Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[oxmixmudd]

If by "hetero-sexual" you mean, male/female - all human reproduction is done by uniting a sperm (provided by a male) and an egg (provided by a female), so that isn't really saying anything. It does not require those elements to come from heterosexual human beings. Last I checked, sperm and eggs from homosexuals was still capable of reproduction. I was never claiming your 90% homosexuality was not likely to depress birth rates. I was claiming you had not shown it would depress it to a 10% rate.

That was my mistake. But even with the possibility (and necessary enhancement) of artificial insemination, I think it would still be an issue - lesbian couples would be approximately 45% of the population in the 90% scenario, so to maintain birth rate they would need to raise twice as many children per couple as in the hetero-sexual case. Adoption I don't think would be a viable solution in general. This would effectively put the same-sex population into what would likely become an oppressive bi-furcated situation with the women bearing a disproportionate burden WRT child rearing, even more so than traditionally male dominated societies. Just an observation, not a rabbit trail I want to (or will) pursue.

Not to mention we don't HAVE a 90% homosexuality rate; it's between 3 and 10%, depending on who's numbers you believe. AND you still have not made a link to morality. All of this is why I was saying you had not made a case. As far as I could tell, the only viable "point" from your argument was "an increase in homosexuality could depress the birth rate."

That we do not have a 90% same-sex rate is true, but you are forgetting the original point was not a 90% same-sex rate, but rather that evolution does not select for a same-sex population within a hetero-sexual species. It will be and must be (in any natural environment) a minority population. Especially in the time the Bible itself was written.

Before this long sidebar, we were trying to deal with why same-sex relationships might be immoral, and I was trying to establish a working set of facts we could agree on. The original fact was not the 90% sidebar which became a quagmire, it was that evolution will not select for* same-sex, because in a natural environment (one like the one the jewish law was created in) too high a same-sex population is detrimental to the sustaining of the population.

Is it possible then that after all the turns and twists, you are agreeing with that slightly modified (italics) form of the original statement? It was after all, the original point. And your statement above I put in bold is very close to saying the same thing.


Jim

*keeping in mind that as I am using it here, to select for a trait means evolution prefers it (it confers a survival advantage), and it will eventually (barring some catastrophe early in its development) become a dominant trait.

[carpedm9587]

That was my mistake. But even with the possibility (and necessary enhancement) of artificial insemination, I think it would still be an issue - lesbian couples would be approximately 45% of the population in the 90% scenario, so to maintain birth rate they would need to raise twice as many children per couple as in the hetero-sexual case. Adoption I don't think would be a viable solution in general. This would effectively put the same-sex population into what would likely become an oppressive bi-furcated situation with the women bearing a disproportionate burden WRT child rearing, even more so than traditionally male dominated societies. Just an observation, not a rabbit trail I want to (or will) pursue.

45% of the couples, with 200% female content, making the "twice as many" not impossible. Surrogacy is an option for male gay couples. There are just a lot of factors, as I have continually been pointing out, that your math "assumes" that cannot be shown to be true. In the immortal words of Jurassic Park: "nature finds a way."

That we do not have a 90% same-sex rate is true, but you are forgetting the original point was not a 90% same-sex rate, but rather that evolution does not select for a same-sex population within a hetero-sexual species. It will be and must be (in any natural environment) a minority population. Especially in the time the Bible itself was written.

So first, given all of the means of procreation at our disposal, you cannot know this. But even if we accept it as true, it seems a natural consequence of your observation is that we never have to worry about homosexuality ever reaching the levels you have been citing. So I am still unclear where you are going with this line of argumentation. It might be helpful if you did what you did in a previous discussion - lay out your complete argument so it can be evaluated.

Before this long sidebar, we were trying to deal with why same-sex relationships might be immoral, and I was trying to establish a working set of facts we could agree on. The original fact was not the 90% sidebar which became a quagmire, it was that evolution will not select for* same-sex, because in a natural environment (one like the one the jewish law was created in) too high a same-sex population is detrimental to the sustaining of the population.

You cannot know the latter OR the former. However, even if I were to grant you this argument, it is not clear to me how you would go from this to "morality."

Is it possible then that after all the turns and twists, you are agreeing with that slightly modified (italics) form of the original statement? It was after all, the original point. And your statement above I put in bold is very close to saying the same thing.

Jim

I have to admit that I do not see the equivalence between the two statements. I do, however, stand by the bolded statement you quoted. An increase in the percentage in homosexual couples could depress the birth rate. So not the use of the word "could;" we don't know for a fact that it will because of all the other factors involved. And it is not clear how you go from "possible depressed birth rate" to "immoral."

*keeping in mind that as I am using it here, to select for a trait means evolution prefers it (it confers a survival advantage), and it will eventually (barring some catastrophe early in its development) become a dominant trait.

