Moderator:Forum Administrators
Polonus wrote:Mary had a car accident and a result of which she became a disabled person, depressed, paralysed, ugly, completly asexual, unaware of what was going around her.
linguoboy wrote:What does "unaware" mean here?
Polonus wrote:linguoboy wrote:What does "unaware" mean here?
Don't pretend you don't understand.
Polonus wrote:It means what it means.
linguoboy wrote:I can't tell what your purpose is here. You don't seem to be trying to have an honest discussion of morality.
Polonus wrote:[i][...] But what could he do? He was 31, the life was before him. Onanism? [...]
Polonus wrote:What piece of advice would you give to John? Should he have any remorses?
I wonder.
Sophie wrote:Polonus wrote:What piece of advice would you give to John? Should he have any remorses?
I wonder.
I'm not sure what to say to John but I can give a little advice to Mary by placing myself in her shoes. (It's only fair to view both sides of the same coin.) If I were Mary in that situation, no longer able to satisfy the sexual needs of my partner, I should give my consent to his going and seeing his mistress, much as I might feel hurt by it. After all, John still had a life to live, and if I truly loved him, it would be selfish of me to let my disability hold him back. Nevertheless I would still insist that he continue to look after me and our family – this must still be a priority with him, as Kasuya said.
NB: Before I posted this, I read your post in the "Crucifixes" thread in which you declared that your intention to "quit this forum for good". It doesn't matter if you don't read this. I still want to post it anyway.
Chekhov wrote:I don't know about naive worldviews, but Jurgen Wullenwhatever pisses me off to no end because of his extreme pessimism and cynicism. You'd think the world was going to end imminently when talking to that guy.
Oleksij wrote:I personally don't see marriage as something moral in the first place, rather the opposite. How is it 'moral' to legally bind two people by an agreement, which uses the terms 'forever' and 'for all eternity', when we all know humans are instinctive creatures, who on average, have more than one romantic/sexual partner throughout their lives, and who, moreover, obviously don't live or even feel 'forever'?
Vogelvrij wrote:But don't you think it's nice to strive to have this agreement forever, with love for all eternity?
Sophie wrote:Marriage is a matter of consent for both partners. Nobody is being dragged kicking and screaming into this "tool of oppression" for life.
Sophie wrote:Marriage is a matter of consent for both partners. Nobody is being dragged kicking and screaming into this "tool of oppression" for life.
Oleksij wrote:Marriage is a grave infringement of individuality and personal freedom, in essence, it is a legalised form of prostitution.. behind the smokescreen of 'love' and 'commitment'.
Return to “Politics and Religion”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests