Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[Psychic Missile]

That's just dumb, PM. You want to impose YOUR morals (or lack thereof) on a RELIGIOUS institution who believes that homosexuality is, indeed, immoral.

It has nothing to do with religion. There could be a secular adoption agency that doesn't want to adopt to gay couples and it wouldn't matter. I want to impose the apparently radical idea that adoption agencies should exist in service of the children they seek to adopt out.

Wow... are you TRYING to be silly? There is no moral basis for wearing - or not wearing - 'hats'.

There is just as much a basis for being morally opposed to hat wearing as there is to be morally opposed to homosexuality. That is, there isn't one.

It's not an 'arbitrary rule' - it's a deeply held religious conviction, and you're completely free to start your own adoption agency and adopt children out to circus clowns.

This isn't a deeply-held religious conviction, it's a personal conviction with a religious justification. This sin is considered especially heinous despite occupying no special place in the Bible. Christian theology teaches that everyone is a sinner, so what would be the point to single out the sin of homosexuality as opposed to hoarding wealth or committing adultery or even blaspheming the Holy Spirit? Also, by saying this decision is based solely on the ideology of the agency proprietor, you are admitting that this policy places the needs of the agency above the needs of the children, which, as I've been arguing, justifies the prohibition of the policy.

[Tassman]

Why is consent necessary? If a culture allows wife rape for instance, why is that morally wrong?

Rape of wives has been permitted in our culture until relatively recently and was often justified from scripture. It still is in places like the Sudan as we've recently seen.

What is morally wrong is what society says is morally wrong based upon social values...whether biblical or secular. The question of right and wrong arises due to the fact that we live among other human beings. And if we are to do so successfully, there are certain basic principles that must apply, including respect for other individuals and informed consent re sexual activities.

[Tassman]

What are you talking about Carp, I was not making a case based on genetics, nowhere did I do that. You were the one making the genetic equivalency argument. I have been making the case that homosexual BEHAVIOR is immoral NO matter the genetic predisposition. And I have made that argument based on my Biblical worldview - that there is a teleology for human sexuality, a design for human sexuality, and that homsexual behavior, like rape, or adultery, or sex with animals, or prostitution, or promiscuity violate the created order for human sexuality. You have been making the case that because both gay sex and straight sex are genetically predisposed that therefore gay sex should be morally acceptable. That does not follow, any more than it would be acceptable for any other genetically predisposed behaviors like promiscuity or rape.

You are entitled to your biblical worldview. You're NOT entitled to apply it to others who think differently.

[seer]

Rape of wives has been permitted in our culture until relatively recently and was often justified from scripture. It still is in places like the Sudan as we've recently seen.

Well I don't see justification for wife rape in Scripture.

What is morally wrong is what society says is morally wrong based upon social values...whether biblical or secular. The question of right and wrong arises due to the fact that we live among other human beings. And if we are to do so successfully, there are certain basic principles that must apply, including respect for other individuals and informed consent re sexual activities.

Nonsense, consent is not necessary for a culture to survive. Like we discussed in the past most societies in history lived under some form of totalitarian rule.

[seer]

You are entitled to your biblical worldview. You're NOT entitled to apply it to others who think differently.

Of course I am. In a Republic, everyone has a right to effect the system according to their moral beliefs, if one can get a consensus.

[seer]

No. The reality is that you have locked yourself into one teleology. I have not.

Of course I have, I'm a Christian. And if we followed the New Testament model for human sexuality we would have a lot less problems in this world. Remember I grew up in the sexual revolution, and fully embraced that mindset and have since found it wanting.

And I was repeatedly clear about the context of my discussion. I'm sorry you missed it - but you did.

Well actually looking back you changed it. You were hitting that "state of being" pretty hard, I was doing six things at once so I may have missed the shift. But it makes no difference.

And are willing to ignore genetic coding for the first - but not for the second - so you are being inconsistent.

I'm not sure what being male or female has to do with whether an sexual act is moral or not. And I am perfectly consistent according to my worldview, perhaps not in yours. Homosexual behavior is immoral whether you are black or white, male or female, straight or gay.

You can simply follow the logic and see where it leads you. Or you can give way to your emotional response, remain "disgusted" and act accordingly.

But I would have to accept your premises for your logic to follow. I don't, since I believe certain sexual acts can, in themselves, be immoral. You also agreed that certain sexual acts can be immoral - the only difference is where we draw the line.

I would suggest that a moral position based in "disgust" is not a moral position. It's just emotion.

But that is not where I ground my moral position, even if I find the behavior personally aberrant. No, it is grounded in a worldview that goes back two thousand years, based in the principle that human sexuality has a design and purpose.

[rogue06]

You are entitled to your biblical worldview. You're NOT entitled to apply it to others who think differently.

And yet you self-righteously think that you are not only entitled to your leftist, atheist worldview and are not only entitled to apply it to others who think differently, but it is your duty to do so.

[carpedm9587]

Of course I have, I'm a Christian. And if we followed the New Testament model for human sexuality we would have a lot less problems in this world. Remember I grew up in the sexual revolution, and fully embraced that mindset and have since found it wanting.

Well actually looking back you changed it. You were hitting that "state of being" pretty hard, I was doing six things at once so I may have missed the shift. But it makes no difference.

Seer - male/female is a "state of being." And the discussion about male/female, with explicit reminders that we were NOT talking about "orientation" happened throughout. Yes...you missed it.

I'm not sure what being male or female has to do with whether an sexual act is moral or not.

Are you kidding? You're entire position is that the sex act is immoral in ALL situations when the two people involved have the same sex. How can you then reasonably say that you're not sure what being male or female has to do with whether a sexual act is moral? You're not making any sense, my friend.

And I am perfectly consistent according to my worldview, perhaps not in yours. Homosexual behavior is immoral whether you are black or white, male or female, straight or gay.

So your sexual moral framework is based on a genetic reality: XX + XY can be moral; XX + XX and XY + XY can NEVER be moral.
This is no different than WHITE + WHITE and BLACK + BLACK can be moral; BLACK + WHITE can never be moral.

If the latter is racial bigotry/prejudice; then the former is sexual bigotry/prejudice. The logic is inescapable.

But I would have to accept your premises for your logic to follow. I don't, since I believe certain sexual acts can, in themselves, be immoral. You also agreed that certain sexual acts can be immoral - the only difference is where we draw the line.

I draw the line at basing the morality of an act on the genome of the people involved in it. Doing that is never moral, because it equates morality with a state of being. I can never be immoral simply because I am white, male, have brown eyes, or because I carry a gene for trait "Z." If an act is moral for one person, the same act in the same context cannot be immoral for me because of the genes I carry. Ergo - if it is moral for a man and a woman to be married and be sexually intimate, it cannot be immoral for a man and a man or a woman and a woman to do so. The only difference between those situations is genes.

But that is not where I ground my moral position, even if I find the behavior personally aberrant. No, it is grounded in a worldview that goes back two thousand years, based in the principle that human sexuality has a design and purpose.

It is grounded in the teachings of a culture that was itself homophobic, and you are using that grounding to justify your own prejudice/bigotry. You don't get a pass because the worldview you espouse is "old."

[seer]

Are you kidding? You're entire position is that the sex act is immoral in ALL situations when the two people involved have the same sex. How can you then reasonably say that you're not sure what being male or female has to do with whether a sexual act is moral? You're not making any sense, my friend.

Of course, like I said you can not have a homosexual act with out two people (more more) being involved. So yes gender plays a roll. But being male or female is not a moral consideration. It is only when one ACTS that it becomes open to such moral considerations.

So your sexual moral framework is based on a genetic reality: XX + XY can be moral; XX + XX and XY + XY can NEVER be moral.
This is no different than WHITE + WHITE and BLACK + BLACK can be moral; BLACK + WHITE can never be moral.

