Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[seer]

You can believe whatever you wish. I don't expect you to change. It's why this will eventually be settled by our legal system and cultural norms - and people who cling to the views you have will be isolated and seen negatively in a historical light.

You might want to shoot for re-education camps, that would speed up the process.

[seer]

You’re welcome to say what you like. But in a business you have to serve them, and as a citizen you have to defend their rights and work with them on civic matters.

Why do I have to serve them? Because the law of man says so? It certainly is not Constitutional.

[carpedm9587]

You might want to shoot for re-education camps, that would speed up the process.

In your case, I doubt it...

[Bill the Cat]

You can see my answer to that elsewhere, but it's not relevant to this discussion. The question is how we treat people who we think are wrong. If we can't find a way to do that, there's no way the US can continue. If it's not gays, it will be Muslims, or immigrants, or someone else.

We should want to treat them exactly how we would like to be treated when we know we are sinning.

[seer]

We should want to treat them exactly how we would like to be treated when we know we are sinning.

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

[seer]

We should want to treat them exactly how we would like to be treated when we know we are sinning.

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

[oxmixmudd]

Well - that change is underway. Even in the world of white, evangelical protestants, only 58% oppose gay marriage. The other 32% are either in support, or are undecided. So there are even evangelicals who are rejecting the anti-LGBTQ language. When you move outside of evangelicals to the broader Christian community, the majority already have accepted the LGBTQ community and same-sex marriage. That tends to be more true in developed countries than developing countries, where there is still not only religious opposition, but a great deal of cultural opposition.

Yes, it is changing. Whether or not that change is right is what the debate IS in this case. Your belief that you are right is YOUR belief. I am at a place of mixed feelings on the issue. And so far I can't get anyone to engage the topics that might actually shed light on whether or not there are any factual basis for either moral position. In fact, just bringing up the factors that might shed light on the conclusion so far results only in a firestorm of stereotyped responses and accusations. For you, it is impossible that it could be wrong. For the other side, it is impossible it could be right. And so discussion is not part of the equation.

There is an enormous amount of speculation here. It is a fact that AIDS entered the human species via the gay community. It is by no means a known fact that it could not have entered in any other way. Indeed, heterosexuals are as prone to AIDS as homosexuals. Had AIDS actually entered via heterosexual encounters, the damage might have been amazingly broader before the source of the problem was identified. The rest of your claims are also high speculative. I don't find that kind of speculation useful. And, as I have said before, "we've always done it that way" is not a very strong argument, IMO.

I can only guess why you didn't understand the point I was getting at, but given the volatile nature of the discussion, I'll chaulk it up to prejudice and emotion (prejudice in that you have a preconceived conception of the point I was trying to make and thus couldn't rationally parse the words themselves).

So here it is in its most simplistic terms. Sexually transmitted diseases like HIV for the most part are transmitted through sexual contact. If a society follows the Biblical sexual morality, sexual contact ONLY occurs between married hetero-sexuals. That means that the spread of any beyond the immediate partner of any sexually transmitted disease becomes virtually impossible. And thinking in terms of which came first, in a society that followed those norms, it would be hard to understand how even one member of the marriage first became infected. But of course there are other vectors (tainted blood supply, unsterilized needles). But then again, in a society following Christian moral norms, those vectors would also tend to be rare exceptions, not the norm, because people living according to Christs teachings aren't typically out doing drugs and sharing needles, and so the blood supply is much less likely to be contaminated, and so on and so forth. Further, people living according to Christian moral norms should not be getting divorces every other year and so the number of children living in single parent households goes way down. And so on, and so on. Most of these issues exist because people (whether that claim Christian faith or not) don't live their lives according to what Christ and the Bible teaches.

Ergo, Christian morality is in fact a very high road.

Conversely - acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle is almost always accompanied by an acceptance of 'openness' about sexuality and the eschewing of those 'rigid' Christian moral norms, with the ensuing problems of increased incidence of unwed mothers, sexually transmitted disease an so on. And so that is almost always a moral low road.

The only possible 'mixture' of the two would be some sort of morality tolerant of same-sex relationships wherein those relationships involve sexuality ONLY in a monogamous, lifelong relationship. The issues then would become could that even be a reasonable expectation (especially in male same-sex relationships) given the dynamics (statistically*) of the male sex drive.

*part of the difficulty here is the lack of capacity for people on your side of the fence to recognize the inherent biological differences in male and female, not only from a reproductive perspective, but in terms of sex-drive, partner selection criteria, tendency towards aggression and predatory practices vs nurturing, enduring relationships and so on. We are not all the same, and even if religious motivations are left out of it one MUST recognize that male and female of all species have evolved different roles, different motivations, even differing personality traits ostensibly to maximize the success of the species)

This may come as a surprise, but I do not hold anyone here "in contempt." Indeed, I have been very clear that I think this is a group of fundamentally good people, but that even good people can be wrong and do immoral things. I don't think anyone here intends harm. That does not change the fact that harm is being done. I don't think anyone here is looking to be or act immorally. That doesn't mean an immoral position is not being taken. It is very hard to say to someone, "you position is prejudicial and harmful - it really needs your attention," without making them angry. No one likes being told they are acting or speaking immorally. But the fact is I have contempt for no one here.

