Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[seer]

arguing with carp is like trying to nail down smoke.

He's not so bad, especially after living in Shuny's world...

[oxmixmudd]

Hi carpe. We seem to have reached the point where making progress seems less and less possible. I'm going to give one more response and it we are still at an impasse we can call it good for now.

It has not been a bad discussion - which on this issue says a lot. So thank you.

I disagree with so much here, but I am working to try to read without pre-judgment. But your last statement here is simply not accurate. A thing can be prejudicial if it places disproportionate burdens on people, or grants disproportionate privilege, based in their membership in a class. That is what you are attempting to do. Based on sexual orientation alone, a person may or may not be intimate with the person they love. Heterosexual married people are permitted to and it is "moral." Homosexual people are not permitted to and it is "immoral" if they do. But the only difference between the two is their sexual orientation. Therein lies the discriminatory nature of the position.

To the bolded section. The same statement is true of pedophilia. A pedophile can't be intimate with the one they love. Neither can a School teacher and a student. When a morality is breached, the person that wants to do the immoral act will be constrained and limited. That is how it is, and how it will always be, and how it should be. So while the issue can be painted in terms of who gets denied some activity, that is secondary when a moral issue is in play. The pedophile can't be allowed to proceed. Neither can the school teacher. Neither can the congressman for that matter. So IF same-sex actions are immoral, then that is just the way it is. It is not a matter of discrimination in that case.

Now you don't believe same-sex actions are immoral. And if they are not immoral, then you can say calling them immoral constitutes discrimination and discrimination then becomes the primary issue.
It all then boils down to if same-sex actions are moral.

When you deny a group of people the ability to marry, then the only access they have to sexual intimacy will necessarily be outside of marriage. To then turn around and label them "promiscuous" is not, IMO, a just thing.

If we determine a behavior is immoral, then yes, the only access to that behavior with be outside moral boundaries. It a church determines that same-sex actions are immoral, then it can't marry same-sex couples because one of the functions of marriage is to sanction and sanctify intimate sexual expression. So it all boils down to the morality of same-sex sexual expression.

You seem to want to try to explain why same-sex intimacy is implicitly immoral, so why don't you attempt to do that. I'd be interested in seeing where you are going.

The Bible defines same-sex intimacy as immoral in several places. For the Christian this defines the problem. As far as I know there are 2 responses to that in the Christian community that respect the fundamental doctrines of Christian love and mercy. The first is to say it is immoral and call for celibacy for people of same-sex attraction. This is the most difficult for the person dealing with same-sex attraction. But it is not impossible. No Christian can engage in sex outside marriage and follow Christian morality. As such, any person who never marries can't in good conscience engage in overt sexual activity. (I admit it would be more stark for same sex as no physical expression of intimacy would be acceptable - e.g. kissing). The second approach is to go down the road of ascribing the scriptural moral prohibitions against same-sex intimacy as cultural artifacts. And that is a very difficult path, because who is to say the prohibitions against pre-marital sex or adultery etc etc are not also simply 'cultural' artifacts. But I know and have respect for some who have taken that road.

As for why homosexual acts might be immoral. Biblically there are not many reasons given in scripture. It is unnatural (Romans 1:2), it is against God's ultimate plan (male and female he created He them ... and the two shall become one ... be fruitful therefore and multiply) what is said other than than it is sin.

Extra-Biblically, some have suggested that at least in the male population the aggressiveness of the male sex drive and tendency to promiscuity simply renders that life style oppressively destructive in the long run. I don't know of an extra-Biblical physical reason female same-sex relationships would be a problem. On the promiscuity issue, I have no idea if allowing gay marriage would help that. Would a population that rejects the Christian moral concepts have any inclination to actually respect what marriage is - a lifelong monogamous commitment? I don't know but I'm doubtful. Maybe I'm wrong.

In general sexual immorality and promiscuity is destructive to a society. We have seen a boatload of the consequences in unwed mothers and broken families and their increased probability of poverty, abortion to the tune of millions, massive spread of sexually transmitted disease to name a few. But as a society we'd rather have our fun and than look out for each other's long term welfare. We'd rather have our 'freedom' than be constrained by what is best for ourselves and others (which ultimately through poverty and disease becomes a prison). But that is how it is. We can choose better, and hopefully some will do just that.

Could we build a moral society that eschewed promiscuity, honored the marriage commitments and held to lifelong faithful marriages in both hetero-sexual and same-sex relationships? I don't know. Perhaps. If one could, it may well be better than the society we have with all of its issues in this arena. But I'm doubtful we are headed anywhere near that sort of destination in all this.