If the latter is racial bigotry/prejudice; then the former is sexual bigotry/prejudice. The logic is inescapable.

Yes, but I do not buy into the premises that a black and white straight sexual encounter (which can be moral) is equal to a gay sexual relationship (which can not be moral). One has to accept their equality before your logic works. You claim there is no difference, but that is your opinion, I see a great moral difference.

I draw the line at basing the morality of an act on the genome of the people involved in it. Doing that is never moral, because it equates morality with a state of being. I can never be immoral simply because I am white, male, have brown eyes, or because I carry a gene for trait "Z." If an act is moral for one person, the same act in the same context cannot be immoral for me because of the genes I carry. Ergo - if it is moral for a man and a woman to be married and be sexually intimate, it cannot be immoral for a man and a man or a woman and a woman to do so. The only difference between those situations is genes.

But that is no more than your opinion. A homosexual act is immoral whether a straight guy does it or a gay does it, so it is not moral for one and not another.

It is grounded in the teachings of a culture that was itself homophobic, and you are using that grounding to justify your own prejudice/bigotry. You don't get a pass because the worldview you espouse is "old."

Of course I get a pass, especially in your worldview where there are no objective moral truths and it's all relative.

[carpedm9587]

Of course, like I said you can not have a homosexual act with out two people (more more) being involved. So yes gender plays a roll. But being male or female is not a moral consideration. It is only when one ACTS that it becomes open to such moral considerations.

Seer - when ALL sexual acts between two people are declared immoral, regardless of context, on the basis of their sexual identity - it's not about the act - it's about the sexual identity. ALL sexual acts, in your worldview, are immoral if the two participants share the same sexual genome. That's about the sexual genome - not the act. That you cannot see that is frankly amazing. It's speaks to the degree to which you will live in denial to preserve your perspective.

Yes, but I do not buy into the premises that a black and white straight sexual encounter (which can be moral) is equal to a gay sexual relationship (which can not be moral). One has to accept their equality before your logic works. You claim there is no difference, but that is your opinion, I see a great moral difference.

Of course you cannot buy into the premise. You're in flat out denial. That both are genetic traits is undeniable. That an action is being declared immoral on the basis of the genetic traits of its participants is undeniable. But I trust you to find a way to deny it - because your moral stance on this will brook no exploration. So you'll look at 4 + 4 and declare it 10 if it means you get to keep your moral stance.

But that is no more than your opinion. A homosexual act is immoral whether a straight guy does it or a gay does it, so it is not moral for one and not another.

Since I have said nothing about gay/straight - this is irrelevant. As for this being my opinion, if you can open the door to declaring acts immoral on the basis of the genome of the participants, then you have just justified anyone who says, "you are X, so it's immoral for you to do Y." You are black, so it's immoral to sleep with a white woman. You are a woman, so it is immoral for you to have a job - or vote - or any of the various things we have set behind us in this country. After all - if genes can determine morality...then who is to say what is and is not moral?

No, my friend, that is a Pandora's box I will not open. Bigotry is bigotry. Prejudice is prejudice. And yours is very clearly showing.

Of course I get a pass, especially in your worldview where there are no objective moral truths and it's all relative.

No - you do not get a pass. Your stance is an immoral one for the reasons I have cited. It has no place in the public marketplace, or the halls of our government, and I will join with those who think like me to ensure that it never returns to those places. If you want to practice this form of sexual bigotry and prejudice, you will need to do so in your home, the confines of your church, the halls of your own mind, and (of course) on social networking sites like these. But we will take a stand against businesses that try to make this part of their business practice, and those who attempt to enshrine these views in our laws. This is the civil rights issue of our age - and you are on the wrong side of the issue, just like the white supremacists have been on the wrong side of the racial issue.

And I think that's pretty much all that can be said here. Going around yet again would not appear to have any value. Last word to you.

