Homophobic Trump...

[carpedm9587]

Carp, I'm speaking of behaviors so your distinction does not make sense.

I'm not seeing a problem.

Adultery is immoral for all, homosexual behavior is immoral for all, completely uniformed.

First, adultery is not immoral for all. Adultery is defined as "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse." When a couple agrees to have an open marriage, then there is no moral problem in my moral framework. The heart of immorality in adultery is not the sex; it's the deceit. If there is no deceit, then no problem.

Your moral framework is different because you attempt to align to your interpretation of what the authors of the Christian bible thought was and was not moral, which you think is what god wants. So for you adultery is immoral for everyone - and you are not limiting it to any particular class or group that is not not a voluntary one. So you saying "adultery is always immoral" is not an act of hate, from your perspective, because it doesn't single out a particular group to have a different moral code than everyone else.

You are making an illogical leap based on your bias.

You'll have to point out where specifically the logic breaks down. I'm not seeing a problem.

Right you cheer, that is all I need to know. You are totalitarian at heart, willing to cheer the squelching of speech by law because it happens to support your arbitrary, relative moral notions.

If that is your opinion, so be it.

If I were to be required to really take a stand - no ambivalence - I have to choose - then I would choose on the side of permitting speech. Letting people speak whom you agree with is easy. Hearing what you do not agree with is harder. Letting the hateful bigot spew their poison is the hardest. So while, in the end, I would defend the right of the bigot to speak - I would inwardly cheer if/when they got their comeuppance.

[Sparko]

as far a adultery being about all people and homosexuality being about a "group" that is just a distinction of semantics. We think homosexual sex is immoral for all people. Just like we think adultery is immoral for all people. You can say all people who engage in homosexual acts are part of the group "homosexuals" but then you can also say all people who engage in adultery are part of the group "adulterers" - there is no difference. As far as attraction goes, we don't think that same sex attraction is a sin. Just same-sex sex. Which can be done by anyone, even straight people and still be immoral.

And we don't even hate people who do engage in same-sex acts. We want them to realize they are sinners, just like we are and seek God's salvation.

[carpedm9587]

OK using pedophilia might not have been a good example to use. because most people DO hate pedophiles.

I don't know what kind of morality you practice - but morality is not rooted in what I do or do not hate.

But not because what they are doing is merely immoral but because it is harming children.

That is what makes it immoral.

But it does illustrate that just because someone thinks something is immoral it doesn't equate to "hate" -- the hate would be a separate issue, such as "abusing children". A person can think of something people do is immoral and not hate them for it. Like adultery, or robbing banks, or marrying their sibling, or homosexuality.

Hate is defined as "feel intense or passionate dislike for." It can b aimed at a person or an act or even a thing. As you note, hate is not equal to immoral. But most of us do hate immoral acts.

That was the point I was trying to make, but with a poor example. If we feel having sex with someone of the same sex is immoral, it doesn't automatically equate to hate. There are many things I consider immoral but don't hate the people who do it.

Sparko - there is a difference between you "hating someone" and engaging in a behavior that is rooted in hate. Prejudice is rooted in hate (and fear). Bigotry is rooted in hate (and fear). I recognize that you and others who think like you are not actively going out and "hating" individuals with your position. But the position is, IMO rooted in prejudice and bigotry. It is rooted in disgust for the unfamiliar. And the position is ultimately rooted in a general form of hate. It isolates a group and says, "I hate what you are doing - what it is doing to our society - how it affects me - and how it offends (supposedly) my god." I know you all love the "love the sinner, hate the sin" mantra - but in my experience, few of you are actually capable of it. It doesn't take reading too many of the posts on this topic on this forum to see that. I would not call what is said about (and sometimes to) homosexuals by the anti-homosexuality contingent to be generally "loving," or even "liking."

For me, no one has ever made an argument that demonstrates that the position against homosexuals and homosexual intimacy is anything other than a selectively applied moral position. And, as we have discussed before, it is ultimately rooted in a person's genome. There is no other moral activity I can think of that depends on one's genetic makeup to determine the morality of the act. If you think otherwise, we can try a little experiment. It goes like this:

Perry and Jules are going to bed to be sexually intimate. Please determine if this act is moral or immoral. You can ask me ANY question about Perry and Jules to determine the morality of the act, except any question whose answer depends on their genetic make up.

