Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[carpedm9587]

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)

I was nodding assent until you got here. Then I shook my head. Morality is not about what is good or bad for society. Society does not moralize. Individuals moralize. You need only look to the gay discussion to see this. It does not matter one whit to you or Seer or Sparko that society has moved in the direction of acceptance of the LGBTQ community - your moral code say "immoral" and so it stays. Indeed, I suspect that support for the LGBTQ community could climb to 95% - and you would continue to cling to your bible-influenced belief that homosexual intimacy is immoral. When we talk about the moral code of a society, we are merely talking about the general trend of individual moralization. That is, when the majority of people in a given society thinks "X is immoral," we then talk about the norm for that society being "X is immoral." But that is merely a description of the trend of individual moralization.

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.

No. Here's the problem. You're inappropriately creating a general rule. The problem is not promiscuity. The problem is people engaging in sexual encounters in an unsafe manner. If I am not prepared to shoulder the burdens of rearing as child, and I engage in sex that could result in the creation of one, THAT is the problem. If I am infected with an STD and I engage in unprotected sex without informing my partner, THAT is the problem. Any parent today who thinks that their child is not going to have a sexual experience before they are 18 is living in a world of denial, IMO. To refuse to arm these children with the information they need to navigate this world safely is itself a moral issue. My children are in their late teens and early 20s. They are unmarried. They are in (what they think are) committed relationships. I know they are young and unlikely to really know commitment until it bites them in the butt. I know for a fact they are sexually active. But I have taught them about safe sex, I have taught them about respectful sex. I was the dad who, when he found out his underage son had been inappropriate with an underage young lady marched him to that young lady's home and made him apologize in front of her parents. My sons are adopted, because their birth mothers did not accept the consequences of their sexual choices. I am glad neither of them chose abortion as a path - and I have repeatedly told my boys that their very existence is due to this choice. I have impressed on them the importance of not making choices that put yet another child in that position. So I know, today, they are sexually active and informed and making good choices. I am not worried either of them will contract an STD or father a child.

(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.)

Illegal drug use, by definition, is a legal problem. Whether or not it is a moral one depends on the circumstances.

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?

On this one we are in agreement. Given the protocols in place, the only way an individual can contaminate the blood supply is to lie. The immorality is the lie, and the indifference to the probable/possible consequence for others.

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

On this one we disagree. Promiscuity may be ill-advised. As long as it is consenting/mature adults, I do not see a moral issue.

*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.

Agreed.

[seer]

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.

So you think certain forms of incest should be legal - correct? And of course in your relative world what carries a moral implication or not is merely a matter of opinion.

[carpedm9587]

So you think certain forms of incest should be legal - correct?

Legal? No. I htink the logical approach is to keep it illegal as the simplest way to avoid the danger of multi-generational incest.

And of course in your relative world what carries a moral implication or not is merely a matter of opinion.

Your use of "merely" is Technique #2 - which we have discussed previously.

Yes - it is opinion. No - it is not "merely."

[seer]

Legal? No. I htink the logical approach is to keep it illegal as the simplest way to avoid the danger of multi-generational incest.

That doesn't make sense, there are ways to prevent these dangers. Promiscuity can cause all manner of harm, yet you would have no problem with that.

Your use of "merely" is Technique #2 - which we have discussed previously.

Yes - it is opinion. No - it is not "merely."

What? It is your opinion that "merely" should not be applied, it is my opinion that it should. Why are you right and me wrong?

[carpedm9587]

That doesn't make sense, there are ways to prevent these dangers. Promiscuity can cause all manner of harm, yet you would have no problem with that.

So, again, what I have a "problem" with, does not always rise to the level of morality. I have a problem with bestiality. It does not rise to the level of morality. I have a problem with incest. It does not (necessarily) rise to the level of morality. I have a "problem" with sodomy. It does not rise to the level of "morality."

What? It is your opinion that "merely" should not be applied, it is my opinion that it should. Why are you right and me wrong?

We all have opinions. The term "merely" is designed to convey, "your opinion is irrelevant." So it's an emotionally loaded word - not a reasonably load word. In other words, it's your way of saying, "opinion is irrelevant." It doesn't actually speak to the relevance of opinion.

[oxmixmudd]

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.

That would be true ... excepting the case of sexual intimacy through sodomy which can introduce disease even w/o promiscuity. Sodomy is not historically all that common in heterosexual relationships.

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.

You seem not to be able to understand the difference between following the Christian moral code and simply being part of a Christian culture. ALL of my comments about the benefits of following the moral code are about just that, not a claim that "Christian" people always or even normally follow that code. Syphilis is not transmitted by casual contact, so if the 'Christians' in Christian Europe were following their religions teachings, they might well have been spared that fate. Further, it is theoretcially possible if that had been the case the American Indian population might not have been nearly exterminated by the same disease. But that is pure speculation on my part, said more for dramatic intent than anything else.

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.

No - I am quite aware of that problem - though I do not regard that as a Christian teaching. Most non-Christians don't really understand what Salvation is all about, and they especially don't understand that people who grow up in Christian cultures adopt the Christian label but never actually experience the regeneration that comes through faith in Christ. So I understand your confusion. The hateful acts you mention are not the result of Christian teaching, but the result of sin in the hearts of people causing them to ignore Christs teachings on sin, where He commanded that only those without sin can cast the stone at the Adulterer, and when everyone had left, He forgave her. Notice, Christ did not say she had not sinned. But He did save her from judgement and He did forgive her. That is to be the response of ALL who follow Christ to sin. And you need to understand that this discussion is purely acedemic. Christ always pointed people toward recognizing their own sin. The only people he called out directly for sin where the self-righteous religious leaders. As such, I would never judge or be unkind or vindictive to a homosexual person. Period. I would only offer them friendship. It is not my place to judge anyone. And if they wanted to know what the Christian faith taught about their sexuality, I would probably simply present all of the current views espoused by Christian peoples on the issue with emphasis on Christ's mercy and Grace offered to all people's everywhere.

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

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).

I was speaking in general terms about the evolution of different male and female characteristics. One could expect that would then statistically be found to be the optimal relationship, since that is the relationship that is required for the species to survive. If everyone was male-male or female-female, the human race would disappear off the earth in <100 years. The point was that so many don't want to recognize that there are differences and that differences are to be expected. It's a backlash against the male oppression of women, but it is throwing the baby out with the bath-water. I was not attempting a specific analysis of the dynamics of various sorts of relationships.

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.

That is because you are not willing to allow for the possibility that same-sex relationships might themselves be destructive in the long run to a society. I don't know if they are or if they are not. But I am willing to ask the question. If they are, then they need to be curtailed. If they are not, then you have a point. We won't know the answer to that for a while. But we will find out - that much is sure.

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.

Ok - I'll look into that. But what is in the wikipedia artlcle I don't see as a serous challenge to my point.

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.

No - actually it wouldn't be weird at all. A lot of ancient cultures tolerated human sacrifice too and I don't feel weird at all about calling that immoral. And I doubt you do either. Likewise Slavery.

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.

After a quick check it turns out you might be right on that. I'll have to research that more. Sometimes we take for granted what we were taught is true, so if It turns out I'm wrong, consider this a thank you for setting me straight.


Jim

[Starlight]

That would be true ... excepting the case of sexual intimacy through sodomy which can introduce disease even w/o promiscuity.

It's not really clear that this is true. I've seen you and other conservatives point to the idea that it could cause a loss of bowel control, however AFAIK that is completely theoretical and not at all proven. Usually, in the human body, using muscles strengthens them rather than weakens them, so I would generally tend to assume that standard anal sex is likely to strengthen the muscles in the area (unless unusual and extreme force is used), and hence contribute to bowel health rather than the opposite.

One of the proven medical causes of loss of bowel control is actually child birth, as the extreme forces in the process can cause damage to women's muscles in the area. Are you against child-birth?

You seem not to be able to understand the difference between following the Christian moral code and simply being part of a Christian culture... Most non-Christians don't really understand what Salvation is all about, and they especially don't understand that people who grow up in Christian cultures adopt the Christian label but never actually experience the regeneration that comes through faith in Christ. So I understand your confusion.

I used to be a Christian. I understand just fine.

I was speaking in general terms about the evolution of different male and female characteristics. One could expect that would then statistically be found to be the optimal relationship, since that is the relationship that is required for the species to survive.

I don't think the evolution of human sexuality is a can of worms you really want to open, since it doesn't at all match to modern conservative Christian ethics. Humans appear to have been polyamorous for much of their evolutionary history. Likewise the biology of males suggests that they evolved in a context where same-sex sexual activities were common.

If everyone was male-male or female-female, the human race would disappear off the earth in <100 years.

I would feel safe betting money that within 10 years scientists will have fully developed methods for producing biological children with DNA from both same-sex parents.

It is possible for a species that was previously two-sexed to evolve into a single-sex reproducing species.

However, since only ~5% of people seem to prefer a spouse of the same-sex, by allowing one in 20 couples to be same-sex ones we aren't in danger of destroying the human race any time soon!

That is because you are not willing to allow for the possibility that same-sex relationships might themselves be destructive in the long run to a society. I don't know if they are or if they are not. But I am willing to ask the question.

We can answer that question from research into cultures that have had same-sex relationships.

American Anthropological Association, official statement made in 2004:

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

So the question is answered.

