One of the good things about being catholic is that I can bed hop all I want and be forgiven later as long as I confess. Its all good!

That was very funny, the best laugh i had all day!!!!

Thanks for the LOL, Toby. That one is a goodie. If you liked that one, you might want to check out The Annoying Orange's spoof on Antoine. Post at #15 is pretty funny, as well.

Forgiveness for sins is given to all, but Catholic doctrine preaches avoiding the "occasion of sin" and "repentance" for sins. Since you admit to committing the same sin over and over again, it is likely your philosophy doesn't include repentance or changing your behavior. Confession is not something to wipe the slate clean so you can commit the same sin (behavior) over and over. Sadly, there is misinterpretation of the Catholic teachings and doctrines.

Catholics strive for the same virtues as all other Christians. To call yourself Catholic and use confession in the manner you do is inexcusable and an abomination to those who really practice solid teachings of forgiveness, repentance and redemption.

I think the person that you are so sincerely and vehemently chastising was not really being serious. Lighten up.

I think the person that you are so sincerely and vehemently chastising was not really being serious. Lighten up.

You want someone propogandizing religion on a Newsvine board to lighten up? Hi Doug, I'm Michael... you must be new here. Welcome to Newsvine, where understanding, acceptance and communication are all preceded by the adverb "skewed".

Paloma -

But the Bible says to "Love thy neighbor" . . . so I'm making it my goal to love all the female neighbors of the world. Giggitty. Oh, except for the fat ones.

paloma,

your remarks make me want to go buy fat suit...

Hey now, fat girls need lovin' too!

Hey now, fat girls need lovin' too!

But they gotta pay!

This is nothing new. See "Sociobiology" by Edward Wilson (1980). As I was told, I believe in this theory because it validates my behaviour.

Well... yes... the cause of this behavior is in my jeans. Nothing new here.

I am 44 & have a HUGE drive. I divorced my 1st spouse because he didn't have one at all & I don't believe in cheating. I remarried years later & he still can't keep up with me but at least he tries.

True. But genes have no ethics, nor do they care.

Interesting study and findings, but maybe not the most practical use of money.

Good point Ame and James. It'd be really interesting to see how the gene was suppressed in those that have it, but were not promiscuous, if they were indeed telling the truth. Maybe they'll throw some more impractical money into the study so the curious ones can know more.

The article specifically says that some people have the gene and still control their behavior. It's not either/or, black-and-white. Some people have the urge, and either resist it or don't; other people just don't have the urge.

Relationship problems often result in partners being unfaithful. So, the motivation for cheating is complicated and often hides other problems in a marriage. It is not a simple question of ethics, will-power or integrity but what emotional problems are being solved by the cheater seeking comfort in another's bed.

how do you figure?

I don't know about you.. but my genes are quite different than my wife's genes. I hope you're not supporting having children out of wedlock w/ as many women as you can.

"It's Genetic," seems to be a catch all phrase to explain/excuse all sorts of negative behavior. This is just the latest. But let's be real for a moment: we aren't slaves to our genes, nor to a base nature - unless, of course, we let ourselves be.

JACKSON-2576676 - "Genetic diversity" involves groups not staying within their same group, not individuals bed hopping. And "weak genes" often propagate rather than erradicate.

Mr Bond - thanks for giving Jackson a proper genetics lesson. Seems Jackson is one who will enjoy using the "genetic" excuse quite often me thinks.

I hope you're not supporting having children out of wedlock w/ as many women as you can.

Jackson might not be, but I am. Not "out" of an active wedlock though, that's just inexcusible. Before wedlock, however... legacy is in the lineage. You want to make your impact on mankind? Spread the seed.

...And then child support will get'cha. ;-)

hey its spelled monogamy

...And then child support will get'cha ;-)

That, FeistyAlaska, is why you spread the seed in other countries. Custody laws are extremely difficult if not impossible to enforce across national borders.

Michael Patrick why didn't you tell me this before i started having kids??? I am now $1200 a month in the hole for the next 12 years....lol I didn't cheat either...all I did was work alot and she didn't like that so I told her what do you want?? do you want to live in a nice place or the ghetto, do you want real Gucci and Coach purses or knock offs...she still filed for divorce and guess what...she is now on section 8 living with a man that lives off of the money she makes off of child support.

I am sorry you were unaware your wife was seeking affection, as that is her nature to need it. It is typical for men to think paying the rent and buying a woman clothes fills all her needs. She would have been happier with you at a less paying job and showering her with more attention. Sorry, but the Beatles song is true, Money can't buy you love. So sorry you learned that the hard way.