If you cannot, by asking me questions about Perry and Jules, determine if their sexual act is moral or immoral without knowing their genetic makeup, then your moral position is based on genetics, not the action. It means that everything else is the same: the act, the context, etc. The ONLY thing that will be different is the genetics of the two people involved. It means that Person A and and Person B can do the same act in the same context as Person C and Person D, but it will be moral for one and immoral for another on no basis other than their genetics.

I'm guessing that no one is going to try.

[seer]

I'm not seeing a problem.



First, adultery is not immoral for all. Adultery is defined as "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse." When a couple agrees to have an open marriage, then there is no moral problem in my moral framework. The heart of immorality in adultery is not the sex; it's the deceit. If there is no deceit, then no problem.

Your moral framework is different because you attempt to align to your interpretation of what the authors of the Christian bible thought was and was not moral, which you think is what god wants. So for you adultery is immoral for everyone - and you are not limiting it to any particular class or group that is not not a voluntary one. So you saying "adultery is always immoral" is not an act of hate, from your perspective, because it doesn't single out a particular group to have a different moral code than everyone else.

Again Carp, I'm not singling out a specific group. Adultery like homosexual behavior is wrong for any one who practice them. And if you don't think that straight men for instance can't or won't have gay sex you have not read Kinsey's work on male prisoners. And it is just as wrong for bisexuals to engage in such acts. So no one group is singled out, the only reason why you call my position hate is because of your irrational bias.

You'll have to point out where specifically the logic breaks down. I'm not seeing a problem.

Just did above since no one group is singled out. The behavior, like pedophilia, is immoral no matter who does it.

If I were to be required to really take a stand - no ambivalence - I have to choose - then I would choose on the side of permitting speech. Letting people speak whom you agree with is easy. Hearing what you do not agree with is harder. Letting the hateful bigot spew their poison is the hardest. So while, in the end, I would defend the right of the bigot to speak - I would inwardly cheer if/when they got their comeuppance.

And their comeuppance was a legal fine in England, and perhaps you wouldn't mind seeing a good old fashion beating. Sorry Carp, people like you are just to much on the line to be trusted with our most sacred freedoms.

[seer]

For me, no one has ever made an argument that demonstrates that the position against homosexuals and homosexual intimacy is anything other than a selectively applied moral position. And, as we have discussed before, it is ultimately rooted in a person's genome. There is no other moral activity I can think of that depends on one's genetic makeup to determine the morality of the act. If you think otherwise, we can try a little experiment. It goes like this:

Perry and Jules are going to bed to be sexually intimate. Please determine if this act is moral or immoral. You can ask me ANY question about Perry and Jules to determine the morality of the act, except any question whose answer depends on their genetic make up.

If you cannot, by asking me questions about Perry and Jules, determine if their sexual act is moral or immoral without knowing their genetic makeup, then your moral position is based on genetics, not the action. It means that everything else is the same: the act, the context, etc. The ONLY thing that will be different is the genetics of the two people involved. It means that Person A and and Person B can do the same act in the same context as Person C and Person D, but it will be moral for one and immoral for another on no basis other than their genetics.

I'm guessing that no one is going to try.

Carp, I don't understand this line of reasoning. What does a person's genome have to do with it? For instance it is becoming more and more clear that infidelity and pedophilia too are ultimately rooted in a person's genome. Does that now make adultery and child molesting morally acceptable? I'm not sure what your point is.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/o...our-genes.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4393782/

[carpedm9587]

Easier to answer both of these in one post and stop the "dual thread."

Again Carp, I'm not singling out a specific group. Adultery like homosexual behavior is wrong for any one who practice them. And if you don't think that straight men for instance can't or won't have gay sex you have not read Kinsey's work on male prisoners. And it is just as wrong for bisexuals to engage in such acts. So no one group is singled out, the only reason why you call my position hate is because of your irrational bias.