So I will conclude with the following observation. Judaism began with a small, nomadic band in the Ancient Near East. Within that context, anything that fosters "many children" would likely be seen by that culture as moral/desirable, and anything that threatens that would be seen as immoral/undesirable. Ergo, homosexuality, "wasting" sperm by "spilling seed" would be categorized as immoral. Having multiple wives (a man with many wives can impregnate many women, but a woman with many husbands can only have one baby at a time) and sleeping with female hand servants (especially in the case of a barren wife) would all be seen as moral/desirable.

The circumstances have changed. We now have a world populated with over 7B people and having some catastrophic impacts on our planet. We have advanced medical technology to make homosexuality no longer an obstacle to procreation. So what was viewed by that culture at that time as "immoral/moral" is simply no longer the case. The circumstances have changed, and the morality with it.

I do appreciate, Jim, that the discussion is focused on the argument.

[oxmixmudd]

45% of the couples, with 200% female content, making the "twice as many" not impossible. Surrogacy is an option for male gay couples. There are just a lot of factors, as I have continually been pointing out, that your math "assumes" that cannot be shown to be true. In the immortal words of Jurassic Park: "nature finds a way."

I am curious carpe why you will not allow me to put a set of pre-conditions on my arguments. It seems that each time I say something like "Assuming x, and y, and z, then P", you seem unable to allow x, and y , and z to be the a priori limiting factors of the argument and the follow the logic to "P". It is a real problem. You keep bringing into the discussion elements I've already explicitly excluded to make a specific point. It is not a reasonable way to conduct a discussion. And I would appreciate it if you could limit yourself to the problem presented. There is plenty of time to address a larger target problem, and if you are uncomfortable with the restrictions, you can simply qualify your answer with something like "yes, but that is not a realistic representation of the problem." The real world is a very complicated place, and one can't deal with all the variables at once. simplifying a problem allows one to learn about certain characteristics of the problem in isolation, and that knowledge often allows one to gain critical insights into the problem as a whole. Further, I am not about abusing the person I'm discussing the problem with. So admitting some artificial problem with a given set of preconditions leads to some conclusion will never become some incorrectly generalized weapon used against you later in the discussion - unless is logically and fully applies to the points being made. I am not seeking to 'win', but to simply work through the problem with other people to a logical and reasoned conclusion.

So first, given all of the means of procreation at our disposal, you cannot know this. But even if we accept it as true, it seems a natural consequence of your observation is that we never have to worry about homosexuality ever reaching the levels you have been citing. So I am still unclear where you are going with this line of argumentation. It might be helpful if you did what you did in a previous discussion - lay out your complete argument so it can be evaluated.

I can know this relative to 'In the time the Bible was written' and 'too many exclusively same sex people'. There were no alternate forms of pro-creation then.

And again, how I might try to fold this fact into an argument is irrelevant to the truth of the statement. Why can't you just deal with the statement in isolation and stop worrying so much about how I might use it later in an argument?

You cannot know the latter OR the former. However, even if I were to grant you this argument, it is not clear to me how you would go from this to "morality."

again - how I use it is not pertinent to whether or not it is true.

I have to admit that I do not see the equivalence between the two statements. I do, however, stand by the bolded statement you quoted. An increase in the percentage in homosexual couples could depress the birth rate. So not the use of the word "could;" we don't know for a fact that it will because of all the other factors involved. And it is not clear how you go from "possible depressed birth rate" to "immoral."

again - how I use it is not pertinent to whether or not it is true. Could you verbalize why you don't see them as equivalent rather that just fret about how I might use it in an argument?

So I will conclude with the following observation. Judaism began with a small, nomadic band in the Ancient Near East. Within that context, anything that fosters "many children" would likely be seen by that culture as moral/desirable, and anything that threatens that would be seen as immoral/undesirable. Ergo, homosexuality, "wasting" sperm by "spilling seed" would be categorized as immoral. Having multiple wives (a man with many wives can impregnate many women, but a woman with many husbands can only have one baby at a time) and sleeping with female hand servants (especially in the case of a barren wife) would all be seen as moral/desirable.

Ah - so now we are so close as to be indistinguishable. I don't think I can ever get past whatever has you afraid to accept my statement in the current form, and your unwillingness to accept limitations on the state, but what you write here is, from my perspective, roughly equivalent. However, since we are talking about why same-sex would have been immoral, these other elements, while perhaps also categories affected by the 'why', are not same-sex specific components of the discussion.

The circumstances have changed. We now have a world populated with over 7B people and having some catastrophic impacts on our planet. We have advanced medical technology to make homosexuality no longer an obstacle to procreation. So what was viewed by that culture at that time as "immoral/moral" is simply no longer the case. The circumstances have changed, and the morality with it.

I do appreciate, Jim, that the discussion is focused on the argument.

Yes, circumstances have changed. We can start with why it may have been immoral. And then we can look at if some or any of those issues remain today. Some Christians believe this was primarily a cultural thing. At the time, in that space, it needed to be as it was in the Law. Now things have changed they believe. Others look at it as an immutable declaration of what IS moral period. Changing cultures and circumstances do not mean anything in that context. For that form of Christian belief, our discussion is perhaps interesting, but of little value in determining if same-sex relationships and/or marriages can be accommodated by the Christian faith.


Jim

[Sparko]

I've said the first. I never said the latter, or even thought it. YOU said that.



Wow - color me surprised. Another claim that I'm dodging...



No. You're not dumb. I've answered this. Anyone who can read the post - especially the bolded, parenthetical part, knows that. If you do not, then repeating it is not going to help.



I'm actually not out to make you happier - and I'm working on limiting my posts. I'm sorry, Sparko, but I'm just not going to play this game. if I repeat my answer, you'll tell me I haven't answered, I'm avoiding and/or I'm dodging. If I don't answer, you're going to tell me I haven't answered, I'm avoiding and/or I'm dodging. It's a pointless game. The answer is in front of you. If you don't understand it, given how briefly and clearly I wrote it, then perhaps someone else can explain it to you.

Michel

ETA: I will go this far, if someone else tells me my answer is not clear, I'll clarify.

So basically you are more interested in playing games than in clear debate. That is known as trolling. I will remember that about you. Maybe the "Mr. Nice Guy" is just an act?

I take your refusal to answer me as an admission that you know you were wrong and that your entire argument has been refuted. Since I insulted you, I expect you won't bother responding.

[Sparko]

You know, Sparko, I think I'm going to take the same position with you that I have just taken with Jim (Oxi). It's tiresome responding to the constant barrage of accusations about dodging, slippery, and all of the rest. Going forward, I'm simply going to respond to posts from you if they stick to the subject at hand and ditch the personal attacks. I am only really interested in the former, and find the latter tedious and mostly a waste of time. So, you can assume that as soon as your post shifts to the personal, I'll stop reading and move on without responding. That's probably a good rule in general.

Really. I love how you want to pretend to be taking the high road, when all along it is you who is refusing to actually debate and discuss topics in a clear manner. Stick it, Carp. ...You know where.

[carpedm9587]

I am curious carpe why you will not allow me to put a set of pre-conditions on my arguments. It seems that each time I say something like "Assuming x, and y, and z, then P", you seem unable to allow x, and y , and z to be the a priori limiting factors of the argument and the follow the logic to "P". It is a real problem.

First, it is not that "I will not allow." You are asking me to agree to "facts" I do not agree with. And I repeat, I have no idea where your argument is going. If you would simply lay it out, beginning to end, so it can be examined, it might help. If you feed me bits and pieces, I can only respond to the bits and pieces.

You keep bringing into the discussion elements I've already explicitly excluded to make a specific point. It is not a reasonable way to conduct a discussion. And I would appreciate it if you could limit yourself to the problem presented.

I am working with what you are giving me, Jim. And since I have no idea what "the problem presented" is, I have no way of limiting myself to it.

There is plenty of time to address a larger target problem, and if you are uncomfortable with the restrictions, you can simply qualify your answer with something like "yes, but that is not a realistic representation of the problem."

I repeat, I have no idea what "the problem" is.

The real world is a very complicated place, and one can't deal with all the variables at once. simplifying a problem allows one to learn about certain characteristics of the problem in isolation, and that knowledge often allows one to gain critical insights into the problem as a whole. Further, I am not about abusing the person I'm discussing the problem with. So admitting some artificial problem with a given set of preconditions leads to some conclusion will never become some incorrectly generalized weapon used against you later in the discussion - unless is logically and fully applies to the points being made. I am not seeking to 'win', but to simply work through the problem with other people to a logical and reasoned conclusion.

I can only reflect the experience from this side. You are giving me a collection of "facts" I am supposed to agree to. When I point out that they have not been established as "facts," my integrity is impugned. I truly have no idea where you are going. Please...lay out your argument.

I can know this relative to 'In the time the Bible was written' and 'too many exclusively same sex people'. There were no alternate forms of pro-creation then.

So your entire argument is about how homosexuality came to be seen as immoral? I think I outlined that in my last post.

And again, how I might try to fold this fact into an argument is irrelevant to the truth of the statement. Why can't you just deal with the statement in isolation and stop worrying so much about how I might use it later in an argument?

First - these discussions are not a source of "worry" for me. They are merely discussions. Second, you want me to explain how I do not see equivalency between "As far as I could tell, the only viable "point" from your argument was 'an increase in homosexuality could depress the birth rate.' " and "because in a natural environment (one like the one the jewish law was created in)?"

And I think I just found the problem. I was comparing it to the italicized part of your statement, as you suggested in the following paragraph. If I add the following part of your statement, I get "because in a natural environment (one like the one the jewish law was created in) too high a same-sex population is detrimental to the sustaining of the population." So there is some similarity between the two statements (though having too many members of the same-sex in the population is not necessarily the issue, so I am assuming you meant same-sex couples).

There is (for me) an important distinction between the two: you have stated yours as an absolute (is detrimental) and mine is not (could depress the birthrate). If you have not picked this up from previous discussions, I don't lean towards such absolute statements unless they are VERY well supported. Outside of that, however, I see the parallelism.

again - how I use it is not pertinent to whether or not it is true.

Fair enough - so I will limit myself to pointing out that you cannot know and have not shown that the claim is true. However, it is likely the people of that era would have seen it as true, or feared it to be true.

again - how I use it is not pertinent to whether or not it is true. Could you verbalize why you don't see them as equivalent rather that just fret about how I might use it in an argument?

I don't "fret" over these discussions, Jim.

Ah - so now we are so close as to be indistinguishable. I don't think I can ever get past whatever has you afraid to accept my statement in the current form, and your unwillingness to accept limitations on the state, but what you write here is, from my perspective, roughly equivalent. However, since we are talking about why same-sex would have been immoral, these other elements, while perhaps also categories affected by the 'why', are not same-sex specific components of the discussion.

Yes, circumstances have changed. We can start with why it may have been immoral. And then we can look at if some or any of those issues remain today. Some Christians believe this was primarily a cultural thing. At the time, in that space, it needed to be as it was in the Law. Now things have changed they believe. Others look at it as an immutable declaration of what IS moral period. Changing cultures and circumstances do not mean anything in that context. For that form of Christian belief, our discussion is perhaps interesting, but of little value in determining if same-sex relationships and/or marriages can be accommodated by the Christian faith.

Jim

Jim, I have already outlined why the people of that era likely saw homosexuality as immoral. Those prohibitions were then captured in writing in various books of the Judaic (and then Christian) scriptures. They are explicit - so anyone who takes a literal approach to the bible is not likely to be able to dismiss them, especially since they are likewise reflected in some of the epistles of the NT. Those christian sects that have set them aside, AFAICT, have done so because they do not take a literal approach to the bible, and recognize it for what it is: a document written at a particular time reflecting the attitudes and morality of the period. They thus set aside the passages that reflect approval of things like genocide, slavery and (now) discrimination against homosexuals and they focus on the message of love and acceptance found in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. I suspect that split will always exist, between the hard-right hardliners and the more moderate and liberal branches of Christianity.

[oxmixmudd]

First, it is not that "I will not allow." You are asking me to agree to "facts" I do not agree with. And I repeat, I have no idea where your argument is going. If you would simply lay it out, beginning to end, so it can be examined, it might help. If you feed me bits and pieces, I can only respond to the bits and pieces.



I am working with what you are giving me, Jim. And since I have no idea what "the problem presented" is, I have no way of limiting myself to it.



I repeat, I have no idea what "the problem" is.

I'll table this till a more immediate application arises

I can only reflect the experience from this side. You are giving me a collection of "facts" I am supposed to agree to. When I point out that they have not been established as "facts," my integrity is impugned. I truly have no idea where you are going. Please...lay out your argument.

This has only taken so long because of your over-active concern (it seems to me) with how the facts are to be used. It did result in a clarification of the 90% example, so in that sense it has been useful.

So your entire argument is about how homosexuality came to be seen as immoral? I think I outlined that in my last post.

No. The discussion I'd like to have is to explore reasons why it may have been seen as immoral then coupled with which of those reasons might still apply. Your version of the argument was incomplete. There are other reasons that same-sex relationships would have been perceived as immoral in the Jewish culture c. 1000 BCE. One very important one would be the issue of cleanness and the observation of disease correlated with immoral forms of sexual activity as defined in the Bible. Generally, sexual immorality as defined in the Bible lands in one of three categories. Behavior that reduces the production of children, behavior that is predatory or abusive, and behavior that increases the incidence of debilitating disease.

First - these discussions are not a source of "worry" for me. They are merely discussions. Second, you want me to explain how I do not see equivalency between "As far as I could tell, the only viable "point" from your argument was 'an increase in homosexuality could depress the birth rate.' " and "because in a natural environment (one like the one the jewish law was created in)?"

And I think I just found the problem. I was comparing it to the italicized part of your statement, as you suggested in the following paragraph. If I add the following part of your statement, I get "because in a natural environment (one like the one the jewish law was created in) too high a same-sex population is detrimental to the sustaining of the population." So there is some similarity between the two statements (though having too many members of the same-sex in the population is not necessarily the issue, so I am assuming you meant same-sex couples).

There is (for me) an important distinction between the two: you have stated yours as an absolute (is detrimental) and mine is not (could depress the birthrate). If you have not picked this up from previous discussions, I don't lean towards such absolute statements unless they are VERY well supported. Outside of that, however, I see the parallelism.

Detrimental as regards the population is accurate and well supported in that time. It's a 'negative' word yes. But I'm not going to construct my argument around a choice of words that is PC as it relates to a preferred representation of same-sex relationships. Limiting or imploding the budding Jewish population is 'detrimental' to their goal of becoming a nation at that time. It would also be detrimental to their religious goal of being a Holy nation as a theocracy, given the definition of same-sex relations as immoral. But it is sufficient that we agree that in that time 'too many' same-sex relationships could reduce their population.

Fair enough - so I will limit myself to pointing out that you cannot know and have not shown that the claim is true. However, it is likely the people of that era would have seen it as true, or feared it to be true.



I don't "fret" over these discussions, Jim.



Jim, I have already outlined why the people of that era likely saw homosexuality as immoral. Those prohibitions were then captured in writing in various books of the Judaic (and then Christian) scriptures. They are explicit - so anyone who takes a literal approach to the bible is not likely to be able to dismiss them, especially since they are likewise reflected in some of the epistles of the NT. Those christian sects that have set them aside, AFAICT, have done so because they do not take a literal approach to the bible, and recognize it for what it is: a document written at a particular time reflecting the attitudes and morality of the period. They thus set aside the passages that reflect approval of things like genocide, slavery and (now) discrimination against homosexuals and they focus on the message of love and acceptance found in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. I suspect that split will always exist, between the hard-right hardliners and the more moderate and liberal branches of Christianity.

The beginnings of the next phase are found above. I'm sure your response to this post will provide a sufficient springboard into discussing what the issues may have been and what, if any, of them remain.

Jim

[carpedm9587]

I'll table this till a more immediate application arises

This has only taken so long because of your over-active concern (it seems to me) with how the facts are to be used. It did result in a clarification of the 90% example, so in that sense it has been useful.

I'm not going to debate this aspect further. Give me pieces, I will respond to pieces. Give me the argument, I will respond to the argument. 'Nuff said.

No. The discussion I'd like to have is to explore reasons why it may have been seen as immoral then coupled with which of those reasons might still apply. Your version of the argument was incomplete. There are other reasons that same-sex relationships would have been perceived as immoral in the Jewish culture c. 1000 BCE. One very important one would be the issue of cleanness and the observation of disease correlated with immoral forms of sexual activity as defined in the Bible. Generally, sexual immorality as defined in the Bible lands in one of three categories. Behavior that reduces the production of children, behavior that is predatory or abusive, and behavior that increases the incidence of debilitating disease.

I have to admit that I am familiar with bible proscriptions against the first two, but I cannot think of a single one against the latter (though I must admit it has been a long time). Can you provide some examples? And the entire spectrum of "ritual purity" appears to be missing.

Detrimental as regards the population is accurate and well supported in that time.

Fear that it would be is supported. That it actually would have been is more questionable, IMO. But it IS clear they believed it would be, or they would not have put the proscriptions in place.

It's a 'negative' word yes. But I'm not going to construct my argument around a choice of words that is PC as it relates to a preferred representation of same-sex relationships.

I have no idea what this refers to, or where you think I was suggesting you be "PC." You used the term "same-sex in the population" and I told you I was assuming you meant "same-sex couples in the population." These are distinct concepts. The first describes a population that is dominated by one gender, which is not necessarily a problem if the dominant gender is female. I assumed you miss-typed, and that was NOT what you meant, and was letting you know how I was interpreting your words to avoid confusion.

Limiting or imploding the budding Jewish population is 'detrimental' to their goal of becoming a nation at that time. It would also be detrimental to their religious goal of being a Holy nation as a theocracy, given the definition of same-sex relations as immoral. But it is sufficient that we agree that in that time 'too many' same-sex relationships could reduce their population.

Once again, the issue is not whether limiting the population growth would be detrimental; I have no problem stipulating to that for that culture and that time. The issue is whether a larger population of homosexual couples a) is possible, or b) would have done so. We have already noted that the population of homosexuals has been, and remains, a small percentage of the population. We have also noted that it does not preclude pregnancy of the homosexual females, even in that time. But it is certainly clear that anything perceived by those people as possibly affecting their fertility would be a threat to their population, hence the rules they established and documented in Leviticus and other texts.

So - I am in agreement that 1) a threat to population growth would have been detrimental, and 2) they perceived homosexuality (and other things) as a threat to population growth.

The beginnings of the next phase are found above. I'm sure your response to this post will provide a sufficient springboard into discussing what the issues may have been and what, if any, of them remain.

Jim

We shall see. I still have no idea what your position/argument is. I have to admit, I am beginning to lose interest more than a little. If you'd like to continue the discussion, I suggest getting on with it.

[Pluto]

If this is where you are bound, Pluto, I can save you some effort. I am perfectly aware it is not going away. The civil rights era is 50+ years old, but we still have racial bigots and white supremacists, and they are seeing a resurgence in the past decade (since Obama was elected, actually, and again with Trump's candidacy). I see no reason too believe sexual bigotry/prejudice will not follow the same path. There will always be those who cling to those views. My goal, frankly, is to ensure they are a minority.

You may have missed my earlier posts on this topic. I acknowledged that the biblical passages defending slavery are far less clear than the passages decrying homosexuality. As a consequence, it was easier for the various Christian churches to re-interpret those passages and get behind the civil rights movement. The passages against homosexuality are pretty "in your face," and are not going to be so easily dismissed. As a consequence, "bible literalists" may never see their way out of this mindset. Others with a less literal interpretation, or a willingness to see the bible as a set of literature written within a specific cultural context are more willing to let go of the ugly parts of the book as they embrace what they see as the core message of Jesus of Nazareth. This dynamic is, I think, what you are referring to.

This is correct in what I’m going for, and that I missed your comment about it. I apologize for that, sometimes I don’t read as thoroughly as I could. My only additional comment is that I think you underestimate this effect, but that would be difficult to probe.

It applies to ANY context in which people are being differentially treated based on their membership in an immutable group. Genetic assignment is clearly one of those.

No. Membership to a church is voluntary. Presumably a gay person joining a church that discriminates against gay people knows what they are getting into. It is between them and their church to work it out. The same applies for racial discrimination. I find the discrimination (in both cases) morally repulsive, but if it is happening within the context of a community, it is not my business. Likewise, I'm not going to tell a person what they can and cannot say in their home, or who they must permit entry.

That’s good to hear. I don’t think I have any more questions.

Why would they look any different? Churches don't usually wed people if neither person is part of the community, so the marriages are "internal" issues, IMO.

Perhaps I'm not understanding your question?

I think it would be best to say that I asked it inexpertly. A better one would be, what would change in the marriage ceremony? As you correctly note, it terms of set-up and typical form, there would be little to no change. And yet there is going to be a change: who they get ‘external’ materials and services from. On the surface this seems like nothing has really changed. One cake is like the other right? However, underneath there has been a change. Now, they can only get goods and services from folks who they know disagree with them, and furthermore, many of these services (photographers, wedding planners), will know their position on the topic since they are directly involved.

Now, as you said previously, sometimes you have to speak out, and so this likely presents no problem to you or your moral system. Nonetheless, there is a side effect. Consider the Jim Crow laws that split services between whites and blacks. I’ve seen some pictures, where the ‘white’ side is nicely up kept, and the ‘black’ side is rundown. This is basically a double whammy of immorality: not only is there an immoral divide, the upkeep of both sides is not in balance. Clearly, whoever was in charge of upkeep was discriminating even more than what the Jim Crow laws would(strictly) demand. It is this second factor which affects our current discussion.

If, as your suggestion requires, that a wedding of this type requires the services to be provided by those who disapprove of them, it is reasonable to expect that the quality of the services offered will diminish. Basically, one form of discrimination (an upfront refusal to offer certain services to homosexuals) has been replaced with another (a subtle decrease in quality of the services offered to those who hold that homosexuality is immoral on things unrelated to that belief).

This might still be worth it in your moral system. As you noted before, discrimination cannot be completely eliminated, so what choice you make will likely depend on how you weight various factors. It is for this reason that I called this a ‘worrisome consideration’, rather than an argument. I’d probably say that the most worrisome factor would be that since there is already some societal disapproval, that disapproval might grow to full on discrimination. And if those who hold this view are predominantly religious (Christian, Muslim, etc.), as would be expected given the dynamics of these religions, this discrimination might shift to the religions themselves.

I have to admit that I have no idea where you are going. However, I will continue to read and respond. Your posts are civil and you appear to have a case to make. I am curious to know what that case is.

What I’ve written above is my case. (And there was much rejoicing! You don’t have to wait for my slow posting and terrible cliffhangers anymore to know what I’m going for!) I don’t know if this will satisfy you, but I hope it is at least something you haven’t thought of.

[carpedm9587]

This is correct in what I’m going for, and that I missed your comment about it. I apologize for that, sometimes I don’t read as thoroughly as I could. My only additional comment is that I think you underestimate this effect, but that would be difficult to probe.

That’s good to hear. I don’t think I have any more questions.

I think it would be best to say that I asked it inexpertly. A better one would be, what would change in the marriage ceremony?

Nothing needs to change, AFAICT.

As you correctly note, it terms of set-up and typical form, there would be little to no change. And yet there is going to be a change: who they get ‘external’ materials and services from. On the surface this seems like nothing has really changed. One cake is like the other right? However, underneath there has been a change. Now, they can only get goods and services from folks who they know disagree with them, and furthermore, many of these services (photographers, wedding planners), will know their position on the topic since they are directly involved.

So you think Christians will only be able to get services from those who disagree with them? And that matters because...

Now, as you said previously, sometimes you have to speak out, and so this likely presents no problem to you or your moral system. Nonetheless, there is a side effect. Consider the Jim Crow laws that split services between whites and blacks. I’ve seen some pictures, where the ‘white’ side is nicely up kept, and the ‘black’ side is rundown. This is basically a double whammy of immorality: not only is there an immoral divide, the upkeep of both sides is not in balance. Clearly, whoever was in charge of upkeep was discriminating even more than what the Jim Crow laws would(strictly) demand. It is this second factor which affects our current discussion.

I'm losing you...

If, as your suggestion requires, that a wedding of this type requires the services to be provided by those who disapprove of them, it is reasonable to expect that the quality of the services offered will diminish. Basically, one form of discrimination (an upfront refusal to offer certain services to homosexuals) has been replaced with another (a subtle decrease in quality of the services offered to those who hold that homosexuality is immoral on things unrelated to that belief).