"Sin" is a matter of opinion, period. Behavior, on the other hand, is objective, and is (quite objectively) influenced by genetics. Period. The Bible is irrelevant to science (and reality in general).

Too Bad King James didnt feel the same way.

You're right Dave, Bill clinton 'redefined' sex too. It was his 'opinion' that he didn't have sex, and people bought that too!

And not all behavior is objective, the decision to sleep around is subjective behavior. It stems from lack of control over one's desire. By the way, what is your 'opinion' or in this case, definition of sin? and where and how was it developed?

Sin is genetic. We inherited it and death from from Adam & Eve . As offspring of sinner Adam, we were born in sin. Period.

Following our nature is not sinful nor against God. This passage was written by men who through their greed wanted to control the distribution of their wealth.

If monogamy was the natural human sexuality, we would not have so many rules, laws, and retributions to try to enforce it.

There is nothing sinful about sex. Why don't you bible thumpers give it a break.

I've been judged by girls my whole life -- attractive or not, good or bad, guilty or innocent, talented or lame -- what's one more vengeful, high-maintenance, restrictive, self-diefying adjudicator?

Bring it on, God! I have some judgements of my own for you.

So Marlene... say, uh, wanna hang out tonite...

<disclaimer: just some humor to bring a smile>

@Tadreamer

Excellent!

DaveNM - There will be a day when you will see first hand the irrevelance of the Bible when it comes to sin. I will be praying for your soul in the meantime.

Persnickity: If you were born into a different culture, you would have a different understanding of what you choose to call "sin." This is a concept based on a very narrow view of reality, namely a literalist reading of Genesis and a centuries-long acceptance of that same narrow view.

Swami Vivekananda, one of the great beings who brought the philosophy of India to the West in the late 1800s, at the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago (do you even accept that Truth can be found in other spiritual traditions?), said, "To call a man a sinner is the greatest sin!"

He was referring to the fact that a spirit exists in man that is beyond all sin, and that many in the West have refused to recognize it. Ironically, it says in Genesis that man was "created in the image of God." Does that mean that God is a sinner too? If something comes from the Eternal, it exists eternally. So does our essential Spirit, free from sin and able to choose what to do even with propensities given to us by our genes.

@ACS2134294: Sure, uh, I'd love to hang out with you tonight, you sinner. Thanks for the smile. I needed that, still bummin' after the Ravens game.

There is a difference between an explanation and an excuse. The study provides an explanation, but also specifically says that some people have the mutation and nonetheless control their behavior. Thus, the study does not provide an excuse; only an explanation. Some people have a gene for left-handedness, and force themselves to write with their right hands. This is essentially the same thing. Your moral judgments about it are irrelevant to the science in the article. TMYK.

While the study itself may not be excusing the actions of some, a lack of or intentional ignoring of the real meaning to this study will allow people to make all sorts of wild claims. We have seen the same thing with the many other scientific studies and how people will dice and slice segments of reports and articles to try and say so and so scientist have proved this or that....

Sorry Dave but explanations do provide for excuses...it gives someone legitimacy for continuing a behavior, to believe otherwise is very fool-hardy.

stayoutamine (glad to!): The legitimacy to which you refer is not present in the study, it's imposed externally, after the fact, by opportunists looking to excuse behaviors in which they know they should not have engaged. If the data revealed in the study are true, are you saying they should not have been discovered, because they could be manipulated by the unscrupulous? That's the rationale behind lying to one's children about sex and drugs: that they can't be trusted with the truth. I beg to differ, and I maintain: TMYK. Knowledge is power, regardless of the reprehensible uses to which some slimebag cheater might put it.

Dave- whether it's mentioned in the article or not, people read into these "studies" and find what fits to explain their behaviors, feelings, etc.

Case in point-my mom struggled with weight all her life, got on Weight Watchers back in the late 70's, she find's out later that gluttony is merely an addiction driven by the body's craving for the dopamine release...she fell of the wagon and stopped trying because "it was her addiction". She gave up because it was hard to do the right thing and used an explanation as her excuse, and my mother is not unscrupulous.

