Religion Discussion Thread

[Baltlandia]

I never said that.


Yes, because I think fidelity is important. but I do get that everyone's different, so to each his own, I guess.

If you and your partner agree it is casual sex, where does fidelity come in?

If two (or more) people are in a committed relationship, and are faithful to each other, it's considered fidelity.

I'm honestly interested since your opinion is very different from mine. I'm of the opinion that if all parties are legally consenting adults, I do not see how it can be immoral

Fidelity shows that someone is willing to sacrifice a little bit of themselves for the other person (and for God, but I know that not everyone believes in god). So, it's the right thing to do.

[Neutraligon]

If you and your partner agree it is casual sex, where does fidelity come in?

If two (or more) people are in a committed relationship, and are faithful to each other, it's considered fidelity.

I'm honestly interested since your opinion is very different from mine. I'm of the opinion that if all parties are legally consenting adults, I do not see how it can be immoral

Fidelity shows that someone is willing to sacrifice a little bit of themselves for the other person (and for God, but I know that not everyone believes in god). So, it's the right thing to do.

But what of the two people having sex are not in a committed relationship, or if the two people are in an open relationship?

[Baltlandia]

If two (or more) people are in a committed relationship, and are faithful to each other, it's considered fidelity.


Fidelity shows that someone is willing to sacrifice a little bit of themselves for the other person (and for God, but I know that not everyone believes in god). So, it's the right thing to do.

But what of the two people having sex are not in a committed relationship,

Then you risk catching or spreading an STD.

or if the two people are in an open relationship?

Open relationships aren't two people completely committed to eachother, so see above.

[Neutraligon]

But what of the two people having sex are not in a committed relationship,

Then you risk catching or spreading an STD.

or if the two people are in an open relationship?

Open relationships aren't two people completely committed to eachother, so see above.

The risk is possibly increased, although it can be protected against. I don't see how it is immoral.

[Baltlandia]

Then you risk catching or spreading an STD.


Open relationships aren't two people completely committed to eachother, so see above.

The risk is possibly increased, although it can be protected against. I don't see how it is immoral.

It can be protected against, but the only 100% way to stop the spread of STD's is for people to practice abstinence. Casual sex helps spread disease.

[Sun Wukong]

But what of the two people having sex are not in a committed relationship,

Then you risk catching or spreading an STD.

or if the two people are in an open relationship?

Open relationships aren't two people completely committed to eachother, so see above.

A) I know someone who died of AIDS despite never having cheated herself, so being committed is not a foolproof protection.
B) Fuck off. Who are you to say two people aren't committed?
C) I think hygiene is important, and similarly thing it prevents the spread of disease, but I don't harp about how people who don't shower every day are immoral. That's a non sequitur.

[Neutraligon]

The risk is possibly increased, although it can be protected against. I don't see how it is immoral.

It can be protected against, but the only 100% way to stop the spread of STD's is for people to practice abstinence. Casual sex helps spread disease.

No casual sex done without protection spreads disease. Again there are other ways of getting certain STDs so abstinence is not 100%

[Baltlandia]

Then you risk catching or spreading an STD.


Open relationships aren't two people completely committed to eachother, so see above.

A) I know someone who died of AIDS despite never having cheated herself, so being committed is not a foolproof protection.

both/all of the partners would need to be committed.

B) Fuck off. Who are you to say two people aren't committed?

I didn't say they weren't committed, just not to the same degree as people who aren't in an open relationship.

C) I think hygiene is important, and similarly thing it prevents the spread of disease, but I don't harp about how people who don't shower every day are immoral. That's a non sequitur.

Sex is directly linked to the spread of disease.

[Baltlandia]

It can be protected against, but the only 100% way to stop the spread of STD's is for people to practice abstinence. Casual sex helps spread disease.

No casual sex done without protection spreads disease.

Condoms can break & oral sex is done without protection.

Again there are other ways of getting certain STDs so abstinence is not 100%

Right. But if our aim is to reduce the spread of STD's as much as possible, abstinence is an important part of that.

[Sun Wukong]

A) I know someone who died of AIDS despite never having cheated herself, so being committed is not a foolproof protection.

both/all of the partners would need to be committed.

B) Fuck off. Who are you to say two people aren't committed?

I didn't say they weren't committed, just not to the same degree as people who aren't in an open relationship.