[seer]

Seer - when ALL sexual acts between two people are declared immoral, regardless of context, on the basis of their sexual identity - it's not about the act - it's about the sexual identity. ALL sexual acts, in your worldview, are immoral if the two participants share the same sexual genome. That's about the sexual genome - not the act. That you cannot see that is frankly amazing. It's speaks to the degree to which you will live in denial to preserve your perspective.

No, because if for instance a gay man does not act on this inclination then no moral act (good or bad) has taken place. So yes gender is a necessary requirement but the act itself is where the moral condemnation comes in and only then.

Of course you cannot buy into the premise. You're in flat out denial. That both are genetic traits is undeniable. That an action is being declared immoral on the basis of the genetic traits of its participants is undeniable. But I trust you to find a way to deny it - because your moral stance on this will brook no exploration. So you'll look at 4 + 4 and declare it 10 if it means you get to keep your moral stance.

That is pure nonsense Carp. You are equating moral considerations with mathematics. It is your opinion that same sex relationships are equal straight relationships. Your logic ONLY works if one buys into that opinion.

Since I have said nothing about gay/straight - this is irrelevant. As for this being my opinion, if you can open the door to declaring acts immoral on the basis of the genome of the participants, then you have just justified anyone who say, "you are X, so it's immoral for you to do Y." You are black, so it's immoral to sleep with a white woman. You are a woman, so it is immoral for you to have a job - or vote - or any of the various things we have set behind us. After all - if genes can determine morality...then who is to say what is and is not moral?

Of course we all make these distinctions. And again, my position is not only on gender, but what one does with that gender. And no this does not open the door for anything that you are suggesting according to my worldview, it may for yours. If I follow your logic it would not be immoral for a man to bed a sheep. After all the immorality of the act is based on genome of the participants.

No, my friend, that is not a Pandora's box I will open. Bigotry is bigotry. Prejudice is prejudice. And yours is very clearly showing.

Oh please, homosexuality had been frowned on for centuries and no pandora's box has been opened.

No - you do not get a pass. Your stance is an immoral one for the reasons I have cited. It has no place in the public marketplace, or the halls of our government, and I will join with those who think like me to ensure that it never returns to those places. If you want to practice this form of sexual bigotry and prejudice, you will need to do so in your home, the confines of your church, the halls of your own mind, and (of course) on social networking sites like these. But we will take a stand against businesses that try to make this part of their business practice, and those who attempt to enshrine these views in our laws.

Correct so we are back to might makes right. Talk about a pandora's box, I hope you are happy with your Cultural Marxism - be careful that it doesn't bite you in the butt...

[carpedm9587]

Jim/Pluto, my "last word" was about the discussion with Seer. I see no point in carrying that forward. I will still be looking for your posts and responding.

[Sparko]

Is that what happened to my dog?

my dog just ate his own poop.

[seer]

my dog just ate his own poop.

Now that is gross! Did you try feeding him once and awhile? My dog love roasted cat, in orange sauce...

[Sparko]

How you cannot see that you deny it on one hand and reaffirm it in your next breath is beyond me. If it wasn't just a tad funny, it would probably be annoying...

It only seems that way because you have a vested interest in not actually reading what we are writing, or comprehending it. So you seem to just skim over it, seeing what you want to see in order to pick out the parts you want to claim prove you right or us wrong. You are not here to understand our view but to refute it at all costs, even if you have to turn a blind eye on what we are saying.

I make the point that in Christianity, marriage is only between a man and a woman. That is how God set it up. Not a Man and anything else. Not just not another man, but not trees, not cars, not animals, etc. So a gay marriage is not actually a marriage in our eyes, according to our beliefs. Yes, we have to acknowledge such unions legally since we live here, but morally, they are not valid marriages. Therefore any marriage that is not valid means that the participants in any sexual acts are the equivalent of two singles having sex under Christianity, which is immoral. So a man having sex with another man in a gay marriage is the same as an unmarried man and an unmarried woman having sex. It has nothing to do with their sex but with how God created marriage and his rules for it. It would be just as wrong for a man to have sex with his car, even if he were "married" to it.