Only heterosexuality should be socially and legally allowed. Everything else should be banned.
No public display/marriage should allowed for other than heterosexuals. Though, they are neither criminals, nor should be discriminated. Mature adults can do whatever they want but only behind closed doors.
Homosexuality should be socially and legally allowed but strictly nothing beyond that.
Everything should be socially and legally allowed if it is with the consent of adult participants like, gay/lesbian incest, father and son/daughter incest. mother and son/daughter incest, threesome/foursome family incest.
0voters
Inspired by PK’s thoughts on the sexual liberty, i think that it will be a good idea to have a poll at ILP on this issue.
As ILP is just like a random sample of west/US, it can give a rough idea what is public opinion about the morality of the sex in the society.
I request every member to take part in the poll. But, please follow just what you can stand for in your actual life, otherwise the purpose of the thread would be cheated. Members can cast their votes without disclosing their identity. Though, one is also welcome to share his thoughts, if he/she wants.
Okay, let me ask you this then. If someone does engage in incest [either heterosexually or homosexually], what will be their fate after they die?
In other words, how do you connect the dots between your views on homosexuality and your views on God?
You know the way that I would:
1] each individual’s value judgment here is rooted largely in dasein – a subjective narrative derived from their individual experiences, relationships and sources of information; a narrative ever subject to evolving in a world of contingency, chance and change; a narrative that cannot encompassed as/in an objective moral truth.
2] that value judgments about incest and homosexuality revolve around conflicting goods in which both sides can present reasonable arguments that the other side cannot make go away.
In other words, neither side can fully verify that what they believe is true…nor can they fully falsify what the other side believes is true.
Again, just google a site that examines the issue of something like gay marriage: pro and con: gaymarriage.procon.org/
In the end, it is almost always the moral objectivists that reflect the extremist point of view here. Left or right. And, in my view, that revolves as much around the psychology of objectivism as to any actual philosophical arguments that are made.
This lack of juncture between left and right is the categorical denial of the transcendental morality. With it, a connection can be apprehended, as situational and subject to perspective. The Heideggerian presupposition of Dasine of an intentionality of subjective content is negated where Derrida sees only an intention of effects. In Husserl, the reduction does notchange the content of the intention, in Derrida, it changes as various levels commit to differingvalues, residing in changing perspectives and situations. So it is not as though two sets of moralities hve to be held, thee is only one with a transcendental category connecting the two.
It is either a reduction toward understanding in terms of good and evil, or a production toward more emcompassing values in situ. It is not a beyond, but a toward from. Toward not a set , limited objective standards, but to more workable,tolerated, and socially progressive movements of compassionate positions of value. The limits, not set in stone, but setting bounderies within ‘reasonable’ parameters.
What is reasonable? There has not been too much trouble setting guidelines within the legal format of setting boundaries, upon the consent of the majority opinion of resonable people. Just because gay marriage is becoming to be seen as a reasonable position, does not necessarily mean, that such views will be upheld toward extensions of sexual liberty toward such aberrations as incest, and others. I may be wrong, but i don't see floodgates opening here.
Not at all. It has nothing to with porn but merely an attempt to judge the public opinion about a particular behavior. Let us know where we stand. Whether that stand is right or not is not the purpose of this thread.
imb, that is not the issue here.
The only issue that is pertinent here for now to know where we stand percentage wise on the issue of sexual liberty?
Again, i am not interesed here how they derived their conclusions. I am interested only in numbers for now. Once, we will have a rough idea of that, then we will try to see what would be their implications on the society as whole.
I think there’s a huge difference between what should be allowed legally and what society should permit from it’s members. Some of the options were rather vague on which was meant, so I took my best guess at an answer.
Should it be illegal? Should it be immoral? Should it be moral?
Immorality actually has different levels. There is ‘absolutely unacceptable’ behavior and there is ‘disgusting, don’t let me see it’ behavior and maybe ‘mildly gross’ behavior. A lot of sexual immorality has been approached as being ‘don’t let us see it and keep it in the bedroom’. If people were doing it discretely, then society wasn’t even aware of it. Society only got upset when the consequences popped up … like children out of wedlock.
The extreme objectionists tend to use the most formal types of categorical moralisms, with the shallowest of all justifications. Working towards the structural center, there is less resiliency toward adapting differing opinions on a case by case basis. I think that’s the point.
What I think is the more relevant question: Does the majority possess the right to take away such fundamental rights from the minority?
If 2 persons rape 1, are they justified in doing so since the will of the majority overrides the will of the minority 2 to 1? If the majority agreed slavery is justified, does it make it so?
Or maybe there is such a thing as inalienable rights, rights that cannot be justly taken away even by the vote of majority, such as the right to one’s own body.
I chose the fourth option, though I do think there should be ad campaigns to warn against the risks of incest, like with smoking, drinking, and money loans.
Instead of giving an example, i will allude a very
poignant film i once saw. It was titled ‘Full Moon’ and it was a story based on a French script dealing with mother son incest. The story line was the following.
The boy had a heart condition, and was very sensitive and aesthetic. He just came out of treatement in a hospital, where he had his mother look after him. There was an incestous relation, and after words the mother chided the son, that it was the first, and last occurance. The audience was made to understand, that given the situation, the involvement was totally understandable.
