Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[Roy]

so you have claimed in the past but I have not seen any such link.

But again, you just ignored the rest of my post. What's up with that? I thought you weren't dodging?

There's no point responding to some-one who repeatedly denies seeing something they explicitly requested and were provided with mere days ago.

[seer]

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."

No Carp, this was about illegality. You would not make promiscuity illegal, with known harmful effects, but would keep incest illegal because of some possible future harm. Seems like a double standard.

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.

But opinion is insignificant, if not tied to something more real or objective, and that would include my opinions. That is my opinion on the matter, and if we really do live in a relative world, there is no objective way to demonstrate that my take on this is wrong and yours correct. You have no logical reason to question my use of "merely."

[seer]

You agree with this?

Just poking Tass... Though it is a good thing to keep God happy...

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, this was about illegality. You would not make promiscuity illegal, with known harmful effects, but would keep incest illegal because of some possible future harm. Seems like a double standard.

The issue is who is being harmed. If I am promiscuous without taking safe sex precautions, I am opening myself to possible disease. If I am already diseased and being promiscuous without taking safe sex precautions, we already have laws to deal with that. It is a form of assault. Incest introduces genetic risk that will not harm ME, but rather harm progeny. So it is reasonable to introduce laws to eliminate/reduce that risk. The positions are consistent.

But opinion is insignificant, if not tied to something more real or objective, and that would include my opinions.

My opinion is related to things that are real/objective. So are yours.

That is my opinion on the matter, and if we really do live in a relative world, there is no objective way to demonstrate that my take on this is wrong and yours correct.

Technique #1 - congratulations, you've just reminded us (again) that subjectively held positions aren't objectively held positions.

You have no logical reason to question my use of "merely."

Technique #2 - minimize/dismiss

[seer]

The issue is who is being harmed. If I am promiscuous without taking safe sex precautions, I am opening myself to possible disease. If I am already diseased and being promiscuous without taking safe sex precautions, we already have laws to deal with that. It is a form of assault. Incest introduces genetic risk that will not harm ME, but rather harm progeny. So it is reasonable to introduce laws to eliminate/reduce that risk. The positions are consistent.

I never heard of anyone getting arrested for giving someone herpes or syphilis. And no, again with the couples I referenced (male to male, female to female) there is no genetic harm, and in other cases there is no certainty of future genetic harm. No your position is not consistent.

My opinion is related to things that are real/objective. So are yours.

How is your opinion that I should not use the term "merely" an "objective" opinion?

Technique #1 - congratulations, you've just reminded us (again) that subjectively held positions aren't objectively held positions.

Right, so your opinion on the use of "merely" is no more correct than mine.

Technique #2 - minimize/dismiss

I asked for a logical response. Why is your opinion significant or important? Because you hold it?

[Roy]

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.

I can: Sodom and Gomorrah and/or Noah.

[Sparko]

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).

um how many STD's can be transmitted by an animal bite? You are really reaching here to just avoid admitting that the world would be a lot safer if everyone kept Christian morals.

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.

We are merely comparing the two standards. A promiscuous society versus a Christian one. It is hypothetical. In a perfect world the Christian one would be the better moral standard. Everything in both worlds is the same but in one people are promiscuous and in one they are not.

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.

It's a hypothetical comparing two views of sexual morality. The other stuff is not being compared.

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.

Penicillin and combustion engines are not moral behaviors. Who, how and when you have sex is a moral behavior. How you USE penicillin and combustian engines can be moral or immoral.

Yes how you have sex, who you have sex with are all moral behaviors. Otherwise you wouldn't think that rape and pedophilia was immoral and gay sex was moral.

[Sparko]

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.

OK then. so behaviors that benefit society are moral and those that do not benefit society are immoral, in a broad sense (not speaking of personal morality here)?

If that is the case then your argument that sexual behaviors have no moral value is false. As ox has been saying, if you compare Christian sexual values to the current values, society would have less divorce, disease, rape, etc under the Christian values. So it does have moral value and it is in fact the better moral value.

[Sparko]

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.

you just keep piling on conditions, don't you? Now it is only immoral to force your will on someone for personal gratification? So if a parent would get personal gratification by forcing his kid to do his chores, that would be immoral?

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.

Again, you seem to have various exceptions for whenever you decide something should violate someone's consent, except when it is something you DON'T want it to. What happens when one day society decides that is it perfectly OK for a 12 year old to consent to sex with an adult, or that it really doesn't matter and an adult can make the decision for the child? Since you are a moral relativist, I assume you would be OK with that?

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.

