Woof?
Well, I’m not talking about cold turkies.
I’m just talking about how comforting other things can be.
Deeper sorts of love can be so satisfying that thee wants nothing other.
That art mine catch phrase.
I shalt update mine sig.
Emotional attachment can also be a trap, so I don’t agree. The mind is powerful, certainly, but still a mechanism subject to the internal chemical processes. You are talking about a lifetime +++ of work, are you ready for that committment?
Nah, lady Bessy nailed that one on me after about two conversations … I appear to have been branded … but we can share. 
Dependancy is different then attachment?
Perhaps I could be wrong, but yes, they appear different.
Dependancy is subject to a purely chemical process of receptors in the mind.
Attachment, although possibly having a relation with dependancy, is a desired psychological state.
Or correct me if I am wrong.
I nearly always agree with Uccisore. I agree with you here, Uccisore. Perhaps the reason that a level of discretion should be assosciated with sex and sexual conversation is because society views it as being fundamental only for procreation. We all recognize the function of sex as the means of procreation and we subconsciously come to the realization that an infatuation with sex is a deterrent from higher thought processes. We understand that without this level of discretion and without a seriousness about the subject, sex becomes as common as the consumption of food. I think that sex deserves a greater distinction than the consumption of food. Sex doesnt need to be engaged in as often as dieting, and so we naturally assign it a greater value. For many religions, sexual intercourse is something that is sacred. Even from a purely naturalistic point of view, we should not dispose of our discretion on the topic of sex.
I dont think that sex is shameful or guiltful. God created sex. God ordained sex to be in the context of marriage. Anything outside of a monogamous relationship sanctioned by the church should rightly be frowned upon. However, real Christians hate the sin, but love the sinner. Jesus forgave the adulterous women while the religious leaders, the Pharisees, condemned her to death. I hold the same philosophy on the subject as Christ.
I suppose desired psychological states are magical and not chemical in their makeup? [\smug]
I’ll ignore the banal pubescent commentary.
Chemical dependancy occurs without a necessary thought process.
One desires an attachment, i.e., there is a mental process of determinates involved that the attachment is beneficial in some respect.
(unconscious)Chemical vs. (conscious)electro-chemical.
I said correct me if I am wrong, and you have provided no dismissive information.
Jesus Christ…
God tells you to put your penis here:
[obey]
You arent really serious about posting that last cartoon, are you? It contains so many fallacies that I have gone beyond infuriation and have become disgusted. Not only do you need a lesson in American History (if you are serious), but you also appear to be misinformed about Christianity. The conclusion of the cartoon is also misleading. I agree that women should not be oppressed but they should be treated as equals in marriage. There is nothing wrong at all with mixed race marriages in the Bible (New Testament). However, the cartoon is wrong when it implies that the present resistance to gay marriage is the burr of modern America. Homosexuality is sinful. Once again (i state the following to quelch such common misconceptions about Christanity), violence and hatred against the homosexual is not at the core of the christian belief system.
Thanks for making the argument impersonal…
I never said that it was.
But, if I was God, and I had enough wisdom/power to make trillions of stars, I could built a little human who didn’t feel like having sex with the same gender, if I really wanted him or her to be a certain way.
Can you admit that your bible morality is just Jewish idealism?
forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=6423&st=0
[If ANY of you have the patience.]^
If some dude’s going to kill me for eating blood or pork, and then tell me about perfect sexuality also, how’m I supposeto trust a dude like that?
The Jewish god was a moral totalitarian.
Then, much later, he seems like some sort of “valid” foundationalism for this old, battered, crap-staned, Roman mutation that we call “culture” here.
The reason why morality gets to being so screwed, is because within it lays the idealist. One man, somehow, in his madness, writes out a code of how he things that the whole world should be. If his unusual dream gains enough popularity, people will enforce it, even if it’s not a big deal and doesn’t need to be enforced.
Fer the records, ladies, I don’t feel no such guilt while I’s a whistlin at my work. So if yer lookin for a good time with a good timin’ stud, come on down to Gwyllgi’s sexual wholesale, and leave the frettin and worryin’ behind. Open 24/7, and located just south of the parkway exit in Pomona, New Jersey.
edit
edited
Heheh…
other:
One thing he says around 7/8 minutes in is that children are not property and you cannot “own” your children.
I asked earlier if bodies are property, at the sexual-thesis, which got into marriage a bit. So, does a man “own” his wife? Is she property. Or does she own him?
I found the cartoon amusing. I assume it was satire, nothing to be overly offended about.
Legally a man cannot “own” his wife/manwife because a spouse is not something. Although a spouse may have monetary value (divorce), the decision for divorce must be mutual.
With that aside,
yes, men pwn their wives because we have penises and they do not.
Sorry. Women win: they have prettier boobs and fuller lips.
Focusss, Dan. You’re already trumped. You and I both know you aren’t willing to let go of the moral significance (and thus potential for guilt) behind sex, that road came to it’s conclusion. So what’s your dog in this fight? Don’t let yourself sink into a bland “Durrr, religious people am dumb!!” type of thing. We already have plenty. The whole thing about homosexuals or Christians or whomever wanting to ruin/save the country is just a bit fat distraction, brought on by the fact that that guy who agrees with me used the ‘G’ word in his post. Don’t take the coward’s way out.