship (marriage or not) includes that they can only have sex with each other, and they break that promise, they are in the wrong.

Can people stop misinterpreting my position for fuck's sake?

I'm pretty sure that I agreed with your ethical position many posts ago.

Marriage is a cultural invention and does not influence evolution in any meaningful way. It just hasn't been around nearly long enough.

The post about my position was general, and not specifically directed to you.

As for marriage influencing evolution, it is not a major factor, you are correct. But it will have repercussions.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 06:37 PM
RE: Breaking the Moral Contract
(02-09-2012 06:33 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  As for marriage influencing evolution, it is not a major factor, you are correct. But it will have repercussions.

No, it really won't. It hasn't been around for very long, and it won't last in its current form much longer. It's a blip in evolutionary time.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 06:46 PM
RE: Breaking the Moral Contract
(02-09-2012 06:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-09-2012 06:33 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  As for marriage influencing evolution, it is not a major factor, you are correct. But it will have repercussions.

No, it really won't. It hasn't been around for very long, and it won't last in its current form much longer. It's a blip in evolutionary time.

If it remains part of religion, then it will continue to influence our evolution.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 07:00 PM
RE: Breaking the Moral Contract
(02-09-2012 06:46 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(02-09-2012 06:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, it really won't. It hasn't been around for very long, and it won't last in its current form much longer. It's a blip in evolutionary time.

If it remains part of religion, then it will continue to influence our evolution.

I don't think you understand the time frame of evolution.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
02-09-2012, 07:00 PM
RE: Breaking the Moral Contract
There is also cultural evolution and social evolution and such.

In that context, marriage is a part of evolution.

Thank god there is social evolution, I wouldn't want to be stuck in the mindset of even just 100 years ago.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
03-09-2012, 08:52 AM
RE: Breaking the Moral Contract
(02-09-2012 06:18 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  IF the TWO AGREE and PROMISE TO EACH OTHER that their relationship (marriage or not) includes that they can only have sex with each other, and they break that promise, they are in the wrong.

I don't think that was annoying enough for all of us to get the point. Could you please try again and be more of a bitch this time?

It seemed to me like you were going back and forth just to be argumentative. I had to do something to see if that is what it was or if I could get you to stop.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2012, 09:11 AM
RE: Breaking the Moral Contract
Back to the original post:

Whether infidelity is right or wrong in your opinion has nothing to do with whether it is ok to interfere in the lives of others.

These are totally seperate issues.

I happen to think infidelity is wrong, and interfering in the lives of others is also wrong.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: