Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[carpedm9587]

So sex with animals is not immoral, neither would sex between brothers, sisters, father and son, mother and daughter, etc...

Again - there is a difference between something being immoral and being "not approved of." Our culture has made these types of relationships verboten. As a result, I find them revolting. There is some genetic argumentation for it being a bad practice, but usually the results are not seen for several generations. ANY sexual union, however between a mature/reasoning adult and an immature child/adult is immoral for the same reason rape is immoral. The same is true of sex between two immature humans - they lack the capacity to consent.

[seer]

Again - there is a difference between something being immoral and being "not approved of." Our culture has made these types of relationships verboten. As a result, I find them revolting. There is some genetic argumentation for it being a bad practice, but usually the results are not seen for several generations. ANY sexual union, however between a mature/reasoning adult and an immature child/adult is immoral for the same reason rape is immoral. The same is true of sex between two immature humans - they lack the capacity to consent.

So assume that all my examples include mature adults - then according to your logic those are not immoral.

[Sparko]

Many "sexually transmitted diseases" are not ONLY transferred sexually. Many are transferred by an exchange of bodily fluids. We do that in many scenarios - blood transfusions, etc.

How would they get in the blood supply if everybody lived by Christian rules? And even if someone did have tainted blood, then it would quickly be taken care of because as far as it could go would be that infected person's spouse.

But more importantly, I am reminded of the line "nature finds a way." A virus is a life-form. It is subject to mutation. So long as there is an accessible vector, there is no significant pressure to mutate and evolve. Remove the vector, and you create the pressure to mutate and evolve. We have no way of knowing how these disease would mutate in that context. Could they become airborne? Could they evolve to permit transfer through touch?

Since this is a hypothetical, let's assume not. We are talking about the benefit of living a Christian-based society versus a promiscuous society. Let's not bring in "just so" scenarios just invented to dodge the implications we are discussing. Many of these diseases would never have developed in the first place if people had lived according to the way God wanted us to from the beginning.

What-if's are seldom useful. So IF everyone behaved as you described, and IF the blood supply stayed clan, and IF STD could not or did not mutate, then you statement is probably correct (little STD activity). But that kind of speculation is largely, to me, pointless. And it doesn't say anything about what is and is not moral action. An action s not rendered immoral because it is a vector for transmission of disease.

No, you know and I do that IF society lived by Christian standards that there would be a lot fewer STDs, unwed pregnancies, single parent families, divorces, and a whole slew of other societal problems.

How can something that so benefits society be morally neutral? It would greatly benefit society.

[Sparko]

I have responded to this multiple times. Generically, it is to differentiate between "ought" actions and "ought not" actions. However, we do not use the term "moral" for ANY ought/ought-not decisions. The term is reserved for those things we most closely value. "I ought to pick up some milk on the way home" is not a moral statement. "I ought not drive my Jeep until the new paint dries" is not a moral statement. "I ought tell the truth" is a moral statement. "I ought not kill other humans indiscriminately is a moral statement.

At least they are for most of us...

You described what morality is (ought vs ought not) but what is the purpose of morality in society? Why should we care about ought and ought not?

[Sparko]

Again - there is a difference between something being immoral and being "not approved of." Our culture has made these types of relationships verboten. As a result, I find them revolting. There is some genetic argumentation for it being a bad practice, but usually the results are not seen for several generations. ANY sexual union, however between a mature/reasoning adult and an immature child/adult is immoral for the same reason rape is immoral. The same is true of sex between two immature humans - they lack the capacity to consent.

Does that mean that when a parent tells his kid that he can't go out with his friends even though he really wants to, that the parent is being immoral? He is forcing his will on the child without the child's consent.

What makes consent so special? Do criminals consent to going to jail and being locked up for years? Is that immoral too?

Did that baker consent to making that cake he got sued for?

[carpedm9587]

So assume that all my examples include mature adults - then according to your logic those are not immoral.

Correct. In-family sexual relationships is a cultural norm - not a moral one. I suspect it is a cultural norm for both historic and practical reasons. Repeated incestuous generations magnify the genetic problem. It's easier to just say "none at all" then to say, "no more than two generations." Personally, I am strongly influenced by my culture, and I find the idea repulsive. But I don't find it to have a moral content.

[seer]

Correct. In-family sexual relationships is a cultural norm - not a moral one. I suspect it is a cultural norm for both historic and practical reasons. Repeated incestuous generations magnify the genetic problem. It's easier to just say "none at all" then to say, "no more than two generations." Personally, I am strongly influenced by my culture, and I find the idea repulsive. But I don't find it to have a moral content.

But there would be no genetic problem with the couples I mentioned. So I take it you believe that these relationships should be legal? That we should be more enlightened?

[carpedm9587]

How would they get in the blood supply if everybody lived by Christian rules? And even if someone did have tainted blood, then it would quickly be taken care of because as far as it could go would be that infected person's spouse.