Likewise in reverse. But what I see, other than contempt for certain ideas, is an unwillingness to discuss any of the elements that could support a conclusion other than the one you already hold. If one is actually concerned about the truth in a matter, one must face the arguments for the opposing opinion. I'm trying to discuss all sides of the argument. but with you or others for same-sex marriage I won't abandon my focus on arguments against same-sex marriage and look at arguments for same-sex marriage until I see a willingness on your part to listen to and discuss the arguments against it.

That is of course, the point of dispute. I understand that you see my position as the immoral one. That is why we are in contention. I also understand I have little hope of changing any minds here. Morality obligates me to try. In the end, I suspect this will be fought out in the courts and in the cultural arena. These posts are my contribution to the latter. Even if no one in this exchange is moved to re-evaluate their position, perhaps some reader in the days or weeks or months to come will read and begin to reassess their position. Even one person shifting their stance on this is a plus.

Again, from my perspective, until you show me you have thought about the opposing point of view and actually understand it and have reasoned responses to it, then I really don't have a reason to hear what it is that you are saying as have any valid foundation. This is why I started where I did. I'm looking for what you have thought through on those points and why you don't find them persuasive. 'They are an old view' or 'I'm not religious' are not reasoned responses.

Of course, there is always the risk that someone will read and be convinced by your words or Seer's words instead. However, the vast majority of people who come here share your views, and those who share mine are not likely to shift them. Many people I know have gone from anti-LGBTQ rhetoric to support. I don't know anyone who has done the reverse. In my experience, it's harder to go from acceptance to rejection than rejection to acceptance. Hopefully that is true for the wider world as well.

It could be that the trend you see is due to the stronger argument being your own. It could also be that only arguments that are allowed to be heard are your own. The way to find out is to discuss BOTH sides and see which side has the stronger position.

I am not sure what you are saying here. The first sentence is not linguistically sound (AFAICT). The second seems self-evident. As a result, I don't know what to do with the last two sentences. Perhaps you could explain?

Michel

It was clumsily worded. The idea of a society supporting same sex relationships with some sort of marriage like construct is rare or perhaps even non-existent historically. Historically, the support or tolerance of homo-sexuality is part of a larger moral decay in those same societies. And the reality is that the rise of advocacy for the tolerance of homo-sexuality in our society is also concurrent with a general moral decay as regards sexuality and sexual practices.

So this is an experiment. We have no successful historical government taking this path to draw from as an example or for wisdom on how to negotiate this path. We have no idea whether or not it is even possible to successfully negotiate this path.

Jim

[Starlight]

If a society follows the Biblical sexual morality, sexual contact ONLY occurs between married hetero-sexuals. That means that the spread of any beyond the immediate partner of any sexually transmitted disease becomes virtually impossible.

It's worth noting that the qualification of heterosexuals here is unnecessary with regard to issue of the spread of STDs - if it occurred only between married homosexuals it would have the same effect of reducing STDs.

And thinking in terms of which came first, in a society that followed those norms, it would be hard to understand how even one member of the marriage first became infected.

The massive syphilis epidemic that infected over a million people in 'Christian' Europe in the 15th-16th century suggests that perhaps the teachings of Christianity aren't really all that successful at preventing STDs in practice. It makes me wonder whether having rules (Christian moral teachings) that don't get followed is actually useful or whether the breaking of small rules incentivizes the same people to break large ones.

Ergo, Christian morality is in fact a very high road.

In your analysis you don't seem to have paid any attention to the negative effects that Christian anti-homosexuality teachings have on gay people. That strikes me as a bit like doing a 'pros and cons of slavery for society' analysis without considering the negative effects on the slaves themselves.

The only possible 'mixture' of the two would be some sort of morality tolerant of same-sex relationships wherein those relationships involve sexuality ONLY in a monogamous, lifelong relationship.

Sure. That seems totally reasonable to me. I would expect this to be / become the standard Christian position.

The issues then would become could that even be a reasonable expectation (especially in male same-sex relationships) given the dynamics (statistically*) of the male sex drive.

*part of the difficulty here is the lack of capacity for people on your side of the fence to recognize the inherent biological differences in male and female, not only from a reproductive perspective, but in terms of sex-drive, partner selection criteria, tendency towards aggression and predatory practices vs nurturing, enduring relationships and so on. We are not all the same, and even if religious motivations are left out of it one MUST recognize that male and female of all species have evolved different roles, different motivations, even differing personality traits ostensibly to maximize the success of the species)

Um, I sort of agree with your basic evidence here - there are differences between males and females - but you are drawing some very strange conclusions from it. Obviously the differences between males and females can be a source of conflict in heterosexual relationships, and thus not surprisingly the evidence seems to suggest that same-sex relationships have a tendency to work better as a result (more aligned interests, sex drives, patterns of thought and discussion).

