Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[seer]

Actually, you are and simply not acknowledging it. As I noted in my previous post. You are essentially saying "that act is immoral because the two people involved are of the same sex." There is no other basis for calling homosexual intimacy "immoral" other than the sex of the two people involved. That is "state of being" used to make a moral determination.

Again, this has nothing to do with the "state of being", but action. I believe sex with animals, prostitution, fornication, adultery are too immoral. Is that because of who they are or because of what they do? But let me ask again Carp, is a man's innate racist mindset immoral? Even if he never acts on those tendencies? What is your opinion?

[seer]

And the rest of us are telling you that this position is itself an immoral one because it defines "immorality" on the basis of "state of being." It is not even necessarily sexual orientation. ANY sex between two people who are of the same sex is automatically immoral for no other reason than they are the same sex.

I don't believe we are doing this, but why would it be immoral to define immorality on the basis of the "state of being?" Is that something you made up?

[carpedm9587]

Again, this has nothing to do with the "state of being", but action.

You keep missing the point, Seer. The action is being called immoral for no other reason than state of being, which is what you just acknowledged is not a basis for making moral statements. I completely agree with you.

I believe sex with animals, prostitution, fornication, adultery are too immoral. Is that because of who they are or because of what they do?

Sex with animals we've talked about. Prostitution is not "state of being." It is a chosen profession. "Fornication" is not "state of being." It's a classification of sexual acts between people, specifically those who are not married. Being "not married" is a choice - not a state of being. "Adultery" is not "state of being." It's a classification of sexual acts between people, specifically between people, at least one of whom is married to someone else. Being "not married" is a choice - not a state of being. So you are comparing apples to oranges.

A sex act between two people of the same sex, which is declared immoral for no other reason than they are of the same sex, is declaring an action immoral on the basis of their state of being - their assigned sex. My assigned sex is not a choice - it's a state of being. As you noted, "state of being" is not a basis for making a moral claim. An act cannot be made moral or immoral solely on the basis of the state of being of its participants.

But let me ask again Carp, is a man's innate racist mindset immoral? Even if he never acts on those tendencies? What is your opinion?

My opinion is that racism is immoral. Your one article about how we are inclined to protection of the group does not change that position. We're not hunter/gatherers anymore. There is no compelling evidence that this is a genetic predisposition. And not every "innate" tendency is defensible. Indeed, if you go down that route, then all sexual activity between mature heterosexuals in any context is moral. After all, it is our "innate" disposition to procreate to perpetuate the species. Right? Marriage is a human/cultural construct. It should be irrelevant if all innate tendencies are automatically moral.

[Sparko]

The people walked into the Christian's shop where his views are paramount. The Christians did not walk into the gay couple's home.

Public accommodation only counts with protected classes and in certain circumstances. Businesses are free to refuse service to anyone for any other reason. Our stores typically have signs on them that say, "No shirt, No shoes, No service" and some restaurants have a coat and tie requirement - People not wearing certain clothes are being discriminated against!!! Oh noes!! Bars even have restrictions on serving alcohol to anyone under 21!! Age discrimination!!

Obviously you have no idea about US Law, the constitution or business practices.

[Sparko]

Here's what's amazing about this whole gay agenda thing.

Christian baker declines to cater a same-sex wedding.

Reasonable remedy - "let's open another bakery that is more 'gay friendly', and let the market forces play out!"

This, of course, has the affect of INCREASING the choices consumers have, and rewarding entrepreneurs.

Totalitarian remedy - "let's use the hammer of justice to destroy the business those Christians have built, because they don't want to compromise their deeply held religious convictions.

This, of course, has the affect of LIMITING the choices consumers have, and punishing entrepreneurs.

Christian Adoption Agency declines to adopt babies to same-sex couples.

Reasonable remedy - "let's open another Adoption Agency that is more 'gay friendly', and let the market forces play out!"

This, of course, has the affect of INCREASING the choices adoptive parents have.

Totalitarian remedy - "let's use the hammer of justice to destroy the services those Christians Adoption Agencies have been providing, because they don't want to compromise their deeply held religious convictions.

This, of course, has the affect of LIMITING the choices consumers have.

Liberals, who love the rallying cry "PRO CHOICE", can be incredibly ANTI-CHOICE. "You do it our way, or you shut down!"

It's all about "tolerance" CP. They tolerate anyone who agrees with them and destroy anyone who doesn't.

Liberalism isn't.

[Sparko]

It's not about promoting the "gay agenda" or promoting the Evangelical agenda. Its about Constitutional rights. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments limit the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from violating an individual's rights of due process and equal protection. This applies to gays as well as every other citizen as has been so ruled by the Supreme Court. Christians are not entitled to special treatment.



No, the "reasonable remedy" is to obey the Constitution and don't promote bigotry.

and yet liberals are being extremely bigoted and discriminatory against Christians. But that is OK apparently.