Zookeeper gets bitten, makes a donation, blood is tainted, donated to someone who gets the disease. Spouse gets it. Donations from either before they are symptomatic further compromise the blood supply, etc. It won't travel as far/fast as in an "open sex" world, so it's an admittedly thin path and it can be worked against with the proper science and procedures (as it is today).

Since this is a hypothetical, let's assume not. We are talking about the benefit of living a Christian-based society versus a promiscuous society. Let's not bring in "just so" scenarios just invented to dodge the implications we are discussing. Many of these diseases would never have developed in the first place if people had lived according to the way God wanted us to from the beginning.

But that's exactly what I am telling you YOU are doing. You are assuming everyone acts according to the Christian world and everything else stays the same. You don't know that last part.

No, you know and I do that IF society lived by Christian standards that there would be a lot fewer STDs, unwed pregnancies, single parent families, divorces, and a whole slew of other societal problems.

I know that IF everything else stays the same, that would likely be true. I don't know that everything else would stay the same.

How can something that so benefits society be morally neutral? It would greatly benefit society.

Penicillin greatly benefited society. The combustion engine greatly benefited society. Agriculture greatly benefited society. Airplanes greatly benefited society. I don't link morality to thing simply because they benefit society. Morality is a term we reserve for the things we most deeply value. You most deeply value your god, so morality (for you) is very closely linked to what you believe this god wants. I deeply value other things, so morality (for me) is associated with those things. Sex is not one of them. Sex is enjoyable. Sex is fun. Sex is not a fundamental value of my existence.

[carpedm9587]

You described what morality is (ought vs ought not) but what is the purpose of morality in society? Why should we care about ought and ought not?

Sparko - this question is essentially asking, "why should I care about not doing things I shouldn't do?" Human beings are capable of a wide range of actions. Human being value a wide range of things. Some of those are core to their experience of humanness. One of the things we value most is our own existence. So when we look at actions, we classify actions that enhance/protect our existence as moral, and actions that diminish/threaten our existence as immoral. Most of us tend to value relationship/community. So we classify actions that enhance/protect relationship/community as moral, and actions that diminish/threaten relationship/community as immoral. You deeply value your god. So you classify actions that enhance/protect your relationship with this god as moral, and actions that diminish/threaten this relationship with this god as immoral.

And so it goes. It is a function of the human brain to categorize. Actions are categorized as well. It is the way we drive our choices.

[carpedm9587]

Does that mean that when a parent tells his kid that he can't go out with his friends even though he really wants to, that the parent is being immoral? He is forcing his will on the child without the child's consent.

It is not merely the act of forcing will that makes the act immoral - it is the act of forcing will for personal gratification. When the other person is not capable of consent, there is no mutuality to the relationship - ergo the other person has become an object by definition. When a parent sets boundaries on a child (assuming they are appropriate boundaries), it is in recognition of the limited decision-making of a child. It is an action whose intent is to protect the child.

What makes consent so special? Do criminals consent to going to jail and being locked up for years? Is that immoral too?

Nope. The act of a criminal in defiance of the legal norms of the society come with consequences. As I have said several times, when the individual decides to over-ride the norms of the society, the society will protect itself. Convince, separate/isolate, contend. That is the normal sequence. Incarceration is part "separate/isolate" and part "contend." The child in an adult/child sexual relationship has nothing to forfeit their intrinsic rights.

Did that baker consent to making that cake he got sued for?

The baker created one set of rules for one type of person, and a different set of rules for another type of person - in a way that was unrelated to their membership in that class. That is the quintessential definition of bigotry/prejudice. If you offer a service, you must offer it to all equally. If you cannot - do not offer the service.

[carpedm9587]

But there would be no genetic problem with the couples I mentioned. So I take it you believe that these relationships should be legal? That we should be more enlightened?

You believe sex between members of an immediate family carries no genetic risk? That being said, my answer to you is that I do not see a moral component associated with sex between any two consenting, mature human beings. The moral component arises from context. If I have promised my wife fidelity, and have sex with someone else, the moral component is breach of trust. If I knowingly have sex with someone else who has made such a promise (even if I haven't), then I am participating in this breach. If I force someone to have sex (rape, pedophilia, etc.), the moral component is the force, the treatment of another as an object for personal gratification, and the psychological and physical harm imposed.

That doesn't mean I don't find certain sexual acts or sexual relationships repulsive. Incest is repulsive to me. Bestiality is repulsive to me. I'm not particularly excited about sodomy. Finding something repulsive is not the same as finding something immoral. I also find runny, under-cooked eggs repulsive. I don't accuse the cook of an immoral action if they serve me some, or someone else of an immoral action if they like them that way.

