Morally superior in your individual perception by the criteria you individually outline. A different person might come to perceive a different moral choice as superior - would you expect this person to override your right to choose if that person believed its choice was morally superior? How would a society function if everyone acted on this notion, in your view?
Why?
Why? The former I at least get for people (or from the perspective) who adhere to certain ideologies - the latter I don't quite see the reasoning behind even then.
Why? You provide a chain of events, but you do not provide the mechanism by which that conclusion is drawn.
Intimacy past --> insistence on permanent relationship irregardless of individual feelings.
What is "-->" .
An objective paradigm would be one that is external, based on facts, unemotional and consequently perceivable by everyone (because personal experience is not a factor). It is not a widely applicable one (objective reality is usually complex), especially not in non-physical realms.
I feel this is an important point because the term "objective" is used by a lot of people in a broad manner to make their ideas seem more credible, when really it's just not a great word to use in the context of anything involving introspection or intangible matters like morals - things in short, that are not objects.
A better term in this case would be "absolute" - applied to all matters consistently without relativism. An absolute moral paradigm.
And this "supposed" design is revealed by your perception of it I assume? Some body parts fulfill more than one function, sometimes with different priorities, as is the case with genitals. How can you be certain that you are perceiving all functions in their correct order of priority? The penis is used to excrete fluids, both for the purposes of sanitation as well as procreation. Which function matters more and how can you know?
The anus itself has a stupefying amount of nerve endings and the rectum can, in some women, be close enough to the vaginal walls / their nerve endings to increase stimulation through pressure (which is why there are indeed women who get equal or more pleasure from butt stuff). What if a function of the anus is to aid in stimulation for the sake of procreation (vaginal contractions for women and strength of ejaculation for men)? What if the excretion is in fact, only the secondary function? (if we fx accept that in the case of the penis, its primary function is procreation)
I think one of my main gripes is that if you acknowledge your fallibility, how can you exhibit behavior that can only be excused through infallibility - or is hinging upon the fact that you can't be wrong.
If my choices are uncertain, even minutely uncertain, how can I elect to override others merely by what is then nothing but my own conviction (just personal subjective investment in one's own position).
For dudes, just from a tactile perspective (horniness/hotness is a mind thing as well obv), it really isn't, because the butt mostly just feels like a smooth tube (there are no little nubs or ridges or spongey areas or anything that makes it more interesting). You can get a similar tactile experience with a couple of rubber bands around the base of your penis and a very very boring blowjob.
Morality is absolute. Whether you insist on me not calling it objective and instead calling it absolute, regardless, my point is the same. morality is in fact the same for everyone. but here's the key: morality is not determined based on what is common knowledge to everyone. rather, morality is based on what everyone is capable of doing properly. as an example of common knowledge not being the basis of actual true morality, until recently, most people believed slavery was not immoral. as we came into modern times, more and more people began to believe slavery is immoral. you cannot say that slavery wasn't immoral because it wasn't common knowledge and wasn't obvious to everyone but now its obvious to everyone so its immoral. many times, things that are plainly false are obvious to everyone. For example, geocentrism until the modern period was "obviously" true, even though it was proven to be scientifically false only in the last few hundred years. Morality is not some simple thing, but it is highly complex, comparable to biology and physics. There are core tenets of morality easily perceivable and undeniable, but the greater details of morality are very difficult to comprehend, explain, and extrapolate beyond basic parameters, and requires great expertise to properly identify all morality correctly. for example, there is a whole science behind what is and isn't healthy food to eat. all based on biological and chemical science. In that light, the fact that morality indicates that eating unhealthy food is immoral, that means in order to fully comprehend what is immoral would be to fully comprehend biology, chemistry, and many other sciences. But, because we don't have the ability to be experts at everything, it is beneficial and profitable to take shortcuts in determining moral conclusions. In particular, we have the guidance of religion, and the gods, which revealed to us in ancient times higher truths of morality that would have been very difficult to discover on our own. for example, the distinction between clean and unclean animals in the Bible. there is a very clear biological health implication being made in the distinction between clean and unclean animals for food. But as of yet, science has not independently proven the distinction between clean and unclean animals. At best, science has shown that some animals are less unhealthy than others. In particular, animals like chicken and cows have been shown to be less unhealthy than animals like pigs and other bottom dwellers. we have some basic understanding of why that might be, but a full grasp on the scope of the difference between unclean animals for long term health vs clean animals, is still unknown to us. So until or unless science can prove to the contrary, on faith, it is valid to believe that clean animals are permitted whereas unclean animals are not. But for those who reject the Bible, many other religions point to animals being unhealthy and should be avoided. so if one is to refuse to accept clean and unclean animal distinction, then the only available options are to either knowingly eat unhealthy food (which would be immoral) or to avoid all animals and become vegetarian. so really the only moral options available to people are to eat clean animals, or to be vegetarians. There are no other morally viable options based on the current science available to us.
someone might deduce a different moral conclusion, but you must base your life choices on your own conclusions. You can't rely on someone else's morality. But you also can't expect anyone else to follow your morality either. So you shouldn't be surprised if someone else refuses to abide by your moral code. But if you wish to enforce your morality on someone else, that is not inherently wrong, as there may be times where imposing your morality on others is justified. So while you can't expect someone to voluntarily follow your moral code, you can accomplish it by either legally mandating it, or else taking the law into your own hands and making things right. and whether you are right or not is ultimately up to the universe to decide. operating on the mentality of "i could be wrong therefore I shouldn't take the risk" is not a valid course of action because anyone could be wrong about anything if you want to be technical. You can't live life on the basis of a tiny risk. For example, its possible if you go outside tomorrow you could get into a car accident and die. But you shouldn't not go outside to avoid risks like that. Take reasonable precautions to avoid unnecessary risk. But some risks are necessary to enjoy life as one ought to. similarly, one ought to take moral risks in order to pursue being a morally good person. Its better to try to be a moral person but fail, than to be afraid of doing anything immoral and avoiding morally good things, insodoing, you make yourself an immoral person by refusing to pursue moral risks for the sake of a morally good pursuit.
