Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[Cow Poke]

Not me!

laughing

[seer]

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

I will try one more time.

1. Gay man marries a woman and has sexual relations. (moral)

2. Gay man marries a man and has sexual relations. (immoral)

How is that based on genetics rather than on the act?

[carpedm9587]

I will try one more time.

1. Gay man marries a woman and has sexual relations. (moral)

2. Gay man marries a man and has sexual relations. (immoral)

How is that based on genetics rather than on the act?

I will respond one more time. Because the only difference between the two acts IS the genetics of the participants - specifically their sex genome. 1 is male/female. 2 is male/male.

See it now...? Your morality is based on genetics. For the same act.... XY (male) + XY = immoral; XX (female) + XX = immoral; XX + XY = moral

If the only difference between the acts is the sex of the participants - then your morality is based on genetics...

[Sparko]

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.

You said:
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.

And that is incorrect. If Couple B are underage, not married to each other, or one is a prostitute, or a close relative, etc then the intimacy is immoral. And if two people with the same genetic coding do NOT have sex, it is not immoral even if both of them are gay.

It isn't the sexual orientation, or the sex bits themselves, but what the people do with those sex bits. It is the BEHAVIOR that matters. A penis, or two penises, or a dozen are amoral. Two men, or two dozen men, gay or straight orientation, are amoral. The objects are not moral or immoral. What those people do is what matters. Acts are moral or immoral, not things.

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.

That is like saying that if a man and a young boy have pedophile sex, then it is the AGE that is immoral because that is the only thing different between them and two adult men having sex. You are doing special pleading. It is always the act. The ACT of an adult having sex with a child is what is immoral. Not the age of the participants, The age is why the act is immoral, but the age isn't immoral.

If two men have sex, it is immoral because they are two men, yes. But the immorality is the act of the sex. If those two men were not having sex then there would be nothing immoral about them. So people who think that homosexual behavior is immoral are talking about the actual act. They don't care if two gay men are not having sex. Even two heterosexual men having sex would be immoral. But those two heterosexual men having sex with their own wives would not be. Same parts, different act. You are trying to use a hammer to force your "reason" into what our motivations are and we are telling you that you are wrong. Stop trying to be a mind reader.

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.

That is stupid. Nobody said that kissing, etc was immoral.

[oxmixmudd]

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.

( the rest later )

carpe - I said this was a reminder to me. I Admitted I held the most responsibility. Can we move on?

Jim

[carpedm9587]

You said:
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.

And that is incorrect. If Couple B are underage, not married to each other, or one is a prostitute, or a close relative, etc then the intimacy is immoral. And if two people with the same genetic coding do NOT have sex, it is not immoral even if both of them are gay.

Sparko, you really do need to learn about necessary and sufficient principles. The intent of the comparison you are responding to was for LIKE situations. So in situations where Couple B can morally be sexually intimate...Couple A would be accused of immorality - for the same act. That is the problem. Indeed, perhaps it is just simpler to note that there are contexts in which Couple B can be morally sexually intimate, and NO contexts in which Couple A can be morally sexually intimate.

That means it is about the genetics - not the act.

It isn't the sexual orientation, or the sex bits themselves, but what the people do with those sex bits. It is the BEHAVIOR that matters. A penis, or two penises, or a dozen are amoral. Two men, or two dozen men, gay or straight orientation, are amoral. The objects are not moral or immoral. What those people do is what matters. Acts are moral or immoral, not things.

But the evidence says that your words are not accurate. It is not the ACT since the exact same act in the exact same circumstance changes its moral standing SOLELY on the basis of the SEX of the people involved.

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.

That is like saying that if a man and a young boy have pedophile sex, then it is the AGE that is immoral because that is the only thing different between them and two adult men having sex. You are doing special pleading. It is always the act. The ACT of an adult having sex with a child is what is immoral. Not the age of the participants, The age is why the act is immoral, but the age isn't immoral.