[Sparko]

Nope! Nobody is entitled to special treatment. ALL citizens are entitled to equal protection according to the Fourteenth Amendment.

You really need to study the constitution Tassy. the 14th is about the equal protection of the law by the government, not about "special treatment" by businesses or between citizens - and it certainly doesn't eliminate the first amendment.

[carpedm9587]

and yet liberals are being extremely bigoted and discriminatory against Christians. But that is OK apparently.

Taking a stand against bigotry/prejudice is not itself bigotry/prejudice. Refusing to give Christians who promote/practice bigotry/prejudice (and not all of them do) a pass because they are Christians is not bigotry/prejudice. MANY Christian sects have embraced the LGBTQ community, and many are even conducting same-sex marriages. It is not Christians that are being spoken against - it is bigotry/prejudice/hatred towards the LGBTQ community.

[seer]

You keep missing the point, Seer. The action is being called immoral for no other reason than state of being, which is what you just acknowledged is not a basis for making moral statements. I completely agree with you.

Carp, you know that is not true according to our beliefs. It is the act that is immoral.

Sex with animals we've talked about. Prostitution is not "state of being." It is a chosen profession. "Fornication" is not "state of being." It's a classification of sexual acts between people, specifically those who are not married. Being "not married" is a choice - not a state of being. "Adultery" is not "state of being." It's a classification of sexual acts between people, specifically between people, at least one of whom is married to someone else. Being "not married" is a choice - not a state of being. So you are comparing apples to oranges.

But the point is that the state of being has nothing to do with whether the act is immoral or not. And you are wrong about adultery, there is mounting evidence that the inclination towards adultery is too an innate characteristic, a "state of being." https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...l-human-beings

A sex act between two people of the same sex, which is declared immoral for no other reason than they are of the same sex, is declaring an action immoral on the basis of their state of being - their assigned sex. My assigned sex is not a choice - it's a state of being. As you noted, "state of being" is not a basis for making a moral claim. An act cannot be made moral or immoral solely on the basis of the state of being of its participants.

You are not making sense Carp. If adultery is based on an innate characteristic, as science is suggesting, am I calling adultery immoral because of the adulterer's "state of being" or because of the act of adultery?

My opinion is that racism is immoral. Your one article about how we are inclined to protection of the group does not change that position. We're not hunter/gatherers anymore. There is no compelling evidence that this is a genetic predisposition. And not every "innate" tendency is defensible. Indeed, if you go down that route, then all sexual activity between mature heterosexuals in any context is moral. After all, it is our "innate" disposition to procreate to perpetuate the species. Right? Marriage is a human/cultural construct. It should be irrelevant if all innate tendencies are automatically moral.

First there is evidence for a genetic predisposition, but the point is you are willing to call an innate tendency immoral. You are willing to label certain innate tendencies immoral, but not others. So here we are - back in the moras of the subjective with no objective way to escape.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, you know that is not true according to our beliefs. It is the act that is immoral.

...because the two people are the same sex. That same act is NOT immoral between two people of the opposite sex. Ergo - it is not about the act - it is about the state of being of the two people participating in the act. You cannot get away from this Seer. It is an inescapable fact of the discussion.

But the point is that the state of being has nothing to do with whether the act is immoral or not. And you are wrong about adultery, there is mounting evidence that the inclination towards adultery is too an innate characteristic, a "state of being." https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...l-human-beings

Actually, ANY sexual activity is genetically impressed on us, Seer. We are coded to procreate. It is one of the most fundamental aspects of our person. And I'll remind you that you are the one with a problem with "adultery." My problem with "adultery" has nothing to do with the sex. It has to do with the deception and breach of promise. If two people enter into an open marriage, and both agree they want to have sex with other people, there is no deception and no breach of trust, so I have no moral opposition. I'm fairly sure you would.

You are not making sense Carp. If adultery is based on an innate characteristic, as science is suggesting, am I calling adultery immoral because of the adulterer's "state of being" or because of the act of adultery?

"Having sex" is coded into us. "Having sex with X" is a decision point. Despite these oddball articles you keep linking, I know of no compelling biological or psychological evidence that "being an adulterer" is an immutable aspect of the human person in the way that race, sex, sexual-orientation, and hair color are.

First there is evidence for a genetic predisposition, but the point is you are willing to call an innate tendency immoral. You are willing to label certain innate tendencies immoral, but not others. So here we are - back in the moras of the subjective with no objective way to escape.

