Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[carpedm9587]

should have said western world. Here is the breakdown:

The world's 20 largest religions and their number of believers are:

Christianity (2.1 billion)
Islam (1.3 billion)
Nonreligious (Secular/Agnostic/Atheist) (1.1 billion)

I was actually talking about the first two and calling it 3 by putting Judaism in there as it is the predecessor to and very closely tied to number 1.

So Carpe has it right as to what is the official 'big three'. :)

We are still talking about 3.4 billion people. Depending on when that breakdown was done, around 1/2 the worlds population. Wikipedia puts the religions I had in mind at 57.1% of the worlds population

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...us_populations


---

Hinduism (900 million)
Chinese traditional religion (394 million)
Buddhism 376 million
Primal-indigenous (300 million)
African traditional and Diasporic (100 million)
Sikhism (23 million)
Juche (19 million)
Spiritism (15 million)
Judaism (14 million)
Bahai (7 million)
Jainism (4.2 million)
Shinto (4 million)
Cao Dai (4 million)
Zoroastrianism (2.6 million)
Tenrikyo (2 million)
Neo-Paganism (1 million)
Unitarian-Universalism (800,000)



I disagree. Ignoring the moral teachings that drives the behavior and belief of 1/2 the worlds population is ideological suicide. There must be a rational discussion of the issues. Rational people that are religious will listen to well thought out arguments that address the basic issues. If there are such arguments to be made. OTOH, If there are not compelling reasons these religious moral ideals are misdirected, then not only won't you be able to convince the Rational people in these religions, the specter also looms that those religious moral declarations might be right after all.

Jim

If half of the people hold moral positions against homosexuality, does that not mean the other half does not? If you claim the half that has these positions against homosexuality are "right," are you not ignoring the moral teachings of the other half? Does that not also, by this argument, equal ideological suicide?

I do not think this can be approached as a numbers game. Morality is not determined by majority view. I think we need to look at the merits of the arguments to assess the morality of the actions.

[oxmixmudd]

Just for clarification, are you saying that moral statements are only aimed at minority groups, or they are aimed at minority groups as well as majority groups.

Morality is aimed at all people, but it only affects those that are (pre)disposed to want to do something else.

So identify the moral imperatives that are being pitted against one another and let's look at them.

I identified three

So are these the "moral imperatives" you were referring to in the previous paragraph? If so, I can see how non-discrimination is a moral imperative, but then you identify "morality" itself, so I'm not sure how you see this as a moral imperative. And "personal, private behavior" doesn't seem to me to be a moral imperative.

The moral imperatives would be:

1) to recognize and treat all people with fairness and justice, to not discriminate against a group based on elements they have no control over

2) the sexual morality of the majority religions of the culture, which in this case includes an imperative against same-sex acts. Specifically that only sexual relations in the confines of a married relationship between a man and woman are moral. All others are immoral.

3) to not be in other peoples private business without overwhelming need or cause.

But there are others that may apply. For example - promiscuity is a vector for disease. So to avoid promiscuity also comes under the moral imperative not to do physical harm to others or yourself.

As for the name calling - I would be interested in knowing how you would go about communicating that a particular position is a prejudicial one without calling the person expressing it "prejudiced." I make the attempt (hopefully consistently) to keep the language about the argument/position, and not about the person. It's the best I can do. But if you have suggestions for how to approach this, I'm interested.

Michel

One doesn't say "You are a bigot", one says "to do thus and so is bigotry". The goal is to focus on the action and not the person. Sometimes the person will still see it as a personal attack, but in reality in that form it is not. And if one focusses on the action and not the person, they in effect free the person to allow themselves to be disconnected from the action. It allows them the freedom to change. If we say "you are" then the person is in defensive mode if they don't like what we said. If we say "this act is", then they can decide they don't want to do that act, because that is not who they are.

Jim

[Sparko]

Morality is not determined by majority view

I thought that was your view on morality in a nutshell, that is it all relative and the majority makes the rules?

[oxmixmudd]

If half of the people hold moral positions against homosexuality, does that not mean the other half does not? If you claim the half that has these positions against homosexuality are "right," are you not ignoring the moral teachings of the other half? Does that not also, by this argument, equal ideological suicide?

The debate only exists in the cultures that have imperatives against same-sex relations, or cultures that still discriminate due to a cultural (not a religious) imperative.

I live in the US and am a Christian. So my concerns in the debate are the ones that arise due to those two facts.

I do not think this can be approached as a numbers game. Morality is not determined by majority view. I think we need to look at the merits of the arguments to assess the morality of the actions.

I agree with you on that principle. I am not saying that it is immoral OR moral because of the majority view. I am saying that it has been declared immoral by the majority religion of our culture, and that means that the issue of same-sex attraction then pits the traditional and cultural morality regarding same sex relationships directly against the morality of treating all people fairly and with respect.

It is a simple fact that one can't avoid discriminating against a group that is as a group violating the law. If all the Irish people in america suddenly decide it makes sense to start blowing up buildings. Then we are going to be grabbing Irish people right and left and throwing them in jail. On the one hand, they may claim we are discriminating against Irish people and are horrible bigots. But on the other hand, it's that the Irish people are as a group breaking the law and we can't let it continue.

This is the sort of conflict that exists in the same-sex marriage etc debates. The difference is most of us agree about the immorality of indiscriminately blowing up buildings. We don't all agree about the morality of same-sex acts.


Jim

[carpedm9587]

The debate only exists in the cultures that have imperatives against same-sex relations, or cultures that still discriminate due to a cultural (not a religious) imperative.

I live in the US and am a Christian. So my concerns in the debate are the ones that arise due to those two facts.

And even if we narrow down to the U.S. 72% say same-sex relationships should be legal and 64% say marriages should be legal. In 1978, legality of same-sex relationships was tied at 43% for/against, and 68% were opposed to same-sex marriages. The anti-LGBTQ view has become the minority view in the U.S.

So are we not committing "ideological suicide" (as you earlier noted) if we now ignore not just the minority view, but the actual majority view? This is why I feel it should not be reduced toa numbers game. As I said before, numbers do not make something moral or immoral; they merely reflect the views of the community in general.

I agree with you on that principle. I am not saying that it is immoral OR moral because of the majority view. I am saying that it has been declared immoral by the majority religion of our culture, and that means that the issue of same-sex attraction then pits the traditional and cultural morality regarding same sex relationships directly against the morality of treating all people fairly and with respect.

Interesting. I would say that these two things were pitted against one another by the majority in 1978, but that is not longer true 40 years later. For the majority of us, the two things are aligned: we accept same-sex relationships on the same moral footings as opposite-sex relationships, so treating people with dignity/respect is not an issue for us. It becomes a tension when you label same-sex relationships (or the act of intimacy that results) as immoral.

It is a simple fact that one can't avoid discriminating against a group that is as a group violating the law. If all the Irish people in america suddenly decide it makes sense to start blowing up buildings. Then we are going to be grabbing Irish people right and left and throwing them in jail. On the one hand, they may claim we are discriminating against Irish people and are horrible bigots. But on the other hand, it's that the Irish people are as a group breaking the law and we can't let it continue.

Enforcing the law is not intrinsically an act of discrimination, unless the law itself discriminates. If, however, most of the bombs in the U.S. are planted by Irish people, and we begin treating all Irish people as potential terrorists, that is an act of discrimination. The fear is understandable, but it is still discriminatory. That is happening today in the U.S. to young black men and women, to people of Middle Eastern origins, and to Muslims. It happened in WWII to Japanese, German and (less so) Italian citizens of the U.S.

This is the sort of conflict that exists in the same-sex marriage etc debates. The difference is most of us agree about the immorality of indiscriminately blowing up buildings. We don't all agree about the morality of same-sex acts.

Jim

On this we agree. My disagreement with declaring same-sex acts as immoral is its basis in genetics. By definition, that makes it discriminatory. An act is being declared immoral solely on the basis of the genetically coded sex of the participants. In all other instances where this has been done, we have come to see it as an immoral position to take. This one is, to me, no different.

[carpedm9587]

I thought that was your view on morality in a nutshell, that is it all relative and the majority makes the rules?

That has never been my position.


But that's probably just me dancing again...


ETA: on a serious note, Sparko, this is my experience of exchanges with you. You misunderstand something I have said, either because I expressed it poorly, or perhaps I used words that you use differently, or perhaps just because you read too quickly and didn't think it through. Whatever the reason - when I try to clarify - I get the "dance" and "dodge" song and dance. It's your choice if that's how you want to engage - and you certainly are free to. I just find the entire approach pointless. The purpose for discourse is to try to understand what the other person is saying. It has no hope of success if the discussion is entered into without a degree of trust. For my part, I assume you post honestly, and miscommunications are just that - miscommunications; not some nefarious agenda you have to "win every argument."

[carpedm9587]

Morality is aimed at all people, but it only affects those that are (pre)disposed to want to do something else.

I would say it affects us all - but the consequences apply to those who choose to act immorally/illegally. And that is not always a minority. During WWII, most Americans were in favor of interring the Japanese. That did not make it a moral act.

I identified three

The moral imperatives would be:

1) to recognize and treat all people with fairness and justice, to not discriminate against a group based on elements they have no control over

2) the sexual morality of the majority religions of the culture, which in this case includes an imperative against same-sex acts. Specifically that only sexual relations in the confines of a married relationship between a man and woman are moral. All others are immoral.

3) to not be in other peoples private business without overwhelming need or cause.

Thanks for the clarification. We are perfectly aligned on 1 and 3. We are not aligned on 2. But I think we already knew that. So, for you, there is tension between some of these. For me, there is not.

But there are others that may apply. For example - promiscuity is a vector for disease. So to avoid promiscuity also comes under the moral imperative not to do physical harm to others or yourself.

Promiscuity CAN be a vector for disease. It is not necessarily one. It depends on what practices one uses to protect oneself, and whether or not one engages in promiscuous behaviour knowing they have a communicable disease. In general, in this age of AIDS and STDs, I think promiscuity is foolish for anyone.

One doesn't say "You are a bigot", one says "to do thus and so is bigotry". The goal is to focus on the action and not the person. Sometimes the person will still see it as a personal attack, but in reality in that form it is not. And if one focusses on the action and not the person, they in effect free the person to allow themselves to be disconnected from the action. It allows them the freedom to change. If we say "you are" then the person is in defensive mode if they don't like what we said. If we say "this act is", then they can decide they don't want to do that act, because that is not who they are.

Jim

So I have been clear that I believe the position that paints same-sex intimacy as immoral in all contexts is a prejudicial, bigoted position to hold. I believe i have been fairly consistent with that language. I have also been clear that I understand how that position has come to be, and I know that many (most?) people who hold it are not seeking to do harm, and are not "evil" people. They are, generally, good people who are doing a bad thing by pushing forward this narrative.

So does that meet your criteria for keeping it about the argument?

[Cerebrum123]

I thought that was your view on morality in a nutshell, that is it all relative and the majority makes the rules?

His morals are relative to the point in time he makes his posts.

[Sparko]

That has never been my position.


But that's probably just me dancing again...


ETA: on a serious note, Sparko, this is my experience of exchanges with you. You misunderstand something I have said, either because I expressed it poorly, or perhaps I used words that you use differently, or perhaps just because you read too quickly and didn't think it through. Whatever the reason - when I try to clarify - I get the "dance" and "dodge" song and dance. It's your choice if that's how you want to engage - and you certainly are free to. I just find the entire approach pointless. The purpose for discourse is to try to understand what the other person is saying. It has no hope of success if the discussion is entered into without a degree of trust. For my part, I assume you post honestly, and miscommunications are just that - miscommunications; not some nefarious agenda you have to "win every argument."

Maybe it's because you take 200 words to say something that could be said in 5?

I recall you arguing that morality is just relative opinions and that what a culture or society considers moral is just what the majority of that society believes. I might be confusing you with someone else, but I don't think so.

I was not trying to accuse you of anything.

What does make something moral or not then?

[Cow Poke]

ETA: on a serious note, Sparko, this is my experience of exchanges with you. You misunderstand something I have said, either because I expressed it poorly, or perhaps I used words that you use differently...

You must be in academia!

[carpedm9587]

His morals are relative to the point in time he makes his posts.

OK - that was good...


And actually not completely inaccurate...

[carpedm9587]

Maybe it's because you take 200 words to say something that could be said in 5?

Guilty

I recall you arguing that morality is just relative opinions and that what a culture or society considers moral is just what the majority of that society believes. I might be confusing you with someone else, but I don't think so.

You're confusing me with someone else.

I was not trying to accuse you of anything.

That is not usually my default assumption, so not to worry.

What does make something moral or not then?

Morality is determined by what we value. So if we value "life" (and most of us do) we will see as moral actions that protect/affirm/enhance life. We will see as immoral actions that destroy/threaten/diminish life. The same applies to liberty, happiness, etc.

The "golden rule" then extends that beyond ourselves recognizing that, in a society, if we wish to have the things we value protected, we also need to extend those same principles to others as part of the social contract. It's why we also, then, expect others to adhere to those social norms and assess them as "immoral" if they do not.

What the majority believes is moral is nothing more than an expression of the commonly held views of the members of a society. It may influence our own moralizing (in several ways), but it does not determine it. If my moral code says X is immoral - it won't matter one whit if the society says "X is moral," I will continue to see it as immoral until something shifts in what I value or someone can make the case that my moral position is actually inconsistent with what I value.

[carpedm9587]

You must be in academia!

No - but I do teach...

[seer]

That has never been my position.

No your position is that you, personally, make the rules. But you do like using the majority when it agrees with you.

[Sparko]

Guilty



You're confusing me with someone else.

Yes I was. I went back and looked and I was remembering something JimL said in the middle of our morality conversation in the Marlon Bundo thread:

Morals, like ethics, are not about individuals, they are about groups of individuals, communities or societies. The reason it is said to "do unto others as.... is because there are others involved that can reciprocate in kind.