Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[seer]

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.

Are you completely missing it? If we don't use genetic makeup to make moral claims, then you don't get to compare genetic makeups to make your moral equivalency argument defending homosexual behaviors. OK, so now that we have thrown out the whole genetic thing where do we go?

[carpedm9587]

Are you completely missing it? If we don't use genetic makeup to make moral claims, then you don't get to compare genetic makeups to make your moral equivalency argument defending homosexual behaviors. OK, so now that we have thrown out the whole genetic thing where do we go?

Seer - that is exactly my point...genetic markers have nothing to do with morality. So you cannot say one instance of an action is moral, and another is immoral, when the only difference between the two situations is genetic markers, which is exactly what you (and others) are doing.

Sexual intimacy between X and Y in a committed married relationship - moral
Sexual intimacy between X and X in a committed married relationship - immoral

The only difference is the markers - which is irrelevant. The point is that YOU folks are the ones making moral pronouncements on the basis of genetic markers - and it is not valid. As you previously noted - genetic markers tell us nothing about morality.

So where we go is simple. If you're going to make a claim that homosexual intimacy is immoral, you have to do it on a basis OTHER than the sex of the participants (because that is a genetic issue). By definition - you can't. So your position collapses.

[oxmixmudd]

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.

A reminder first to myself and then to you. You aren't as clean as you think you are ... but I recognize my role in that is the larger one.

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.

I can't possibly list every possible anomaly in every phrase. And I don't intend to deal with transgenderism right now, and I am certainly am not going to try to address every possible mutation or failure in the copy or development process from zygote to birth. The point is genetically nor0mal humans and normal variation (2 or maybe 3 sigma). Ambiguous genetalia are <.1% of the population (outside 3-sigma or 99%). Even if one includes all possible variations where there is some genetic ambiguity as to the sex of the individual we are still talking <2% of the population (outside 2-sigma or 96%).

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.

I haven't defined a problem or a goal yet. Just listing facts to see what we can agree on.

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.

Sorry, there is a much more significant difference between male and female than there is between any two races. Again - just listing facts for now to see what we can agree on.

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.

Sex - biologically - has nothing to do with love. From a purely scientific perspective, looking at it as the result of evolution, sex is about creating more humans. And all the elements around it (love, long term relationships etc etc) are about providing an environment where the species continues. It all developed because that is what made it more likely that our extremely long maturation process (as compared to other species) would complete and new humans would enter the world and the human race would continue. That is the only scientfic/materialistic/evolutionary 'purpose' that can possibly exist around any of this. From that point of view, all these things exist because they make it more likely humanity will survive another generation. Now clearly I believe there is more to it than that. But you can't. Evolution is purposeless, working within natural selection and random variation, and everything that develops exists because it does not interfere with or enhances the survival of the species.

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.

No, just the majority. 90% same sex attraction would reduce the population to an unsustainable population (around 5000) from our current 7 billion in just between 6 and 7 generations (simplified assumptions) maybe a few more if we take into account the current population doubling time (61 years). Even just a majority same-sex attraction would present a problem in the current world unless the straight people got busy making babies. It's not something I'm worried about, it's just making the point. same-sex attraction is not where evolution went nor where it is going unless we are destined for extinction.

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

I am not yet arguing any point. I am establishing what we can agree on in terms of factual statements about sex and sexuality, it's evolutionary advantage and 'purpose' in that it and the mechanisms that surround it are the primary means of creating new humans and fundamental to the survival of the species.

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.

Again, I'm not arguing any point yet. I am simply establishing what we can agree on in terms of some basic facts about sex and it's evolutionary 'purpose', it's raison d'etre from an evoltionary/materialistic perspective. By definition, those facts have no real moral perspective, they are just facts. So it seems we mostly agree, although it is not entirely clear because your responses seemed to have a large number of elements in them oriented more around anticipating and provide a defense against where you thought I might be going with my use of these facts. So I'm trying read through all that and get to whether you agree these are real facts so we have a basis to work from in a discussion of the potential moral implications.