If your suggestion is "men cheat", then sure, that can happen, and insofar as you have a man in a heterosexual relationship it can happen and insofar as you have men in a homosexual relationship it can happen. Of course, by your theory the best relationships would then be two women in a homosexual relationship.

In general, I would say from looking at the data in different types of relationships (male-male, male-female, female-female): There are differences between males and females, and we thus see the things that are characteristic of each sex expressed in proportion to the number of people of that sex that there are in the relationship. There do not however appear to be any significant differences between gay and straight people, and the only significant difference in type of relationship is better relationship dynamics in same-sex relationships due to more shared attributes (in general, relationships (heterosexual included) where the two people have more in common tend to work better as are conflicts are resolved more efficiently due to greater empathy - better understanding of the other person's point of view).

with you or others for same-sex marriage I won't abandon my focus on arguments against same-sex marriage and look at arguments for same-sex marriage until I see a willingness on your part to listen to and discuss the arguments against it.

To an extent I would say I don't see the arguments against it mattering as I view it as a human rights issue. It's like saying "Are societies that have slavery more efficient economically?" The answer might be "yes" but it doesn't matter and isn't even worth discussing because those people have the basic human right of freedom, and thus we can't have slavery. In the same way gay people have the basic human right of freedom, so you or I trying to stop them marrying the love of their life or denying them their pursuit of happiness isn't on the cards. Asking whether society might be more optimal if they didn't marry becomes an irrelevant hypothetical that is no more useful to ask than the question about the economic efficiency of slavery.

The idea of a society supporting same sex relationships with some sort of marriage like construct is rare or perhaps even non-existent historically.

Eh? There seem to have been same sex marriages pretty much as long as there have been marriages. In a lot of societies it worked via a third gender construct where effectively one of the two would declare themselves transgender prior to marrying a person of the same sex. The historically-unusual prolonged absence of same-sex marriages within Western culture over the last millennium could arguably be tied to its unusual idea that there are only two genders as much as to its rejection of homosexuality itself.

Historically, the support or tolerance of homo-sexuality is part of a larger moral decay in those same societies.

Since almost all societies in history have, at the least, tolerated homosexuality, it seems a bit weird to be implying they were all suffering from large moral decay.

We have no successful historical government taking this path to draw from as an example or for wisdom on how to negotiate this path.

That seems an utterly bizarre claim. The Greeks and Romans are surely the two most "successful historical governments" in Western history, each with empires that lasted centuries. Both were pretty enthusiastic with regard to homosexuality. The fall of the Romans didn't come until centuries after the Roman Empire had become Christianized and cracked down on homosexuality.

[carpedm9587]

Yes, it is changing. Whether or not that change is right is what the debate IS in this case. Your belief that you are right is YOUR belief. I am at a place of mixed feelings on the issue. And so far I can't get anyone to engage the topics that might actually shed light on whether or not there are any factual basis for either moral position. In fact, just bringing up the factors that might shed light on the conclusion so far results only in a firestorm of stereotyped responses and accusations. For you, it is impossible that it could be wrong. For the other side, it is impossible it could be right. And so discussion is not part of the equation.

I am happy to discuss, but you are correct that the possibility that I am wrong does not cross my mind. If someone says to me, "is it possible that it is morally OK to see a black person as immoral because they are black and do culturally black things," I would say, "no, that is not possible." Likewise, it is not possible for me to see a homosexual as immoral because they are homosexual and engage in homosexual activities. Anyone can be immoral for any number of reasons, but it is not possible to be immoral because you love someone and are intimate with them, assuming we are talking about consenting adults.

I can only guess why you didn't understand the point I was getting at, but given the volatile nature of the discussion, I'll chaulk it up to prejudice and emotion (prejudice in that you have a preconceived conception of the point I was trying to make and thus couldn't rationally parse the words themselves).

So here it is in its most simplistic terms. Sexually transmitted diseases like HIV for the most part are transmitted through sexual contact. If a society follows the Biblical sexual morality, sexual contact ONLY occurs between married hetero-sexuals. That means that the spread of any beyond the immediate partner of any sexually transmitted disease becomes virtually impossible. And thinking in terms of which came first, in a society that followed those norms, it would be hard to understand how even one member of the marriage first became infected. But of course there are other vectors (tainted blood supply, unsterilized needles). But then again, in a society following Christian moral norms, those vectors would also tend to be rare exceptions, not the norm, because people living according to Christs teachings aren't typically out doing drugs and sharing needles, and so the blood supply is much less likely to be contaminated, and so on and so forth. Further, people living according to Christian moral norms should not be getting divorces every other year and so the number of children living in single parent households goes way down. And so on, and so on. Most of these issues exist because people (whether that claim Christian faith or not) don't live their lives according to what Christ and the Bible teaches.

