Like to Borrow My Spouse for One Night? Sure

[Khayr]

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

quote:Originally posted by Khayr:

Once you take God and Religion out of the picture, then ANYTHING and ALL is Permissible and Relative to

SOCIETAL DEFINITION

.

There is no place in the world where

anything

and

all

is permissible where God is out of the picture. You're too fond of reductionism!

 

For example, Canada is secular democratic nation but not ALL and ANYTHING is permissible. Paedophile is one good example. Why shouldn't sex with children be legal or acceptable? Anything and all things are permissible, right?

I am fond of Onthological Reductionism and my guess that you are fond of Scientific Reductionism!

 

and Yes, All and Anything is Permissible when GOD and Religion are TAKEN OF OUT THE PICTURE.

Reason being nothing becomes Sacred anymore, and anything and all becomes Relativized subject to change today or tomorrow. What was unacceptable 10yrs ago, is acceptable today and can change in another 10yrs. Its all Relative, subject to

pPOPULAR SENTIMENT-emotion, feeling etc. of the population.

 

Who knows, relationships btwn father and daughter can be deemed legal in a few yrs...so can pedophilia, murder etc.

 

These things are currently social Taboos but wait until tomorrow or the day after, when people will agrue and fight for these things to become a 'RIGHT' of the people.

[Jacpher]

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

I find this wive swaping business distasteful but that is not what the West is about. That is not what defines it or what Westerners consider important.

I totally disagree. I don’t think it’s that distasteful for you as you proudly brush off the magnitude of such behavior. I don’t see anyone specifically criticizing the West for what they’ve accomplished. The subject of the discussion is this sickening behavior where married men go and exchange bodily fluids with other married women while watching their wives get screwed by strangers. Rotten, nasty disgusting acts of wicked hearts. Westerners feel proud of the openness in their society more than they are with values and morals. Such behavior is considered important and a freedom of some sort, so don’t tell us they don’t consider it important. It defines their system and speaks volumes of their society. Ask them and they would utter these words, it’s a free country, so you can do whatever.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Khayr:

and Yes, All and Anything is Permissible when GOD and Religion are TAKEN OF OUT THE PICTURE.

 

But I already gave you some exceptions. Like pedophilia; add murder, stealing, raping and lying. All have been seen as wrong and made unlawfull by most secular civilisations since forever. How do you explain this apparent discrepancy between your theory and facts of the world?

 

 

Reason being nothing becomes Sacred anymore, and anything and all becomes Relativized subject to change today or tomorrow.

 

 

True except for things like stealing, killing, lying, raping, pedophilia... do you see it now? You should, by now at least, see where the fault in your reasoning lies.

 

 

Its all Relative, subject to

p

POPULAR SENTIMENT-emotion, feeling etc. of the population.

 

 

What is so relative and subject to sentiments about outlawing unlawful killings, rap, theft etc? Aren't these the epitome of reasoning and rationality derived choices?

[Cara.]

Hi Ducaqabe,

 

Originally posted by Ducaqabe:

Westerners feel proud of the openness in their society more than they are with values and morals. Such behavior is considered important and a freedom of some sort, so don’t tell us they don’t consider it important. It defines their system and speaks volumes of their society. Ask them and they would utter these words, it’s a free country, so you can do whatever.

I think that the average Westerner would find the idea of spouse-swapping just as distasteful as you do. BUT, and this is a big but, Westerners value individual freedom. As long as your actions harm no one, you are free to do as you wish. This ability to dissociate personal taste from public governance is what distinguishes secular democracies from the theocracies and dictatorships that bring untold misery to billions.

 

Having the courage to say "to each his own" is a value. It implies a level of maturity that, for some, is inconceivable.

 

The same impulse that allows these Canucks to consider "open marriages" none of their business is the same impulse that suggests to them that polygamy should not be illegal. Celebrate one and abhor the other if you wish, but don't misunderstand the root, common intention.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Ducaqabe:

I don’t think it’s that distasteful for you as you proudly brush off the magnitude of such behavior.

 

Are they harming anyone? No. Are they forcing anyone to join in their wayward sexual activities? No. Am I as a citizen of a free and democratic nation obligated in ANY shape or form to support them? No. Are they reducing as consequence of their activities the quality of life of people? No. Then why should what they do bother me at all?

 

Don't misunderstand me, I'm against what these people are doing. But they are not a threat to my life. Neither will the quality of my life be affected by what they do. So, I'm not brushing off the wayward deeds of these misfits, just giving them due reaction.

