Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[carpedm9587]

The difference is that when I use "tolerance" it means "I don't agree with you, but I will allow you to do it anyway and not interfere" basically "I will put up with you even though I don't like it" - I don't pretend to be "tolerant" while calling everyone I don't agree with a Nazi Bigot Homophobic Racist.

So would you please go back in my posts and tell me exactly where I used the word "tolerance" at any point in the discussion...?

I tolerate homosexuality. I think it is wrong. I think it is a sin. But I tolerate it. I don't call them "scum" or some other words I will not use here. I treat them as equals in the work place, but I don't go around partying with them at gay bars or go to gay weddings. In fact I have a friend who is gay, whom I have known for 30 years now. We have gone to movies with other friends, I have gone over his house for cookouts, we enjoy the same TV shows, but he knows that I think he is living in sin. And he deals with it. But when it comes to his homosexual lifestyle, I tolerate it but don't participate in it. I don't expect him to change and I don't make his change a condition of our friendship. And I don't expect him to agree with me on my values.

I don't think I said anything that runs counter to this. That does not mean I do not view your position on this person as less prejudicial or bigoted. You simply have apparently compartmentalized it enough to get along. Labeling someone "sinful" or "immoral" on the basis of genetics is, IMO, an uninformed, prejudicial action. Like you, I'm not going to throw you out of my house, or refuse to talk to you. I believe your choice here, and your attitude towards this man (and others) is immoral.

Sparko - you appear to think that it is OK for you to make clear to this man that he is immoral in this aspect of his life, but you appear to be very upset that I am saying the same thing to you. Why is it OK for you to call this man out as immoral, but it is not OK for me to call you out?

Many liberals use "tolerance" to mean we have to agree with their values or we are bigots.

The position is bigoted. The position is prejudicial. If I were Christian I would tell you that you are sinning. And I would continue to talk to you, and I would continue to let you into my house, and I would continue to lend you my tools and my car. But I would make it clear that I think this position of your is prejudicial and bigoted.

So what's the problem?

[Sparko]

Again - since the ONLY thing that makes this act immoral is the sexual genome of the participants, the claim is being made that an act is immoral on the basis of membership in an immutable class: if the two people have the same sexual genome - immoral; if the two people have opposing sexual genomes - moral. That is fundamentally no different than saying, "if the people have the same racial genome - moral; if they have different racial genomes - immoral. The two claims are equivalent, and both betray an unacceptable level of prejudice/bigotry. The latter reflects racial prejudice/bigotry; the former reflects sexual prejudice/bigotry.

And no one has yet even TRIED to refute this. It's a simple argument. It continually gets ignored. I have to believe it is because some part of the folks posting here recognize it's simple truth: a moral position is being taken on the basis of the genetic code of the individuals involved.

Because your argument is like saying "They both have feet! so THAT must be why you hate them!"

You are just picking up "genome" and insisting that is the cause of the disagreement. It isn't. It is the BEHAVIOR. You can have two gay people who are completely celibate and just living together as roommates, or even a gay man and a hetero man living as roommates and we have no problem whatsoever. But if the two gay men or even the gay man and the heterosexual man engage in homosexual sex, then it becomes a sin. It is the act that is the moral determiner. Not the genes.

But you can't accept that, so you keep trying to push the determining factor as their genital equipment or immutable class, or some such nonsense.

if the two people have the same sexual genome - immoral; if the two people have opposing sexual genomes - moral.

This is also not true. It is immoral for heterosexual couples to have sex outside of their own marriage. Single sex is immoral. Adultery is immoral. Prostitution is immoral. It is the act. not the genes.

[carpedm9587]

Once again no, first there are no opposite sexual genomes I know of in this picture. Just different inclinations or attractions, which are not immutable characteristics. Second, one could easily use your argument to justify rape since the rapist is genetically predisposed to that behavior.

Wow - you really aren't getting this.

Couple A is sexually intimate: they have the same genetic sexual coding (male/male) - so their intimacy is immoral.
Couple B is sexually intimate: they have opposite genetic sexual coding (male/female) - so their intimacy is moral.

Couple A wishes to marry: they have the same genetic sexual coding (male/male) - so their marriage is prohibited.
Couple B wishes to marry: they have opposite genetic sexual coding (male/female) - so their marriage is permitted.

