Seasons

None, I suppose. But I think if I wait long enough all restrictions will be lifted. Already it appears that morality can enter into the discussion -- just not religion.

colonel, I think it's possible to have both liberty and morals. Other people's morals may not be the same as yours, but it's oversimplifying things to say that they have no morals.

As for the tone of your questioning: you make it sound as if anyone having sex outside of marriage is incapable of having a meaningful relationship. Is that the idea you were trying to convey?

As for our purpose: shall we all go get married as quickly as possible and start popping out as many babies as we can? I don't think that is the meaning of MY life.

*shrugs* I think colonel is assuming a moral position implies there is a definite 'right' or 'wrong' that applies to everyone, regardless of culture or circumstance. Though first he attacks the idea as being against liberty, then embraces it as producing more meaningful relationships.

both, actually. I cannot be saying that if someone has sex outside of marriage is incapable of having a meaninful relationship - what if the two people loved eachother but just weren't married? what I was talking about is the tendency for people to be promiscuous. And no, it doesn't mean at all that these people have no morals - i doubt these poeple would kill, for instance. In any society, to an extent, sluttiness is wrong. Now, people are justifying it as "art", or "freedom". That was my point. I am not attacking anyone.

And frankly, if it continues on the course its on now, we'll be seeing pornography on the streets in 10 years time.

I didn't take it as an attack, colonel. It just sounded really odd to me.

In any society, to an extent, sluttiness is wrong? To me, some of the men in the Bible seem slutty for having many wives and concubines. Then again, this sort of thing happens (though on a much smaller scale) in Western nations, in modern times, but usually with the men and women on equal footing.

There are tribes in South America that believe a pregnant woman must have sex with lots of men in order to build her baby.

As for pornography: I'm sure you know about Japanese businessmen 'reading' it openly on the trains. I'm not calling their way superior, just pointing out that it exists.

I am more concerned with the way people treat each other, face to face as human beings, than who they sleep with or what they look at.

you are aware that many a killing has ocurred as a result of slutiness, and you can't deny, that there is such a thing as a society being misled. Of course, if you ask the society, they will not believe they are being misled, but they are doing what they believe is right. But for the sake of humanity, please tell me that you don't support promiscuity.

Many a killing has resulted from money, too. Does this mean banning money would stop the killing?

My suspicion is that promiscuity has been going on at roughly the same levels throughout history, but there was more of an effort to keep it hidden in times past.

Killing has occurred from jealousy, disease, the Crusades (if we're going to go there), and lots of other things.

I doubt that my personal opinion is going to singlehandedly make or break humanity, colonel, but...it is possible to have meaningful intimate relationships that don't involve marriage. It's also possible (and fairly common) to remain good friends regardless of the outcome of the relationship.

Now, sex is a VERY. BIG. DEAL. and should not be done thoughtlessly, but....I have a feeling we have two different concepts of promiscuity. Someone who sleeps with everything they see is promiscuous. A committed gay couple is not promiscuous. Neither is someone who has a series of boyfriends or girlfriends and sleeps with them (assuming said boyfriend/girlfriend doesn't change every week or every month).

promiscuity is just one of the things that freedom is allowing. homosexuality is too, although may not be directly associated with promiscuity.

Yes, ulrike, it would be nice if money became obsolete.

Human society as portrayed on Star Trek would not work with humans as we know them.

If money were obsolete, people would kill each other for food, cars, property, etc. It is not the money that is the problem. It is the value that people attach to it. So long as people attach value to anything, there will be those who try to take it by force.
What's the solution? I have no clue. Probably a good start would be to teach people the value of human life over material goods.