Jim

[carpedm9587]

Again Carp, why is it wrong to discriminate based on behavior?

It is not wrong to discriminate based on behavior. I have not said that or thought it. It IS wrong to apply a different set of behavioral rules to different groups based on nothing other than their membership in a class.

And to short circuit the inevitable response, I am fairly sure the response will be similar to Jim's: "we're not discriminating by group, EVERYONE is prohibited from engaging in same-sex intimacy."

But that response is disingenuous as a function of how the rule is being worded. Heterosexuals have no desire to engage in same-sex intimacy, so the rule practically applies to only one group. If we strip away that disingenuous language, we realize that the rule is about "sexual intimacy between partners."

So you are advocating for a moral guideline that says, "marriage and sexual intimacy is permitted if the partners have differing sexual equipment, but prohibited if the sexual equipment matches."

Compare that to a moral guidelines that says, "marriage and sexual intimacy is permitted if the partners have the same skin color, but prohibited if the skin color differs."

These are equivalent statements. We know today that marriage between people of different races is not "immoral" and it is no longer illegal. The same is true of marriage between same sex partner.

[seer]

There is a difference between noting that a thing cannot be made immoral simply on the basis of a human attribute, and saying it is moral because it is a human attribute. Those two statements are not equivalent.

But no one was calling an attribute immoral, but behavior. I still don't understand why you were bring up orientation in the first place. It tells us absolutely nothing, like I said awhile back.

Seer, we have been around this horn many, many, many, times. At this point, what on earth would induce me to go around yet again? If you can ask this question after all of the times I have spelled this out, then I have no basis for thinking you're going to understand it this time around. I would suggest you go back to our previous discussions, search on "value" and read all of the places I have already answered this.

However, I have to admit that our previous exchanges leave me thinking that your question is just bait/trolling. If I am wrong about that, and your question is genuine, then tell me and I promise to respond.

Of course it is a genuine question. Listen you can not make the argument based on an inherent characteristic, so you jump to the majority. The majority just happens to agree with you, presently, and that that is some kind of ethical leap forward, progress. But there is no moral progress in your world - merely moral change.

[carpedm9587]

Hi carpe. We seem to have reached the point where making progress seems less and less possible. I'm going to give one more response and it we are still at an impasse we can call it good for now.

It has not been a bad discussion - which on this issue says a lot. So thank you.

It's unfortunate that you feel that way, Jim, but I respect your choice, whichever way you go.

To the bolded section. The same statement is true of pedophilia. A pedophile can't be intimate with the one they love. Neither can a School teacher and a student. When a morality is breached, the person that wants to do the immoral act will be constrained and limited. That is how it is, and how it will always be, and how it should be. So while the issue can be painted in terms of who gets denied some activity, that is secondary when a moral issue is in play. The pedophile can't be allowed to proceed. Neither can the school teacher. Neither can the congressman for that matter. So IF same-sex actions are immoral, then that is just the way it is. It is not a matter of discrimination in that case.

No - and see my response to Sparko. The issue here is not sex - it's power.

Now you don't believe same-sex actions are immoral. And if they are not immoral, then you can say calling them immoral constitutes discrimination and discrimination then becomes the primary issue.
It all then boils down to if same-sex actions are moral.

Sort of. I actually don' think ANY sexual behavior is intrinsically moral or immoral. Sex is sex. It has as much moral content as "eating" or "taking something from a shelf." It's an action. Actions are not moral or immoral without a context. It is the context that gives them their moral content. So "eating a good steak" is not (to me) an immoral act. "Eating the arm of a living child" is. In both cases, I am "eating." Likewise, "taking a can from my pantry shelf" is not an immoral act. "taking a can from the store shelf and not paying" is an immoral act.

The same is true for sex. Sex is intrinsically neutral. But when one person overpowers another for sexual gratification, we have a moral problem (rape, pedophilia, etc.). But when two adults capable of consenting do indeed consent - no problem. Indeed, same-sex unions have an attribute that opposite-sex unions don't: there is no risk of procreation with all of the responsibilities that entails.

If we determine a behavior is immoral, then yes, the only access to that behavior with be outside moral boundaries. It a church determines that same-sex actions are immoral, then it can't marry same-sex couples because one of the functions of marriage is to sanction and sanctify intimate sexual expression. So it all boils down to the morality of same-sex sexual expression.