I think were I am most unclear on what you agree with me on is on the role of love as it relates to sex. Love I would think has to be an ancillary development from an evolutionary perspective. It exists because it is at least a useful part of keeping the two people together long enough to raise a human child and as a functional part of the attractive mechanism that effectively forces people to mate. Now one could argue that love developed first as a helpful construct but over time replaced other constructs, enabled the longer maturation process necessary with higher intelligence, and then became a necessary construct. Nevertheless, without it, most children would find themselves on their own too early and die and a much smaller number for children would be made. It also helps with creating a society, with keeping large groups of people together so that as a group we can be more powerful than the beasts that often have better physical capacity 1 on 1. Lots of evolutionary advantages to it, (disadvantages too in some respects). But mostly, the elements that draw two people of the opposite sex together exist so (came in to being because) they increase the probability two people of the opposite sex will mate, produce children, and bring them to the point they can survive on their own.

I am approaching this from an evolutionary perspective because there we must agree. At least in principle. Why God did it, what God's purpose is for it all - you'll have none of that. So there is not much to discuss there at this time.


Jim

[Tassman]

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?

Lets do it properly.

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

Yes on both counts.

Man C is coded to rape women, he acts on that coding - it is immoral according to you.
Man D is coded to rape men, he acts on that coding - it is immoral according to you.

Yes, on both counts.

So acting on one's genetic predisposition is moral provided there is mutual , informed consent on both sides. No problem!

[seer]

So where we go is simple. If you're going to make a claim that homosexual intimacy is immoral, you have to do it on a basis OTHER than the sex of the participants (because that is a genetic issue). By definition - you can't. So your position collapses.

What are you talking about Carp, I was not making a case based on genetics, nowhere did I do that. You were the one making the genetic equivalency argument. I have been making the case that homosexual BEHAVIOR is immoral NO matter the genetic predisposition. And I have made that argument based on my Biblical worldview - that there is a teleology for human sexuality, a design for human sexuality, and that homsexual behavior, like rape, or adultery, or sex with animals, or prostitution, or promiscuity violate the created order for human sexuality. You have been making the case that because both gay sex and straight sex are genetically predisposed that therefore gay sex should be morally acceptable. That does not follow, any more than it would be acceptable for any other genetically predisposed behaviors like promiscuity or rape.

[seer]

Lets do it properly.

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

Yes on both counts.

Man C is coded to rape women, he acts on that coding - it is immoral according to you.
Man D is coded to rape men, he acts on that coding - it is immoral according to you.

Yes, on both counts.

So acting on one's genetic predisposition is moral provided there is mutual , informed consent on both sides. No problem!

Why is consent necessary? If a culture allows wife rape for instance, why is that morally wrong?

[Cow Poke]

Lets do it properly.

Forgive me if this reminded me of the phrase, "I'm from the IRS, and I'm here to help you".

[carpedm9587]

A reminder first to myself and then to you. You aren't as clean as you think you are ... but I recognize my role in that is the larger one.

You folks tend to walk out on a limb when you presume to read minds. I have not claimed to be "clean," nor do I think I am. More than once I have slipped into reactionary language, with a notable incidence with CP a few months back. I have no illusion that I am perfect. If I have done so with you, however, I am unaware of it. point me to it, if you would. If I did slip in that manner, I would apologize. If I didn't, I would clarify the response.

I can't possibly list every possible anomaly in every phrase. And I don't intend to deal with transgenderism right now, and I am certainly am not going to try to address every possible mutation or failure in the copy or development process from zygote to birth. The point is genetically normal humans and normal variation (2 or maybe 3 sigma). Ambiguous genetalia are <.1% of the population (outside 3-sigma or 99%). Even if one includes all possible variations where there is some genetic ambiguity as to the sex of the individual we are still talking <2% of the population (outside 2-sigma or 96%).

Yes, it is rare. My point was that you are narrowing your sexual definitions more than is warranted, given the wide array at work in the human population. However, I acknowledge that the vast bulk of the population is genetically wired to be physically male or female, and we'll leave the rest aside for now.

I haven't defined a problem or a goal yet. Just listing facts to see what we can agree on.

Fair enough.

Sorry, there is a much more significant difference between male and female than there is between any two races. Again - just listing facts for now to see what we can agree on.

I agree there is a more significant difference between male/female than between races. Since you have not made an argument, and we're just agreeing on facts (and good move, IMO), these are both genetically coded, and sex takes up more of the genome than race.

Sex - biologically - has nothing to do with love. From a purely scientific perspective, looking at it as the result of evolution, sex is about creating more humans. And all the elements around it (love, long term relationships etc etc) are about providing an environment where the species continues. It all developed because that is what made it more likely that our extremely long maturation process (as compared to other species) would complete and new humans would enter the world and the human race would continue. That is the only scientfic/materialistic/evolutionary 'purpose' that can possibly exist around any of this. From that point of view, all these things exist because they make it more likely humanity will survive another generation. Now clearly I believe there is more to it than that. But you can't. Evolution is purposeless, working within natural selection and random variation, and everything that develops exists because it does not interfere with or enhances the survival of the species.