[seer]

You believe sex between members of an immediate family carries no genetic risk? That being said, my answer to you is that I do not see a moral component associated with sex between any two consenting, mature human beings. The moral component arises from context. If I have promised my wife fidelity, and have sex with someone else, the moral component is breach of trust. If I knowingly have sex with someone else who has made such a promise (even if I haven't), then I am participating in this breach. If I force someone to have sex (rape, pedophilia, etc.), the moral component is the force, the treatment of another as an object for personal gratification, and the psychological and physical harm imposed.

That doesn't mean I don't find certain sexual acts or sexual relationships repulsive. Incest is repulsive to me. Bestiality is repulsive to me. I'm not particularly excited about sodomy. Finding something repulsive is not the same as finding something immoral. I also find runny, under-cooked eggs repulsive. I don't accuse the cook of an immoral action if they serve me some, or someone else of an immoral action if they like them that way.

First, the incest I was speaking about was between male and male or female and female. So no genetic risk. So like under-cooked eggs these things should not be illegal, in your view - correct?

[oxmixmudd]

I just did a little expanded reading, and you're right. I had no idea AIDS dated back (possibly) as far as the late 19th century. The simian link makes Africa a pretty obvious place of origin. My reference to patient 0 was the generic reference the CDC uses to identify the originating patient in a viral outbreak, not the specific reference to Patient O that was used to refer to Dugas (apparently the O stood for "Outside California").

But I utterly reject the suggestion that because a viral outbreak originated in, or primarily affects, one type of person - it calls into question the morality of that type of person. That argument is unsustainable, and is noting more than a variation on "bad things happen to bad people." That was the implication of some of the earlier posts (not from you).

Let;s think about that a bit. Let's remove morality from the equation as well. Let's just talk about behavior and consequences. There is one factor that is central to the spread of HIV. And that is intimate contact with bodily fluids. Intimate contact allows the virus to mover from the bodily fluids of one individual to another. So as with any behavior with consequences, people that engage in behavior that frequently brings a person into contact with many different peoples bodily fluids are far more prone to spread and contract HIV. The two best ways to come into intimate contact with other people's bodily fluids are:

1) sexual contact
2) shared unsterilized needles

(a third method has historically been contaminated blood products - e.g. transfusions, but this is not directly a behavioral issue)

So people who engage in unprotected sexual activity with many different people are the most likely to contract and/or spread HIV. Protection is no guarantee of safety, so in reality promiscuity falls on the side of immoral behavior, whether the sex is protected or not. In the US, the most promiscuous group by far was/is homosexual men. And indeed, that behavior has and continues to have consequences. Homosexual men are still the largest group in the US affected by aids. Now Southern Africa has a real problem with promiscuity in the hetero-sexual population. And indeed behavior has consequences, and in Southern Africa there is also a significant HIV problem in the general population.

Now (IIRC) what have you and so many others said drives morality? Moral behaviors are behaviors that are GOOD for society and civilization. Immoral behaviors are behaviors that are BAD for society and civilization. (we could substitute constructive or helpful for GOOD and destructive, deleterious for BAD)

It doesn't take a genius to draw the correlation here. Promiscuous behavior is destructive, deliterious to society and civilization and then by definition immoral. Because promiscuous behavior has almost universally negative consequences as it relates to the spread of HIV and AIDs. Transitively then, if there is a group of people characterized by promiscuous behavior, then it does indeed imply that group (statistically*) is immoral in relation to that behavior.

The immoral/moral map takes on even greater significance then in that behaviors are choices. If I care for my fellow man - I don't have promiscuous sex. If I can only about myself, then I get what I can when I can. This also defines immoral behavior.

(It also doesn't take a genius to recognize that illegal drug use is also going to drop into the category of immoral behavior, at least as regards the tendency to share unsteriliized needles.)

And then we get to that 3rd vector. Contaminated blood supply. And where does that contaminated blood come from? People with aids. which in the majority are promiscuous people. So now this 'private behavior' has broad effects on the innocent. But the promiscuous people know they are more likely to have HIV. They also know they may have HIV and may not know they have it. But they give blood anyway?

Promiscuity does very much speak to the morality of the people that engage in it. Promiscuity is very much a public problem for our society. It is not 'just about what consenting adults do in the bedroom'


Jim

*Caution must always be used when talking about groups. Individuals are not defined by the statistics that define the characteristics of the group they may belong to.

[carpedm9587]

First, the incest I was speaking about was between male and male or female and female. So no genetic risk. So like under-cooked eggs these things should not be illegal, in your view - correct?

I think I was fairly clear about my view: sexual activity between two mature/consenting adults does not intrinsically carry a moral implication. The moral implication arises from the context (e.g., breach of trust, objectification, etc.). While I am personally repulsed by the idea of two members of the same nuclear family being sexually intimate, I do not see a moral component unless one or both is incapable of consent or is being forced in some respect. For the rest, the block is cultural - not moral.

[Starlight]

Do you suppose I am some ignorant boob unaware of the historical realities of sexuality?

You do seem to make some pretty basic errors about historical sexual practices, as I pointed out in my previous post. So, yes.