 

 

The subject of the discussion is this sickening behavior where married men go and exchange bodily fluids with other married women while watching their wives get screwed by strangers. Rotten, nasty disgusting acts of wicked hearts.

 

 

Keep in mind that these people don't see anything wrong with what they are doing. Not everyone percieves the world like you do. And since they're not harming anyone, there is no good reason to make their activities illegal. Not in a democratic nation anyway.

 

 

Westerners feel proud of the openness in their society more than they are with values and morals.

 

 

Westerners have values and morals because of their openness. Closed societies have no values or morals. Name me 1 closed (not democratic, not free etc) country that rivals the West in morals and values. You won't find one. That should tell you something!

 

 

Such behavior is considered important and a freedom of some sort, so don’t tell us they don’t consider it important.

 

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Who is 'they?' It seems you're implying that Westerners in general approve of wife swapping. But I can assure the average Western would have the same visceral reaction as you if you were to ask him of what they thought of wife swapping. I know it is Somali thing to condemn entire people (like condemning entire clan for the actions of very few) for the actions extreme minority but that is almost always wrong. Wife swapping is still cultural tapoo in the West and probably will always garner the support of no more then ultra tiny minority.

 

 

Ask them and they would utter these words, it’s a free country, so you can do whatever.

And I agree with them dependent on that what you do doesn't physically harm me or reduce quality of my life. It seems to be working just find and dandy. Better then any other society on earth today.

[Arawella]

Multiple partners can have indirect effects on us ie rise in cases of sexual transmitted diseases.

[Passion_4_Fashion]

Acuudu Minnak wa minnak.........gaaladaan walaahi waa qoom halaagsan, bala ka dhacday......sharafta iyo iimaanka ilaah ha idinka qaado......allow kuwaan wax hanoogu darin. AAMIN!

[Foxy]

"Live and let others live"....the way i see it its their Life and choice to swing, hang out in swingers club and so forth....

so far as they are keeping it to themselves...Its free country.....

 

 

cheers

[Khayr]

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

True except for things like stealing, killing, lying, raping, pedophilia... do you see it now? You should, by now at least, see where the fault in your reasoning lies.

'A Man with a Full Belly can't understand one with an Empty Belly'

 

What is so relative and subject to sentiments about outlawing unlawful killings, rap, theft etc? Aren't these the epitome of reasoning and rationality derived choices?

What is Right today can easily become WRONG tomorrow, all subject to say a People's Referundum, a democratic election, media coverage etc.

 

It is POPULAR SENTIMENT of people that determines what is RIGHT and Wrong. Why else would MEDIA play such an important role in Elections when most people don't know enough about a particular subject. i.e. party canadates, issues such taxation etc.

 

Callypso said:

 

The same impulse that allows these Canucks to consider "open marriages" none of their business is the same impulse that suggests to them that polygamy should not be illegal.

Except one follows with the Popular Sentiment of today and the other-Polygamy is associated with Religion, hence why the Majority of People are against it. Whenever the later is mentioned, the PEOPLE scream and kick and bring about the issue of 'WOMEN'S RIGHTS' to suppor their anti-religion Biases!!!

 

Westerners have values and morals because of their openness. Closed societies have no values or morals.

Was this a typo saxib? or maybe you were heavily sedated with medication?

 

Care to explain because I am not catching the point.

 

"Live and let others live"....the way i see it its their Life and choice to swing, hang out in swingers club and so forth....

so far as they are keeping it to themselves...Its free country.....

But it is Openly Publicized and no one was APOLOGIZING for it.

[N.O.R.F]

Wife swapping in accepted in Canada as it is a liberal and secular society where ‘freedom’ is termed as actions not being of harm to others. However, harm in the west is different to that of harm in the east (important factor in the argument). Fornification and homosexuality is viewed as a right if one wishes as it’s a ‘free’ country and its not harming anyone whereas in the Middle East for example lashings, long jail terms and maybe even death is the outcome of such actions.

 

Now the posters on here are standing on two sides of the fence. In one camp we have those who are utilising their thoughts and actions in accordance with religion and morality and another camp who base their thoughts on the democracy that is Canada.

 

The view of such actions being accepted so long as it not harming society is infact short-sighted as society is ‘groomed’ to accept such actions over a number of years. Wife swapping has probably been going on for a number of years, same with homosexuality, but were never accepted by society until after a period of grooming.

