Originally Posted by CRUM
The children I described were not children. They were immature young adults not prepped properly to take on the world outside of their parents make believe existence. You may call that protected, but I call it parents more often interested in control than turning out an adult armed with enough tools to meet the ugliness that does exist outside the sheltered homes of their youth.
...
I do have a question. You say you have a moral objection to promiscuity. Would you like to see your moral objection made into law?
You are right about the term children. Also, protected was a term someone else used that seemed to fit the discussions fairly well. I would for the most part agree with the interpretation you offer.
Originally Posted by dannoXYZ
Values and morals are individualistic and as varied as there are individuals out there.
Addressing Crum's final line and danno's statement:
What I was trying to do is briefly share my morals and explain how they guide my actions in life. I am not trying to force them directly on other people, but I am trying to protect myself and my friends from undue temptations in everyday life. Despite believing many things that have grown to be accepted by society at large are wrong, I would be a hypocrit to deny that they often have short-sighted attraction. I feel I've been reasonably successful in facing the ugly things of the world because I understand the reasons people I've learned from have called them ugly, and after having pretty thoroughly considered these reasons in the context of the what I see in the world, I've accepted their validity.
Aside from the fact that I'm not trying to force my beliefs on the world, I do believe that the core of my morals come from a higher Law that exists regardless of whether everyone believes it does or not. To use an example a little more universally agreed upon, I believe that the unjust taking of a life is inherently wrong (note however that justification can be a hard to pin down subject).
Now, should laws against adultry be enacted? No. First of all, they would be extremely difficult to enforce and the steps necessary to enforce them would no doubt result in an overall net reduction in quality of life. Secondly, returning to my contention (which I recognize that many here will reject) that right and wrong stem from a higher moral law, I feel it is society's place to regulate wrong actions which have a recognizable negative effect on people other than the perpatrator of the action, such as theft and murder. For the sake of the first point, it is best not regulate beyond this basic criteria. Sex between consenting adults generally does not have a recognizable impact beyond those involved. Because this is already a rather long and tiresome thread and many of my related beliefs are not the same as other bikeforums members, I don't feel like getting into why I believe adultry is wrong and related issues such as why I don't think the state should sanction *****exual marriages.
For the record, however, I do want to say this has been a pretty good discussion. By far one of the best I've been involved in on this topic on the internet.
Speak of the devil: I got a postcard today addressed to me advertising playboy. I'm not sure how they got my current address. The only people I've given it to since I moved here is my family, friends, the DMV and Auditor's office, insurance agent, and the place I just got a couple CD's from. I think I can guess which one of the above sold their mailing lists. Hmmm...postage will be paid by addressee. Now where's that spare anvil I had...