The Bible defines same-sex intimacy as immoral in several places. For the Christian this defines the problem. As far as I know there are 2 responses to that in the Christian community that respect the fundamental doctrines of Christian love and mercy. The first is to say it is immoral and call for celibacy for people of same-sex attraction. This is the most difficult for the person dealing with same-sex attraction. But it is not impossible. No Christian can engage in sex outside marriage and follow Christian morality. As such, any person who never marries can't in good conscience engage in overt sexual activity. (I admit it would be more stark for same sex as no physical expression of intimacy would be acceptable - e.g. kissing). The second approach is to go down the road of ascribing the scriptural moral prohibitions against same-sex intimacy as cultural artifacts. And that is a very difficult path, because who is to say the prohibitions against pre-marital sex or adultery etc etc are not also simply 'cultural' artifacts. But I know and have respect for some who have taken that road.

As for why homosexual acts might be immoral. Biblically there are not many reasons given in scripture. It is unnatural (Romans 1:2), it is against God's ultimate plan (male and female he created He them ... and the two shall become one ... be fruitful therefore and multiply) what is said other than than it is sin.

Extra-Biblically, some have suggested that at least in the male population the aggressiveness of the male sex drive and tendency to promiscuity simply renders that life style oppressively destructive in the long run. I don't know of an extra-Biblical physical reason female same-sex relationships would be a problem. On the promiscuity issue, I have no idea if allowing gay marriage would help that. Would a population that rejects the Christian moral concepts have any inclination to actually respect what marriage is - a lifelong monogamous commitment? I don't know but I'm doubtful. Maybe I'm wrong.

In general sexual immorality and promiscuity is destructive to a society. We have seen a boatload of the consequences in unwed mothers and broken families and their increased probability of poverty, abortion to the tune of millions, massive spread of sexually transmitted disease to name a few. But as a society we'd rather have our fun and than look out for each other's long term welfare. We'd rather have our 'freedom' than be constrained by what is best for ourselves and others (which ultimately through poverty and disease becomes a prison). But that is how it is. We can choose better, and hopefully some will do just that.

Could we build a moral society that eschewed promiscuity, honored the marriage commitments and held to lifelong faithful marriages in both hetero-sexual and same-sex relationships? I don't know. Perhaps. If one could, it may well be better than the society we have with all of its issues in this arena. But I'm doubtful we are headed anywhere near that sort of destination in all this.

Jim

I think you are perhaps suffering from a "reporting error" fallacy. Permit me to explain. Over the past few decades, there has been a significant apparent increase in earthquake activity. Many religious people have seen that as a "sign of the end times" because increased earthquakes are predicted by some passages in Revelation. When one peaks under the covers a bit, what is actually happening is that we have more and better sensors scattered across the planet - so the total number of earthquakes is actually not believed to have increased - what has increased is or ability to detect and report them.

I suspect the same is true of promiscuity and STDs. Sexual promiscuity has been a reality in human society for a long time. Indeed, it was prevalent enough 200 years ago that the early apostles felt a need to mention it in their teachings. At least two roman emperors were in same sex relationships. We have erotica that dates back millennia. But throughout that time, promiscuity and extra marital relationships tended to be taboo, so they were largely kept under the radar. The 1950s and 1960s (at least in the U.S.) changed that dynamic. But I have to wonder if what changed was the frequency, or just the willingness of people to be up-front about it. Much of it lost the social stigma it previously had.

I cannot say I have data to suggest that there is no actual increase in sexual promiscuity. But I have some serious questions about whether it has actually increased, or simply has come out of the closet (so to speak).

[hedrick]

I suspect that Hedrick is another Christian who have given into the spirit of the age. And that spirit is not from God...

This is called ad hominem. When you don't want to respond to the substance, attack the poster. It's normally considered a sign of defeat.

In fact I grew up in and spent much of my life in a culture that was anti-gay, though not rabidly so. My change in views has been for Christian reasons. I think we should avoid placing unnecessary burdens on people. (Luke 11:46) There are plenty of real burdens to bear. As I've spent time in Christian forums, I am increasingly struck by the number of people for whom Christianity isn't good news and isn't about following Jesus. It's seeing just where conservative Christianity leads that's making me increasingly liberal.

[Starlight]

Only a homosexual or bisexual is going to have same-sex attractions, by definition.

I have to wonder about that part. Why couldn't somebody have an 'attraction' to somebody of the same sex, but, not acting on it, they're neither bisexual nor homosexual? I think that's the point you keep missing - just having an attraction doesn't make you an actor.