yes, marriage is more compelling than a mere girlfriend or boyfriend relationship. Truth be told, the Scriptures teach an absolute insistence on not breaking up a marriage with rare exceptions, whereas for boyfriend and girlfriend relationships, the Scriptures are more free with and allow for breaking up on lesser basis, such as extreme incompataibility and lack of approval from family. But in particular, if one hasn't had sex with the person, there is even less basis for insisting on not breaking up. Therefore, in the case of me and my ex girlfriend, we belong in that third category. While we had some sexual activity, it probably did not rise to the level of insisting on not breaking up. That is why I do not insist that she get back together with me. I would be open to it, but it is not something I believe I am entitled to. I believe she was justified in breaking up with me if she wanted to. The issue I have with her is the way she ended things with me. You can do something in a loving way and a very unloving way. i've heard and known of many who have ended relationships on good terms. My ex girlfriend unnecessarily ended it on bad terms in the mistaken and utterly false belief that its not a good idea to be friends with someone you have broken up with. that is one of the most idiotic and absurd things I've ever heard anyone believe. Its probably her dumbest belief she's ever had. there is literally no reason to not be friends with someone you had a good relationship with. and then to destroy your good memories by repainting the relationship as negative to justify how you ended the relationship, its just a very disgusting thing to do. I believe I am entitled to her friendship, not her romance. So I will fight for the friendship being restored. If she insists on not being friends ever again, she must do me right and give me the proper closure that she owes me. And I say she must because I refuse to accept anything less than that. if she refuses to give me that, then I'll keep trying indefinitely until I give up. And I believe i have the right to try until communication is given. you have to communicate and deal with things for closure before you are justified to cut yourself off from someone else. Therefore if my ex girlfriend wants me out of her life, she has to do the necessary parts first. Until then, I am justified in refusing to go away.
something can be objectively true (or absolutely true if you hate the word objective as I apply that word), and yet be emotionally held to. Just because you are emotional about it doesn't mean it isn't absolutely moral. But your emotional passion about it by itself has no bearing or weight to its validity. and i understand that. the emotional passion stems from the belief you are justified in your own moral position.
Based on my limited fallible understanding, I'm certain of certain conclusions I have about bodily functions. But if I were to discover compelling evidence that indicated i was wrong, I would change my mind on the issue. But like i said you can't operate on only things you are 100% certain on without a possibility of being wrong. because truth be told, we can always be wrong about pretty much everything. but with the totality of evidence available, you are compelled to side with the more compelling option. The more compelling option discernable from nature is the entirely abnormal and counterintuitive basis of the activity. it is not evolutionary advantageous. So there is no basis to believe that homosexuality is a desirable trait. If there is a biological component to sexual orientation (i would strongly disagree with that, but lets go with it), it still wouldn't change the fact that that orientation is entirely an abberration and an affront to the natural order of things. Rather than something to be encouraged, it would be an unhealthy mutation that is best rooted out of the gene pool. Just like no one wants a child with birth defects. if we insist that people are born homosexual, the reality is, no one wants a child that has genetic defects. no that you should kill the child, im just saying, ideally, one should not want a child with such a defect, and if one has such a child, one should strongly discourage them from reproducing so as to avoid spreading their defect to others. One could argue that if someone is born with an orientation, they should be allowed to pursue it. But thats like arguing that people who are attracted to children should be allowed to have sex with them. There are plenty of pedophiles who say they cannot control their orientation and they were born with it. So if that is true (its not true anyone is born with sexual orientations but if people are,) then clearly being born with an orientation doesn't justify you indulging in that orientation if it is perverse.
Psychopaths mentally have a desire to murder and rape people, but that doesn't make it ok. Like we said before, just like the animals rape and engage in homosexual sex, just because its done in nature doesn't make it a valid activity. It is abberant because the nature of it is not beneficial to society but it is inherently harmful and detrimental to the normal nuclear family that is clearly the way family's are supposed to be raised.
most of the time, in order for people to get more pleasure from "butt stuff" they have to also be pleasuring their primary genital organ at the same time. the only other times someone might get more pleasure from it is if someone has a bad partner that doesn't know how to please their partner properly. A large number of women never have orgasms because their husbands or boyfriends don't care to make sure they get one, or don't know how to give them one, and the women often themselves don't know how to give themselves one. so if a woman never has an orgasm, then yes other activities could be more pleasurable. but if a woman is receiving a proper vaginal orgasm, there is no way that merely anal sex is more pleasure. like i said, that would require her or the guy to also be stimulating her clit at the same time and giving her an orgasm still.
"if my choices are uncertain, even minutely uncertain, how can I elect to override others merely by what is then nothing but my own conviction (just personal subjective investment in one's own position"
thats the nature of life itself. life is all about those kind of risks. you can't be successful in life in really any capacity unless you are willing to take those kinds of risks and yes even ovveride others will when you believe it is proper to do so. And if you are in the wrong, you'll get what's coming to you, either in this life or in the next.
to be clear, it was the yoda kid that said he was obsessed with anal stuff. not me. i figured you knew that but just wanted to be sure, because the reply you gave makes it sound like you are replying to it as if i was the one who said it.