Ergo, Christian morality is in fact a very high road.

Setting aside the "prejudice" comment, I have no problem with these observations, but they speak to advisability of sexual promiscuity, not the morality of it. And they say nothing about heterosexual or homosexual encounters. If everyone "kept it in their pants" until they were married, STD vectors would drop precipitously. But that would be true for both homosexual and heterosexual couples.

Conversely - acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle is almost always accompanied by an acceptance of 'openness' about sexuality and the eschewing of those 'rigid' Christian moral norms, with the ensuing problems of increased incidence of unwed mothers, sexually transmitted disease an so on. And so that is almost always a moral low road.

The only possible 'mixture' of the two would be some sort of morality tolerant of same-sex relationships wherein those relationships involve sexuality ONLY in a monogamous, lifelong relationship. The issues then would become could that even be a reasonable expectation (especially in male same-sex relationships) given the dynamics (statistically*) of the male sex drive.

*part of the difficulty here is the lack of capacity for people on your side of the fence to recognize the inherent biological differences in male and female, not only from a reproductive perspective, but in terms of sex-drive, partner selection criteria, tendency towards aggression and predatory practices vs nurturing, enduring relationships and so on. We are not all the same, and even if religious motivations are left out of it one MUST recognize that male and female of all species have evolved different roles, different motivations, even differing personality traits ostensibly to maximize the success of the species)

My first thought is, "what?" Who on earth said I didn't recognize the differences between male and female, in all of the ways you list? And why does any of that matter? It simply means that same-sex unions are qualitative different from opposite sex unions. Furthermore, same-sex unions between two women will be qualitatively different from same-sex unions with two men. And a marvelous argument can be made (and there is already data to support this) that a marriage between two people of the same gender is less fraught with the "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" issues.

I also suggest that there is no more or less sexual promiscuity in the homosexual community than there is in the heterosexual community. Promiscuity is an outgrowth of the "free-sex 60s and 70s (though I have to wonder if those years simply took sexual freedom out of the closet). And while both can lead to STDs if care is not taken, homosexual unions don't result in unwanted pregnancies. For anything we examine, there are positive things, and negative things. It makes no sense to focus on one to the exclusion of the other.

Likewise in reverse. But what I see, other than contempt for certain ideas, is an unwillingness to discuss any of the elements that could support a conclusion other than the one you already hold. If one is actually concerned about the truth in a matter, one must face the arguments for the opposing opinion. I'm trying to discuss all sides of the argument. but with you or others for same-sex marriage I won't abandon my focus on arguments against same-sex marriage and look at arguments for same-sex marriage until I see a willingness on your part to listen to and discuss the arguments against it.

Again, from my perspective, until you show me you have thought about the opposing point of view and actually understand it and have reasoned responses to it, then I really don't have a reason to hear what it is that you are saying as have any valid foundation. This is why I started where I did. I'm looking for what you have thought through on those points and why you don't find them persuasive. 'They are an old view' or 'I'm not religious' are not reasoned responses.

I understand your reaction, but I am unsure how to respond in any way that will not trigger you. When I hear this statement from you, I recognize it's truth. But I also recognize that for me to consider the proposition, "same sex marriage is immoral" is equivalent to me considering the proposition "interracial marriage is immoral." In order to even consider that proposition, I have to accept the proposition that morality can be based, at least in part, on the color of one's skin. That is a fundamentally prejudicial position. I cannot event begin to entertain it. Likewise, for me to consider the proposition "same-sex marriage is immoral" I have to consider the proposition that morality can be based, at least in part, on the sexual equipment one is born with. That too is a fundamentally prejudicial position. I cannot even begin to entertain it.

It could be that the trend you see is due to the stronger argument being your own. It could also be that only arguments that are allowed to be heard are your own. The way to find out is to discuss BOTH sides and see which side has the stronger position.

You are welcome to present your position, Jim. I will read it and I will respond. You have a tough road to travel. You are asking me to consider a position I consider to be inherently prejudicial. If you hope to make progress, you are going to need to first make the case that it is NOT inherently prejudicial. If you can make that case, then we can move forward. Until you make that case, anything you say will probably be rejected - I will not adopt a prejudicial or discriminatory or bigoted position into my moral framework.

It was clumsily worded. The idea of a society supporting same sex relationships with some sort of marriage like construct is rare or perhaps even non-existent historically. Historically, the support or tolerance of homo-sexuality is part of a larger moral decay in those same societies. And the reality is that the rise of advocacy for the tolerance of homo-sexuality in our society is also concurrent with a general moral decay as regards sexuality and sexual practices.

So this is an experiment. We have no successful historical government taking this path to draw from as an example or for wisdom on how to negotiate this path. We have no idea whether or not it is even possible to successfully negotiate this path.