The difference between the two scenarios is entirely the immutable sexual coding for sex. You cannot escape this. Now take a parallel situation.

Couple A is sexually intimate: they have the same genetic racial coding (white/white) - so their intimacy is moral.
Couple B is sexually intimate: they have different genetic racial coding (white/black) - so their intimacy is immoral.

Couple A wishes to marry: they have the same genetic racial coding (white/white) - so their marriage is permitted.
Couple B wishes to marry: they have different genetic racial coding (white/black) - so their marriage is prohibited.

Many people used to hold the second set of positions. Today we realize that holding this position solely on the basis of genetic coding for race is a racially prejudiced, racially bigoted, immoral position. Yet you (and those like you) continue to claim that the first set of positions is justified, and it too is based 100% in genetic coding - this time for sex.

See the problem...?

[oxmixmudd]

Again - since the ONLY thing that makes this act immoral is the sexual genome of the participants, the claim is being made that an act is immoral on the basis of membership in an immutable class: if the two people have the same sexual genome - immoral; if the two people have opposing sexual genomes - moral. That is fundamentally no different than saying, "if the people have the same racial genome - moral; if they have different racial genomes - immoral. The two claims are equivalent, and both betray an unacceptable level of prejudice/bigotry. The latter reflects racial prejudice/bigotry; the former reflects sexual prejudice/bigotry.

And no one has yet even TRIED to refute this. It's a simple argument. It continually gets ignored. I have to believe it is because some part of the folks posting here recognize it's simple truth: a moral position is being taken on the basis of the genetic code of the individuals involved.

Lets try to stay away from motivations. That always completely destroys a conversation.

1) sexual reproduction creates two types of individual in a species - male and female.
2) a race is a subgroup in a species that is in fact much finer grained than male/female.
3) whereas racial differences are almost universally minor genetically, changes that are only slightly more significant than the variations we find individual to individual and distributed across the genome, sexuality effect the make up of an entire chromosome pair. Male is XY, female is XX and produces real differences in the physical makeup of the individuals. Additional or missing organs, different muscle makeup and body mass distributions, different average size, even different wiring in the brain itself certain areas of the brain tending to have differing activity levels male to female.

=> sexuality is different from racism in that it is a quality of the whole of the species, independent of race.


4) the proper function of sexuality is to mate and have children. A critical part of that function is the attraction mechanism. Without a properly functioning attraction mechanism, the two sexes don't mate and new members of the species are not made. So if the male and female members of the species are not attracted to each other they do not mate, no new members are formed, the species dies.

=> a misdirected attraction mechanism is a broken attraction mechanism. If such a breakage in the mechanism was population wide, the species dies.


Anything you disagree with so far?


Jim

[carpedm9587]

Because your argument is like saying "They both have feet! so THAT must be why you hate them!"

I said nothing about anyone hating anyone. I also have no idea what feet has to do with this.

You are just picking up "genome" and insisting that is the cause of the disagreement. It isn't. It is the BEHAVIOR.

And the only reason the behavior is immoral is because of the sexual genome of the two participants, as I have shown. The same behavior by two people with opposing sexual genomes would NOT be immoral.

You can have two gay people who are completely celibate and just living together as roommates, or even a gay man and a hetero man living as roommates and we have no problem whatsoever. But if the two gay men or even the gay man and the heterosexual man engage in homosexual sex, then it becomes a sin. It is the act that is the moral determiner. Not the genes.

So sexual intimacy is immoral because, and only because, they have like sexual codes.

But you can't accept that, so you keep trying to push the determining factor as their genital equipment or immutable class, or some such nonsense.

This is also not true. It is immoral for heterosexual couples to have sex outside of their own marriage. Single sex is immoral. Adultery is immoral. Prostitution is immoral. It is the act. not the genes.

You really need to learn about necessary and sufficient, Sparko. I explicitly said "same circumstances." So in a circumstance in which heterosexual couples would be sexually intimate and it is moral, a homosexual couple being sexually intimate is immoral. And the sole differentiator is the sexual genome of the two people involved.

[Sparko]

So would you please go back in my posts and tell me exactly where I used the word "tolerance" at any point in the discussion...?

