>

Who brought up Christianity and religion? You did.

I never said I assume you advocate bastard children. It was a question. I also, never said that you hold a stance on children which says "screw them". Again, it was a question. Likewise, I never told you what you believe about children, marriage and monogomy. Its difficult to have an intelligent exchange with someone who resorts to personal attacks rather than focus on the issue at hand.

You said marriage and monogamy are unnatural. I asked "so what?" Like, what is your point? The reason I asked this is because it appeared to me (and a number of other readers too, I might add) that you were being critical of marriage and monogamy. I wanted to understand the logical extension of your argument. If you were trying to argue that marriage or monogamy should not be practiced, then the questions regarding child rearing were right on point.

Apparently you weren't trying to make that argument because then, somewhat surprisingly, you took the hypocritical stance that you plan to get married someday (and presumably practice monogamy although you didn't commit to that - no surprise) despite the fact that you think they are unnatural. What?

In any event, you never explained what point you were trying to make by proclaiming that marriage and monogamy were unnatural. If you can keep your commentary to answering this question, I would be interested in your considered response.

You said "can I assume..." and then argued the point that you already did. So even though you asked the question, you really didn't wait for an answer; you basically answered it yourself. I felt this was not fair. Still you argue that because I made a statement that marriage & monogamy are unnatural that I can't and won't participate in it? I already said this and for the sake of being repetitive, because I make a general statement about the origins of marriage does not reflect my personal opinion on the subject. Like earlier, I can say that fruit juice is not a natural substance but that does NOT mean I don't thoroughly enjoy drinking it.

You have no grounds regarding personal attacks. I do not make them unless I myself have already been attacked:
>
Thats really not a fair or true statement. All of a sudden I have lack of morality and lifestyle lower in conduct that most animals. First off, MOST animals aren't monogamous (roughly 4% of mammals). Secondly, I have very high moral standards and it has no bearing on my stance on issues as these. It was a completely unfounded statement and I took offense to it.

I would only be hypocritical if I were to say I won't every participate in marriage and monogamy. I was never trying to make the point that either of those are wrong. Again, and again I've stated this. I'm starting to think theres a loss of translation. So to be absolutely clear; I am not against marriage nor monogamy. I stated that both of those things, in regards to primalistic human beings, are unnatural. As in the beginning of humanity, not now. If your arguing this is not the case that monogamy and marriage were not a product of society and evolution then I can better understand your position. Which honestly, I'm not exactly sure of, considering I'm not anti-marriage/monogamy?

Also: I feel as though this is isn't well placed on a forum. If you, and anyone else would like to continue talking off board, I'd support that. I can provide an email.

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Jul 24, 2007 - 11:29 AM

I understand that you are now taking the position that when you state that something is "unnatural" it is more of a statement of condition as oppose to judgement. For instance, if someone were to say "Cindy is an idiot" he wouldn't necessarily being making a value judgement about whether being an idiot is a good or a bad thing. On the contrary, he would just be describing the fact that Cindy has an intellectual capacity similar to that of people who are definitionally idiots.

The problem with this position is that words like "unnatural" and "idiot" strongly imply a derogatory context from a point of view of disapproval. People typically use these words when they are criticizing. Here is a sentence: "Tom said, 'Cindy is an idiot'." Was Tom criticizing Cindy? Most people would say yes despite the fact that detached, logical and overly anal Tom might protest up and down that he was only trying to describe her mental condition accurately. I wasn't trying to say I don't like her!

I guess you could say that your position is unnatural.......but that doesn't mean I don't wholehartedly endorse it.

When is anyone going to understand when it comes to these arguments if you give Erik and inch he takes a mile.

oh and greening, you are my hero.

These question are kinda stupid especially the last one, because it doesn't take into account what one or other wants in their life eg, One night stand, someone for a booty call, a real relationship, >>>>&>>>>c. Basically people need to communicate about what they want and are looking for, be it through physical and verbal communique. It also helps if the two aren't idiots and are mature enough to understand the concepts of sex. If they can't then I can not fathom how they would be able to have a successful long term relationship.
And these so called problems stem from our ever changing society in which sexual activity is becoming more commonplace, and socially accepted, due to the mainstream media. I also like the double standard for sex in itself where if a girl enjoys sex and has it often she gets labeled you know those fun derogatory words like whore and slut. But if a guy does it gets praised, but the term man whore has finally come around to describe that. As a society we are constantly evolving and lets not forget religion no longer has its death grip on the world like it used to.

But hell after writing all that I might as well answer them
>
Also lets have you replace all the instances in the questions where woman is used, and put man in and lets see your answers.

And remember children Life is Sexually Transmitted.