Seasons

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.

I agree about tha value of human life, Ulrike, but I think even that can be an issue. The question "who's life?" comes to mind. I think most of us tend to be very concerned with our own lives, and that is where moral problems come into play.

From a individual standpoint, when resources are finite there is a tendency to want to hoard them for myself and my family. When they are plentiful, I still want the most and the best for me and mine. This ensures our survival and our comfort.

From a universal stand point, it makes sense to want the greatest good for the greatest number. It is hard, however, to stop thinking about ourselves and move into a mode of thinking about universal good. So we attach value--because altrustic behavior is a kind of luxury from the ego's point of view.

If it's all about survival and passing on our own DNA, then it is unlikely we can ever move into a "universal" morality. If we are all connected to a greater whole (or religion) that is a different matter, because then the self only exists within the whole and what is good for the whole is good for the self. I am not saying we need religion to stop us from killing each other, but I do think true religion provides us with a perspective which will natually cause us to act in accordance with our awareness of our connections (and therefore universal good).

I know this is not my call, but I also think Eugene should feel welcome to comment. What's the purpose of discussing things if we are going to limit what people can say?

bev as all terry pratchett readers know such as ourselves that life was an accident. and well a lot of logic can me made from terrys work. and creates extremely likely theorys about the universe

and stuff in general..................and yes i am gullible:O