You are the one who butted in on my comment to Cow poke about tolerance carp: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post542849
That is where it all started. You got all bent out of shape and for some reason started taking it personally when I made a comment about "liberals" and "tolerance"

Back on track now?

I don't think I said anything that runs counter to this. That does not mean I do not view your position on this person as less prejudicial or bigoted. You simply have apparently compartmentalized it enough to get along. Labeling someone "sinful" or "immoral" on the basis of genetics is, IMO, an uninformed, prejudicial action. Like you, I'm not going to throw you out of my house, or refuse to talk to you. I believe your choice here, and your attitude towards this man (and others) is immoral.

Sparko - you appear to think that it is OK for you to make clear to this man that he is immoral in this aspect of his life, but you appear to be very upset that I am saying the same thing to you. Why is it OK for you to call this man out as immoral, but it is not OK for me to call you out?

I don't call him a bigot. You are not telling me I am being immoral. You are calling me a bigot because I don't agree with your values. You are not tolerating my values. I am tolerating his values. see the difference? I basically say to gays, "I don't think what you are doing is right, but I am not going to stop you. But don't expect me to condone or participate in that behavior in any way" -- That is NOT what you are doing with me. You are saying "I don't think what you believe is correct so I am going to condemn you and try to force you to comply with my values or shame you by calling you a bigot"

The position is bigoted. The position is prejudicial. If I were Christian I would tell you that you are sinning. And I would continue to talk to you, and I would continue to let you into my house, and I would continue to lend you my tools and my car. But I would make it clear that I think this position of your is prejudicial and bigoted.

So what's the problem?

The problem is that you want to force people to accept your values, and if they don't they should be sued, fined, shamed, and condemned. And this from someone who claims morals are relative.

I am done now. You butted in on a comment I made to cow poke, then made it all about you. I have explained myself and said what I wanted to say. You may have the last word (unless I change my mind)

[carpedm9587]

Lets try to stay away from motivations. That always completely destroys a conversation.

Wow, Jim. Seriously? After all the times I was labeled "stubborn," "intentionally not getting it," and so forth - suddenly you're the font for reasoned dialogue? Don't get me wrong, I'm not upset. I'm just flabbergasted that you would even think to make that comment.

1) sexual reproduction creates two types of individual in a species - male and female.

Actually, that's not true. There are such things as genetic shemales, who have attributes of both genders. And if we get into transgenderism, your oversimplification of human sexuality is significant.

2) a race is a subgroup in a species that is in fact much finer grained than male/female.

There are more contributing factors, true. I'm not sure why this is relevant to the discussion.

3) whereas racial differences are almost universally minor genetically, changes that are only slightly more significant than the variations we find individual to individual and distributed across the genome, sexuality effect the make up of an entire chromosome pair. Male is XY, female is XX and produces real differences in the physical makeup of the individuals. Additional or missing organs, different muscle makeup and body mass distributions, different average size, even different wiring in the brain itself certain areas of the brain tending to have differing activity levels male to female.

Again - true - but I don't see the relevance. That one attribute takes more genetic code than the other to manifest does not appear to apply to the problem.

=> sexuality is different from racism in that it is a quality of the whole of the species, independent of race.

There is no question that "race" is different than "sex." Your "quality of the whole species" categorization appears to me to be rather arbitrary. The the distinctions between the two are more or less minor does not affect the overall argument.

4) the proper function of sexuality is to mate and have children. A critical part of that function is the attraction mechanism. Without a properly functioning attraction mechanism, the two sexes don't mate and new members of the species are not made. So if the male and female members of the species are not attracted to each other they do not mate, no new members are formed, the species dies.

Again - we have discussed this as well. First, for reasoning beings, the role of sex is two fold: an expression of love, and procreation. (personally, I would add it's also just plain fun, but I'm fairly sure you would not like that one because it opens the door to so-called "casual sex.") We accept as moral and valid sexual relationships between people who love one another (and are married - in your world) even when there is no possibility of procreation. So sex has a two-fold purpose in humanity, and you are arbitrarily ignoring one, even though you will defend it as moral for heterosexual couples.

=> a misdirected attraction mechanism is a broken attraction mechanism. If such a breakage in the mechanism was population wide, the species dies.

Your "population wide" is important. ALL attraction mechanisms would have to be "misdirected," for us to have a problem. That people are attracted to people with whom they cannot procreate does not make them "misdirected" in the heterosexual world. Ergo, you cannot make that claim for the homosexual world.

