I like how you completely ignored Quist, ET. :xp:I ignored Quist because the only question that was actually postulated toward me was completely silly and I rather thought it needed no response, because the question has no bearing on my arguments, disloyalty and cheating in committed relationships is not in the least bit the same thing as sleeping around when you're single. However, it's been called to attention so I will do so.

I have a question for you, then. Should you decide to get married, then would it be okay for your wife to go out and sleep with another man, as long as she was 'responsible' about it and vice versa?No. It would not be okay. It would also not be okay for her to make out with, go on dates with, flirt excessively with, or routinely hold hands with another man. However, I would have no problems with her engaging in those activities prior to entering in to a monogamous relationship with me. Do you have a problem with the idea that your future husband/wife will have at some point in their lives almost certainly kissed other girls/guys, held their hands, and gone to the movies whilst sharing popcorn? If so you are in for a lifetime supply of disappointment.

women who sleep around are more likely to be ostracized/ridiculed than men who sleep around.Which is an awful and unfair double standard, to be certain, and one that I find quite offensive.

Neither for that matter does killing....say what now?

But you'd be in a better position if you just said that sex has no inherent moral impact, rather than promiscuity. Problem with your argument is that morals are directly related to your values.Well if I was arguing that sex has no inherent moral impact then I wouldn't be arguing the same point that I'm currently arguing. The thing I'm arguing is that different types of sex ALSO carry no inherent moral impact, in the majority of these arguments it's been promiscuous sex, although I hope my arguments are also being thought of in defense of other types of sexual behavior.

And actually, perhaps your personal morals are directly related to your values, but absolute universal morals certainly are not. I'd rather not go into that discussion as it was already covered in much more depth in the Senate Chambers.

Yeah, I know, b/c I started at least one of those threads. But you make the mistake of assuming you have the authority to determine WHAT those "absolute universal morals" actually are. So, your "AUM" are still subjectively arrived at/agreed upon. Thus my comment about your stance on the morality of, frankly, any type of sexual behavior.

But you make the mistake of assuming you have the authority to determine WHAT those "absolute universal morals" If one doesn't have the ability to believe and attempt to show with logic that their morals are correct, then there is no point in morality.

I ignored Quist because the only question that was actually postulated toward me was completely silly and I rather thought it needed no response, because the question has no bearing on my arguments, disloyalty and cheating in committed relationships is not in the least bit the same thing as sleeping around when you're single. However, it's been called to attention so I will do so.
I apologize if I made my question seem specious and irrelevant, but I did ask it legitmately.

And I think it's just common courtesy to answer a question directly posed to oneself by another, even if you think it's 'silly'. After all, you responded to Jae's obviously jestful comment about the phrase 'my women'.

No. It would not be okay. It would also not be okay for her to make out with, go on dates with, flirt excessively with, or routinely hold hands with another man. However, I would have no problems with her engaging in those activities prior to entering in to a monogamous relationship with me.
Ah, thank you for clearing that up. Your initial statement confused me on the point that you would like to have your spouse have similar morals to yourself, followed up by the point that you believe casual sex to be all right as long as the people involved are responsible about it. Thus, it seemed to me that you were saying you would like your spouse to be okay with casual sex. Since you have portrayed yourself as openly promiscuous, it does not seem so far a reach as to believe you would enter into such a relationship, which is why I posed that question to you.

Do you have a problem with the idea that your future husband/wife will have at some point in their lives almost certainly kissed other girls/guys, held their hands, and gone to the movies whilst sharing popcorn? If so you are in for a lifetime supply of disappointment.
I am not aware of any instance in this discussion where I professed I had a problem with the idea that my future spouse would be sexually active before entering a relationship with me. If I have said something to that effect, please point it out to me. Otherwise, I do not really appreciate such unfounded generalizations about my relationship preferences.

And actually, perhaps your personal morals are directly related to your values, but absolute universal morals certainly are not. I'd rather not go into that discussion as it was already covered in much more depth in the Senate Chambers.
I would actually be interested in that discussion taking place here. Personally, I feel the Senate Chambers is a hostile place and I would like no part in what transpires there. Kavar's Corner is a much, much friendlier environment in which to have a discussion.

I am not aware of any instance in this discussion where I professed I had a problem with the idea that my future spouse would be sexually active before entering a relationship with me.I suppose it's my turn to apologize. I simply assumed since the question was being posited it was implying sexual activity before marriage was almost on level with disloyalty in marriage. I can see where my post was unclear, I should have said "Casual sex while you're single is okay." My mistake.

Kavar's Corner is a much, much friendlier environment in which to have a discussion.I'd suggest you take a gander at the old thread in the Senate (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=171819) first.

If one doesn't have the ability to believe and attempt to show with logic that their morals are correct, then there is no point in morality.

Problem here, though, isn't whether people believe that they can develop a sense of morals steeped in their beliefs and try to logically develop a sytem stemming from those first principles. What you have is basically R(elative)UM (goes nicely w/Coke, I might add ;)), b/c your "absolute, logically arrived at" morality may conflict with someone elses based on the origin of your system. One person can put empathy at the center of their system and build up around it, another could place truth, aesthetics or justice as the core value and logically construct a universal code from them as well.

....although I hope my arguments are also being thought of in defense of other types of sexual behavior.

such as? Necrophilia? Beastiality? Pederasty? Sorry, dude, but you left yourself wide open there.....:xp: :p

hmmmmm....i'll be sure to remember disney land's new policy

maybe chip can finally marry dale