Sparko - the ACT in a context is immoral. In this case, the context is disparate age, and it is actually the AGE (or more specifically, the difference in developmental status that age implies) that makes the act of pedophilia immoral. There is no problem with that. It is a variant on rape, where sex is being forced on someone - in this case because one lacks the capacity to maturely engage or resist.

But we are talking about acts between two consenting adults, married, meeting every other criteria for "moral" - and the only difference between them is the genetic gender of the participants. You can try to avoid it as much as you wish, but you are left with the inevitable conclusion that the only difference between the two scenarios is the reason for declaring one moral and the other immoral.

If you disagree - you have a simple way to make your point: describe why one act is moral and the other is not without any reference to the sex of the participants. If you can do this, I'll buy your "it's the act." If you cannot, then the inevitable conclusion is it is the genetics.

If two men have sex, it is immoral because they are two men, yes. But the immorality is the act of the sex.

...because two men are doing it. The same act between a man and a women is not immoral. If the ONLY difference is the sex of the two participants, it's not the act. You can claim it is until the cows come home, but your own words betray that this is NOT true.

If those two men were not having sex then there would be nothing immoral about them. So people who think that homosexual behavior is immoral are talking about the actual act. They don't care if two gay men are not having sex. Even two heterosexual men having sex would be immoral. But those two heterosexual men having sex with their own wives would not be. Same parts, different act. You are trying to use a hammer to force your "reason" into what our motivations are and we are telling you that you are wrong. Stop trying to be a mind reader.

I'm not reading any minds, Sparko - I am showing you the logical conclusion of your own argument. If you have two identical acts in two identical circumstances, and the ONLY difference is the genetically coded sex of the participants, there is no basis for saying "it is the act." The ONLY difference is the genetic coding for sex - so your moral code is based on the genetically coded sex of the participants.

This is logically inescapable. If you think otherwise, then take the challenge above.

That is stupid. Nobody said that kissing, etc was immoral.

Wow. Sorry, Sparko, but you really need a course in basic logic. I was actually offering you an avenue by which you could possibly make a claim that it actually was the act, but simultaneously pointing out the absurd consequences that approach would lead you to. You might want to reread my paragraph.

[carpedm9587]

( the rest later )

carpe - I said this was a reminder to me. I Admitted I held the most responsibility. Can we move on?

Jim

Well, until you posted this, that was intended to be my last post on the subject.

[seer]

I will respond one more time. Because the only difference between the two acts IS the genetics of the participants - specifically their sex genome. 1 is male/female. 2 is male/male.

See it now...? Your morality is based on genetics. For the same act.... XY (male) + XY = immoral; XX (female) + XX = immoral; XX + XY = moral

If the only difference between the acts is the sex of the participants - then your morality is based on genetics...

No Carp, if it was genetics how could it be moral for a gay man to have sex with a woman/wife. Please explain.

[carpedm9587]

So let me see if I can outline the problem confronting those taking a position against same-sex marriages or intimacy.

We are generally in agreement that genetic coding is not the basis for morality. It would be wrong to say, for example,

Couple A: both white, are married and mutually, sexually intimate - this is moral
Couple B: one white one black, are married and mutually, sexually intimate - this is immoral

The only difference (in this example) between Couple A and Couple B is their genetic coding for race, and it would not be right to make THAT a basis for a moral distinction. People who used to make this claim were widely seen as racially bigoted, racially prejudiced because of their position concerning Couple B.

So now we have a like situation:

Couple C: one female, one male, are married and mutually, sexually intimate - this is moral
Couple D: both male or both female, are married and mutually, sexually intimate - this is immoral

Just as with the situation above, the only difference between Couple C and Couple D is their genetic coding, this time for sex. The two scenarios are completely parallel. We look at the person casting Couple B as immoral with a raised eyebrow saying, "how can you be so racially prejudiced/bigoted in 2018?" So why are we not looking at the person casting Couple D as immoral with a raised eyebrow saying, "how can you be so sexually prejudiced/bigoted in 2018?"