[oxmixmudd]

It's not really clear that this is true. I've seen you and other conservatives point to the idea that it could cause a loss of bowel control, however AFAIK that is completely theoretical and not at all proven. Usually, in the human body, using muscles strengthens them rather than weakens them, so I would generally tend to assume that standard anal sex is likely to strengthen the muscles in the area (unless unusual and extreme force is used), and hence contribute to bowel health rather than the opposite.

Source: webmd

Is Anal Sex Safe?
There are a number of health risks with anal sex, and anal intercourse is the riskiest form of sexual activity for several reasons, including the following:

The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure. Exposure to the human papillomavirus (HPV) may also lead to the development of anal warts and anal cancer. Using lubricants can help some, but doesn't completely prevent tearing.
The tissue inside the anus is not as well protected as the skin outside the anus. Our external tissue has layers of dead cells that serve as a protective barrier against infection. The tissue inside the anus does not have this natural protection, which leaves it vulnerable to tearing and the spread of infection.
The anus was designed to hold in feces. The anus is surrounded with a ring-like muscle, called the anal sphincter, which tightens after we defecate. When the muscle is tight, anal penetration can be painful and difficult. Repetitive anal sex may lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, making it difficult to hold in feces until you can get to the toilet. However, Kegel exercises to strengthen the sphincter may help prevent this problem or correct it.
The anus is full of bacteria. Even if both partners do not have a sexually-transmitted infection or disease, bacteria normally in the anus can potentially infect the giving partner. Practicing vaginal sex after anal sex can also lead to vaginal and urinary tract infections.

© Copyright Original Source

One of the proven medical causes of loss of bowel control is actually child birth, as the extreme forces in the process can cause damage to women's muscles in the area. Are you against child-birth?

There is no reasonable comparison here.

I used to be a Christian. I understand just fine.

No - I don't think you do.

I don't think the evolution of human sexuality is a can of worms you really want to open, since it doesn't at all match to modern conservative Christian ethics. Humans appear to have been polyamorous for much of their evolutionary history. Likewise the biology of males suggests that they evolved in a context where same-sex sexual activities were common.

Interesting. I tend to doubt you, but you can point me to whatever research you think backs up the claim.

I would feel safe betting money that within 10 years scientists will have fully developed methods for producing biological children with DNA from both same-sex parents.

I actually said something similar in this discussion in another thread. So yes, we may have reached a point in history were everybody could go same-sex and humanity could survive. Maybe.

It doesn't change my point even on little bit. Same-sex relationships are not what evolution produced in terms of ensuring the survival of the species (unless is serves some ancillary function, e.g. increased fecundity in females is associate with an increased incidence of homosexual male children - the increase in fecundity over-compensating for the reduction in mating behaviour)

It is possible for a species that was previously two-sexed to evolve into a single-sex reproducing species.

We aren't reptiles.

However, since only ~5% of people seem to prefer a spouse of the same-sex, by allowing one in 20 couples to be same-sex ones we aren't in danger of destroying the human race any time soon!

If there are long term destructive consequences to affirming same sex marriage, reasoning like that will not uncover the problem before it is too late.

We can answer that question from research into cultures that have had same-sex relationships.

American Anthropological Association, official statement made in 2004:

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

So the question is answered.

Maybe. Maybe not. "100 years of research" does not tell you what was studied and when, nor for how long the culture or cultures functioned in that mode. But I'm willing to learn.

However, I am skeptical of most social research. There are often thousands of interrelated variables, it is often impossible to do double blind tests or to institute adequate controls, and it is very hard to isolate the political and social biases of the researches from the research conclusions.


Jim

[carpedm9587]

After a quick check it turns out you might be right on that. I'll have to research that more. Sometimes we take for granted what we were taught is true, so if It turns out I'm wrong, consider this a thank you for setting me straight.

Jim

To me - of all the exchanges that have been had on this topic - this one is amazingly refreshing and honest. It speaks volumes for your integrity and your open-mindedness.

So kudos where kudos are due.

[carpedm9587]

It doesn't change my point even on little bit. Same-sex relationships are not what evolution produced in terms of ensuring the survival of the species (unless is serves some ancillary function, e.g. increased fecundity in females is associate with an increased incidence of homosexual male children - the increase in fecundity over-compensating for the reduction in mating behaviour)

Jim

A thought to consider: if the evolution model is true (and I believe it is), then everything about the species is associated with evolution. So if human intellect makes it possible for us to transcend the male/female model of most species, and create offspring from male/male and female/female parings using technology - that will either be an evolutionary advantage for our species, or it will be an evolutionary disadvantage. If it is the former - it will continue to enhance humanity's dominance over other species. If it is the latter, it will contribute to humanity's end.

Bottom line, we don't know what "evolution produced in terms of ensuring the survival of the species." We'll only know that when we see who/what survives.

