What Is Love and Its Meaning in Human History?

[cragwolf]

If two people are truly in love, then there shouldnt' be any reason for them not to get married, and if there are doubts of marriage, then obviously there not in love.

Sure there are reasons, once again more than you can imagine. One possible reason is that the couple sees marriage as superfluous. The mere fact that they're together and loving each other is enough.

Secondly, how could you say that the notion of sex degrading the soul is irelavant, it is the most important issue to discuss.

Nonsense. You have not shown that sex degrades the soul. Like all forms of human interaction it can have positive as well as negative effects on the participants. That's life. Deal with it how you choose, but don't condemn other people for their choices. In other words, mind your own business, and stop projecting your myopic morality on to other people, especially people you don't even know.

There's too much arrogance and not enough humility in this thread. I don't know what love is. If two people feel like they're in love, who am I to question them?

 

[loseyourname]

Regarding your whole syllogistic reasoning used to show my contradictions:
It seems that you are underestimating the power of sex. Sex is in unity with love. It is similar to say, writing on paper and a pen. The writing could not properly be produced without the pen. Sex is therefore a part of love. If we do choose to perform premarital sex, we are using sex out of context. We are in fact, not only degrading the soul, but also degrading the concept of sex! The entire purpose of sex seems to diminish; its significance is no longer very significant to us.

Translation: Regarding your showing that my arguments are inconsistent - I will not address them.

Tell me this, since you find it so sacrosanct that sex is an activity intended only for those who are married. Do you consider early humans, who had sex before there was any such concept as marriage, possibly even before they had any concept we would recognize as "love," were immoral for having sex and thus bringing us into existence?

 

[Justinius]

Tell me this, since you find it so sacrosanct that sex is an activity intended only for those who are married. Do you consider early humans, who had sex before there was any such concept as marriage, possibly even before they had any concept we would recognize as "love," were immoral for having sex and thus bringing us into existence?

In morality there is something called autonomy. Its also a term familiar to those in a law-related field. This term defined tells us that people who are unaware of the actions that they are committing, are not committing any falsities. For example, if it can be proven in a court of law that a person was sleepwalking and killed another, the "killer" is not convicted of murder because he/she was unaware that they were committing this crime. The same goes for sex. The early humans had no idea of morality, let alone an idea of love, as you pointed out. Before Pythagoras, humans had little or no idea of the concept of metaphysics. So can we say, speculatively, that the early humans who brought us into existence were immoral? No, because they didn't know any better. However, now that people are aware of metaphysics, morality, and autonomy in morality, we are indeed able to say it is immoral, unless the act itself is autonomic.

 

[cragwolf]

The early humans had no idea of morality, let alone an idea of love, as you pointed out.

Unsupported claim.