You give validity to a behavior when you seek to define it and rationalize why people do what they do. It takes the responsibility factor of the table completely for some. Knowledge is power, but as in anything sadly, power is corrupted and abused. You can keep you logical head in the sand as to the nature of human beings if you'd like, your prerogative.

stayoutamine: You're reading all sorts of stuff into what I actually said. I'm sorry your mom gave in to weakness when presented with a seeming rationale for doing so. But I maintain - and you have said nothing to dissuade me from believing - that just because people may pick and choose bits of knowledge that reinforce what they already feel like doing, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have that knowledge. I maintain that personal responsibility is a choice, and that that choice is available independently of scientific research that we may choose to manipulate into a rationalization for failing to make good choices. The "nature of human beings" is that we have urges, some of which are, and some of which aren't, compatible with coexisting in a civilized society. We have the responsibility to control those urges, and each person who fails to do so is responsible for that failure, and cannot shift that responsibility to someone else.

I never said it was unscrupulous to harm oneself; my example was about cheating on someone - hurting someone else. It was not entirely scrupulous of you to change the subject to gluttony, then tell me my point, about lying and hurting a loved one, was not valid.

Dave,

I'm sorry your mom gave in to weakness when presented with a seeming rationale for doing so.

That's the point entirely! When presented with the rationale, people who may not otherwise cave, give in to a weakness and then use that rationale as an alibi.

You made no specification as to what behavior you deemed unscrupulous so I've not twisted anything you've said. And why wouldn't it be unscrupulous to harm oneself, because you in turn hurt others that care about you but that's another debate for another time.

I am not trying to dissuade you from your line of thinking, but merely trying to bring up the fact that when people receive information it changes the way they see things and how easily they will/will not resist urges...whether you like it or not. My aim is not to have the information sequestered but bring to light the fact that the information will be abused by certain individuals no matter what. The gluttony example was perfect as it is a risky behavior health wise and affects others, so it's comparing apple to apples.

Guess we will just have agree to disagree

When presented with the rationale, people who may not otherwise cave, give in to a weakness and then use that rationale as an alibi.

Obviously. But that is their choice, and is just a rationalization for shirking their responsibilities. It has nothing to do with the value or validity of the underlying data.

You made no specification as to what behavior you deemed unscrupulous so I've not twisted anything you've said.

We were only talking about one subject: cheating. You introduced gluttony, then got all defensive about how gluttony is not unscrupulous.

And why wouldn't it be unscrupulous to harm oneself, because you in turn hurt others that care about you but that's another debate for another time.

Aaaaaand now you're arguing against yourself.

I am not trying to dissuade you from your line of thinking, but merely trying to bring up the fact that when people receive information it changes the way they see things and how easily they will/will not resist urges...whether you like it or not.

I'm not sure what point you thought I was trying to make, but everything you say here is both obvious and irrelevant (and fits quite neatly with my point, which was that people will manipulate information to create rationalizations, but that says nothing about whether the information itself is valuable). This exchange began when you said that "explanations provide for excuses," and I pointed out that the process to which you're referring is just someone twisting objective data into a rationalization for unacceptable behavior. If you were making some actual point beyond saying the research shouldn't be done, um, what is it? That people twist objective data into rationalizations? As long as you agree that that is on them, not on the researchers, I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to agree.

Dave

That people twist objective data into rationalizations? As long as you agree that that is on them, not on the researchers, I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to agree.

Then apparently we agree...

Now THAT's funny!

The Devil is in the genes.

and all this time I thought it was my other jeans, Levi's

Brett Favre promotes Levi's. Brett Favre is the Devil. Therefore, The Devil is in the (Levi) jeans!

If you look great in your jeans, then the rest will follow.

What does porn have to do with promiscuous behavior? Porn is a completely safe outlet, and really bears no discernible risks. I imagine there would be little or no correlation between those who have the mutation and those who consume porn. In fact, I might guess porn is more popular among those without the mutation, since the mutation does not affect sex drive; only the willingness to take real-world risks to satisfy it. If you're getting different tail at the bar every night, what use have you got for porn?

Im confused, why wouldnt there be a correlation? I thought it was a "feel good " receptor that also seems to relate with drug users and the like. Wouldnt it be more about the outlet and the fact that it never seems to satisfy? And the lack of stratification leads to more extreme versions? So one may start with a little bit of playboy pictures and then move onto videos, then voyeurism, then to no telling what a next step might be. Just the way it seems to me, thoughts ne one?

Wouldnt it be more about the outlet and the fact that it never seems to satisfy?

Yes so Tiger Woods has this gene, for example. So now no woman who wants to have a father live in the house to raise the children should want a man with this gene, why? He will be out screwing strangers and bring home aids and all the other STD's out there. Likewise, men are very possessive and will not share their wife with all the men in the neighborhood. So the only damage truly seen in this gene when not controlled is the destruction of the family unit, the demise in the efforts of fostering a healthy civilization. Monogamous grandparents are nearly extinct, already. Which leads me to the Muslims must not have this gene laughs their findings in that culture would be totally different, they don't do one night stands, you get killed for it.