Anything you disagree with so far?

Jim

Noted above. Jim, your positions are not consistent. If you take the argument you are making above to its logical conclusion, ANY sex between two people that is not procreative becomes immoral. So the following becomes immoral:

1) Sex by any woman past menopause
2) Sex by any individual determined to be sterile
3) Sex anytime in the female ovulation cycle when fertilization is not possible

Your exclusive focus on sex as procreative inevitably takes you there. As soon as you admit "love" as a valid and moral human reason for being sexually intimate, you run into the wall of denying homosexuals on the basis of nothing other than their matching sex genome.

[carpedm9587]

You are the one who butted in on my comment to Cow poke about tolerance carp: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post542849
That is where it all started. You got all bent out of shape and for some reason started taking it personally when I made a comment about "liberals" and "tolerance"

Back on track now?

I've gone back to your linked post, and I'm not finding any place where I responded to this at all....?

I also haven't gotten "bent out of shape" since I came down on CP several months ago after a bad personal day. You guys seem to be under the impression that I'm some sort of emotionally involved here. I have about as much emotional investment here as I do solving a crossword puzzle. I look at arguments, see if they work, pick them apart to understand how (and if) they tick, and respond accordingly. Most of the time, if I had to describe my mood - it would be "amused." I don't mean that as in "you all are cute and amusing." I mean that I post here because it is a form of amusement - an exercise I enjoy to fill my break time. If I didn't enjoy the exchanges, I would just stop engaging.

I don't call him a bigot. You are not telling me I am being immoral. You are calling me a bigot because I don't agree with your values. You are not tolerating my values. I am tolerating his values. see the difference? I basically say to gays, "I don't think what you are doing is right, but I am not going to stop you. But don't expect me to condone or participate in that behavior in any way" -- That is NOT what you are doing with me. You are saying "I don't think what you believe is correct so I am going to condemn you and try to force you to comply with my values or shame you by calling you a bigot"

Your position is one that paints homosexuals as "other" and "immoral" for no other reason than the sexual equipment they have dangling between their legs. That is, IMO, a bigoted and prejudicial position, and being bigoted and prejudicial is immoral. I suppose I can just tell you that you're adopting an immoral position. But then when you ask me why, I'll have to tell you because you are adopting a sexually bigoted/prejudicial point of view, and that is not a moral choice. We end up at the same place.

The problem is that you want to force people to accept your values, and if they don't they should be sued, fined, shamed, and condemned. And this from someone who claims morals are relative.

Everyone thinks other people should adopt their moral values. I'm sure you think I am wrong and should agree with you about homosexuals. If we didn't think our moral code was "the best," by definition it would be different. And we all assess the actions of others according to our own moral code. That is how you justify calling your friend "sinful" for being sexually intimate with his partner, but see yourself as perfectly moral when you are sexually intimate with yours. I guess I don't see the problem here - to you, your friend is immoral for being homosexually active. For me you are immoral for being prejudiced/bigoted with respect to who can and cannot be sexually intimate. If you have a right to convey your views to him, exactly why am I not supposed to convey my views to you?

I am done now. You butted in on a comment I made to cow poke, then made it all about you. I have explained myself and said what I wanted to say. You may have the last word (unless I change my mind)

Again - I have not been able to find the post where I "butted in" on you and CP. And frankly, even if you showed me where that happened, you posted on an open forum. Expect some responses. If you want to keep it private, the forum provides a private messaging capability where no one will be able to inject their opinions.

I like you, Sparko - but you do seem to have a tendency to get pretty worked up.

[seer]

Wow - you really aren't getting this.

Couple A is sexually intimate: they have the same genetic sexual coding (male/male) - so their intimacy is immoral.
Couple B is sexually intimate: they have opposite genetic sexual coding (male/female) - so their intimacy is moral.

Couple A wishes to marry: they have the same genetic sexual coding (male/male) - so their marriage is prohibited.
Couple B wishes to marry: they have opposite genetic sexual coding (male/female) - so their marriage is permitted.

The difference between the two scenarios is entirely the immutable sexual coding for sex. You cannot escape this. Now take a parallel situation.

