Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[seer]

Your attempt to position homosexuality as akin to alcoholism speaks volumes. Alcoholism is a disease.

Alcoholism, like homosexual inclination, would be an innate characteristic. Not that we know homosexual inclination is an innate condition. But Carp, I'm not sure what your argument here is, are you saying that because it may be an inherent condition that that makes it moral? If not what are you saying?

[Charles]

Alcoholism, like homosexual inclination, would be an innate characteristic. Not that we know homosexual inclination is an innate condition. But Carp, I'm not sure what your argument here is, are you saying that because it may be an inherent condition that that makes it moral? If not what are you saying?

Now I am perfectly well aware that Carpe will know how to answer. I just felt the need to remind you of what he has already said: "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."

[oxmixmudd]

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.

It doesn't 'speak volumes', and it is not an attempt to 'position homosexuality' but rather to find an analogous moral term that is devoid if the stigma and irrationality associated with this debate so you can see past your own internal biases and to the actual issue in play. A propensity to addition is not a disease, but rather an inherited trait and my analogy focused on THAT. Alcoholism as a disease is a CONSEQUENCE of that inherited trait, but not the trait itself. The battle with controlling how much alcohol a person consumes and the effect of that is directed by the genetic propensity to addition. The more difficult element here is that you know if you admit moral actions are a choice the attempt to classify the issue as discrimination fails.

I also compared the issue to sodomy (in more vulgar terms, anal sex). This is simply a sexual act that can occur between two people of either orientation, and can be part of either a heterosexual or homosexual relationship, and it in Christian moral terms it is immoral. It also is significantly more dangerous in terms of disease and potential damage the the sexual partner than normal intercourse.

Yes, only a person with same-sex attraction in some form will be tempted to commit same sex acts, but that does not change the fact the act is a itself choice, not a mandate, not something the person has no control over.

The issue we can't ever get to is why might a same-sex act be considered immoral. But perhaps that is a goal? I have no idea. Nevertheless, I have laid out a very clear case for why the issue is morality and choice, not discrimination. And as far as I can tell, you have no argument at all to present against that. Of course a person that wants to do an immoral act will be limited by the fact it is immoral. But that is as it should be. The morality of an action is not determined by how badly someone wants to do it.

The only way it could be about discrimination is if we could show the creation of the moral standard is based not on what is best overall for all people, but it is based solely on prejudice against people with same-sex attraction. But we likely will never get to that potential element for discussion.

One can differentiate between the apparent unfairness of the moral mandate and the issue of how we apply morality. But in the end you apply two completely different strategies to morality. For something like theft well that applies to everyone, no matter how muh the person has a problem resisting the temptation to steal, no matter how much the person thinks he needs the thing stolen. But in terms of sexual morality, it's all about how convenient it is for the person to resist doing the sexual act - except not for pedophelia of course. Very situational, not at all based on basic principles.

I'm trying to lay out a discussion of the issue from first principles and applying the moral system to all in the same way. That is the starting point. Then we would discuss what morality makes sense. Does the fact people with same-sex attractions face celibacy or if they have some bi-sexual element restriction to heterosexual intimacy constitute an unfair burden? And also, equally important but far more difficult to assess, do same sex acts present any sort of danger to society that makes them immoral from that perspective (they impose intrinsic harm on people outside the relationship). I'm sure that last question is nearly impossible for you to consider. But I am not so sure. Sodomy does present a greater threat to society than most sexual actions. It can damage a persons ability to control their bowel movements. it facilitates transmission of disease more than most other sexually related activities. Sodomy is on the increase in the heterosexual population, which may reduce the tendency to be a same sex issue, but that is more due to the degradation of morals than any improvement in moral standards. Aside from sodomy, there is also a much higher incidence of promiscuity in male (and I think female) same-sex populations than heterosexual populations*. Those elements, I believe, create a greater potential danger outside the relationship than found in heterosexual interactions, and may well be the reason same-sex relationships ended up under prohibition in many religions over the millenia.

*some argue the higher promiscuity is due to prohibition and the lack of a construct like marriage. We don't have enough data to know at the present time if same-sex marriage will become sufficiently wide spread and that the monogamous implications of marriage will actually be honored sufficiently to help change that.