And let us not forget that evolution is not a thoughtful process. It is a description of a dynamic in nature. Evolution does not "intend" anything. Indeed, we do not yet know if "self awareness" is a long-term survivability advantage. We do know, in the short term, it gives a species enormous power. However, self awareness has only existed a few tens of thousands of years. The dinosaurs existed for tens of millions of years. It may turn out that self-awareness is a characteristic that burns hot, and provides for temporary dominance, but eventually results in such a degree of self-absorption that the species destroys its own habitat and itself in the process.

The evolutionary of self-awareness is a fairly new one, at least on this planet. We are arrogant in the extreme if we think the jury is in on whether or not it's actually a benefit. It may turn out that the bees or the ants have it right. We should show some humility in the face of the fact that the lowly cockroach has shown more ability to survive long-term than we have (so far). So too for the alligator and the horseshoe crab.

[Starlight]

Oxmixmudd,

I find your enthusiastic interest in the medical details of anal sex somewhat disturbing. But, let's say I concede the point that it is a bit less medically advisable than other types of sex (including other types regularly performed in same-sex partnerships). What lesson would we draw from that? I mean, driving a car is less safe than walking, and biking and walking carry significant medical benefits, yet in my life I regularly perform all three activities. Would it therefore be immoral to drive? I don't think so, just a need for caution while I do that. There doesn't seem to be a very clear line between "slightly increased medical risk" and immorality. I use all kinds of transport despite differing risks and benefits, so why not all types of sexual activity despite differing risks and benefits?

There is no reasonable comparison here.

Well if you are worried about slightly increased medical risk, and particularly worried about bowel health, then surely you would recommend c-section over natural birth as a moral imperative? You seem to be trying to use an analogous argument about homosexuality...

No - I don't think you do.

?

If there are long term destructive consequences to affirming same sex marriage, reasoning like that will not uncover the problem before it is too late.

Have you put forth a single argument as to how having one in 20 marriages be same-sex would have "long term destructive consequences"? I like to think I have a good imagination, but I cannot imagine any kind of reasoning that would connect those two things.

It seems to me like saying "If 5% more people are happy rather than unhappy, society will collapse!" There's not really any connection.

"100 years of research" does not tell you what was studied and when

I quoted the world's largest society of anthropologists saying that the grand total of anthropological research shows no problems with same-sex marriages. In that context, "what was studied and when" was everything, i.e. all anthropological research ever done. There's obviously been quite a lot of it.

nor for how long the culture or cultures functioned in that mode.

Hmm, that is often quite difficult to determine because generally European influence has affected cultures once the Europeans started interacting with them. With the Greeks and Romans we have good documentation over a long period so it is possible to say that homosexuality was enthusiastically practiced for hundreds of years. With most other cultures we can only say that when the Europeans first encountered them, homosexuality was being practiced or celebrated by them, but that Christian/Muslim influence subsequently stamped it out.

The Siwan practices are a good example of this. 4 different anthropologists/explorers reported and documented their same-sex marriage customs in the early 20th century, but by the late 1940s such practices had been outlawed due to outside religious influence. A similar pattern occurred slightly earlier in the US, with the European colonists stamping out the customs of polygamous and same-sex marriage among the natives (and, sadly, doing a lot of stamping out the natives in general). It seems reasonable to presume that prior to European arrival, those cultures had been performing their practices for thousands of years (it's generally thought that cultures are reasonably static if outside influence and technological development is lacking). These anthropologists have collated the writings of early European explorers and anthropologists in Africa regarding their findings about African sexual practices, and show a dozen historical African tribes that had some form of same-sex marriage practices. (The European nations later used the existence of sodomy in Africa as a pretext for invasion, and in the period of colonialism took control of Africa and enforced their anti-sodomy laws) A people-group in Indonesia known as the Bugis have sufficiently resisted the Islamification of their nation through to the present day (and the anti-homosexuality teachings thereof) and so retains their historical practices through to the present day, which are quite interesting (the PhD student who wrote that article is now a lecturer at a university here and went on to write two books about this people-group's sexuality). Basically they have genders for men, women, pseudo-men, and pseudo-women, which allow people to opt out of the gender they were born in much like transgender people do in our societies, and then these people can subsequently marry a person of the same sex as well as have careers that weren't open to their birth gender (e.g. a female who has decided to become a pseudo-man can then marry a wife and be a blacksmith). Their traditional religious practices celebrate the balance and harmony that comes from having four genders, and presumably date back thousands of years.

[Tassman]

What is the purpose of morality?

[seer]

The purpose of morality is to keep God happy.

Finally!

[carpedm9587]

Finally!

You agree with this?

[Roy]

Yes - I had a mistaken impression about the history of the AIDS pandemic. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

Happy to help.