CP, the terms heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual have come to have a standard use of referring to people's attractions.

The terms do no refer to behavior. A homosexual person (person with same-sex attractions), could be celibate, could be married to someone of the opposite sex, could be married to someone of the same sex, could be single and promiscuous etc. In standard usage of the terms, a person does not 'become' homosexual the first time they have same-sex sex anymore than they 'become' heterosexual by having sex with someone of the opposite sex.

I've seen a lot of Christians get confused on the issue because the world uses the labels to refer to attractions, but Christians usually want to talk about behavior when they are talking about morality, so they have a tendency to misunderstand and misapply the labels to refer to behavior rather than attractions which just confuses everyone.

[seer]

This is called ad hominem. When you don't want to respond to the substance, attack the poster. It's normally considered a sign of defeat.

In fact I grew up in and spent much of my life in a culture that was anti-gay, though not rabidly so. My change in views has been for Christian reasons. I think we should avoid placing unnecessary burdens on people. (Luke 11:46) There are plenty of real burdens to bear. As I've spent time in Christian forums, I am increasingly struck by the number of people for whom Christianity isn't good news and isn't about following Jesus. It's seeing just where conservative Christianity leads that's making me increasingly liberal.

Except homosexuality is a sin that leads to death. It is particularly troublesome, one of only about 22 behaviors in the Old Testament that incurred the death penalty. And if repenting from this sin isn't a necessary burden then no sin qualifies. If you really had love for gays you would be calling them to repent and receive Christ... Perhaps though you are more concerned about how the world views you...

[Starlight]

Except homosexuality is a sin that leads to death.

Don't all sins lead to death in standard Christian theology, all being infinite offenses due to God's infinite righteousness?

It is particularly troublesome, one of only about 22 behaviors in the Old Testament that incurred the death penalty.

Along with cursing one's parents or being particularly disobedient to them, adultery, or giving a prophesy from God which doesn't end up coming true.

Are those also The Worst?

[Charles]

Except homosexuality is a sin that leads to death. It is particularly troublesome, one of only about 22 behaviors in the Old Testament that incurred the death penalty. And if repenting from this sin isn't a necessary burden then no sin qualifies. If you really had love for gays you would be calling them to repent and receive Christ... Perhaps though you are more concerned about how the world views you...

So when answering someone who pointed out you made an ad hominem you end your post with.......... An ad hominem.

[Tassman]

Except homosexuality is a sin that leads to death. It is particularly troublesome, one of only about 22 behaviors in the Old Testament that incurred the death penalty. And if repenting from this sin isn't a necessary burden then no sin qualifies. If you really had love for gays you would be calling them to repent and receive Christ... Perhaps though you are more concerned about how the world views you...

Oh yes. So true. Lots of things lead to death in the OT.

E.g.: Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole. The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell. (Matthew 5:27)

Poor Donald! If you really had love for Trump "you would be calling him to repent and receive Christ". But, we all know that you are being selective according to your own homophobic personal prejudices.

[Cow Poke]

Poor Donald! If you really had love for Trump "you would be calling him to repent and receive Christ". But, we all know that you are being selective according to your own homophobic personal prejudices.

I have been praying for the Donald. Just as I prayed for Obama.

[Roy]

the cake in this case was a rainbow cake with two grooms on it. It is not about the "text" it is about using his talents to decorate a cake celebrating gay marriage. Which this obviously was.

The cake in other cases obviously was not. Every time you focus on your preferred case and ignore other cases where your argument does not apply, you are effectively running away from the issue.

[oxmixmudd]

Sort of. I actually don' think ANY sexual behavior is intrinsically moral or immoral. Sex is sex. It has as much moral content as "eating" or "taking something from a shelf." It's an action. Actions are not moral or immoral without a context. It is the context that gives them their moral content. So "eating a good steak" is not (to me) an immoral act. "Eating the arm of a living child" is. In both cases, I am "eating." Likewise, "taking a can from my pantry shelf" is not an immoral act. "taking a can from the store shelf and not paying" is an immoral act.

The same is true for sex. Sex is intrinsically neutral. But when one person overpowers another for sexual gratification, we have a moral problem (rape, pedophilia, etc.). But when two adults capable of consenting do indeed consent - no problem. Indeed, same-sex unions have an attribute that opposite-sex unions don't: there is no risk of procreation with all of the responsibilities that entails.

We would disagree.