The two situations are perfectly parallel. If you think they are not, and you want to make the case that your framework about sexual morality is NOT based on genetics, then you have a very simple task to prove it: make the case for the immorality of ANY sexual involvement between two people who are coded with the same sex genome without referring to their sex. It's impossible - because the very BASIS of the "immoral" claim IS the sex genome of the two participants.

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, if it was genetics how could it be moral for a gay man to have sex with a woman/wife. Please explain.

Because in your moral code, sex between XX and XY is moral if they are married.

In your moral code, sex between XX and XX or XY and XY is immoral in any circumstance.

So the specific genetic coding of the two participants is the basis for your moral claim.

[Bill the Cat]

The two situations are perfectly parallel. If you think they are not, and you want to make the case that your framework about sexual morality is NOT based on genetics, then you have a very simple task to prove it: make the case for the immorality of ANY sexual involvement between two people who are coded with the same sex genome without referring to their sex. It's impossible - because the very BASIS of the "immoral" claim IS the sex genome of the two participants.

Not true. A vast percentage of cat 1 can reproduce with each other - one of the main reasons governments care about legalizing marriages in the first place. None in cat 2 can with each other. Therefore, the government should not care about cat 2 at all. They serve no public good in and of themselves as a couple.

[seer]

Because in your moral code, sex between XX and XY is moral if they are married.

Bingo SEX, the actual sexual act.

In your moral code, sex between XX and XX is immoral in any circumstance.

Right SEX.

So the specific genetic coding of the two participants is the basis for your moral claim.

Wrong, the SEXUAL act is. Since I made it clear that a gay man could bed a woman and that act would be moral. So his genetic make up makes no difference, it is the act that makes it moral or not..

[carpedm9587]

Bingo SEX, the actual sexual act.

Right SEX.

Wrong, the SEXUAL act is. Since I made it clear that a gay man could bed a woman and that act would be moral. So his genetic make up makes no difference, it is the act that makes it moral or not..

Unbelievable. Yes. The act is "sex" in both places. And it is moral in one and immoral in the other ONLY because of the sexual coding of the two participants. You cannot validly claim it is the act when it is the same act in both contexts.

This conversation is similar to the following:

Person A: Women driving cars is immoral.
Person B: Is it also immoral for men to drive cars?
Person A: Of course not! Man can morally drive cars.
Person B: So the morality of this act is based on whether the person doing it has XX (female) coding instead of XY (male) genetic coding. That's not good.
Person A: Of course not! It's about the act of driving the car!
Person B: But you just said "driving a car" is NOT immoral for a man, so the only difference between the two scenarios is the sex coding of the two people involved. Your basing your morality on genetics.
Person A: That's stupid. Obviously my morality is based on the action - in this case driving the car.
Person B: I think I'm going to back away slowly...you're not really making any sense.

And with that, I leave you with your inconsistent, and nonsensical moral position. I will never hold it because I do not base the morality or immorality of an act on the genes of the people engaged in the act. What you and Sparko and others who hold this position are doing is engaging in a sexually discriminatory, prejudiced, bigoted position. IMO, it is not the loving couple who is acting and speaking immorally; it is you folks (for this topic).

[seer]

Unbelievable. Yes. The act is "sex" in both places. And it is moral in one and immoral in the other ONLY because of the sexual coding of the two participants. You cannot validly claim it is the act when it is the same act in both contexts.

This conversation is similar to the following:

Person A: Women driving cars is immoral.
Person B: Is it also immoral for men to drive cars?
Person A: Of course not! Man can morally drive cars.
Person B: So the morality of this act is based on whether the person doing it has XX (female) coding instead of XY (male) genetic coding. That's not good.
Person A: Of course not! It's about the act of driving the car!
Person B: But you just said "driving a car" is NOT immoral for a man, so the only difference between the two scenarios is the sex coding of the two people involved. Your basing your morality on genetics.
Person A: That's stupid. Obviously my morality is based on the action - in this case driving the car.
Person B: I think I'm going to back away slowly...you're not really making any sense.