Jim

While it is clear that same-sex marriages dominate, same sex unions have existed all the way back to the Ancient Near East. Egypt, Greece, Mesopotamia, and Rome. Many Native American tribes recognized same-sex marriages. The Aztec and Incas both had same-sex marriage traditions. Today 15 countries have same-sex marriages and more than that have some other form of same sex union (e.g., civil unions). This is not as "uncharted territory" as you suggest. It does not dominate history - but it is pervasive in history. Indeed, it was actually the Abrahamic religions, when they gained prominence, that cause same-sex unions to drop off in any part of the world where they colonized. Perhaps we are simply restoring something that many cultures previously thought "perfectly normal."

[oxmixmudd]

I am happy to discuss, but you are correct that the possibility that I am wrong does not cross my mind. If someone says to me, "is it possible that it is morally OK to see a black person as immoral because they are black and do culturally black things," I would say, "no, that is not possible." Likewise, it is not possible for me to see a homosexual as immoral because they are homosexual and engage in homosexual activities. Anyone can be immoral for any number of reasons, but it is not possible to be immoral because you love someone and are intimate with them, assuming we are talking about consenting adults.

I'm just going to bite off this bit right now. I do not assign a morality to having same-sex attraction. If a person loves a person of the opposite or same sex does not enter into the realm of morality until and unless it crosses into sexualized expression. I do not see a person with same-sex attraction as evil or necessarily immoral. The issue is strictly the morality of acting on those impulses. We all have sexual impulses we do not act on because they are wrong. If I happen to find a women attractive, I do not pursue her because I am married. My morality constrains my sexual impulse. As such, I don't think there is in fact any useful analogy at all which can be applied from the issue of racism. A black man IS a black man. No aspect of that is a choice. A person with same-sex attraction does not have to act on that attraction any more than I have to act on my strong attraction to a women. I chose to act or not to act based on the morality of the action. The same is true of a person with same-sex attraction. We all act on our sexual attractions based on our morality and our capacity for self-control. So the issue here is what is the morality of same-sex actions themselves - not the morality of being a person with same-sex attraction.

It is common for people from your point of view to refuse to actually admit there is a difference, but that there is a difference is obvious. For example, there are Christians with same-sex attractions that chose to be celibate because they can't justify to themselves that to act on their impulses would be morally correct. There are in fact former members of the gay community that became fed up with the promiscuous nature of and emptiness they found in the gay lifestyle and simply made a choice to live out their lives only acting out sexual impulses within the bounds of hetero-sexual marriage. I know personally two people in the second category and have known one of them for over 40 years. Both are very good friends so i know it's not just some sort of short term cover or made up hopeful story. How we express our sexual desires is quite simply a choice. And it is our morality which ultimately drives that choice.

SO I reject fully your attempt to equate a discussion over the morality of acting on same-sex attraction and the issue of racial discrimination. Because I can fully accept and be friends with a gay person even if I believe acting on those sames-sex attractions is wrong and in exactly the same way i can be a friends with and be fully accepting of a person living with his girlfriend even though I believe sex before marriage is wrong.

I don't 'discriminate' against either person or either case. It's just that simple. The issue is the morality of the action itself.

Jim

[Tassman]

Yes it is relevant. So to get along we must keep our mouths shut and accept all manner of depravity? Remember, this is our country too...

If the basis of your notion of "depravity" is based upon personal religious beliefs then the answer is yes, you have no right to impose your views on those who think differently. The US is not a theocracy; Christians do not get preferential treatment.

You might want to shoot for re-education camps, that would speed up the process.

You mean like Jesus Camps, that'd do it.

[carpedm9587]

I'm just going to bite off this bit right now. I do not assign a morality to having same-sex attraction. If a person loves a person of the opposite or same sex does not enter into the realm of morality until and unless it crosses into sexualized expression. I do not see a person with same-sex attraction as evil or necessarily immoral. The issue is strictly the morality of acting on those impulses. We all have sexual impulses we do not act on because they are wrong. If I happen to find a women attractive, I do not pursue her because I am married. My morality constrains my sexual impulse. As such, I don't think there is in fact any useful analogy at all which can be applied from the issue of racism. A black man IS a black man. No aspect of that is a choice. A person with same-sex attraction does not have to act on that attraction any more than I have to act on my strong attraction to a women. I chose to act or not to act based on the morality of the action. The same is true of a person with same-sex attraction. We all act on our sexual attractions based on our morality and our capacity for self-control. So the issue here is what is the morality of same-sex actions themselves - not the morality of being a person with same-sex attraction.

It is common for people from your point of view to refuse to actually admit there is a difference, but that there is a difference is obvious. For example, there are Christians with same-sex attractions that chose to be celibate because they can't justify to themselves that to act on their impulses would be morally correct. There are in fact former members of the gay community that became fed up with the promiscuous nature of and emptiness they found in the gay lifestyle and simply made a choice to live out their lives only acting out sexual impulses within the bounds of hetero-sexual marriage. I know personally two people in the second category and have known one of them for over 40 years. Both are very good friends so i know it's not just some sort of short term cover or made up hopeful story. How we express our sexual desires is quite simply a choice. And it is our morality which ultimately drives that choice.

