LostInTheCosmos said:
You make too big an assumption. Given that many Christians believe that sex is something to be shunned, I do not.
Sex is the most beautiful thing one can experience. It is where a man and a woman can express such love, devotion, trust, and openness to one another that in that unity, it can become something truly real and truly eternal, that nine months later you may need to give that love a name.
The origin of our all our lives was made in the fire of that unifying act. It was meant always to be something special, something sacred - and thus in the public interest and social order that is meant to be protected.
I will say though, that though Christians tote about the "sanctity of marriage" as the reasons why we should not allow things such as prostitution, pornography or gay marriages, I will say that it is Christians who were the first to break the sanctity of marriage - over and over again - especially in the last century.
The discussion of this might need a new thread, so I will leave it at that and pursue a deeper explanation of what I believe is the deepest violation of the sanctity of marriage BY CHRISTIANS.
I will sum up the following points and bow out of this conversation.
1) There is true hypocrisy in allowing pornography but disallowing prostitution.
2) Not everything that is consented is healthy, good or even in the public interest (drug abuse, alcohol abuse, suicide)
3) Not every culture and cultural practices are good and many cannot be tolerated without severe public disorder or creating double standards
my assumption was no worse than your assumption that all whores are diseas riddle drug addicts that live in the bad parts of town and are doomed to a life of hopeless dispair. im sure there are loads and loads of hookers that are quite happy with their life and wouldnt change a thing about it. people in all walks of life in all kinds of situations run the gammut of bottom to top.
you have made some rather large assumptions that prostitution is allways a bad thing, all the time, everyplace,in every circumstance, forever and ever amen.
i was hopeing youd pick up on this point so i could show you that its OUR assumptions that get us into trouble when we make laws based on morality.
I think that you just made the argument for me a few posts ago about what we SHOULD do and what we need to do given the imperfect circumstances. Ideally, our government should always act upon its principles, but when it fails to do so, I don't believe it gives us the right to become anarchists at the first moral failing.
*sticks a pin in the hyperbole balloon*
no one is saying that we should become a lawless band of Road warriors spinning giant wheels of justice in some desert thunderdome just because we dont all share a common morality.
the simple fact is its very hard to swollow any government trying to pass laws based ONLY on moral principals that take away a persons freedom of choice to engague in an act that is harmelss to society as a whole and at the same time ignore much WORSE acts and indeed often condone them from those outside their authority.
Here we agree. Yet you must also recognize that stepping in when a man abuses your in front of you, is a "moral imposition" especially when she stated that she did not need your help. Personally, I'm glad you said you'd intervene and impose your morals should she do that in front of you.
ahh but the thing is, if im THERE than im a part of the situation. im not setting in an office 2,000 miles away not knowing anyone involved and being totaly ignorant of even the smallest detail of the situation and sticking my two cents in.
if im there than I have a right to act because im taking part in the situation.
Funny thing was that when I was younger and in college, I was made to believe what you believe now. That I should mind my own business, not to judge, and not to impose my morality on anything. Not only did I get screwed, but I also saw that a lot of other people get screwed because I didn't intervene.
In the end, I resolved that I would rather be thought of as a jerk and treated with ingratitude than to risk being a coward.
In the videos I posted a while ago about a father who encouraged her daughter to pursue her dream of seeking fame and riches at the Bunny Ranch, her daughter later came to regret it and would have rather her father told her "no" to her stupid idea than to encourage her to go ahead.
I've lost friends for many years because I've told them what they are about to pursue an "open relationship" is a stupid decision and called judgmental and ostracized for my trouble. Ten years later, after their divorce, we can now start to be friends again - and told that I was respected for my courage in voicing my opinion.
ahh so you think that being right is the most importiant thing? all your actions are fully justified because you turned out to be right in the end?
hmmm, let me try and expand this some for you, my views that is. it turnes out that IM right about this though you wont agree and prolly wont see it till you have had some more experiance with life.
sometimes being right isnt nearly enough. you ever hear the old Saw about the Army guy that said "sir we had to destroy the village in order to save it" that guy was RIGHT. the only way to save that village (from falling into enemy hands) was too destroy it. the moral of this story is often missed becuse the TRUE moral of the story isnt about general stupidity of people, the TRUE moral is to be mindful of what your goals are.
using your example of talking too your friends about not having 'open marraiges' what was your goal? ill venture to guess that it was to save them from emotionel pain when they finaly relized that it wasnt such a good idea after all, so your method of accomplishing this was to inflict emotionel pain on them of another kind, by making them dislike you NOW instead of each other later? sort of inoculating them from a bigger hurt later by infliction them with your judgmental arrogence now?
good plan except for one thing. you cant KNOW that an open marriage wont work and they wouldnt be happier living that way than living how you would want them too, you may have in fact done more harm to them than good, you may have forced them to get a divorce because of shear bordom in the bed room, while allowing them to explore the limits of an open marraige may have in fact made them come to relize they WANTED a 'normal' marriage after all and would have spent the rest of their life together happy and content with one another in the bedroom because they have had an experiance of just what the grass was like on the other side and found out that its not as green as they thought.
instead you try and shield them from what you see will be pain and misery by causing them a smaller hurt NOW by your attitude and actions as well as your judgments and make no allowance that you could be wrong. and that even if your goals were noble and good your results werent. you MAY have inflicted them with a much WORSE outcome than they would have otherwise have had.
i understand your feelings, you seem to be a kind person and dont like to see others in pain, your also smart and can 'see around corners' and predict actions and Consequences clearer than most. and your life experiance has show you that in predicting these Consequences your RIGHT in the majority of cases. but you dont look at the results of your being right. you dont think beyond the fact of your rightness to the reality that being right isnt an excuse for domination.
think about your mother and how she loved you, its been said with some justification that a mothers love is the strongest love possable. but if a mother lvoes their child TOO much, if they seek to protect them from everything, they create a crippled being incapable of dealing with lifes hard knocks. sometimes it better to let the baby burn their fingers on the hot stove to teach the lession that stoves arent too be touched, that mother COULD be called a monster because she didnt 'protect' her baby and let him get burned, but i say that mother just saved that baby from DEATH later by letting him learn a painful lession now under her guidance.
i say to you that you would be much better served by letting your friends learn the lessions of the pitfall (or possable rewards) of an open marriage, too let them make their OWN mistakes and learn the lessions they need to learn and simply to be there AFTER the train wreck to help pick them up and dust them off and move on with their life rather than seeking to protect them from themselves and makeing them turn against YOU. its much eaiser to simply claim in an arrogent fassion that you were RIGHT as you stand in the wreckage of a former friendship, cloaking your own misery in a cloth of 'rightness' as a shield against your sorrow of loosing a friend.
not only did they ignore your advice and proceed to have an open marriage that turned out horribly but you have compounded the problem by adding a faild friendship to it as well. so now instead of being able to count on your support and friendship after their mistakes come home to roost they ahve lost their relationship with both each other and YOU also. your 'helping' in fact made things much MUCH worse than it needed to be. and if you truly cared about those people you wouldnt do anything to cut them off from you, you would let them live their lives and simply be there to offer your support if they should need it. notice i said your support, not your judgment. even if your RIGHT on one small point you can still be wrong in the big picture.
its never easy to stand by and watch those you love and care about be hurt if you can do something about it. but you need to ask yourself what your goal is and what the results of YOUR actions could bring too the table. your never cut off from any situation, your never truly an impartial observer, once you stick your oar into a given situation you yourself become part of that situation. its the Heisenberg principal as it applys to real life human relationships. the very fact that you offer advice changed the possable outcome and you cant know if it will be fore the better or not.