C) I think hygiene is important, and similarly thing it prevents the spread of disease, but I don't harp about how people who don't shower every day are immoral. That's a non sequitur.

Sex is directly linked to the spread of disease.

1. You don't say? But as we cannot control or fully know others, the point is that your solution fails.
2. And I'm telling you that's a fucking dickish and immoral thing to say. It's possible to be fully committed to someone you're in an open relationship with. Who are you to say otherwise. You seem awfully obsessed with other people's sex lives.
3. Hygiene is directly linked to the spread of many diseases, you have not addressed my point.

[Neutraligon]

No casual sex done without protection spreads disease.

Condoms can break & oral sex is done without protection.

Again there are other ways of getting certain STDs so abstinence is not 100%

Right. But if our aim is to reduce the spread of STD's as much as possible, abstinence is an important part of that.

No if our main aim is to reduce STDs, than the best thing to do i find a cure. Abstinence tends not to work because people don't want to be abstinent.

[Sun Wukong]

Condoms can break & oral sex is done without protection.


Right. But if our aim is to reduce the spread of STD's as much as possible, abstinence is an important part of that.

No if our main aim is to reduce STDs, than the best thing to do i find a cure. Abstinence tends not to work because people don't want to be abstinent.

"Alright people, I want you all to ignore behavioral biology and millions of years of evolved instinct. If we can all just do that, we'll be fine."

[Baltlandia]

both/all of the partners would need to be committed.

I didn't say they weren't committed, just not to the same degree as people who aren't in an open relationship.

Sex is directly linked to the spread of disease.

1. You don't say? But as we cannot control or fully know others, the point is that your solution fails.

If one of the partners aren't committed, that person isn't being faithful. Hence, not valuing fidelity.

2. And I'm telling you that's a fucking dickish and immoral thing to say. It's possible to be fully committed to someone you're in an open relationship with. Who are you to say otherwise. You seem awfully obsessed with other people's sex lives.

Not my problem if you're getting offended.

3. Hygiene is directly linked to the spread of many diseases, you have not addressed my point.

STD's are called STD's for a reason: they are primarily/largely spread through sexual contact.

[Baltlandia]

Condoms can break & oral sex is done without protection.


Right. But if our aim is to reduce the spread of STD's as much as possible, abstinence is an important part of that.

No if our main aim is to reduce STDs, than the best thing to do i find a cure. Abstinence tends not to work because people don't want to be abstinent.

I'm not arguing for complete abstinence. If cures are found for the diseases, then my point is moot.

[Neutraligon]

No if our main aim is to reduce STDs, than the best thing to do i find a cure. Abstinence tends not to work because people don't want to be abstinent.

I'm not arguing for complete abstinence. If cures are found for the diseases, then my point is moot.

Except you yourself said earlier that even if cures were found you would still hold the same opinion, so basically all this was a red-herring. You were the one talking about abstinence, I wasn't the one to bring it up.

[Baltlandia]

I'm not arguing for complete abstinence. If cures are found for the diseases, then my point is moot.

Except you yourself said earlier that even if cures were found you would still hold the same opinion, so basically all this was a red-herring. You were the one talking about abstinence, I wasn't the one to bring it up.

I should clarify: my point about STD's would be moot. My point about fidelity still stands.

[Sun Wukong]

1. You don't say? But as we cannot control or fully know others, the point is that your solution fails.

If one of the partners aren't committed, that person isn't being faithful. Hence, not valuing fidelity.

2. And I'm telling you that's a fucking dickish and immoral thing to say. It's possible to be fully committed to someone you're in an open relationship with. Who are you to say otherwise. You seem awfully obsessed with other people's sex lives.

Not my problem if you're getting offended.

3. Hygiene is directly linked to the spread of many diseases, you have not addressed my point.

STD's are called STD's for a reason: they are primarily/largely spread through sexual contact.

1. And obviously the other person should have known that. Being a telepath.
2. No, your problem is that reality takes a back seat to your preconceptions.
3. Which, again, does not address my point.

[Neutraligon]

Except you yourself said earlier that even if cures were found you would still hold the same opinion, so basically all this was a red-herring. You were the one talking about abstinence, I wasn't the one to bring it up.

I should clarify: my point about STD's would be moot. My point about fidelity still stands.

Hence to this topic it is a red-herring. It has nothing to do with your moral opinion on fidelity.

