by KateWild 176 Replies latest watchtower scandals
KateWild
But most people see it morally superior to be monogamous and have self control.
Thank you making my point. Why is it morally superior to be monogamous but not heterosexual? Actually, both are a genetic trait. I am confident that the genetic predisposition to be promiscuous is more common than homosexuality. Why are you discriminating against promiscuous people?
So by your logic, it is wrong for me to sleep with another woman, but it is OK for me to sleep with another man.
sleep with any consenting adult you want mr hhomo :-)
BTW - your username has a stutter...not discriminating, just saying..
Forgive all the post, but I am slightly outnumbered. Trying to respond to as many as possible. Running out of time.
Let's tackle the larger topic of appropiate sexual conduct. How far are we willing to go?
Besty,
Thanks for the honest answer. When my wife catches me screwing the busty young waittress, I'll tell her it is all OK. Besty said so...
I am confident that the genetic predisposition to be promiscuous is more common than homosexuality-Mrhhome
Have you got any scientific stats for that to make you so confident?
Why is it morally superior to be monogamous but not heterosexual?-Mrhhome
Because being unfaithful to your spouse hurts them, and if you have kids hurts them too. Gay monogamous couples don't hurt anyone. It's about respecting and caring about others that is morally superior. A consenting adult who is promiscuous but has not partner is only hurting themselves, and showing a non-caring attitude to all their partners. Sex also then becomes mechanical and selfish, not a giving activity as it is in a loving relationship.
So by your logic, it is wrong for me to sleep with another woman, but it is OK for me to sleep with another man.-Mrhhome
If you're married it's morally wrong for you to be unfaithful to your wife with a man, woman, or even an animal. It is morally superior for you to stay faithful and care about her feelings.
Kate xx
I appreciated mrhhome's response to my exposure of his hypocrisy. The glance into his mirror showed him up to be "smug, self-righteous and presumptuous." I base this on the fact that he usually, though not always, avoids directly answering questions posed to him but instead resorts to name-calling. Being both black and gay, I know I would never want his conditional friendship. His claim to be open-minded is patently false. His tolerance of others falls far short of acceptance.
Have you told your black friends that you would adamantly support a business's right to actively discriminate against them, or have you hidden that belief under the banal platitudes you have offered here? Your refusal to answer cofty's question spoke volumes, revealing your real feelings about race relations. How long would any self-respecting black person put up with your company upon learning your thinking about a business's right to discriminate? You can rest assured it would not be for very long. Your comparisons of different sexual behaviors shows the same kind of shallow and specious reasoning you bring to questions about race. That is why I slammed your so-called friendships with people in the groups you named. You have comforted yourself with the lie that since you can live with people with whom you disagree this is equivalent to being fair and just. That is another example of the shallow thinking which has characterized your responses.
Your views, while retrograde and offensive, are useful in that they alert the rest of us how much further we still have to go in our society. Yes, you have acknowledged the validity of some of the challenges others have raised against your thinking, but the cornerstone of your philosophy remains intact. You believe certain people are inferior, but don't say this aloud. They should be tolerated only because the law says so. Acceptance should be withheld because that runs counter to your personal sensibilities. And government should never have a role in protecting those who are quite different from you. That is the hard libertarian view you espouse. And it is easy for you to do so since for now you are part of a group (white straight males) who occupy the apex of power and privilege in this country.
As I wrote above, I think your real fear is seeing how rapidly the political, cultural and social landscape of this country is changing. What you and many others of your persuasion hoped would take another forty or so years to transpire is happening right now despite your ardent wishes to the contrary. If you had your way, you would take the country back--back to the nineteenth century, that is. That is not going to happen. The tide has turned at last and its flood will lift all boats whether you like it or not.
Quendi
Quendi,
His tolerance of others falls far short of acceptance.
This is the critical difference between us. I can accept someone for who they are and even love them for it. That does not always mean that I will agree with them or always let them have their way. Maybe someday you will understand that.
Have you told your black friends that you would adamantly support a business's right to actively discriminate against them, or have you hidden that belief under the banal platitudes you have offered here?
The subject never came up. He is actually more conservative than I am. I would not be surprised if his position is similar to mine. Now that you ask, I must admit to being curious.
Honestly when I see old friends, I do not waste time with circular debates. I am not going to bring up a potentially painful subject just to satisfy my intellectual curiousity. However if the subject ever comes up, I will pose the hypothetical to him.
Your refusal to answer cofty's question spoke volumes, revealing your real feelings about race relations. How long would any self-respecting black person put up with your company upon learning your thinking about a business's right to discriminate?
Wow. Did you just accuse me of not answering a question, and then criticize my answer to that question in the very next statement. Isn't that a self contradiction?
That is why I slammed your so-called friendships with people in the groups you named. You have comforted yourself with the lie that since you can live with people with whom you disagree this is equivalent to being fair and just. That is another example of the shallow thinking which has characterized your responses.
Whatever. I have been through thick-and-thin with some of these people. Some of them are even family. Obviously, not something you can understand.
Ironically, I am glad that we had this conversation. Your thinking has given me insight into the JWs and ex-JWs in my life.
I think your real fear is seeing how rapidly the political, cultural and social landscape of this country is changing.
Yes, you are right on this front. The same sex marriage issue really is a side show. I am much more concerned about the libertine attitudes that this country is adopting (of which homosexuality is just a small part) and the unchecked growth of the federal government's power.
KateWild
Have you got any scientific stats for that to make you so confident?
I am a man. I know of what I speak.
Sex also then becomes mechanical and selfish, not a giving activity as it is in a loving relationship.
Spoken like a woman.
Of course, this begs the question. Is promiciousity morally acceptable if it is in a mutually accepted open relationship?
mrhhhhhome - You have resorted to red herrings in order to distract attention from the actual issue.
Gay man and women do not choose their sexual orientation as I explained in some detail above.
I disagree with Kate, our sex drive surely does have a genetic basis as well as environmental influences. However we are not slaves to our genes. You can choose not to be promiscuous. You can make an ethical decision to remain faithful to your wife.
Your bigoted position would condemn a gay person to a life of singleness and celibacy.
Your promiscuity would cause hurt to your wife and possibly to your multiple partners. A faithful gay relationship between consenting adults has no negative ethical dimension other than arbitrary superstitous dogma.
Happily in the 21st century enlightened societies no longer allow you and yours to impose your outdated ideas on others.
So is promiciousity acceptable if it is in a mutually accepted open relationship?
Is this not a tautology?
Cofty,
Is this not a tautology?
Tautology. Another good word. You are on a roll this week. I will have to remember that one.
To answer your question, no. It is not.
I have fielded some hard questions. You answer mine. Is promiciousity morally acceptable if it is in a mutually accepted open relationship?