Many aspects of our being are "genetic predispositions," Seer. You seem to be attempting to make an equivalence between "genetically predisposed" and "state of being." I am not "genetically predisposed" to be a man. I am genetically hard-coded to be a man. It is an immutable characteristic of my person. I am not "genetically predisposed" to be Caucasian. I AM genetically predisposed to be fat. That doesn't mean I get a pass on my dietary habits. If I act on them, I'll be fat. I may be "genetically predisposed" to favor my own group. That does not mean I get a free pass to be racist/prejudiced. As with my diet, I can make choices about who I accept and how I treat them. Some of those choices will be moral - and some not.

[oxmixmudd]

And the rest of us are telling you that this position is itself an immoral one because it defines "immorality" on the basis of "state of being." It is not even necessarily sexual orientation. ANY sex between two people who are of the same sex is automatically immoral for no other reason than they are the same sex.

That is exactly what the Bible teaches. That is exactly what almost any Christian that takes the Bible at face value believes. That IS the historical religious teaching of the Christian church, and it is still the teaching of many Christian Churches, including IIRC the RCC.

[QUOTE]
We used to hear that sex between two black people was immoral too, and from a lot of churches as well.[QUOTE]


"We" never heard such a ridiculous thing. That has never been a teaching in any church that I know of or have interacted with. I certainly have never encountered it and my mom's family lived in a very rural and very prejudiced part of south Alabama. I would not know if it was a common teaching in the 1800's or early 1900's, but I've been around since the late '50s and never heard that not even one time from anyone. So you need to back that up or retract it.

Then the churches that took this position found a way to say, "you know, we had that wrong."

maybe some backwoods fundamentalist baptists ...? Again, AFAIK, this was never a common Christian teaching and you are wrong to characterize it as such. If you can't show clear evidence, you are guilty of purposed inflammatory language and need to retract.

This one is tougher, because the anti-homosexual passages of the bible are far more explicit and less open to interpretation. So fundamentalists who believe the bible can be (or should be) interpreted "literally" are going to have a real hard time with this one.

That is true. That is why this is a much more difficult issue than racism, and that is people like you approaching it as you are are not very likely to bring any reasoned solution to the problem.

We'll have to see what happens, ultimately. But religious view or no, those of us who see the injustice of the position/attitude will take a stand against it with every tool at our disposal. History tells us that society tends towards identifying, fighting, and isolating bigotry/prejudice, though it sometimes takes a while to make those wheels turn. I am hopeful we are just at the starting point of this turn.

Because this society recognizes the morality in the Bible as good, we have both conditions. The Bible upholds and teaches that all men are equal before God. That we are to love all and show mercy to all.

But it also has very strong teachings against ALL forms of sexual immorality. And that list includes but may not be limited to: sex outside marriage (fornication or adultery), sex between people of the same sex, rape, beastiality. The RCC I believe includes masturbation. These defined the morals of the majority of the nation for most of its history. Adultery and pedophilia and the like are still almost universally seen as wrong. same-sex is the present day topic of disagreement.

You are wrong to characterize the issue of same-sex ACTS as ONLY discrimination. It is an overly simplified and destructive approach to the issue. It is defined as immoral by all three of the major religions of the world. And your lack of respect for that fact is part of the problem and will not help to solve the problem.


Jim

[seer]

Many aspects of our being are "genetic predispositions," Seer. You seem to be attempting to make an equivalence between "genetically predisposed" and "state of being." I am not "genetically predisposed" to be a man. I am genetically hard-coded to be a man. It is an immutable characteristic of my person. I am not "genetically predisposed" to be Caucasian. I AM genetically predisposed to be fat. That doesn't mean I get a pass on my dietary habits. If I act on them, I'll be fat. I may be "genetically predisposed" to favor my own group. That does not mean I get a free pass to be racist/prejudiced. As with my diet, I can make choices about who I accept and how I treat them. Some of those choices will be moral - and some not.

Are not homosexual tendencies a genetic predisposition? I mean you can not help being biologically male, but a homosexual can refrain from have sexual relations. You may be genetically disposed to find women sexually attractive, but we agree that you do not have to act on that. A physical act, is not a "state of being" (whatever that is) - it may flow from that state, but they are two different things.

[Sparko]

I think everybody is saying the same things over and over and over....

Pretty much why I gave up discussing it with carpedm. He seems incapable of admitting he is wrong about any point. Oxmix has him boxed in completely and he still just repeats his objection, knowing full well it is incorrect.

[carpedm9587]

That is exactly what the Bible teaches. That is exactly what almost any Christian that takes the Bible at face value believes. That IS the historical religious teaching of the Christian church, and it is still the teaching of many Christian Churches, including IIRC the RCC.

As I have noted before, "it's always been that way" is not an argument I find compelling.