[Sparko]

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.

I think all mathematicians are immoral scum, whether they have a propensity to addition or multiplication. And don't get me started on philosophers!

I guess I am a mathaphobe.

[Sparko]

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.

Pedophilia is a sexual orientation. But it is immoral and illegal. You expect those with that orientation to make the choice not to act on it and have no conflict with holding that concept in your head. Pedophilia is probably just as much an innate drive as homosexuality. Yet you don't go around claiming that people who think pedophilia is immoral are being bigots or compare pedophiles to being black.

You are being a hypocrite. You just draw the line in the sand just a little different than we do. But there is still the same line there.

[carpedm9587]

It doesn't 'speak volumes', and it is not an attempt to 'position homosexuality' but rather to find an analogous moral term that is devoid if the stigma and irrationality associated with this debate so you can see past your own internal biases and to the actual issue in play. A propensity to addition is not a disease, but rather an inherited trait and my analogy focused on THAT. Alcoholism as a disease is a CONSEQUENCE of that inherited trait, but not the trait itself. The battle with controlling how much alcohol a person consumes and the effect of that is directed by the genetic propensity to addition. The more difficult element here is that you know if you admit moral actions are a choice the attempt to classify the issue as discrimination fails.

I also compared the issue to sodomy (in more vulgar terms, anal sex). This is simply a sexual act that can occur between two people of either orientation, and can be part of either a heterosexual or homosexual relationship, and it in Christian moral terms it is immoral. It also is significantly more dangerous in terms of disease and potential damage the the sexual partner than normal intercourse.

Yes, only a person with same-sex attraction in some form will be tempted to commit same sex acts, but that does not change the fact the act is a itself choice, not a mandate, not something the person has no control over.

The issue we can't ever get to is why might a same-sex act be considered immoral. But perhaps that is a goal? I have no idea. Nevertheless, I have laid out a very clear case for why the issue is morality and choice, not discrimination. And as far as I can tell, you have no argument at all to present against that. Of course a person that wants to do an immoral act will be limited by the fact it is immoral. But that is as it should be. The morality of an action is not determined by how badly someone wants to do it.

The only way it could be about discrimination is if we could show the creation of the moral standard is based not on what is best overall for all people, but it is based solely on prejudice against people with same-sex attraction. But we likely will never get to that potential element for discussion.

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

One can differentiate between the apparent unfairness of the moral mandate and the issue of how we apply morality. But in the end you apply two completely different strategies to morality. For something like theft well that applies to everyone, no matter how muh the person has a problem resisting the temptation to steal, no matter how much the person thinks he needs the thing stolen. But in terms of sexual morality, it's all about how convenient it is for the person to resist doing the sexual act - except not for pedophelia of course. Very situational, not at all based on basic principles.

I'm trying to lay out a discussion of the issue from first principles and applying the moral system to all in the same way. That is the starting point. Then we would discuss what morality makes sense. Does the fact people with same-sex attractions face celibacy or if they have some bi-sexual element restriction to heterosexual intimacy constitute an unfair burden? And also, equally important but far more difficult to assess, do same sex acts present any sort of danger to society that makes them immoral from that perspective (they impose intrinsic harm on people outside the relationship). I'm sure that last question is nearly impossible for you to consider. But I am not so sure. Sodomy does present a greater threat to society than most sexual actions. It can damage a persons ability to control their bowel movements. it facilitates transmission of disease more than most other sexually related activities. Sodomy is on the increase in the heterosexual population, which may reduce the tendency to be a same sex issue, but that is more due to the degradation of morals than any improvement in moral standards. Aside from sodomy, there is also a much higher incidence of promiscuity in male (and I think female) same-sex populations than heterosexual populations*. Those elements, I believe, create a greater potential danger outside the relationship than found in heterosexual interactions, and may well be the reason same-sex relationships ended up under prohibition in many religions over the millenia.

*some argue the higher promiscuity is due to prohibition and the lack of a construct like marriage. We don't have enough data to know at the present time if same-sex marriage will become sufficiently wide spread and that the monogamous implications of marriage will actually be honored sufficiently to help change that.