I think you are perhaps suffering from a "reporting error" fallacy. Permit me to explain. Over the past few decades, there has been a significant apparent increase in earthquake activity. Many religious people have seen that as a "sign of the end times" because increased earthquakes are predicted by some passages in Revelation. When one peaks under the covers a bit, what is actually happening is that we have more and better sensors scattered across the planet - so the total number of earthquakes is actually not believed to have increased - what has increased is or ability to detect and report them.

I suspect the same is true of promiscuity and STDs. Sexual promiscuity has been a reality in human society for a long time. Indeed, it was prevalent enough 200 years ago that the early apostles felt a need to mention it in their teachings. At least two roman emperors were in same sex relationships. We have erotica that dates back millennia. But throughout that time, promiscuity and extra marital relationships tended to be taboo, so they were largely kept under the radar. The 1950s and 1960s (at least in the U.S.) changed that dynamic. But I have to wonder if what changed was the frequency, or just the willingness of people to be up-front about it. Much of it lost the social stigma it previously had.

I cannot say I have data to suggest that there is no actual increase in sexual promiscuity. But I have some serious questions about whether it has actually increased, or simply has come out of the closet (so to speak).

Source: https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/

Since 1970, out-of-wedlock birth rates have soared. In 1965, 24 percent of black infants and 3.1 percent of white infants were born to single mothers. By 1990 the rates had risen to 64 percent for black infants, 18 percent for whites. Every year about one million more children are born into fatherless families. If we have learned any policy lesson well over the past 25 years, it is that for children living in single-parent homes, the odds of living in poverty are great. The policy implications of the increase in out-of-wedlock births are staggering.

© Copyright Original Source

Some of your comments above border on the insulting. Do you suppose I am some ignorant boob unaware of the historical realities of sexuality? Greece and Rome both are well known in terms of their sexual excesses. The French bourgeoisie are famous for their sexual immorality. Our society has its own pockets over the years of sexual excess. But the norms of our country derive from its religious roots and there has been a massive change in the society as a whole over the last 50 to 60 years, beginning with the sexual revolution in the '60s. Do you suppose it was called 'sexual revolution' because everybody lived like they do now? I lived the entire period carpe. Your comments and arrogant wishful thinking. We are, as a society, FAR more more involved in sexual excess today than we were then. And we are suffering the consequences in the number of our children raised in poverty, the number of people infected with STD's, and the general degradation of our morals as a society.

It is not all bad. We also left behind separate but equal. Women have a much better chance of accomplishing their goals and having choices in their lives and having a voice in our society. But we are talking the arena of sexual morality. And that element of our society has basically become a toilet where no perversion is taboo and no subject too offensive to be the topic in a popular TV show or movie. It is in this context that the issue of same-sex marriage has found a voice. And it is not at all clear to me whether this is because we are in the toilet in terms of sexual morality, or if it might fall out on the side of general improvements in tolerance and trends against discrimination.


Jim

[Sparko]

No. I said it was immoral (and it is illegal) because one of the partners lacks the developmental capacity for consent. It is a matter of one individual overpowering the other. It has nothing to do with age per se. The reason they lack the ability is because of their developmental status, which is age related, but the same problem would exist for an adult of diminished cognitive capacity, or an adult that can consent but does not and is overpowered. All of them are forms of rape.

Adults overpower children's decisions all the time. But regardless, that is why it is illegal NOW. It may not be illegal in the future. At one time homosexuality was illegal for one reason or another. And as you keep telling us, morality is relative, so you thinking it is immoral because of age doesn't make it objectively immoral for everyone. If you are arguing that pedophilia is immoral for everyone in order to argue that homosexuality should NOT be immoral for everyone, then you have pretty much just cut the legs out from under your position of relative morality. At best you can only argue that it is moral or immoral for yourself.

But when it comes to legality, that is universal. Pedophilia is illegal right now so you have a case where a sexual orientation is illegal and we can discriminate against it with impunity. 50 years ago the same was true with homosexuality. 10 years ago it was true of gay marriage.

No. It has always been discriminatory, but we are only now becoming conscious of it as a society. In much the same way, slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc. were always discriminatory, but it took time for society at large to accept it as such, and we are STILL struggling with denial that racism continues to be a problem.

Your initial argument was that it is wrong to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Well pedophilia is a sexual orientation. Maybe in 50 years society will decide that children older than 10 can make informed consent and pedophilia will no longer be illegal. Would you then say that pedophilia is moral and we can't discriminate against pedophiles?

I am pretty sure you won't answer that because you know where I am leading so I look forward to your dodge.