> > Tanks for the clarification. I presume you are no longer concerned about > other peripheral issues like conservative people who may be distressed or > wringing their hands.
Distressed people (conservative or otherwise) are known to wring their hands. And it's quite reasonable of me to mention so. Why you choose to take this as an observation of your personal state of being is somewhat beyond me. My email reader is not equipped with a video camera. :-) <snip> I reiterate that human morality as traditionally practised (by > the conservatives whom you speak of) demands the restriction of human > sexuality to a small area out of that large area that you describe. Human morality as practiced by the majority of humans who are by observation non-conservatives does so very differently. It is perfectly reasonable for each party to hence see the other as immoral. But these are relative value judgments, not absolute ones and hence unimportant. > <snip> Human sexuality covers a wide area, but morality has attempted > to reduce that sexuality to a smallish area. Again, conservative human morality has done so. Certainly not all human morality. And not most human morality. I believe that the restriction > of human sexuality to a smallish area by the superimposition of morality > has > had certain survival benefits for humankind. I don't believe so. And I have endeavoured to prove the opposite, with evolutionary, statistical and other evidence. I am yet to see any evidence presented by you to support this claim you make. > > <snip> > However there is no evidence to > say that changing human morality to allow human sexuality to occupy a > larger > area is better or worse for humans in the long term. No one can predict the future. But we all make reasonable predictions, based on how large samples have behaved in the past. That is what I was doing. Again, I see no counter-evidence to point to a different or better future if this "conservative morality axiom of fidelity" was followed. > > > But the lack of evidence does not stop me from having an opinion. My > opinion > is that changing morality to allow human sexuality to occupy a wider area > would be detrimental to human society in the long term. My opinion is the opposite. And I offered some observations on the behaviour of large-sized samples across large-duration periods to back my opinion. You're right - opinion doesn't absolutely need to be backed by evidence. But it is useful to have some if you venture out on a forum brandishing your opinion and pitting it against other opinions which may be backed by evidence of some sort. Else, one might have to descend to ad hominem...wait a minute... :-) > I believe morality itself has had evolutionary effects on human society and > sexual morality has actually has beneficial effects. I believe so too. But a vastly different morality than the conservative one you talk of. > Hence I believe that the > sexual morality demanded by marriage and fidelity are beneficial. While you have every right to say so, it does not logically follow from your above statements. It does not compute :-) > > > These are my views. You don't have to agree. I have tried to show why :-) My $0.02, Mahesh > >