SO I reject fully your attempt to equate a discussion over the morality of acting on same-sex attraction and the issue of racial discrimination. Because I can fully accept and be friends with a gay person even if I believe acting on those sames-sex attractions is wrong and in exactly the same way i can be a friends with and be fully accepting of a person living with his girlfriend even though I believe sex before marriage is wrong.

I don't 'discriminate' against either person or either case. It's just that simple. The issue is the morality of the action itself.

Jim

So I think the heart of our disagreement is this: you see homosexuality as a casual inclination, like preferring pizza to hamburgers. It only becomes immoral when one acts on it. I see homosexuality as a fundamental aspect of the human person, as intrinsic to the person as race, ethnicity, or hair color. When I look at myself, I cannot say my heterosexual tendency is merely a "casual inclination." It is fundamental to who I am. I am attracted to women - I am not attracted to men. I cannot choose to be attracted to men. Heterosexuality is "baked in," so to speak. If that is true of me, then who am I to say that homosexuality is different to the homosexual? And the science is supporting that - both physical and psychological. It also aligns with almost 50 years of experience and friendship with people of all sexual orientations: gay, straight, bi, trans, etc.

If I am right, which I believe I am, then there is no difference between racial prejudice and sexual orientation prejudice. If I am right, then there is no logic to telling a heterosexual that it is OK for them to marry and be sexually active, but then telling a same-sex couple it is NOT OK for them to marry and be sexually active. If I am right, love is love, and the specific sexual equipment of the two people in love is irrelevant - it has no moral content.

I told you, in my last post, that for us to make any headway, you are going to have to start by convincing me that a position that applies a different moral rule to heterosexuals than homosexuals is not a form of unjustified prejudice or discrimination. Your only path to doing that (that I can see) is to establish that homosexuality is not an intrinsic aspect of the person.

Would you agree?

Michel

ETA: It dawns on me there is a second path. If you accept that sexual orientation is "baked in," then somehow you are going to have to make a case that holding same-sex and opposite-sex couple to different moral standards is not an act of simple prejudice.

[oxmixmudd]

So I think the heart of our disagreement is this: you see homosexuality as a casual inclination, like preferring pizza to hamburgers. It only becomes immoral when one acts on it. I see homosexuality as a fundamental aspect of the human person, as intrinsic to the person as race, ethnicity, or hair color. When I look at myself, I cannot say my heterosexual tendency is merely a "casual inclination." It is fundamental to who I am. I am attracted to women - I am not attracted to men. I cannot choose to be attracted to men. Heterosexuality is "baked in," so to speak. If that is true of me, then who am I to say that homosexuality is different to the homosexual? And the science is supporting that - both physical and psychological. It also aligns with almost 50 years of experience and friendship with people of all sexual orientations: gay, straight, bi, trans, etc.

No, you still are not quite getting it. Though your ETA below is closer. Sexual orientation is not a 'casual' inclination. That is not my point. That is not my argument. My argument is twofold. The first element is that moral ACTIONS are choices. The second is that morality, what is moral or not moral, is applied evenly to all people regardless of their basic inclination to obey or to violate that morality.

To illustrate: Consider alcoholism and drunk driving. It is in fact true that some people inherit a propensity to addition to alcohol. Some people are less capable of resisting the effects of intoxication. And some people inherit a propensity to addition. Others have no such elements in their physical and mental makeup. But the law is that drunk driving is illegal. And the moral imperative is that we are to remain sober. The morality applies to all, regardless of the propensity to addition. And the law applies to all, regardless of their propensity to addition, physical capacity to resist intoxication, or their health status in terms of alcoholism. There is no 'discrimination' against alcoholics by imposing those laws, nor by announcing the moral imperative. But it would be valid to call it discrimination against people with a genetic propensity to addition if one extended your logic used in this discussion to addition to alcohol and laws against drunk driving.

In this case, there is a set of moral definitions associated with sexual behavior. These definitions are applied evenly to all people. Ones inclination to break the moral code or to adhere to it does not define what is moral or what is immoral. The definition of what is moral does not change, in this case, because of what sort of sexual acts on finds tempting. For example. The Roman Catholic Church defines masturbation as sinful. Some people are not tempted in that area. Others find it impossible to resist that temptation. The definition of whether that is immoral, the requirement to confess it to a priest, does not vary depending on the genetic or mental tendency to be tempted by that act or the individual's capacity for self-control.

I see no difference whatsoever between that and same-sex acts, which are defined as immoral by the traditional Christian faith. Some people find that prohibition more difficult to obey than others. But the moral directive applies to all people. And it is the act that is defined as sinful, independent of a person's tendency to be tempted by the sinful act.