And with that, I leave you with your inconsistent, and nonsensical moral position. I will never hold it because I do not base the morality or immorality of an act on the genes of the people engaged in the act. What you and Sparko and others who hold this position are doing is engaging in a sexually discriminatory, prejudiced, bigoted position. IMO, it is not the loving couple who is acting and speaking immorally; it is you folks (for this topic).

Let me repeat this: If a straight man experiments and tries sex with a man I would call that act immoral. Am I basing that on genetics or solely on the act? And I see you have once again resorted to ad hominem...

[Sparko]

Sparko, you really do need to learn about necessary and sufficient principles. The intent of the comparison you are responding to was for LIKE situations. So in situations where Couple B can morally be sexually intimate...Couple A would be accused of immorality - for the same act. That is the problem. Indeed, perhaps it is just simpler to note that there are contexts in which Couple B can be morally sexually intimate, and NO contexts in which Couple A can be morally sexually intimate.

That means it is about the genetics - not the act.

No, because the same genetics NOT performing the act is not immoral. The genetics is the context of the act. Yes. But we are not discriminating or calling a sin, the sex/genetics. Only the ACT when performed by people of the same sex. The people themselves, when not doing that act are not being immoral. I think we are talking past each other.

When someone goes into a shop and wants to buy an adultery cake, to celebrate their affair, a Christian baker would say no. He is saying no because of the act, not because the people are heterosexual, or their gene coding or whatever you want to call it. Adultery (sex between a married person(s) and someone else who is not their spouse) is the problem. The same two people could have a close friendship and no sex and there would be no immorality. It is not the people, it is not their sex, it is not the sex that is immoral. It is the sex in the context of adultery that is the problem.

When two gay people have sex, the sex between two people of the same gender is immoral. The "same gender" is the context for why the act "sex" is immoral. I think we agree here. But the two people themselves are not immoral, nor is sex immoral, nor is having the sexual orientation immoral. It is only when the ACT "sex" is performed in the context of "same gender" that it becomes immoral. But the coding is not what is being discriminated against. It is the ACT in the context. Together an act+context = behavior that is moral or immoral. It is the entire thing that is immoral or immoral, each part alone is not moral or immoral.

Two gay people in a platonic friendship is not immoral. Two gay people getting married to women and having sex with their wives is not immoral. Two hetrosexual men having sex is immoral. A lesbian and a gay man having sex while married to each other is not immoral. A lesbian and a gay man having sex outside of marriage IS immoral.

But the evidence says that your words are not accurate. It is not the ACT since the exact same act in the exact same circumstance changes its moral standing SOLELY on the basis of the SEX of the people involved.

The sex is the context. The entire act in a specific context is what is immoral or moral .

If I kill a man, the act of killing can be moral or immoral. The context determines that. So if I kill a man who is trying to kill me, it is moral. If I kill that same man and he is not doing anything, then it is immoral. and if he is trying to kill me ONLY because I am trying to kill him first and I do, then I am immoral. I am not discriminating against the man or his sex. You have to take the entire formula into consideration "Act X in context Y" to get a moral statement. context y by itself (Man trying to kill me) is not enough. He could actually be trying to kill me in self defense if I am an axe murderer.

Sparko - the ACT in a context is immoral.

ding ding.

In this case, the context is disparate age, and it is actually the AGE (or more specifically, the difference in developmental status that age implies) that makes the act of pedophilia immoral.

No the entire act is what makes it immoral. Sex is not moral or immoral, neither is a relationship between a man and a boy. ONLY when you combine the ACT with the context (sex with a young boy) do you get a moral statement.

Wow. Sorry, Sparko, but you really need a course in basic logic. I was actually offering you an avenue by which you could possibly make a claim that it actually was the act, but simultaneously pointing out the absurd consequences that approach would lead you to. You might want to reread my paragraph.

I read it. I was just trying out one of your debate tactics.