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

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

[carpedm9587]

Pedophilia is a sexual orientation. But it is immoral and illegal. You expect those with that orientation to make the choice not to act on it and have no conflict with holding that concept in your head. Pedophilia is probably just as much an innate drive as homosexuality. Yet you don't go around claiming that people who think pedophilia is immoral are being bigots or compare pedophiles to being black.

You are being a hypocrite. You just draw the line in the sand just a little different than we do. But there is still the same line there.

You do love the word hypocrite, Sparko. It's not a very effective way to engage in discussion. Your opinion is duly noted. I've explained why pedophilia is different. I'll refer you to my previous responses.

[seer]

You do love the word hypocrite, Sparko. It's not a very effective way to engage in discussion. Your opinion is duly noted. I've explained why pedophilia is different. I'll refer you to my previous responses.

Carp, you seem to be falling back on the argument that if an inclination or desire is innate then it is moral. That is why pedophilia, is not different. If innateness is not the standard that you are using, then what is?

[carpedm9587]

Carp, you seem to be falling back on the argument that if an inclination or desire is innate then it is moral.

At no point have I said that or thought it.

That is why pedophilia, is not different. If innateness is not the standard that you are using, then what is?

You and I have discussed this ad nauseum, Seer. I'm not sure what value is had by repeating it all over again. I understand your basis for morality is what you believe your god wants as you have interpreted it from what is written in the bible. I believe morality is rooted in the things we value and the actions that affirm/enhance those thing (moral) and the actions that destroy/diminish those things (immoral).

[Sparko]

You do love the word hypocrite, Sparko. It's not a very effective way to engage in discussion. Your opinion is duly noted. I've explained why pedophilia is different. I'll refer you to my previous responses.

You said it because was illegal because of the age difference.

Above you say:

Based on sexual orientation alone, a person may or may not be intimate with the person they love. Heterosexual married people are permitted to and it is "moral." Homosexual people are not permitted to and it is "immoral" if they do. But the only difference between the two is their sexual orientation. Therein lies the discriminatory nature of the position.

Yet at one time homosexual sex and gay marriage were just as illegal as pedophilia is today.

So do you think that back then it was NOT discriminatory to not permit homosexuals to be intimate with the person they love but it is now?

Basically your only consistent answer here is to say that you think it was not discrimination to make gay sex illegal back then. Because you don't think it is discrimination to make pedophilia illegal today.

[seer]

At no point have I said that or thought it.

But of course you have, that is why you keep bringing up orientation, with nature and nurture. If those are not central to you argument they why bring them up in the first place?

You and I have discussed this ad nauseum, Seer. I'm not sure what value is had by repeating it all over again. I understand your basis for morality is what you believe your god wants as you have interpreted it from what is written in the bible. I believe morality is rooted in the things we value and the actions that affirm/enhance those thing (moral) and the actions that destroy/diminish those things (immoral).

I have no idea what you mean by that Carp, really. What things to WE value?

[Sparko]

But of course you have, that is why you keep bringing up orientation, with nature and nurture. If those are not central to you argument they why bring them up in the first place?





I have no idea what you mean by that Carp, really. What things to WE value?

arguing with carp is like trying to nail down smoke.

[carpedm9587]

You said it because was illegal because of the age difference.

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

Yet at one time homosexual sex and gay marriage were just as illegal as pedophilia is today.

Above you say:

Based on sexual orientation alone, a person may or may not be intimate with the person they love. Heterosexual married people are permitted to and it is "moral." Homosexual people are not permitted to and it is "immoral" if they do. But the only difference between the two is their sexual orientation. Therein lies the discriminatory nature of the position.

So do you think that back then it was NOT discriminatory to not permit homosexuals to be intimate with the person they love but it is now?

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

Basically your only consistent answer here is to say that you think it was not discrimination to make gay sex illegal back then. Because you don't think it is discrimination to make pedophilia illegal today.

No - for the reasons I have already cited.

[seer]

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

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

[carpedm9587]

But of course you have, that is why you keep bringing up orientation, with nature and nurture. If those are not central to you argument they why bring them up in the first place?

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

I have no idea what you mean by that Carp, really. What things to WE value?

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

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