If I am right, which I believe I am, then there is no difference between racial prejudice and sexual orientation prejudice. If I am right, then there is no logic to telling a heterosexual that it is OK for them to marry and be sexually active, but then telling a same-sex couple it is NOT OK for them to marry and be sexually active. If I am right, love is love, and the specific sexual equipment of the two people in love is irrelevant - it has no moral content.

I don't believe you are right. And the reason is because what is moral regarding sexuality is not defined in terms of an individual or their specific sexual inclinations, but in terms of a set of actions that are either moral or immoral. The only possible argument I can see here is that marriage sanctifies certain sexual acts. But it doesn't sanctify all sexual acts. For example, Sodomy is regarded as immoral. And as far as I know it is regarded as immoral whether it is in the context of marriage or not. So any two people commiting sodomy, in marriage or not in marriage are commiting sin. So marriage does not sanctify all sexual acts. So one might try to argue that marriage could sanctify same-sex sexual acts, but as we see, it already exists that marriage does not sanctify all sexual acts. In fact, the act I mention is one that is common for male same-sex relationships.

But the basic principle is this. The Christian moral code as regards sexuality applies to all people, regardless of what tempts an individual person. That moral code defines same-sex acts as immoral. The sexual activity we engage in is a choice. We are required to chose no sexual activity before marriage. And we are not given licence in marriage to engage in any sexual act - certain acts remain immoral even in that context. So again, the moral code applies to all people evenly. Two heterosexual men engaging in a same-sex interaction are just as immoral in that code as two men who have homosexual attraction. Likewise Sodomy. Likewise pre-marital sex. If a same-sex man and a same-sex women have intercourse outside marriage, it is just as sinful as if a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman engage in intercourse outside of marriage. Likewise as it applies to pedophilia. Doesn't matter if the abuser is hetero-sexual or homo-sexual, and it doesn't matter how strong the temptation is for the individual person, or even whether there is a 'built-in' genetic tendency to that behavior. The moral code applies to all. And what is a temptation to an individual - per the discussion above - does not define what is moral, or even what is legal.

I told you, in my last post, that for us to make any headway, you are going to have to start by convincing me that a position that applies a different moral rule to heterosexuals than homosexuals is not a form of unjustified prejudice or discrimination. Your only path to doing that (that I can see) is to establish that homosexuality is not an intrinsic aspect of the person.

Would you agree?

Your premise is incorrect. There is no different set of rules for different individuals. There is a common set of rules which applies to all individuals. The difference is in what is a temptation to a specific individual. And we do not make changes in a moral code to accommodate differences of the propensity of an individual to violate the moral code. Because a sinful act tempts me and not you does not make the act sinful for you but not for me. It is sinful for both of us. I am just more likely to struggle with avoiding that sinful act more than you are.

Michel

ETA: It dawns on me there is a second path. If you accept that sexual orientation is "baked in," then somehow you are going to have to make a case that holding same-sex and opposite-sex couple to different moral standards is not an act of simple prejudice.

See above.

If we can come to an agreement in the basic logic, the basic principles - we can move on to discussing whether or not the moral code should be as it is. In my mind, that is the only place for debate. There is no discrimination involved in principle.

I will add this, because unfortunately it is necessary. It is very true that immoral people have taken the Christian teachings on sexual morality as license to discriminate and commit much evil against homosexual people. Michael, we are in absolute agreement THAT is evil. I am not advocating that sort of thing in this discussion. And if anything that sort of historical hostility pressures me to seriously consider the viability of those teachings in this area, However, this is an academic discussion of philosophy and religious morals and as such I am completely divorcing it from any emotional considerations. But it must be noted that the Christian response to ALL peoples everywhere is to be loving and merciful. And nothing I have said or will say should be taken to imply any sort of hostile, vindictive, or otherwise immoral action should be applied to homosexual people. Westboro Baptist Church or similar is NOT an expression of a Christian response to these issues, even if we take the historical position that same-sex actions are immoral.

Jim

[carpedm9587]

No, you still are not quite getting it. Though your ETA below is closer. Sexual orientation is not a 'casual' inclination. That is not my point. That is not my argument. My argument is twofold. The first element is that moral ACTIONS are choices. The second is that morality, what is moral or not moral, is applied evenly to all people regardless of their basic inclination to obey or to violate that morality.

To illustrate: Consider alcoholism and drunk driving. It is in fact true that some people inherit a propensity to addition to alcohol. Some people are less capable of resisting the effects of intoxication. And some people inherit a propensity to addition. Others have no such elements in their physical and mental makeup. But the law is that drunk driving is illegal. And the moral imperative is that we are to remain sober. The morality applies to all, regardless of the propensity to addition. And the law applies to all, regardless of their propensity to addition, physical capacity to resist intoxication, or their health status in terms of alcoholism. There is no 'discrimination' against alcoholics by imposing those laws, nor by announcing the moral imperative. But it would be valid to call it discrimination against people with a genetic propensity to addition if one extended your logic used in this discussion to addition to alcohol and laws against drunk driving.