"We" never heard such a ridiculous thing. That has never been a teaching in any church that I know of or have interacted with. I certainly have never encountered it and my mom's family lived in a very rural and very prejudiced part of south Alabama. I would not know if it was a common teaching in the 1800's or early 1900's, but I've been around since the late '50s and never heard that not even one time from anyone. So you need to back that up or retract it.

maybe some backwoods fundamentalist baptists ...? Again, AFAIK, this was never a common Christian teaching and you are wrong to characterize it as such. If you can't show clear evidence, you are guilty of purposed inflammatory language and need to retract.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ne...ers-among.html

https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-sep...l-marriage-and

http://thetencommandmentsministry.us...nd_segregation

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/...acial-marriage

Even Truman publicly stated that interracial marriage was inconsistent with the bible.

To be fair, opposition to interracial marriage was not as widespread as opposition to same-sex marriage, and churches were more likely to get behind the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s than to oppose it. Indeed, a case can be made that it was religious groups that brought a lot of the issues to the fore. But religion, and the will of god, was one of the most commonly cited reasons for opposing interracial marriage. And it was a position promoted by (as I said) some churches.

That is true. That is why this is a much more difficult issue than racism, and that is people like you approaching it as you are are not very likely to bring any reasoned solution to the problem.

So this is an interesting statement. It suggests an openness to examining and adjusting the mindset. So, if you had the attention of the people working towards the civil rights of the LGBTQ community, what advice would you give them for better engaging those seen as "discriminating against the LGBTQ community?"

Because this society recognizes the morality in the Bible as good, we have both conditions. The Bible upholds and teaches that all men are equal before God. That we are to love all and show mercy to all.

But it also has very strong teachings against ALL forms of sexual immorality. And that list includes but may not be limited to: sex outside marriage (fornication or adultery), sex between people of the same sex, rape, beastiality. The RCC I believe includes masturbation. These defined the morals of the majority of the nation for most of its history. Adultery and pedophilia and the like are still almost universally seen as wrong. same-sex is the present day topic of disagreement.

You are wrong to characterize the issue of same-sex ACTS as ONLY discrimination. It is an overly simplified and destructive approach to the issue. It is defined as immoral by all three of the major religions of the world. And your lack of respect for that fact is part of the problem and will not help to solve the problem.

Jim

So this is an odd statement. I'm not sure what three religions you are identifying. I am assuming Christianity (2.1B) and Islam (1.3B). If you are referring to the Abrahamic religions, Judaism is way down the list, the 12th largest (14M). The third largest (and actually fastest growing) is the nonreligious people of the world (1.1B). After that Hinduism (900M), the various Chinese religions (660M). Then the various primal/indigenous religions of the world (400M). So I accept that parts of Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism hold homosexual acts as immoral. Parts have already made the shift to acceptance. Chinese religions do not, as far as I know. Many (most?) indigenous religions do not. Many (most?) nonreligious types do not (varies by country).

Worldwide - the trend towards acceptance is well underway.

As for your final statement, Jim, I understand the feelings on your part. I actually do. Part of me has sympathy for it. But now try to see it from the other side. You are asking me to "have respect" for a position I find intrinsically bigoted/prejudicial. I have walked the route of "go gently." The result is that nothing changes. I did the same thing for years about gun rights. Only very recently (here) did I realize that I was enabling an entire sector of our society that is willing to (and not going to) change. They are "dug in" and see themselves as right beyond question. "God's will" is a powerful motivator, and one of the most dangerous aspects of religiosity. Once someone is convinced "it is god's will" they can justify almost anything as right. So we have people blowing themselves up and taking children with them because it is "god's will." We have people oppressing the LGBTQ community because it is "god's will." We have people shotting doctors who perform abortions because it is "god's will."

To be fair, we also have a lot of good being done by religions. But the "god's will" sword has two edges - it can be (and has been) used for great good - and it can be (and has been) used to justify amazing atrocities. Standing against those bad sides is difficult, because the perpetrator is wrapped in the righteous banner of "god's will." I do not and cannot respect a position rooted in bigotry. I also recognize that there is truth in MLK's statement that hate cannot conquer hate. That did not keep MLK from speaking out against racism. It just meant he did not hate.

I don't hate you. I'm not even angry at you. But I totally reject your position on this topic, and believe I have given you a fairly solid, rational reason for rejecting this. To that you have "the bible says so" and "god's will." I can only say, if your god wills this of you, then that is not a god worthy of your worship. No just god would reject love and intimacy between two people just because they didn't have mismatched genitalia. The position is simply beneath such a being.

[Sparko]

Taking a stand against bigotry/prejudice is not itself bigotry/prejudice. Refusing to give Christians who promote/practice bigotry/prejudice (and not all of them do) a pass because they are Christians is not bigotry/prejudice. MANY Christian sects have embraced the LGBTQ community, and many are even conducting same-sex marriages. It is not Christians that are being spoken against - it is bigotry/prejudice/hatred towards the LGBTQ community.

When you define "bigotry" as being against anything you are for, then it is. And that is what liberalism does. It defines "tolerance" as agreeing with their values and "bigotry" as disagreeing with them.