Umm, No

"providing condoms to teenagers greases the wheels of desire which can expose them to pregnancy or disease."

Hormones and biology, not condoms, grease teenagers' desire for sex, lust, and love.

-- Svutlov

Um, you are totally incorrect- according to folks who embrace the concept that opening doors will lead to traffic.

Morality is not based on science, never was and probably never will be.

The crux of this conversation still escapes you, doesn't it?

"providing condoms to teenagers greases the wheels of desire which can expose them to pregnancy or disease."

Hormones and biology, not condoms, grease teenagers' desire for sex, lust, and love.

Teenagers have been engaging in sex, lust, and love for hundreds of thousands of years before condoms were even invented.

Condoms just gave sex, lust, and love more safer and enjoyable possibilities.

In the old American Puritanical days, the majority of young brides went to the alter already pregnant (actually the puritanical days never ended, but there are a lower rate of pregnant brides these days).

Homosexuality is a CHOICE. A choice enjoyed by a SMALL aggregate of humanity, but a viable choice, nonetheless.

Your assertion is un-provable and debatable, yet, like Fox “News,” you present it as a fact to bolster your argument.

-- Florida9

Sigh.

Even if you are genetically DESIGNED to be a homosexual it is STILL a choice whether or not you wish to enjoy this aspect of your personality or quash it due to the rigors of a mainstream morality that suppresses such behavior.

I think your zealous viewpoint is blinding you to the crux of the conversation.

they'd name it Clunt.

The clip that Stewart uses as comedic comparison of the three people falling all over each other will be far more acceptable to Fox because there exists no 'overt' sexuality (it is accidental).

Their morality does not embrace homosexuality OR OVERT human sexuality (similar to many on the left, even), so being 'fair' is relegated to a stiff form of tolerance or flat-out criticism when gay behavior becomes blatant (which is appropriate considering their decisions on acceptable human behavior).

They are just as committed to their rigid interpretation of human behavior as any good leftist will be.

It’s called the Lingerie Football League. Do you really think football is the main attraction?

Also, Fox “News” is supposed to be a “News” organization. That means they are supposed to adhere to journalistic standards. Noting they are just “committed to their rigid interpretation of human behavior” would indicate they are not the “Fair and Balanced” new organization they claim to be. Your comment would indicate they are actually just a biased propaganda machine which reports “news” based on “their rigid interpretation of human behavior.”

However, I now realize all of this is pointless:

Homosexuality is a CHOICE. A choice enjoyed by a SMALL aggregate of humanity, but a viable choice, nonetheless.

Your assertion is un-provable and debatable, yet, like Fox “News,” you present it as a fact to bolster your argument.

This sentence:

"Here's where the central reasoning for morality becomes nebulous, which supports my notion that morality is an symmetric choice (when compared to the larger social group)."

Should read:

"Here's where the central reasoning for morality becomes nebulous, which supports my notion that morality is an Asymmetric choice (when compared to the larger social group)."

I'm multitasking currently so spelling errors are on the march.

I've actually been pondering the larger picture of what you've detailed for quite some time.

The introduction of Tradition into the mix adds complexity which is why I avoided inserting it into my statement. Thanks for mentioning it so I'll add my 2 cents.

I don't think I've ever met a right-leaner in an open marriage (at least through mutual agreement on it as principle, obviously plenty have affairs) or handing out condoms on college campuses, so I suppose they are, at least theoretically if not in practice, mostly consistent on the issue.-- Kozmic Blues

Here's where the central reasoning for morality becomes nebulous, which supports my notion that morality is an symmetric choice (when compared to the larger social group).

I DO know people who swing or embrace open marriage who are MORE conservative than I- EVEN on issues of sexuality (shockingly). So, absolutely, people within very flexible marital arrangements can be very conservative. Interesting, eh?

If I had the time and we were able to do this elsewhere in a more appropriate setting I could provide you with some serious context for my view on morality.

I seek total exposure and because of this I immerse myself in a myriad of wide-ranging experiences and viewpoints which allows me to mentally absorb a broad category of 'applied' morality.

And the numbers don't add up.

Please keep in mind that I am not addressing the universally-accepted ethics of respecting life (murder, atrocity) and the young (physical abuse, sexual predating).

Most people embrace a moral stance and the blinders go on.

~THEIR morality becomes a primal urge.

~THEIR morality radiates from them as an unquestioned divine ray.

~THEIR morality makes sense to them so it SHOULD be applicable to humanity

The only 'truth' here is their morality is, indeed, personal and should be respected as such but beyond this, applicability to anyone else is purely a form of attribution that creates justification.

Why does this create justification? Well, for starters, most people are NOT independent thinkers. They REQUIRE structure to engage cognition and living. Hence, the powerful basis for religion which is largely devoid of rational content.

The pack mentality pervades social networks and it perpetuates 'assumed' solutions.

You have never been known your brains, so this one may be hard for you to understand,

Let's clear the air right now.

Do you want to debate or are you more interested in insulting me? I am resisting the urge to be confrontational, a role that fits me quite well.

As a matter of fact, I am applying a bit more restraint in this particular meeting space as of late. Maybe you should consider replicating this behavior.

but a person can practice monogamy and preach safe-sex/birth-control at the same time without being a hypocrite.

Monogamy and condoms are actually very good bedfellows, and complement each other very well.

-- Svutlov

The crux of my note went ENTIRELY over your head. And I mean stratospherically over your head.

The point of the comparison was EXACTLY designed to create a statement that was subjectively equivalent.

The statement CAN be made to work OR it IS a total failure.

THIS is spelled out in the remainder of my statement when I reference the Correlation aspect.

Morality does NOT require correlation or equivalence to be acceptable or viable.

Two simple scenarios of moral vector:

1) To a person mentally inculcated with a certain type of morality, providing condoms to teenagers greases the wheels of desire which can expose them to pregnancy or disease. This same exact person may never experience sex before marriage and may remain committed to a single person the remainder of his/her life.

2) To a person mentally inculcated with a certain type of morality, providing condoms to teenagers will protect them from disease and/or pregnancy in the event of sex. This same exact person MAY experience a LOT of sex before marriage while finally culminating their life in marriage to a single person who they remain committed to the remainder of their life.

Who is more moral? The answer: Both 1 and 2, only 1, only 2, none. Depending on the moral viewpoint we are able to find a totally plausible reason why each answer is valid AND the only way the BEST moral choice can be determined is SOLELY based on subjective reasoning.

This is why 'general' morality is a prop, of sorts.

Monogamy is a CHOICE. A choice enjoyed by a LARGE aggregate of humanity, but a reasonable choice, nonetheless.

Homosexuality is a CHOICE. A choice enjoyed by a SMALL aggregate of humanity, but a viable choice, nonetheless.

Basing morality (outside the narrow universal qualities respecting life and the young) on mainstream qualities, subjective equivalencies or 'bedfellowing' subjects decision-making to the asymmetric process of justification.