Ditto on the Heinlein. :mrgreen: Reading "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and "Friday" in your early teens will have that effect. That's probably why I really wouldn't much care if polygamy was legalized, but I've learned to keep my thoughts on that subject to myself around my fellow Southern Baptists.
What surprised me about it is that on almost every issue, women are more on the socially conservative side than men are. The only exceptions are the top three, plus the death penalty, plus birth outside of marriage.
Thanks Goshin!
And for the record (again) on a different subject,....
I believe that our sexuality is largely genetic. That goes for every one of us,... So for me to go hating on someone because they are gay,... in my way of thinking that would be the same as hating them because they have downs, or are left handed, or have red hair.
That doesn't mean that I don't find some of the stories and images 'repulsive.'
I do.
But I try to temper my reactions with the fact that they can no more help their sexuality than I can.
My first Heinlein book was "Stranger in a Strange Land", which weirded me out enough in the last half to sort of ease the persuasive effect he might have had. I saw the polygamy in "The Moon is a Harth Mistress" as more about people adapting to their environment than of having become a more universally desirable society.
Then again, I read those two in my late teens, not early teens.
Actually I was going to mention you. :mrgreen:
There are people who are not particularly religious, or not religious at all, who may stand on either side of any of these issues. I won't deny that religious beliefs play a role for the majority, but not entirely by a long shot.
I personally know people who are about as religious as a bootscraper, who for whatever reason abhor homosexuality so vehemently that they make me look like a liberal pansy. :mrgreen:
It does absolutely baffle me that someone could consider adultery acceptable but be morally opposed to polygamy. That doesn't make a lick of sense to me.
I see your point and agree; however, if we assume that the reason for choosing to end one's own life is to end "suffering", is it safe to assume that ANY suicide victim is attempting to do this? Whether for mental illness or terminal physical illness? I just don't see how only 15% of the people polled can feel that one is morally acceptable and nearly 50% can feel the other is acceptable. Could this be a case of "the ends justifying the means" or is it vice versa?
Why? From a moral standpoint, if I give my word to be faithful to one, or to several, or am one of several to give my word to one to be faithful, and I am not, I am still acting immorally. Polygamy and adultery are entirely unrelated.
I would like to see a partner study done on these results to see if the people would use the government and which one Federal or State to ban said issue. Granted some of these issues should be left up to the states and others the government as a whole has no business being in.
Frankly I think adultery ought to be a crime. Not a felony, no.... but first-offense CDV is a misdemeanor crime, and being smacked upside the face isn't nearly as painful as being cheated on by someone who swore oaths to be faithful to you.
While we're on the subject, alienation of affections should probably be a crime or tort too. Or at least a cause for divorce considered equal to adultery and violence, as it is a breach of contract at the very least. If your spouse cuts you off capriciously for no particular reason they will explain, and refuses to seek medical or theraputic treatment to remedy the problem, what does that lead to? Well, it frequently leads to either adultery or divorce. Some people even use it that way: 1. Cut spouse off 2. Catch spouse in adultery 3. Sue for divorce and get the lion's share due to the adultery...even though you caused it. Neither man nor woman should defraud their spouse of intimacy for anything but serious medical reasons, and those medical reasons should be seen to as soon as possible. Withholding sex for control purposes is a reprehensible habit, turning what is supposed to be a mutually-desired intimacy into a "doggie-biscuit"; withholding sex long-term to punish your partner is stupid and hateful (if you hate them that much, do them a favor: LEAVE!)
Pardon my rant. :mrgreen:
Four Moral Issues Sharply Divide Americans
Some interesting findings in here.
I'm most surprised by the number of Americans who consider polygamy acceptable-- one in ten men and one in twenty women. Independents are twice as likely to accept polygamy than either Democrats or Republicans-- one of the few issues in which Independents do not fall neatly between the two major parties.
I'm also disappointed by the very high numbers in favor of divorce and the very low numbers in favor of cloning.
I'm talking about the people who think polygamy is wrong, but adultery is acceptable. In what possible sense is being unfaithful to one better than being faithful to several?
Four Moral Issues Sharply Divide Americans
Some interesting findings in here.
I'm most surprised by the number of Americans who consider polygamy acceptable-- one in ten men and one in twenty women. Independents are twice as likely to accept polygamy than either Democrats or Republicans-- one of the few issues in which Independents do not fall neatly between the two major parties.
I'm also disappointed by the very high numbers in favor of divorce and the very low numbers in favor of cloning.
May I ask, animal or human, or both? And why?
May I ask, animal or human, or both? And why?
Both, though i don't support human cloning until the technology improves. The reason I'm so staunchly in favor of cloning is that it will give us valuable insight into the function of genetics versus environment, and will contribute to the development of effective genetic engineering of both animals and humans. It will allow us to improve our species.
Even if all of that weren't true, I'm not really sure why anyone would be morally against it.
Even if all of that weren't true, I'm not really sure why anyone would be morally against it.
People always think about the "what if they cloned hitler" argument when they decide to oppose human cloning.
Isn't there a movie about that or something? (I'd look it up if I weren't feeling lazy)
What if they did clone Hitler?
He wouldn't even look much like Hitler, for starters, seeing as how this is an entirely different era.
He also wouldn't be Hitler, any more than Hitler's hypothetical identical twin brother would be Hitler.
He'd be an entirely different person, who would have to be taught about Hitler in school, just like the rest of us.
What if they cloned Jesus, for that matter (assuming there was such a historical personage, and assuming the Shroud of Turin was actually his burial shroud, and they could get some of his DNA out of it)?
He'd just be another guy.
He might end up being a cabdriver or working in a restaurant or a convenience store.
He'd probably be discriminated against in airports for looking like a terrorist.
Vinyard. Jesus' clone would definitely be able to get a job at a vinyard. Teh whole water to wine thing would be great for that.
Now I'm imagining Jesus's clone as a slightly swarthier version of Paul Giamatti's character in Sideways.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?