So you believe that I am going to be dismayed because those who discriminate against homosexuals are going to suffer a diminishment in service? Pluto, do you think that I would be dismayed to find that those who discriminated against black people might suffer some diminishment in service if businesses were required to serve all races equally?

This might still be worth it in your moral system. As you noted before, discrimination cannot be completely eliminated, so what choice you make will likely depend on how you weight various factors. It is for this reason that I called this a ‘worrisome consideration’, rather than an argument. I’d probably say that the most worrisome factor would be that since there is already some societal disapproval, that disapproval might grow to full on discrimination. And if those who hold this view are predominantly religious (Christian, Muslim, etc.), as would be expected given the dynamics of these religions, this discrimination might shift to the religions themselves.

So, if I understand your argument, there is a risk that religions might be discriminated against if people who reject discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation stand their ground? Are you seriously suggesting that we should tolerate discrimination against people on the basis of sexual or sexual-orientation grounds because otherwise the people who discriminate against them might be discriminated against?

I am floored by even the suggestion of such an argument. You might as well suggest that we should tolerate racial discrimination because otherwise the KKK or the Neo-Nazi movement might be discriminated against.

What I’ve written above is my case. (And there was much rejoicing! You don’t have to wait for my slow posting and terrible cliffhangers anymore to know what I’m going for!) I don’t know if this will satisfy you, but I hope it is at least something you haven’t thought of.

I have to admit I never even considered it. For a long time now, the far right has hung out the banner of "if you do not accept our discrimination, then you are discriminating against us." To this I have to say, "horse ....."

I do not care WHAT the justification for discrimination might be. Religion is not an excuse - and it is not a free pass. No one can hide behind the banner of "religion" and claim the right to persecute those they find offensive. And the Christian right can say "we love homosexuals - we just don't love homosexual acts" all they want, the rest of us hear, "we love black people - we just don't love what black people do." There is NO moral framework that is justifiably based on the genetics of the people involved. That is what anti-homosexuality is all about. Action A is moral if it is done by XX and XY, but it becomes immoral when it is done by XX and XX or XY and XY.

Morality is NOT based on genetics. It never has been. It never should be. Any attempt to make it so is unethically discriminatory, and no religion can justify it.

You have been civil throughout this discussion, Pluto, and for that I am grateful. Many others have not been able to maintain your level of civility. However, I utterly and unequivocally reject your argument. I do not reject YOU, however. I am impressed by your willingness to engage in the discussion and keep it about the subject at hand. I simply cannot even begin to accept the argument as you have presented it.

[carpedm9587]

So basically you are more interested in playing games than in clear debate. That is known as trolling. I will remember that about you. Maybe the "Mr. Nice Guy" is just an act?

I take your refusal to answer me as an admission that you know you were wrong and that your entire argument has been refuted. Since I insulted you, I expect you won't bother responding.

No, I'm going to respond. Insults are tedious, but they don't really change who or what I am. Only my behavior can do that. I've been thinking about this thread and realized this is ripe fodder for my "pascal's wager" analysis. You either do understand my post (which means you're just baiting), or you do not and are honestly curious. I can either assume the first is true or the second. If I assume the second is true and it's actually the first, all that will result is another round of insults and accusations of "dodging." I think I'll probably survive. If I assume the first is and it's actually the second, then I deny you an answer to a question about which you have a sincere interest. Thirty+ years of being an educator leaves me not liking that approach (not that you need me to "teach" you anything).

So...the parenthetical in my previous post provides the specific reason why pedophilia is immoral. It is not about the age (directly), it is about the developmental status of the individuals as a result of the age of the child. A child lacks the capacity (and power) to freely consent, making pedophilia a version of rape. Age is the cause of this difference in ability (i.e., the brain has not had sufficient time to develop the capacity). The same would be true, however, if the person had a severe cognitive disability. Anything that gives one person power over another and is used to force a sexual encounter creates a "rape" situation. The immorality lies in the compromise of a value most of us hold dear: liberty. There is very little that we value above our personal liberty - save perhaps our life itself.

That is not even close to being the same as basing a moral position on the genetically coded gender assignment of the people involved, which has been shown multiple times.

Sometimes, things going on in my personal life thin my skin a bit. As a result, I react to personal attacks when I would normally simply ignore them (tedious as they are). My refusal to engage was one of those times. Feel free to attack away...I'm past the personal issues and the skin is back to normal density.

[Sparko]

No, I'm going to respond. Insults are tedious, but they don't really change who or what I am. Only my behavior can do that. I've been thinking about this thread and realized this is ripe fodder for my "pascal's wager" analysis. You either do understand my post (which means you're just baiting), or you do not and are honestly curious. I can either assume the first is true or the second. If I assume the second is true and it's actually the first, all that will result is another round of insults and accusations of "dodging." I think I'll probably survive. If I assume the first is and it's actually the second, then I deny you an answer to a question about which you have a sincere interest. Thirty+ years of being an educator leaves me not liking that approach (not that you need me to "teach" you anything).