Again, what happened to the need for consent? You mean it is OK to force someone to perform some act that you don't want to perform as long as there is a law that says he has to?

[carpedm9587]

I never heard of anyone getting arrested for giving someone herpes or syphilis. And no, again with the couples I referenced (male to male, female to female) there is no genetic harm, and in other cases there is no certainty of future genetic harm. No your position is not consistent.

It depends on whether or not charges were pressed. Usually, for STDs that have a fix, it doesn't happen. But there are many laws on the books dealing with the more critical STDs, such as AIDS.

How is your opinion that I should not use the term "merely" an "objective" opinion?

I didn't claim that, so congratulations - you just pointed out (yet again) that subjective perspectives are not objective. We kind of knew that. It's in the words...

Right, so your opinion on the use of "merely" is no more correct than mine.

...and yet again....

I asked for a logical response. Why is your opinion significant or important? Because you hold it?

...and even yet again...

[carpedm9587]

um how many STD's can be transmitted by an animal bite? You are really reaching here to just avoid admitting that the world would be a lot safer if everyone kept Christian morals.

Have you actually looked into how AIDS started...?

We are merely comparing the two standards. A promiscuous society versus a Christian one. It is hypothetical. In a perfect world the Christian one would be the better moral standard. Everything in both worlds is the same but in one people are promiscuous and in one they are not.

"Better" is a relative term.

It's a hypothetical comparing two views of sexual morality. The other stuff is not being compared.

But your hypothetical comparing the two makes many assumptions about the rest. That's the point.

Penicillin and combustion engines are not moral behaviors. Who, how and when you have sex is a moral behavior. How you USE penicillin and combustian engines can be moral or immoral.

Yes they can.

Yes how you have sex, who you have sex with are all moral behaviors. Otherwise you wouldn't think that rape and pedophilia was immoral and gay sex was moral.

Who I have sex with and the circumstances of the encounter lend it a moral dimension. An act cannot be moral in and of itself - it requires a context.

[seer]

It depends on whether or not charges were pressed. Usually, for STDs that have a fix, it doesn't happen. But there are many laws on the books dealing with the more critical STDs, such as AIDS.

Except for most STDs that is not the case, so your argument is not consistent.

I didn't claim that, so congratulations - you just pointed out (yet again) that subjective perspectives are not objective. We kind of knew that. It's in the words...

They why are you calling me on using the term "merely"? You have your opinion, I have mine. What makes you right and me wrong?

[Sparko]

There's no point responding to some-one who repeatedly denies seeing something they explicitly requested and were provided with mere days ago.

sorry I missed the link.

But again, reading the original story (from a link in your link's page)
https://www.news-journal.com/news/lo...5739c6ac5.html
It appears that they were again talking about making and DECORATING a cake. This bakery doesn't sell standard cakes, but bakes them to order and decorates them. They refused to make it for a gay wedding, they also refuse to do alcohol themed cakes and other cakes that disagree with their values. As a maker of custom art-themed cakes that is their prerogative. If the couple wanted to buy a standard cake, then it would be wrong to not sell it to them. They had a custom design they wanted.

[Sparko]

Have you actually looked into how AIDS started...?

so MAYBE one? wow.

But your hypothetical comparing the two makes many assumptions about the rest. That's the point.



Yes they can.



Who I have sex with and the circumstances of the encounter lend it a moral dimension. An act cannot be moral in and of itself - it requires a context.

The context is who you have sex with, etc. That makes the act a moral or immoral act. Of course acts can be moral. They are the only things that CAN BE.

I am going to just stop here. You are way too frustrating to debate with. You keep piling on conditions and changing definitions and changing stories so much that I can't even follow you any more. What you consider "morality" is changes from post to post. You seem to expect everyone to agree with your definitions and of what is moral and immoral, yet when they push back you seem to resort to "morals are relative" as an escape.

I am done. I will leave you to Ox and Seer.

[carpedm9587]

OK then. so behaviors that benefit society are moral and those that do not benefit society are immoral, in a broad sense (not speaking of personal morality here)?

Again, it depends on what the individual finds to be of value. You're trying to make an absolute/objective statement to a relative/subjective moralist. For most of us, what we find to be moral does tend to benefit society. It is not necessarily a causal link.

If that is the case then your argument that sexual behaviors have no moral value is false. As ox has been saying, if you compare Christian sexual values to the current values, society would have less divorce, disease, rape, etc under the Christian values. So it does have moral value and it is in fact the better moral value.

Again, you're making "what if" statements about a reality that doesn't exist that make a lot of assumptions you cannot substantiate. I don't find that kind of speculation useful.