Here we part ways. You are attempting to focus everything about sex to procreation, but none of our experiences speaks to that reality. For humans, sex is both procreative and unitive (not to mention just plain fun). You cannot take the reasoning part of the human person out of the equation. We are not just any animal; we are reasoning animals. We are social animals. Indeed, in practice, sex is more about unity than procreation. Think about it for a moment: a couple with a 30 year marriage (like mine) that makes love once a week (minimally), will make love over 1500 times over 30 years. Families average 1.9 kids per family in the U.S. (yes, most of our population growth is coming from immigration). And love making continues long after procreation is possible.

Sorry, Jim, but you cannot just narrowly define something to get to your goal. Unity and procreation both play important roles in the human species, and both have evolutionary value. I don't need evolution to be "mindful" to see that in operation.

No, just the majority. 90% same sex attraction would reduce the population to an unsustainable population (around 5000) from our current 7 billion in just between 6 and 7 generations (simplified assumptions) maybe a few more if we take into account the current population doubling time (61 years). Even just a majority same-sex attraction would present a problem in the current world unless the straight people got busy making babies. It's not something I'm worried about, it's just making the point. same-sex attraction is not where evolution went nor where it is going unless we are destined for extinction.

"Just" 90%? Jim, you appear to be setting up to make an argument on the basis of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Depending on who's numbers you believe, I have not seen homosexuality numbers that have ever exceeded 10%, and most believe the number is closer to 3-4%. So I have no clue how this statistic on your part, which has no association with reality, does anything to frame the argument. Also, I don't know where your math comes from, but we don't go from 7B to 5000 in "a few generations" even with only 10% of the population being heterosexual. That being said, there is no doubt that as the % of homosexuality increases, it would put downward pressure on population growth. If that is what you want to agree on, consider us agreed. The specific numbers involve too many variables to make accurate predictions.

I am not yet arguing any point. I am establishing what we can agree on in terms of factual statements about sex and sexuality, it's evolutionary advantage and 'purpose' in that it and the mechanisms that surround it are the primary means of creating new humans and fundamental to the survival of the species.

Understood. So...continuing on...

Again, I'm not arguing any point yet. I am simply establishing what we can agree on in terms of some basic facts about sex and it's evolutionary 'purpose', it's raison d'etre from an evoltionary/materialistic perspective. By definition, those facts have no real moral perspective, they are just facts. So it seems we mostly agree, although it is not entirely clear because your responses seemed to have a large number of elements in them oriented more around anticipating and provide a defense against where you thought I might be going with my use of these facts. So I'm trying read through all that and get to whether you agree these are real facts so we have a basis to work from in a discussion of the potential moral implications.

As you noted, evolution does not have a "purpose." It is a term for a mindless process that is essentially a statistical reality: anything that provides a species with a survival edge will lead to that species surviving more in its environmental niche. Sex is one mechanism by which a species replicates itself with genetic variation, so species with this capability have an evolutionary edge because they scramble the gene pool continuously. Species that replicate asexually lack that benefit, so they can survive within their niches, but they see significantly less long-term variation.

In the human species, sex also contributes to the social dynamic, forging unity, creating protective bonds, all of which itself provides a survival edge.

I think were I am most unclear on what you agree with me on is on the role of love as it relates to sex. Love I would think has to be an ancillary development from an evolutionary perspective. It exists because it is at least a useful part of keeping the two people together long enough to raise a human child and as a functional part of the attractive mechanism that effectively forces people to mate. Now one could argue that love developed first as a helpful construct but over time replaced other constructs, enabled the longer maturation process necessary with higher intelligence, and then became a necessary construct. Nevertheless, without it, most children would find themselves on their own too early and die and a much smaller number for children would be made. It also helps with creating a society, with keeping large groups of people together so that as a group we can be more powerful than the beasts that often have better physical capacity 1 on 1. Lots of evolutionary advantages to it, (disadvantages too in some respects). But mostly, the elements that draw two people of the opposite sex together exist so (came in to being because) they increase the probability two people of the opposite sex will mate, produce children, and bring them to the point they can survive on their own.