Couple A is sexually intimate: they have the same genetic racial coding (white/white) - so their intimacy is moral.
Couple B is sexually intimate: they have different genetic racial coding (white/black) - so their intimacy is immoral.

Couple A wishes to marry: they have the same genetic racial coding (white/white) - so their marriage is permitted.
Couple B wishes to marry: they have different genetic racial coding (white/black) - so their marriage is prohibited.

Many people used to hold the second set of positions. Today we realize that holding this position solely on the basis of genetic coding for race is a racially prejudiced, racially bigoted, immoral position. Yet you (and those like you) continue to claim that the first set of positions is justified, and it too is based 100% in genetic coding - this time for sex.

See the problem...?

No let's do it my way:

Man A is coded to be attracted to men, he acts on that coding - it is moral according to you.
Man B is coded to rape, he acts on that coding - it is immoral according to you.

So acting on one's genetic predisposition is moral in one instance and immoral in another. See the problem?

[carpedm9587]

No let's do it my way:

Man A is coded to be attracted to men, he acts on that coding - it is moral according to you.
Man B is coded to rape, he acts on that coding - it is immoral according to you.

So acting on one's genetic predisposition is moral in one instance and immoral in another. See the problem?

OK, I had to laugh at this. So you just dismiss the argument being made and you think you've answered it? Seer. You (and others) are avoiding the argument I'm making. I suspect (but cannot know) that you have no way to actually respond to it, and you know it.

Now - to your argument: The response to your proposition is that I do not use genetic coding as the basis for moral judgments. As we have both acknowledged, both conditions are genetic predispositions. But I consistently apply the argument, "genetic disposition or genetic coding is not a factor in determining morality." A man cannot be declared moral or immoral solely on the basis of his genome. MAN A acting on his sexual orientation is not acting morally by definition. He is also not acting immorally by definition. You only gave me his genetic coding, and the fact that he was sexually active. You gave me nothing about the context. So if he rapes another man - immoral. If he has sex with a young boy - immoral. If he is in a loving relationship with another man, then there is nothing immoral about the act.

Man B is raping. His genetic disposition does not give him a pass, since that disposition does not FORCE behavior. Both men still have responsibility for their choices. Man B is electing to act out of that disposition, and force sex on someone else. It is that forceful at that renders the sex immoral.

The genetic disposition is irrelevant in both cases.

Now, I have to wonder if you are even going to attempt to tackle the argument I put forward.

[seer]

OK, I had to laugh at this. So you just dismiss the argument being made and you think you've answered it? Seer. You (and others) are avoiding the argument I'm making. I suspect (but cannot know) that you have no way to actually respond to it, and you know it.

Now - to your argument: The response to your proposition is that I do not use genetic coding as the basis for moral judgments. As we have both acknowledged, both conditions are genetic predispositions. But I consistently apply the argument, "genetic disposition or genetic coding is not a factor in determining morality." A man cannot be declared moral or immoral solely on the basis of his genome. MAN A acting on his sexual orientation is not acting morally by definition. He is also not acting immorally by definition. You only gave me his genetic coding, and the fact that he was sexually active. You gave me nothing about the context. So if he rapes another man - immoral. If he has sex with a young boy - immoral. If he is in a loving relationship with another man, then there is nothing immoral about the act.

Man B is raping. His genetic disposition does not give him a pass, since that disposition does not FORCE behavior. Both men still have responsibility for their choices. Man B is electing to act out of that disposition, and force sex on someone else. It is that forceful at that renders the sex immoral.

The genetic disposition is irrelevant in both cases.

Now, I have to wonder if you are even going to attempt to tackle the argument I put forward.

But your whole argument is based on genetic coding. Again:

Couple A is sexually intimate: they have the same genetic sexual coding (male/male) - so their intimacy is immoral.
Couple B is sexually intimate: they have opposite genetic sexual coding (male/female) - so their intimacy is moral.

You are using homosexual genetic coding as a parallel to heterosexual genetic coding. That because both are genetically coded both should be acceptable. But why should that follow? Because you say so?

[Sparko]

But your whole argument is based on genetic coding. Again:

Couple A is sexually intimate: they have the same genetic sexual coding (male/male) - so their intimacy is immoral.
Couple B is sexually intimate: they have opposite genetic sexual coding (male/female) - so their intimacy is moral.