So...the parenthetical in my previous post provides the specific reason why pedophilia is immoral. It is not about the age (directly), it is about the developmental status of the individuals as a result of the age of the child. A child lacks the capacity (and power) to freely consent, making pedophilia a version of rape. Age is the cause of this difference in ability (i.e., the brain has not had sufficient time to develop the capacity). The same would be true, however, if the person had a severe cognitive disability. Anything that gives one person power over another and is used to force a sexual encounter creates a "rape" situation. The immorality lies in the compromise of a value most of us hold dear: liberty. There is very little that we value above our personal liberty - save perhaps our life itself.

That is not even close to being the same as basing a moral position on the genetically coded gender assignment of the people involved, which has been shown multiple times.

Sometimes, things going on in my personal life thin my skin a bit. As a result, I react to personal attacks when I would normally simply ignore them (tedious as they are). My refusal to engage was one of those times. Feel free to attack away...I'm past the personal issues and the skin is back to normal density.

So when you students ask you questions, do you refuse to answer them? Do you say, I answered that last week, look it up. And when they do and say that it wasn't what they asked, do you double down and repeat that they are reading it wrong and need to go back and re-read it again, rather than just answering them clearly? If you do, you are a horrible "educator"

Your debate tactics are dishonest. You make claims then refuse to commit to them and try to wiggle out when people call you out on what you said, even to the point of redefining words. You are a horrible debater. A horrible "educator"

Completely dishonest. Refuse to admit when you are wrong. Refuse to admit the smallest of point to your opponent (e.g. Oxmix's posts). Making every exchange with you a tedious nightmare. All while pretending to be civil and friendly. You are worse than Tassman. At least with him he doesn't pretend to be civil while blowing smoke, he is openly hostile and clear about what he believes and will clearly state his opinions. You don't. You are like a politician, always trying to say things without committing to them.

[carpedm9587]

So when you students ask you questions, do you refuse to answer them?

No.

Do you say, I answered that last week, look it up. And when they do and say that it wasn't what they asked, do you double down and repeat that they are reading it wrong and need to go back and re-read it again, rather than just answering them clearly?

No.

If you do, you are a horrible "educator"

If I did, I would be. I agree.

Your debate tactics are dishonest. You make claims then refuse to commit to them and try to wiggle out when people call you out on what you said, even to the point of redefining words. You are a horrible debater. A horrible "educator"

Completely dishonest. Refuse to admit when you are wrong. Refuse to admit the smallest of point to your opponent (e.g. Oxmix's posts). Making every exchange with you a tedious nightmare. All while pretending to be civil and friendly. You are worse than Tassman. At least with him he doesn't pretend to be civil while blowing smoke, he is openly hostile and clear about what he believes and will clearly state his opinions. You don't. You are like a politician, always trying to say things without committing to them.

You're opinion is duly noted. It seems I guessed incorrectly after all.

[Sparko]

No.



No.



If I did, I would be. I agree.



You're opinion is duly noted. It seems I guessed incorrectly after all.

At this point Carp, your "answer" is too little, too late. And it is basically just another attempt by you to weasel out of what you said previously. You said it was because of AGE that pedophilia was wrong. When I took that and turned it against you by pointing out that you were doing exactly the same thing as you accused us of doing with homosexuality, at first you refused to acknowledge it, then you pretended not to understand, then you refused to answer me and kept saying that you already did. NOW you are equivocating and trying to come up with additional reasons why pedophilia is wrong. But it still boils down to "age" - "capacity" "developmental status" etc, all that is a product of AGE. If the boy was older, then there would be no objection. AGE.

So no, I am not going to accept your answer and I still think you are dishonest and a horrible debater who refuses to just admit when he is wrong, or to even admit his opponent has a point. You dragged poor Oxmix on for pages and pages about a simple point that if Homosexuality was the norm that the population would greatly decline. Pages. All because you suspected that if you admitted that one point, Ox was going to somehow "trick" you. So you hemmed and hawed, picking apart the analogies and examples to the point of ridiculousness, wasting his time and your own, just to avoid saying "Yes, I agree, you are correct"

And if you think I am the only one who has come to this conclusion about your debate tactics, think again. Ask around but it is pretty much everyone here's opinion of you.

[oxmixmudd]

There is NO moral framework that is justifiably based on the genetics of the people involved. That is what anti-homosexuality is all about. Action A is moral if it is done by XX and XY, but it becomes immoral when it is done by XX and XX or XY and XY.

But that isn't a correct representation of what the issue is. It is in fact a distortion of the issue. The genetic differences between XX and XY serve a purpose. To allow a sexual union that produces more of the Species. Technically there is only one sexual act - and that is intercourse. The rest is just pleasure inducing activity that is pleasure inducing because it helps encourage an actual sexual act. But intercourse can only occur between a man and a women. Only a man and a women have the necessary equipment to make that happen. A man and a man, nor a woman and a woman are capable of having intercourse. They can pretend to, but they can't actually 'have sex' in the literal, biological sense. They can't, through a natural act involving only their bodies. exchange genetic information with the potential to create a child.

Your statement ignores this fundamental element of the situation. There is no real equivalence here.

Jim