Fighting fire with fire

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Family values are not bad. Many are probably a good idea. Forcing everyone else to live by *your* values is bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I definately agree with the latter statement, can you clarify what you mean by "family values?" I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just don't really understand what that phrase means.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously it's a pretty vague phrase. Waiting till marriage to have sex might be considered a "family value" and certainly has some benefits (no kids, no STD's, etc). The point of my post was to add the caveat that while family values shouldn't be assumed to be bad, forcing others to live by them should be considered bad, because you probably wouldn't want someone else's values imposed on you. "Do unto others..." Whoever said that was pretty smart.... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[FlFishOn]

"Family values are not bad. Many are probably a good idea. Forcing everyone else to live by *your* values is bad."

There exists a school of thought that suggests civilization and most religion evolved to enforce a unified set of values upon the population. Obviously we've been duped for the previous 5000 years. How could we be so stupid as to think people need pressure to do what's good for themselves and society.

[hmkpoker]

Oh yeah, I know you're not advocating forcing family values, I'm just trying to understand what exactly they are [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Is there anything else besides premarital abstinence?

[CORed]

I cetainly believe that cultural evolution is the driving force behind most moral values. Societies with moral values that promoted survival flourished, those with morals that didn't died out or were conpuered. However, we do not live in the same world we did 5000 years ago, or even 50 years ago. Prohibiting sex before marriage made sense when there was no birth control, and most people maried before the age of 20. It assured that most children had two parents to care for them and that paternity was known (mostly).


However, some of us think that rules that worked for a primitive society of nomadic herders (Jews in Biblical times) just might be less than optimal for a modern industrial society.

[FlFishOn]

" However, we do not live in the same world we did 5000 years ago, or even 50 years ago."

This is arrogance and you have much company. When H(omo) Sapien gives way to H(omo) Next then you can claim to be living in a different world. Until then there is the accumulated wisdom of 5000 years of civilization to guide us. You would toss most of it wholesale and for mostly venal and selfish reasons. This is an oft repeated mistake that can lead to minor or major setbacks to the current civilization.

It's the Fox Moulder school of morality. I want to believe...that indiscriminant premaratial sex is just fine, no negative societal effect...that single moms raise kids equal to married male and female couples...that homosexuality has has no downside...etc. Wishing won't make it so. Rationalization won't make it so. Cognitive dissonance requires many to pretend that all is well with their lifestyle chosen but when it contradicts strictures that go back 5000 years you really need question your choices.

[hmkpoker]

What reason is there to believe that premarital or homosexual sex is detrimental to society?

[CORed]

Okay, I actually don't think that, in general, single mothers do as good a job of raising children as two parent families. However, with contraception, and abortion as a backup, premarital sex does not necessarily mean single parents. For that matter, although I have seen no statistical data recently, I believe more single parent families result from divorce than from out-of-wedlock birth.

My key belief is that, except for enforcing child support, government simply has no businuess regulating sexual behavior, living arrangements, etc. I am also curious: In what way do you see homosexual behavior as detrimental to society? Who is harmed by it? For that matter, how is non-reproductive permarital sex harmful? If you choose to abstain from sex befor marriage, and encourage your children to do the same, I have no problem with that. If you want to opt your children out of public shcool sex education classes because they teach about contraception and use of condoms for disease prevention, I think your are being foolish, but I think you have that right. However, if you lobby to pass laws regulating my sexual behavior, or forcing the schools to teach moronic "abstinence only" sex education classes, or to teach religious doctrine as science, I have a big problem with that and I will fight you and your allies tooth and nail, in the political arean, and if I fail there, I will resist such laws in any way possible. If absolutely necessary, and I believe it has a reasonable chance of success, I will take up arms to defend my rights.

To sum it up: Feel free to live your life as you see fit. But keep your nose, and the governments nose, out of how I live mine.

BTW: There was a period of history when Christians were firmly in control of the governments of Europe. It was called the Dark Ages. This was followed by a time when the control of the churches weakened. This was known as the Rennaissance, or the Enlgihtenment. Coincidence? I think not.

[FlFishOn]

"Okay, I actually don't think that, in general, single mothers do as good a job of raising children as two parent families."

Dandy. You're most of the way home.

Most every other rule that (western) society/religion has attempted to enforce over it's history is in support of the above axiom. Premarital sex threatens stable families. Ditto adultery. Ditto homosexuality.

This was worked out a very long time ago and was well understood. Morality moves on a pendulum and as it swings there's the temptation to assume all the underlying principles have changed as well. That's been wrong throughout history. It's wrong today.

As a male, the urge to hump everything in sight is almost impossible to control at 20. The fact that you don't distinguishes us from the animals. This is the nub of it. Society/religion must control this and saw the need to do so 5000 years ago.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
Ditto homosexuality.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? You were on a role there with actual fact based thinking, then you droped this.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]

As a male, the urge to hump everything in sight is almost impossible to control at 20. The fact that you don't distinguishes us from the animals. This is the nub of it. Society/religion must control this and saw the need to do so 5000 years ago.


[/ QUOTE ]

We are animals. A little smarter than te rest (or most of the rest. Whales may be pretty close to us, but, lacking hands they haven't been able to develop any technology), but animals nonetheless. That's reality. We are nothing special. Deal with it. So, why is there a need to control the urge of the 20 year old male to hump everything in sight? Most of us get over it and settle down after awhile, get married and raise families.