 

Take homosexuality for example. In the early 1990s it was a major issue if someone was openly gay but after a long and hard fought campaign by gay rights groups who had close ties with the media, this became accepted by the end of that particular decade as the masses where groomed to accept ‘that it is OK’ through films, music, TV Shows etc. If you make the gay person likeable (ie funny/comedian) then the herd will accept it was the general motto. At the same time governments where being lobbied from the same group of people for their ‘rights’ as human beings. With governments being secular, the Human Rights Act plays a big role in such discussions and is generally accepted that people be given their ‘rights’ (ie to live a life they want as long as it is not harmful to society).

 

This is where the selfish attitude of the public has been groomed to accept whatever is ‘unharmful’ to them and society.

 

I see a few grooms in here :rolleyes:

[xiinfaniin]

^^Well said, saaxiib.

[Cara.]

Khayr,

 

quote:

---

The same impulse that allows these Canucks to consider "open marriages" none of their business is the same impulse that suggests to them that polygamy should not be illegal.

Except one follows with the Popular Sentiment of today and the other-Polygamy is associated with Religion, hence why the Majority of People are against it. Whenever the later is mentioned, the PEOPLE scream and kick and bring about the issue of 'WOMEN'S RIGHTS' to suppor their anti-religion Biases!!!

The multiple exclamation marks don't convince me, walaal. There's no popular support for wife-swapping. Making blanket statements about people that don't share your faith is a typical tactic of religionists.

 

And if an anti-religion bias pervades secular nations, it's only because these nations have a first-hand experience of the destructive effects of theocracies. That's why immigration goes from theocracy--->secular democracy, and not the other way around.

 

If polygyny was decriminalized, it would be on the same bill that also allowed polyandry and gay marriage. I imagine that's unpalatable to you, but such is the double bind your lot have to suffer. On the one hand, you want to take advantage of liberal democratic ideals like personal freedom and the right to self-determination, so you demand the right to exercise your faith and its precepts. On the other hand, you don't want these self-same rights extended to other people, like gays or wife-swappers. Moral hypocricy.

[Cara.]

Northerner,

 

With governments being secular, the Human Rights Act plays a big role in such discussions and is generally accepted that people be given their ‘rights’ (ie to live a life they want as long as it is not harmful to society).

 

This is where the selfish attitude of the public has been groomed to accept whatever is ‘unharmful’ to them and society.

That is an odd statement to make. People are being selfish for granting other people rights? And it's selfish to accept whatever is unharmful to one and to society? Should I take offense at your choices because, though not harmful to me or to society, I just find them objectionable? And in taking offense, should I demand that your rights be taken away? I suppose that would be the height of altruism.

 

Sxb, your whole diatribe could have been used by white supremacists to deny blacks the rights accorded them under the Human Rights Act. Or by Christian fundamentalists who want to force others to live by Christian precepts (they would be the biggest opposition to polygamy, for example). Or by slave-owning Americans who questioned the basic humanity of blacks so as to make slavery a guilt-free enterprise.

 

There's always going to be someone somewhere who takes offense at your lifestyle or choices. And there are always going to be people whose lifestyle and choices you find objectionable. The adult thing to do is to live and let live.

[Castro]

^ Hold on there, good Callypso. You know I'm as liberal as they come atheer, but wife-swapping (or even husband swapping) is an abomination ninyahow. There's really no philosophizing this. It's deviance at its lowest level were excitement and immediate sexual gratification are the only considerations. What about the children to such wife-swapping household? What kind of message is being sent to them? Imagine Faarax and Xalimo meeting up with Cali and Caasha at Xassan and Aamina's house for an orgy? I don't care if there are no studies done on its harmful effects on society in general, it is a terrible practice that speaks volumes of the culture of instant-gratification with little regard to any potential consequences.

[Cara.]

^Don't misunderstand me, Castro. I think that kind of behaviour is pretty disgusting too. But I also think a lot of other things are disgusting: homosexuality and polygamy and smoking and tongue piercings and--I could go on for a while.

 

But it's one thing to argue that something is abhorrent to one self, and another to deny another's right to self-expression.

 

As for the question of how it will affect children, that's a perfectly reasonable question. I don't really know. How likely are swingers to have children? Do they inform their children of their actions? What if they bring up their kids to think that this is perfectly normal behaviour for parents, how would that affect the kids? If an argument against swingers relies on "but think of the children!", then this argument is suggesting that the acts of swingers are harmful to someone, and so opposition to it on that basis is no problem for me. But I was taking exception to people who will readily concede that something may have no discernable negative effect on people/society and yet it should be banned because it just makes them feel icky. Understand?