I am approaching this from an evolutionary perspective because there we must agree. At least in principle. Why God did it, what God's purpose is for it all - you'll have none of that. So there is not much to discuss there at this time.

Jim

You are correct that "why god did it" is a somewhat meaningless conversation for me. I have no problem listening to what you believe about that, but I will not have anything to contribute to that discussion until someone can show me that such a god actually exists.

As for the rest of your post here, I have no doubt that "love" is a variation on "attraction" that originally emerged in the human person as a dynamic for bringing people together so procreation could happen. Those capable of "love" would be more likely to procreate, so their genes would be more likely to continue. Those capable of "love" would also be more likely to bond with their children, providing a safe environment for their care. But the communal nature of society cannot be ignored. "Love" also plays a role in bonding groups and communities, and there is safety in numbers, which also enhances survival. The same basic capability provides evolutionary advantage in multiple ways. You appear to be attempting to link it to one way: procreation. I do not consider that valid.

[carpedm9587]

What are you talking about Carp, I was not making a case based on genetics, nowhere did I do that.

Yes, you have. You just don't see it or acknowledge it. So, again, I'll lay the problem out for you.

Person A and Person B are in a committed, married relationship and they are mutually intimate. In your world:

Scenario 1: One is male and one is female - this is moral.
Scenario 2: Both are male or both are female - this is immoral.

The only difference between the two scenarios is genetics, specifically sexual coding. So you are making a moral decision on the basis of genetics. If you are not, then you have to explain the basis of this moral distinction that is NOT based on the sex of the partners.

You were the one making the genetic equivalency argument. I have been making the case that homosexual BEHAVIOR is immoral NO matter the genetic predisposition. And I have made that argument based on my Biblical worldview - that there is a teleology for human sexuality, a design for human sexuality, and that homsexual behavior, like rape, or adultery, or sex with animals, or prostitution, or promiscuity violate the created order for human sexuality. You have been making the case that because both gay sex and straight sex are genetically predisposed that therefore gay sex should be morally acceptable. That does not follow, any more than it would be acceptable for any other genetically predisposed behaviors like promiscuity or rape.

You do believe you are making it about the act - but the breakdown above clearly shows you are not. If you think you are not, then your challenge is a simple one. Distinguish between scenario 1 and 2 above in a manner that is NOT related to the sex of the participants. If you cannot, then you cannot escape that you are making a moral statement based on sex.

And note that I have not said a word about "sexual orientation." I am pointing out that you have a different moral standard for same-sex intimacy than opposite-sex intimacy, and the only basis for that is the sex of the partners - by definition.

[seer]

Yes, you have. You just don't see it or acknowledge it. So, again, I'll lay the problem out for you.

Person A and Person B are in a committed, married relationship and they are mutually intimate. In your world:

Scenario 1: One is male and one is female - this is moral.
Scenario 2: Both are male or both are female - this is immoral.

The only difference between the two scenarios is genetics, specifically sexual coding. So you are making a moral decision on the basis of genetics. If you are not, then you have to explain the basis of this moral distinction that is NOT based on the sex of the partners.

No Carp, I'm making the argument on behavior, not genetics. A gay may can choose not to act on this inclination (I know a few). So the gay man can choose to act (immoral) or not act (moral). So how is that based on genetics?

You do believe you are making it about the act - but the breakdown above clearly shows you are not. If you think you are not, then your challenge is a simple one. Distinguish between scenario 1 and 2 above in a manner that is NOT related to the sex of the participants. If you cannot, then you cannot escape that you are making a moral statement based on sex.

And note that I have not said a word about "sexual orientation." I am pointing out that you have a different moral standard for same-sex intimacy than opposite-sex intimacy, and the only basis for that is the sex of the partners - by definition.

Of course I have a different standard. Just as I would have a different standard for promiscuity, even with straight sex.

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, I'm making the argument on behavior, not genetics. A gay may can choose not to act on this inclination (I know a few). So the gay man can choose to act (immoral) or not act (moral). So how is that based on genetics?

First, I remind you that I said nothing about "inclination" or "sexual orientation." I am talking solely about SEX (male/female) not sexual orientation (gay/straight). So your response does not address the argument.

The ACT is immoral, in your worldview, because of the SEX of the two participants (i.e., it is the same). The SAME ACT is moral, in your worldview, if the two participants have the opposite sex.