In this case, there is a set of moral definitions associated with sexual behavior. These definitions are applied evenly to all people. Ones inclination to break the moral code or to adhere to it does not define what is moral or what is immoral. The definition of what is moral does not change, in this case, because of what sort of sexual acts on finds tempting. For example. The Roman Catholic Church defines masturbation as sinful. Some people are not tempted in that area. Others find it impossible to resist that temptation. The definition of whether that is immoral, the requirement to confess it to a priest, does not vary depending on the genetic or mental tendency to be tempted by that act or the individual's capacity for self-control.

I see no difference whatsoever between that and same-sex acts, which are defined as immoral by the traditional Christian faith. Some people find that prohibition more difficult to obey than others. But the moral directive applies to all people. And it is the act that is defined as sinful, independent of a person's tendency to be tempted by the sinful act.







I don't believe you are right. And the reason is because what is moral regarding sexuality is not defined in terms of an individual or their specific sexual inclinations, but in terms of a set of actions that are either moral or immoral. The only possible argument I can see here is that marriage sanctifies certain sexual acts. But it doesn't sanctify all sexual acts. For example, Sodomy is regarded as immoral. And as far as I know it is regarded as immoral whether it is in the context of marriage or not. So any two people commiting sodomy, in marriage or not in marriage are commiting sin. So marriage does not sanctify all sexual acts. So one might try to argue that marriage could sanctify same-sex sexual acts, but as we see, it already exists that marriage does not sanctify all sexual acts. In fact, the act I mention is one that is common for male same-sex relationships.

But the basic principle is this. The Christian moral code as regards sexuality applies to all people, regardless of what tempts an individual person. That moral code defines same-sex acts as immoral. The sexual activity we engage in is a choice. We are required to chose no sexual activity before marriage. And we are not given licence in marriage to engage in any sexual act - certain acts remain immoral even in that context. So again, the moral code applies to all people evenly. Two heterosexual men engaging in a same-sex interaction are just as immoral in that code as two men who have homosexual attraction. Likewise Sodomy. Likewise pre-marital sex. If a same-sex man and a same-sex women have intercourse outside marriage, it is just as sinful as if a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman engage in intercourse outside of marriage. Likewise as it applies to pedophilia. Doesn't matter if the abuser is hetero-sexual or homo-sexual, and it doesn't matter how strong the temptation is for the individual person, or even whether there is a 'built-in' genetic tendency to that behavior. The moral code applies to all. And what is a temptation to an individual - per the discussion above - does not define what is moral, or even what is legal.




Your premise is incorrect. There is no different set of rules for different individuals. There is a common set of rules which applies to all individuals. The difference is in what is a temptation to a specific individual. And we do not make changes in a moral code to accommodate differences of the propensity of an individual to violate the moral code. Because a sinful act tempts me and not you does not make the act sinful for you but not for me. It is sinful for both of us. I am just more likely to struggle with avoiding that sinful act more than you are.




See above.

If we can come to an agreement in the basic logic, the basic principles - we can move on to discussing whether or not the moral code should be as it is. In my mind, that is the only place for debate. There is no discrimination involved in principle.

I will add this, because unfortunately it is necessary. It is very true that immoral people have taken the Christian teachings on sexual morality as license to discriminate and commit much evil against homosexual people. Michael, we are in absolute agreement THAT is evil. I am not advocating that sort of thing in this discussion. And if anything that sort of historical hostility pressures me to seriously consider the viability of those teachings in this area, However, this is an academic discussion of philosophy and religious morals and as such I am completely divorcing it from any emotional considerations. But it must be noted that the Christian response to ALL peoples everywhere is to be loving and merciful. And nothing I have said or will say should be taken to imply any sort of hostile, vindictive, or otherwise immoral action should be applied to homosexual people. Westboro Baptist Church or similar is NOT an expression of a Christian response to these issues, even if we take the historical position that same-sex actions are immoral.

Jim

Jim - I know you are trying to make a case that the same rules apply for all people, but your starting point just doesn't work, and we are miles apart in terms of sexual morals. For you, the rule, "no one may have sex with a same sex partner" is being equally applied to all people. But that is (excuse me for being blunt) a ridiculous notion. Only a homosexual or bisexual is going to have same-sex attractions, by definition. So the rule has no application to heterosexuals and only impacts bisexuals and homosexuals. The "difference" I am referring to is this: you can marry and physically love your partner, but only if you are heterosexual. If you are in love with a same sex partner - you cannot be physically intimate. That is what the position here boils down to.

Your attempt to position homosexuality as akin to alcoholism speaks volumes. Alcoholism is a disease. Homosexuality is not. Homosexuality is merely a different sexual orientation. And your rules about sodomy simply make no sense to me. What two people do with one another in their intimate moments is between them and morality is simply not an issue. Morality, with respect to sex, comes to play when one person objectifies another. Other than that, I see no reason to place boundaries on how two people sexually pleasure one another.

[Cow Poke]

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.