Seer, I've heard that canard before, and it simply does not hold up. Yes, the occasional heterosexual may engage in homosexual sex, but the moral position primarily isolates one group: homosexuals. And you cannot escape the fact that the moral position is taken on the basis of genetics, which is not (to me) a way of taking a moral position.

Just did above since no one group is singled out. The behavior, like pedophilia, is immoral no matter who does it.

See my response above. You're not isolating the behavior - you're isolating the genotype of the person engaging in it. If you think otherwise, take my challenge.

And their comeuppance was a legal fine in England, and perhaps you wouldn't mind seeing a good old fashion beating. Sorry Carp, people like you are just to much on the line to be trusted with our most sacred freedoms.

Your opinion is duly noted. Unfortunately, as long as retain my citizenship, you'll have to deal with my voice!

Carp, I don't understand this line of reasoning.

Of that much I am quite aware.

What does a person's genome have to do with it?

Take up the challenge - and I'm sure you'll find out. You'll run right into a wall of your own making.

For instance it is becoming more and more clear that infidelity and pedophilia too are ultimately rooted in a person's genome. Does that now make adultery and child molesting morally acceptable? I'm not sure what your point is.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/o...our-genes.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4393782/

When you can show me the "pedophilia" gene or the "gay gene," Seer, we can have this conversation. Meanwhile, some statistical models of genetic associations does not translate to a behavior being "controlled by genetics." On the other hand, I can show you exactly which gene codes for "male" or "female" and how they are passed on. Since your entire moral framework (with respect to this situation) is based on the values of these genes, you are basin your morality on genetics. If you think otherwise, take the challenge.

Somehow, I don't think you will. I suspect you already know how it will turn out.

[Sparko]

All I see here Carp is you trying to claim your morality is the only morality that should matter to anyone and you will call what anyone else does that doesn't agree with your morality "bigotry" and "hatred"

I disagree with your morality. So does Seer. I guess we are at a standstill since you believe morals are subjective.

[seer]

Seer, I've heard that canard before, and it simply does not hold up. Yes, the occasional heterosexual may engage in homosexual sex, but the moral position primarily isolates one group: homosexuals. And you cannot escape the fact that the moral position is taken on the basis of genetics, which is not (to me) a way of taking a moral position.

But it doesn't logically follow Carp, since it is possible for other groups to partake of the same behavior, including straight men and bisexuals. Which makes the behavior wrong across the board.

See my response above. You're not isolating the behavior - you're isolating the genotype of the person engaging in it. If you think otherwise, take my challenge.

But I'm doing no such thing.

When you can show me the "pedophilia" gene or the "gay gene," Seer, we can have this conversation. Meanwhile, some statistical models of genetic associations does not translate to a behavior being "controlled by genetics." On the other hand, I can show you exactly which gene codes for "male" or "female" and how they are passed on. Since your entire moral framework (with respect to this situation) is based on the values of these genes, you are basin your morality on genetics. If you think otherwise, take the challenge.

Somehow, I don't think you will. I suspect you already know how it will turn out.

Then I have no idea what you are talking about, really. And I am not saying I'm basing anything, certainly not moral behaviors, on genetics. I just do not get your reference to the genome. Why you are even bringing it up? What is the connection? What genotype am I isolation?

[carpedm9587]

All I see here Carp is you trying to claim your morality is the only morality that should matter to anyone and you will call what anyone else does that doesn't agree with your morality "bigotry" and "hatred"

Of COURSE I think my morality is the best. If I didn't, it would be different and I would think THAT was the best. You are doing the same thing. So now setting that sidetrack aside...

I disagree with your morality. So does Seer. I guess we are at a standstill since you believe morals are subjective.

I notice you did not take up the challenge. Is it perhaps because you are defending a moral principle in which an act is moral if the people involved have one set of genes, and moral if they have another? I know of no other moral principle that is had on that basis - and all previous claims to basing a morality on genetics have been dropped for the obvious bigotry and prejudice that they are.

