Quote:
Narrow minded? No, my friend, I'm simply strong-willed. I hold onto what I think is right and defend it; unlike you, who seems to flip-flop more than a politician, generalising everything you say so the majority of people will like you, even if they are the wrong kind of people. rolleyes
Oooo, nice, never had an impromptu assumption flung my way that's quite so cutting before, and for that I applaud you, and would be offended if there were an inch of truth to it.
Being strong willed and defending ones ideals is certainly the right thing to do, if something isn't worth fighting for, why would anyone bother believing it.
But simply because you stand at the forefront of your ideals spouting their virtues doesn't make them anything more than what they are, and believing that sex is purely and simply for marriage, irregardless of how people feel, and that those incapable or unwilling to wait are immature, is indeed narrow minded.
I never attacked your conviction, I merely disagree with your idea, no need for hostility.
My second point is very much the same, you happen to think the same as an institution, you may not have modeled your concepts after it, but what does that change?
You say I'm one flip-flopping around, I say nay, my ideas are broad, and based not on the belief that my ideas are correct, and that those who do not stand by them are immature, my ideals are based on the fact that freedom is fundamental to ones growth as a person, and within that, is the freedom to make mistakes, and I stick by that and fight to defend it like a rabid dog tied to a post.
You however, claim not to be narrow minded, or holding institutionalised ideals, simply because you came to these conclusions yourself, instead of living within said institution?
No sex before marriage is institutionalised, perhaps not how you arrived at that conclusion, but that changes nothing, you arrived at the same destination.
Quote:
And it seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're merely rebelling against tradition merely for rebelling's sake. You don't really believe or care about what you're saying; you're just saying it to get attention and get a rise out of people. Trust me, I've seen the type quite a bit, but again, correct me if I'm wrong when I'm saying you're one of them.
Well, sorry to disappoint, but you are wrong, I don't rebel for rebellions sake, I don't particularly see it as rebelling, although I know it is.
I simply don't see the need for restrictive regulations that have no logic or rationale behind them beyond the person holding them thinking them to be right.
If there is indeed reason beyond that, logic, rational reason, then kindly bring it forward, I however can see none.
Quote:
And about the whole 'desire and enjoys' thing, you clearly use those words far too loosely. Desire, and I mean true desire, is a life's dream; saving animals, teaching children, even conquering the planet are all examples of this. It's the one thing you want more than anything in the world.
Or perhaps you misinterpret my definition of pleasure and hedonism as purely physical, and besides, I did state that pursuit of immediate -and- long-term pleasure are both valid examples of desire, that topic was not illustrative purely of sex, but of mans drive for pleasure being not as meaningless as an earlier poster assmued.
There is no such thing as a selfless act, whether we want to teach, help animals, save children in Africa, while some goals are more noble than others, each has its own form of fulfillment, be it financial, emotional, spiritual, or merely physical, desire for each is as valid as another, and each results is pleasure, be it self satisfaction, mutual satisfaction, or physical satisfaction.
Quote:
Then there's base desire, basically desires that are of the body, not the heart. They won't get you anything of (much) value, and won't help you accomplish what you want to do with your life.
And yet, if we were to work towards that goal, sacrificing all pleasure and desire and satisfaction along the way, you could call that a fulfilling life?
Where ones life is concerned, the journey is as important as the destination, while the satisfaction of a single small act may not be anything compared to a long term goal that one works towards, when compared as a whole against said one goal, I think you'd find to difference to be rather insignificant.
Quote:
Then there's the argument about marriage. Now, if two individuals who love each other can't afford to get married, or can't find anyone even willing to legally bind them, that I could understand. But for people that could get married and are simply too cheap to do it, they're in a relationship that won't last. It is my theory that those who go through with it see it as a way to show that they'd be willing to go all-out for their lover, a way to show them that their hapiness is more important to them then money. I may be wrong, but that is what I think.
Well, if that's your reasoning as opposed to "marriage is sacred, blah blah blah, sex without marriage is wrong" then I can't argue with it, it's an opinion I don't share, but I can certainly see your reasoning.
But, if you see it only as an expression of commitment, and that's the truly important thing, where exactly would you stand on getting a portrait of your beloved tattooed across your chest, because that would certainly be a far greater expression than marriage given how many of those fail nowadays.
In these times, marriage is quite the throwaway, people engage in it, get divorced, and go on to share it with a new lover months later, and so on, and so forth, surely a full-torso tattooed portrait would be a far more lasting and convicted expression of commitment?
200
300
150