You are using homosexual genetic coding as a parallel to heterosexual genetic coding. That because both are genetically coded both should be acceptable. But why should that follow? Because you say so?

He is also ignoring that man/woman sex is also immoral if it is done outside of a marriage. And that even if two heterosexual men had sex it would be immoral. So it is not the sexual orientation that is immoral, it is homosexual sex (the act) that is immoral. Or even heterosexual sex in many circumstances. It isn't the genes. It's the act.

[carpedm9587]

But your whole argument is based on genetic coding. Again:

Couple A is sexually intimate: they have the same genetic sexual coding (male/male) - so their intimacy is immoral.
Couple B is sexually intimate: they have opposite genetic sexual coding (male/female) - so their intimacy is moral.

You are using homosexual genetic coding as a parallel to heterosexual genetic coding. That because both are genetically coded both should be acceptable. But why should that follow? Because you say so?

No...I am not. The argument I made, which you only partially reflected, was to show specifically the inconsistency of doing exactly that. Many once judged inter-racial couples, where the only basis for the distinction was their genetic distinction. Today we recognize the immorality (prejudice, bigotry) associated with doing that exact thing. Yet here is the Christian right, doing it all over again but this time with sex. The only distinction between the two couples here is their relative genetic makeup with respect to sex.

You yourself earlier noted that genetic makeup is not a valid basis for making a moral claim. I am merely holding you to being consistent with that position. If you are going to declare one immoral and the other moral, it cannot be on the basis of a genome that no one can alter.

[carpedm9587]

He is also ignoring that man/woman sex is also immoral if it is done outside of a marriage. And that even if two heterosexual men had sex it would be immoral. So it is not the sexual orientation that is immoral, it is homosexual sex (the act) that is immoral. Or even heterosexual sex in many circumstances. It isn't the genes. It's the act.

I'm not ignoring it in the least. I don't agree with it, and I do not see how it factors here. I explicitly said, "like circumstances for both couples." And the sexual orientation of the two people is irrelevant since the argument is not based on orientation - it is based on the actual sex of the partners.

And I know it is an act that is moral or immoral - but the only thing you can point to that is different between the two "acts" (sexual intimacy) is the genes of the participants. So if the act is moral for one couple but immoral (in the exact same circumstance) for another couple, and the only difference is their genetic make-up - it's not really the act. It's the people.

You have only one other possible avenue I can think of, and that is to unilaterally declare that the only moral sexual act is penal/vagina penetration. If you unilaterally declare every other act of intimacy (kissing, fondling, genital rubbing, hand-to-breast, use of sex aids, anal, oral, etc.), then a same-sex couple cannot participate in that one sexual act because they lack the requisite equipment and that leaves them with zero ways to be intimate. Then your position might be consistent and your claim that it is "the act" would be consistent. But I strongly suspect that few people here are so puritanical that the only act of sexual intimacy they engage in is penal/anal intercourse. And every other act IS possible by a homosexual couple, which means it's NOT the act, it's the people.

[carpedm9587]

I'm not ignoring it in the least. I don't agree with it, and I do not see how it factors here. I explicitly said, "like circumstances for both couples." And the sexual orientation of the two people is irrelevant since the argument is not based on orientation - it is based on the actual sex of the partners.

And I know it is an act that is moral or immoral - but the only thing you can point to that is different between the two "acts" (sexual intimacy) is the genes of the participants. So if the act is moral for one couple but immoral (in the exact same circumstance) for another couple, and the only difference is their genetic make-up - it's not really the act. It's the people.

You have only one other possible avenue I can think of, and that is to unilaterally declare that the only moral sexual act is penal/vagina penetration. If you unilaterally declare every other act of intimacy (kissing, fondling, genital rubbing, hand-to-breast, use of sex aids, anal, oral, etc.), then a same-sex couple cannot participate in that one sexual act because they lack the requisite equipment and that leaves them with zero ways to be intimate. Then your position might be consistent and your claim that it is "the act" would be consistent. But I strongly suspect that few people here are so puritanical that the only act of sexual intimacy they engage in is penal/vaginal intercourse. And every other act IS possible by a homosexual couple, which means it's NOT the act, it's the people.

My last post had an error near the end. "Penal/anal" should have been "penal/vaginal." It is fixed in the text above.