History will not look kindly on your argument, Sparko. Someday, people will look back at your argument in the same terms we look back today on those arguing that black should not marry white, and all of the other genetically-based moral codes humanity has held over it's existence.

[carpedm9587]

But it doesn't logically follow Carp, since it is possible for other groups to partake of the same behavior, including straight men and bisexuals. Which makes the behavior wrong across the board.

It doesn't change the fact that you are prohibiting one group from being intimate with someone they love, while not prohibiting the other.

But I'm doing no such thing.

If you are not - then you won't mind taking up the challenge. I'll repeat it for you:

Perry and Jules are in bed being sexually intimate. Determine the morality of their act. You can ask me any question you wish about Perry and Jules to determine the morality of their act, except any question whose answer depends on their genetic makeup (and I'll add any question that takes the form "would X find it moral." Who else finds it moral is not germane to YOU determining if it is moral). If you can determine the morality of the act without a genetically-related question, I'll withdraw my observation.

Then I have no idea what you are talking about, really. And I am not saying I'm basing anything, certainly not moral behaviors, on genetics. I just do not get your reference to the genome. Why you are even bringing it up? What is the connection? What genotype am I isolation?

If you think you are not - then take my challenge. I suspect you and Sparko are NOT taking it because you know where it leads. Your morality will not be able to determine the morality of Perry's and Jule's sexual act without knowing the specific breakdown of their genome with respect to sex. You need to know if one of them is XX and the other XY, or if they are both XX or both XY. Without that knowledge, your morality will not be able to determine whether the act is morally permissible or not. You will be able to show it is immoral on other grounds (e.g., unmarried, married to someone else, etc.), but you will not be able to definitively say "it is moral" until you have that piece of information.

So the act between Jules and Perry will be deemed moral if one is XX and one is XY.
The exact same act will be ruled immoral of both are XY or both are XX.

Since the act is the same, but one is moral and the other immoral - the morality is not about the act - it's about the genome.

Ergo it is no different in kind than declaring sex/marriage between two people is moral if both are genetically coded for black or white, but immoral if one is genetically coded for white and the other for black.

The logic is inescapable.

[seer]

It doesn't change the fact that you are prohibiting one group from being intimate with someone they love, while not prohibiting the other.

Just as I would say that adultery and pedophilia are immoral, even if genuine affection is involved.

Perry and Jules are in bed being sexually intimate. Determine the morality of their act. You can ask me any question you wish about Perry and Jules to determine the morality of their act, except any question whose answer depends on their genetic makeup (and I'll add any question that takes the form "would X find it moral." Who else finds it moral is not germane to YOU determining if it is moral). If you can determine the morality of the act without a genetically-related question, I'll withdraw my observation.

OK, what are their ages and are they presently married to other people?

If you can determine the morality of the act without a genetically-related question...

And why do I need to accept this premise? Why is this line of reasoning the determiner of what is moral or not? Because you say so?

[carpedm9587]

Just as I would say that adultery and pedophilia are immoral, even if genuine affection is involved.

Which does not change the fact that the moral prohibition targets a particular group in a way it does not target others, and for no other reason than their genetic makeup.

OK, what are their ages and are they presently married to other people?

They are older than 18 and not currently married to anyone else.

And why do I need to accept this premise? Why is this line of reasoning the determiner of what is moral or not? Because you say so?

So you are suggesting that an act can be deemed moral or immoral on no other basis than the genetic make-up of the actor? Name one other act whose morality, even in your worldview, is dependent on the genetic makeup of the actor.

Not to mention that any such moral precept, or law, by the very fact that it is rooted in genetics, is essentially a bigoted/prejudicial position right out of the box: it targets a specific group of people based on nothing more than their genome. If you are comfortable with such a moral precept, then we definitely have VERY different views concerning what can contribute to morality and what cannot. Your way opens the door to essentially any racist/ethnic prohibition. My moral framework would not allow for that.

[seer]

Which does not change the fact that the moral prohibition targets a particular group in a way it does not target others, and for no other reason than their genetic makeup.

No it targets any person or group that practices the behavior or just as prohibitions against pedophilia or adultery target the particular groups that would practice that behavior.