I think we need an example, so I'm going out on a limb and I'm going to assume that you have no problem with hand-to-breast sexual intimacy (the other possibilities would probably get me tossed off TWeb). So, two scenarios:

1) Man in bed with married wife and touches her breast intimately - your worldview (I presume) accepts this as moral.
2) Woman in bed with her married same-sex partner and touches her breast intimately - your worldview (I presume) rejects this as immoral.

The ONLY difference between the two acts is the sex of the partners. So one ACT is moral because the participants have differing sets of sex genes, and the other IDENTICAL ACT is immoral because the partners have the same set of sex genes. Your claim it is about the "ACT" is untrue. It is the same act in both contexts. The ONLY difference is the sex genes of the two people participating in the act.

Ergo - you are making a moral decision on the basis of genetics.

Of course I have a different standard. Just as I would have a different standard for promiscuity, even with straight sex.

But you cannot get away from the fact that your classification of a given act as "immoral" is not based on the nature of the act, or its context, because I made both of those equivalent. You are making the decision SOLELY on the basis of the sex of the participants. So your moral code is actually about the genetics, which you earlier agreed was improper because "genetics tell us nothing about morality." I agree with that assessment, BTW, which is why I do not reject homosexual intimacy. I do NOT base my moral framework on the genetics of the participants.

[seer]

First, I remind you that I said nothing about "inclination" or "sexual orientation." I am talking solely about SEX (male/female) not sexual orientation (gay/straight). So your response does not address the argument.

The ACT is immoral, in your worldview, because of the SEX of the two participants (i.e., it is the same). The SAME ACT is moral, in your worldview, if the two participants have the opposite sex.

I think we need an example, so I'm going out on a limb and I'm going to assume that you have no problem with hand-to-breast sexual intimacy (the other possibilities would probably get me tossed off TWeb). So, two scenarios:

1) Man in bed with married wife and touches her breast intimately - your worldview (I presume) accepts this as moral.
2) Woman in bed with her married same-sex partner and touches her breast intimately - your worldview (I presume) rejects this as immoral.

The ONLY difference between the two acts is the sex of the partners. So one ACT is moral because the participants have differing sets of sex genes, and the other IDENTICAL ACT is immoral because the partners have the same set of sex genes. Your claim it is about the "ACT" is untrue. It is the same act in both contexts. The ONLY difference is the sex genes of the two people participating in the act.

Ergo - you are making a moral decision on the basis of genetics.

Sheesh! No! If a straight man wanted to try sex with a guy for the heck of it, that too would be immoral. If a bisexual wanted to bed someone of the same sex that also would be immoral. When a gay man marries a woman and has sex with her that is not immoral.

But you cannot get away from the fact that your classification of a given act as "immoral" is not based on the nature of the act, or its context, because I made both of those equivalent. You are making the decision SOLELY on the basis of the sex of the participants. So your moral code is actually about the genetics, which you earlier agreed was improper because "genetics tell us nothing about morality." I agree with that assessment, BTW, which is why I do not reject homosexual intimacy. I do NOT base my moral framework on the genetics of the participants.

Of course it is base on an act. The act of a man have sex with a woman (moral) and the act of a man having sex with a man (immoral).

[carpedm9587]

Sheesh! No! If a straight man wanted to try sex with a guy for the heck of it, that too would be immoral. If a bisexual wanted to bed someone of the same sex that also would be immoral. When a gay man marries a woman and has sex with her that is not immoral.

And this response proves my claim: your moral code (in this matter) is based on genetics.

Of course it is base on an act. The act of a man have sex with a woman (moral) and the act of a man having sex with a man (immoral).

I give up, Seer. How you can write this sentence and NOT see that your moral code is based on genetics is beyond me. It is immoral when the two people have the same GENETICALLY CODED sex, and moral when they have different GENETICALLY CODED sex. Your entire morality is based on what genetic code the two people involved possess. So it's not the act, its the genetic code of the two people engaged in the act.

I know you to not be a stupid man. I've painted the problem in as clear a term as I can, multiple times. I have no clue why you are not seeing the problem, or responding to it. The pessimistic part of me is saying, "because if he actually tackles the argument, he knows he has no response." I'll try not to let that pessimistic part win the day.

Perhaps someone else can explain the problem to you. It very clearly underscores your inconsistency, and the fact that your moral code is actually (for this matter) rooted in genetics.

I'll leave you to it.

[Cow Poke]

I'll leave you to it.

This always seems to come back to bite the person who says it.

[carpedm9587]

This always seems to come back to bite the person who says it.

Not me!