Quote (Voyaging @ Jan 31 2015 06:57pm)
None of these consequences is due to the action in question. One can be in an a polyamorous relationship. One can have sex with a woman within marriage and still refuse to raise a baby should she get pregnant. Similarly, one can have sex outside of marriage and choose to raise the baby as a couple.
The third is just an appeal to emotion: "Oh please don't tell me you don't see anything wrong with that cause it grosses me out and God says it's bad!" I certainly see nothing explicitly morally wrong with sex between siblings if pregnancy can be guaranteed to be prevented, though I think in generally it's something to best be avoided. Sex with pets is different because they can't consent; if they could then it would of course be morally acceptable. That's not to say these behaviors should be socially or personally acceptable, but there isn't anything intrinsically wrong with them such that they should be banned.
One attribute to marriage is called communication. The female may say "I want a baby!" The male can say "yes" or "no." The male in that case would have to raise the baby if he agreed to have one. This would be where we define the roles of the family members but I'll leave it at that. So one can have sex outside of marriage and choose to raise the baby as a couple. So that means they might as well get married right? In that scenario there is one small problem: If one gives in to moral temptation before marriage, what’s to stop him or her from giving in to moral temptation once married?
Quote (Voyaging @ Jan 31 2015 06:57pm)
Morally? Absolutely not, nor does anyone who has a reasonable moral compass that hasn't been hijacked by their religion's seemingly arbitrary moral dogmas. What naturalistic reasons do you have for suggesting that homosexual sex is an intrinsically morally wrong behavior? I will not accept revealed Scripture as a reason.
Here is the Australian Marriage Act 1961:
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00164“Marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.”;
A union solemnised in a foreign country between:
(a) a man and another man; or
(b) a woman and another woman;
must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.
So there must be some good reason why the Marriage Act defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.
Also why a man with another man or a woman with another woman is not recognised as a marriage in Australia.
Not once does it mention God.
Quote (Voyaging @ Jan 31 2015 06:57pm)
I think he was just using tl;dr as an indication that he was giving a summary of the link he posted, not commenting on your post.
I guess you'll want me to redeem that part then yes?
Quote
Tl;dr: numerous researchers have all come to the same conclusions on swingers and couples in open relationships...they all report higher levels of marriage satisfaction and trust than their monogamous counterparts. While I personally would never be in such a relationship, the facts are the complete opposite of what you claim.
As far as damaging friends, that speaks more about them than it does the people involved. So my friend decides to ruin their marriage with an affair...who gives a shit? That's their problem and divorce battle, not mine. I can obviously tell them not to have affairs. I can tell them what a mistake they made.
But I'm most definitely not actually their friend if the first thing I think of every time I see them that they committed adultery. It's part of that whole "turn the other cheek" and "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" thing.
So was their reasons for having an open relationship to fulfill their own desires? Sex outside of marriage is impure and immoral and known as committing adultery. A marriage is a man and woman becoming one flesh. If there are multiple fleshes involved the love is divided you cannot love one another fully.
As for friends of the people involved. Your friend ruins their marriage with an affair, why don't you care? Why do you not care that your friend's life is at peril? What kind of friend are you if you do not care for them? If you see them heading towards danger, would you not stop them? Would you not help them?
Oh and it is called a reputation, what are they known by if they did that terrible thing? Think of the other victim, their heart is broken. Yet "Who gives a shit?"
Quote (Scaly @ Jan 31 2015 08:30pm)
I think Voyaging pretty much covered this before I got to it. The only thing that I would add is that out of the ordinary =/= immoral and that I actually have few issues with incest between consenting family members of the same generation provided they are responsible when it comes to the question of whether or not to have a child.
You can't say you take your morality from the old Testament and then proclaim incest a sin... it's contradictory.
It isn't so much about it being out of the ordinary, it is taking something and using it for something other than its original intention. It is for two people to deepen their intimacy towards one another. It is a love that you have only for that one other person. It cannot be distributed among multiple people. Nobody can serve two masters. Of course you can be really, really good mates with somebody of the same gender and you can have a friendship like no other. How does that justify sexual implications towards the same gender? It doesn't. Not back then, not now and not ever.