They are older than 18 and not currently married to anyone else.

My point is that you can ask moral questions in this situation that don't involve the genome.

So you are suggesting that an act can be deemed moral or immoral on no other basis than the genetic make-up of the actor? Name one other act whose morality, even in your worldview, is dependent on the genetic makeup of the actor.

Is Perry a man and is Jule a favorite sheep?

Not to mention that any such moral precept, or law, by the very fact that it is rooted in genetics, is essentially a bigoted/prejudicial position right out of the box: it targets a specific group of people based on nothing more than their genome. If you are comfortable with such a moral precept, then we definitely have VERY different views concerning what can contribute to morality and what cannot. Your way opens the door to essentially any racist/ethnic prohibition. My moral framework would not allow for that.

Again Carp, your restriction is arbitrary. One has to accept your premises. And since I have a Biblical worldview I also don't allow for racist/ethnic prohibitions. And claiming that my view is bigoted out of the box is just another arbitrary distinction on your part - after all Carp it is all relative - correct?

[Sparko]

Of COURSE I think my morality is the best. If I didn't, it would be different and I would think THAT was the best. You are doing the same thing. So now setting that sidetrack aside...



I notice you did not take up the challenge. Is it perhaps because you are defending a moral principle in which an act is moral if the people involved have one set of genes, and moral if they have another? I know of no other moral principle that is had on that basis - and all previous claims to basing a morality on genetics have been dropped for the obvious bigotry and prejudice that they are.

History will not look kindly on your argument, Sparko. Someday, people will look back at your argument in the same terms we look back today on those arguing that black should not marry white, and all of the other genetically-based moral codes humanity has held over it's existence.

Because your challenge is meaningless. You are arbitrarily putting some people in groups based on their behavior, while arguing that other people who do a different behavior are not in a group. People who have sex with the same sex are "homosexuals" and you think it is wrong to be against that behavior because it is against an entire group of people. But you refuse to call all people who cheat on their spouses a group called "adulterers" - the fact is, you can make a group out of any behavior: Alcoholics, Drug Addicts, Gun enthusiasts, Trekkies, S&M, etc. -- if someone is against a certain behavior, that is not being bigoted against them, it is simply calling their behavior wrong. Some might indeed hate them, like the Westboro Baptists, but you claiming that just calling a behavior as sin makes it a hate crime or bigotry is actually YOU assigning an emotion to an entire group of people and calling them bigots. You are doing exactly what you are arguing we are doing.

But at this point, since you don't believe in any moral objectivity, it really doesn't matter to me how hypocritical or nonsensical your moral viewpoints are. They simply don't matter to anyone but yourself so we can safely ignore your whining.

[carpedm9587]

No it targets any person or group that practices the behavior or just as prohibitions against pedophilia or adultery target the particular groups that would practice that behavior.

We've gone around enough on this one. I'll let my previous posts stand.

My point is that you can ask moral questions in this situation that don't involve the genome.

Of course you can. And my point is that those questions might be able to show the act immoral, but they won't be able to show the act to be moral in your framework until you get an answer to a question that is solely based on genome.

So, for example, if you ask if the couple is married, and I say "no" - you will immediately call the act immoral (in your framework).
But if it passes all of the non-genome tests, you will still not be able to say "the act is moral" until I answer a question about their genome.

Is Perry a man and is Jule a favorite sheep?

Both are human and, just to help a bit, they were married in the Episcopal Church.

Again Carp, your restriction is arbitrary. One has to accept your premises. And since I have a Biblical worldview I also don't allow for racist/ethnic prohibitions. And claiming that my view is bigoted out of the box is just another arbitrary distinction on your part - after all Carp it is all relative - correct?

So perhaps you are in a quandary. If your biblical worldview does not allow for racist/ethnic, distinctions, does it allow for any other distinctions that are solely based upon the human genome? Give me one other example of a moral precept that is completely dependent for moral assessment on the genome of the actor(s). I don't think you will find one. This is the ONLY one. So, by definition, it is no different than a moral precept based on race - which is also genetically coded for.