You don't know Muslims as I do. They just keep it hidden in their hypocrit countries but when they travel they let it all hang out.

I've always wondered how it is mankind is supposed to decide right from wrong, for instance if a tribe of peoples is taught generation after generation that murdering members of the tribe down the road is morally correct then how do you hold them accountable when in today's world everyone wants to define right and wrong as an individual's opinion.

We could always go with the "majority rules" thought, but at one time didnt the majority think slavery was ok? Hasn't there been many instances when the majority thought something was ok and now days we disagree? So the majority isnt always "right"...is it?

I dont think science would be able to help much in this one but i guess we can try it. Unfortunately im not trained enough in science to figure out how to scientifically experiment with right and wrong, though im open to ideas and suggestions.

Now if we go with religion we have a higher being or power handing down the right and wrong, which would seem to work better as its coming from a "higher authority" and they should know better, right?(this is prob why KD, so many go with that as their only recourse) but with so many religions in the world how do you know which one is right? Personally im sticking with religion, The Bible and teachings of Jesus no less, but that is my choice.

So in the end i guess im asking.....how do you set your moral compass? and how do you feel when people disagree with what you believe to be right or wrong? How do you defend your right and wrong positions? Im not wanting fighting here, just curious how others make day to day decisions

KD, it's known as Godwin's Law.

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)^[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1989 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."^[3][2] In other words, Godwin put forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all discussions—regardless of topic or scope—inevitably end up being about Hitler and the Nazis.

People with whom I tend to agree tend to set their "moral compasses" in terms of what does or does not benefit humankind, and individual humans. That's a scientifically valid basis for behavior. If something benefits one person and hurts others, the greater good should prevail, and the hurt should not be caused. Favoring that which keeps us as a species, and the planet that sustains us, healthy, is a reliable and consistent standard for human behavior. The dogmatic dictates of arbitrary and ancient texts, on the other hand, are without basis in reality, too easily manipulated by the unscrupulous, and too often weighted in favor of one group over another. Keep your religion. I'll answer the question "why are we here" with "for whatever reason we choose," and I will choose to be here for people.

Wonderful reply Dave, I appreciate it when others can share their views without slamming others views, I believe I will keep my faith, thank you, but as for religion, well.....its pretty obvious that organized religion is as easily corruptible as any government, making it indeed to easily weighted in favor of one group over another.

So long as we both are working towards the common good, we can agree to disagree on many other things, right? =)

So long as we both are working towards the common good, we can agree to disagree on many other things, right? =)

Of course. We just owe each other a duty to do so civilly, and to acknowledge that, while each of us has the right to live according to our beliefs, neither of us has the right to allow those beliefs to cause harm to others, or to force the other to live according to our beliefs. "Live" only works when done in conjunction with "let live."

Thank you for your kind words and civility. Those are all too rare in modern American discourse, due in large part to the shameful intrusion of religion and politics into each other's sphere.

taopin - there was a debate a few years ago between Keyes and Dershowitz, and the topic of who is more moral: the person who something because its right, or the person who only does it because God said he would punish him if he didn't?

Its a pretty intelligent debate. http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=147

Perhaps you should google Dr. Kinsey who is called the father of the sexual revolution. His findings were it does no harm to screw little girls, just think of the world today if his laws had been passed to make it LEGAL to screw LITTLE GIRLS. Frued wanted to have sex with his Mother. TRUE FACTS Men want to screw everything and their dog to, women are in a constant state of defense against rape. This report makes me wanna PUKE!

I condone non-monogamy but not dishonesty.

I truly love and care for both of my partners. I do not cheat or lie. They are both aware of each other and consider each other a member of our family.

Of course most people have to be so black and white about it here (not the two above me, though). Can't we all agree that relationships are hard work whatever type you're trying to pursue (monogamous, swinging, polygamous)--because our wiring is complicated and we do have some control over ourselves, but are often strongly pulled to do things that we have mixed feelings about? Rather than completely excuse bad behavior OR just expect people to "get a hold of themselves" and be happy with pure monogamy?

or out of your jeans.

If you have to lie to and cheat on one woman to "care for" another, your entire argument unravels. Besides, for each guy diddling a harem of girls, there are several guys, just as worthy, who are alone. Your argument therefore goes against the good of humanity even before we get to the issue of genetic diversity.

better yet, since when did sex = caring for someone? I missed the part where society makes sex = love, cause....its not lol