[Baltlandia]

If one of the partners aren't committed, that person isn't being faithful. Hence, not valuing fidelity.


Not my problem if you're getting offended.


STD's are called STD's for a reason: they are primarily/largely spread through sexual contact.

1. And obviously the other person should have known that. Being a telepath.

My original point was that both people would have to be faithful for this to work.

2. No, your problem is that reality takes a back seat to your preconceptions.

Nope. If people are *completely* committed to each other, they aren't going to be having sex with others.

3. Which, again, does not address my point.

Maybe I missed something, sorry. What was it again?

[Baltlandia]

I should clarify: my point about STD's would be moot. My point about fidelity still stands.

Hence to this topic it is a red-herring. It has nothing to do with your moral opinion on fidelity.

Yes, it does. Having sex in a committed relationship, rather than outside of one, is less likely to spread disease.

[Sun Wukong]

1. And obviously the other person should have known that. Being a telepath.

My original point was that both people would have to be faithful for this to work.

2. No, your problem is that reality takes a back seat to your preconceptions.

Nope. If people are *completely* committed to each other, they aren't going to be having sex with others.

3. Which, again, does not address my point.

Maybe I missed something, sorry. What was it again?

1. And my point was that this plan has an obvious flaw.
2. Why not? Are you only able to conceptualize commitment as a function of sex? It's weird how abstinence-types are typically more concerned with physical intimacy then emotional intimacy. The Lady doth protest too much?
3. That your moral indignation simply does not carry from your arguments.

But we already knew that:

Hence to this topic it is a red-herring. It has nothing to do with your moral opinion on fidelity.

Which makes it quite pointless to continue. Your stance has nothing to do with the spread of disease. It is an after-the-fact rationalization.

[Sun Wukong]

Hence to this topic it is a red-herring. It has nothing to do with your moral opinion on fidelity.

Yes, it does. Having sex in a committed relationship, rather than outside of one, is less likely to spread disease.

You don't really understand what a red-herring is, do you?

[Neutraligon]

Yes, it does. Having sex in a committed relationship, rather than outside of one, is less likely to spread disease.

You don't really understand what a red-herring is, do you?

Thanks to NSG I can spout logical fallacies like the best of them

[Baltlandia]

My original point was that both people would have to be faithful for this to work.

Nope. If people are *completely* committed to each other, they aren't going to be having sex with others.

Maybe I missed something, sorry. What was it again?

1. And my point was that this plan has an obvious flaw.
2. Why not? Are you only able to conceptualize commitment as a function of sex? It's weird how abstinence-types are typically more concerned with physical intimacy then emotional intimacy. The Lady doth protest too much?
3. That your moral indignation simply does not carry from your arguments.

But we already knew that:

Hence to this topic it is a red-herring. It has nothing to do with your moral opinion on fidelity.

Which makes it quite pointless to continue. Your stance has nothing to do with the spread of disease. It is an after-the-fact rationalization.

1. If they aren't following the plan, then they aren't following the plan.
2. They may be 100% emotionally committed, but they are not 100% physically committed. Which was my point.
3. no, it's not. I have two reasons why sex outside of a committed relationship is immoral. A) fidelity is the moral way to approach (sexual) relationships and b) abstinence, unless you are in a committed relationship, is the only 100% guaranteed way to not catch or spread an STD via sexual intercourse.

Also, it's 3 am so ill reply to everything else tomorrow.

[Neutraligon]

1. And my point was that this plan has an obvious flaw.
2. Why not? Are you only able to conceptualize commitment as a function of sex? It's weird how abstinence-types are typically more concerned with physical intimacy then emotional intimacy. The Lady doth protest too much?
3. That your moral indignation simply does not carry from your arguments.

But we already knew that:


Which makes it quite pointless to continue. Your stance has nothing to do with the spread of disease. It is an after-the-fact rationalization.

1. If they aren't following the plan, then they aren't following the plan.
2. They may be 100% emotionally committed, but they are not 100% physically committed. Which was my point.
3. no, it's not. I have two reasons why sex outside of a committed relationship is immoral. A) fidelity is the moral way to approach (sexual) relationships and b) abstinence, unless you are in a committed relationship, is the only 100% guaranteed way to not catch or spread an STD via sexual intercourse.

Since this is a thread about religion and morality the second reason you provide is entirely irrelevant.