Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[carpedm9587]

It was not a dodge Carp, and you don't get to go on until you answer 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? How about a straight answer?

Wow - you really do like to dodge. Yes - you would call that immoral. I have no way of knowing if you base it on genetics or the act because you won't answer my question. It is clear you believe you are basing it on the act.

Now...

Two people are in a loving, lifelong married relationship and are sexually intimate. Both the marriage and the sexual encounter meet EVERY christian requirement for a "valid/moral" marriage/act, except that you do not know the sex of the two people. That is the ONLY piece of information you are missing.

Can you tell me if this marriage and this sexual activity is moral or immoral?

As you said - how about a straight answer...

[Sparko]

LOL... you DID find a way to dodge. OK - let's do it this way:

Two people are in a loving, lifelong married relationship and are sexually intimate. The marriage meets EVERY christian requirement for "valid" marriage/relationship. The ONLY possible difference is it might be two people of the same sex or two people of opposite sex, and you do not have that piece of information.

Is the marriage and sexual activity moral or immoral?


Are you seeing the problem yet...?

Again, we agree that sex is the context that makes the behavior moral or immoral. duh.

But it is the act IN A SPECIFIC CONTEXT that makes an entire moral statement. "Marriage" or "Sex" is the act. It can be moral or immoral. The participants in the sex act are the context that makes the ACT moral or immoral. If the participants are the same sex, it is immoral. If the participants are different sex but related, it is immoral, if one of the participants is forced into it, it is immoral, if one of the participants is too young it is immoral, if one of the participants isn't human, it is immoral. Even though those same participants can be completely moral in other contexts and acts.

specific ACT + specific CONTEXT = Moral STATEMENT.

[Cow Poke]

Since you consider any casual sex immoral....

Um.... pretty much all of the sex I have is casual, and none of it is immoral.

[Sparko]

Wow - you really do like to dodge. Yes - you would call that immoral. I have no way of knowing if you base it on genetics or the act because you won't answer my question. It is clear you believe you are basing it on the act.

Now...

Two people are in a loving, lifelong married relationship and are sexually intimate. Both the marriage and the sexual encounter meet EVERY christian requirement for a "valid/moral" marriage/act, except that you do not know the sex of the two people. That is the ONLY piece of information you are missing.

Can you tell me if this marriage and this sexual activity is moral or immoral?

Since the sex of the people is part of what makes it a valid marriage, you have shot your own example in the foot and made it impossible to answer. But I hope I answered what you are getting at above.

[carpedm9587]

Again, we agree that sex is the context that makes the behavior moral or immoral. duh.

But it is the act IN A SPECIFIC CONTEXT that makes an entire moral statement. "Marriage" or "Sex" is the act. It can be moral or immoral. The participants in the sex act are the context that makes the ACT moral or immoral. If the participants are the same sex, it is immoral. If the participants are different sex but related, it is immoral, if one of the participants is forced into it, it is immoral, if one of the participants is too young it is immoral, if one of the participants isn't human, it is immoral. Even though those same participants can be completely moral in other contexts and acts.

specific ACT + specific CONTEXT = Moral STATEMENT.

I have underlined the key part (related to my point) of your response. If you can say that what makes the act immoral is the sex of the participants - and the same act in the same context would be moral if the two people are of the opposite sex...then the basis for the claim of immorality is the genetic code of the participants. The ACT is not the determining factor.

To use symbolic language (and your terms):

specific ACT + specific CONTEXT = Moral STATEMENT


ACT = sexual intimacy in a married relationship
CONTEXT = male/male
CONTEXT = male/female
STATEMENT = moral/immoral

sexual intimacy in a married relationship + male/male = immoral
sexual intimacy in a married relationship + male/female = moral

As in mathematics, in logic statements, in the context of an equivalency, like terms "cancel out." The statements are different. The acts are the same, leaving only the male/male and male/female as the driving differentiator. Ergo - your moral statement is not conditioned on the ACT part of the equation - it is conditioned on the CONTEXT part of the equation. And the CONTEXT part of the equation is 100% determined by the genetic coding of the individuals.

Ergo - your moral statement is based on genetics. QED.

The logic is irrefutable, Sparko - if you understand how logical statements function.

[carpedm9587]

Um.... pretty much all of the sex I have is casual, and none of it is immoral.

Me too

[seer]

Wow - you really do like to dodge. Yes - you would call that immoral. I have no way of knowing if you base it on genetics or the act because you won't answer my question. It is clear you believe you are basing it on the act.

Of course I'm basing it on the act and not genetics since that straight guy is not coded for that. You know that Carp, but you don't want to admit it.

Two people are in a loving, lifelong married relationship and are sexually intimate. Both the marriage and the sexual encounter meet EVERY christian requirement for a "valid/moral" marriage/act, except that you do not know the sex of the two people. That is the ONLY piece of information you are missing.

But one can not meet the most basic, fundamental requirement for a Christian marriage - a union between a man and a woman.

[carpedm9587]

Of course I'm basing it on the act and not genetics since that straight guy is not coded for that. You know that Carp, but you don't want to admit it.

But one can not meet the most basic, fundamental requirement for a Christian marriage - a union between a man and a woman.

And since "man" and "woman" is a genetically coded reality, and you cannot make this decision because you do not know what this genetic coding is, you just made my point. Since EVERYTHING ELSE is equivalent, your moral decision is based solely on genetic coding. I represented this with logical symbolism in my post to Sparko.

I consider it immoral to place different moral requirements on people solely on the basis of their genetic coding. As with race, it is a form of discrimination/prejudice/bigotry. Specifically, it is sexual bigotry. I know you and Sparko find that accusation offensive. I see no difference between letting you know why I find your position immoral, and you telling a homosexual person why you find them immoral. Nobody likes being told they are not acting morally. But, IMO, you're not.

[Cow Poke]

And since "man" and "woman" is a genetically coded reality...

You outta start a thread on this regarding gender confusion.

[Sparko]

I have underlined the key part (related to my point) of your response. If you can say that what makes the act immoral is the sex of the participants - and the same act in the same context would be moral if the two people are of the opposite sex...then the basis for the claim of immorality is the genetic code of the participants. The ACT is not the determining factor.

To use symbolic language (and your terms):

specific ACT + specific CONTEXT = Moral STATEMENT


ACT = sexual intimacy in a married relationship
CONTEXT = male/male
CONTEXT = male/female
STATEMENT = moral/immoral

sexual intimacy in a married relationship + male/male = immoral
sexual intimacy in a married relationship + male/female = moral

As in mathematics, in logic statements, in the context of an equivalency, like terms "cancel out." The statements are different. The acts are the same, leaving only the male/male and male/female as the driving differentiator. Ergo - your moral statement is not conditioned on the ACT part of the equation - it is conditioned on the CONTEXT part of the equation. And the CONTEXT part of the equation is 100% determined by the genetic coding of the individuals.

Ergo - your moral statement is based on genetics. QED.

The logic is irrefutable, Sparko - if you understand how logical statements function.

You didn't actually make any logical statements.

You have already changed the formula by adding a specific context to ACT (in a married relationship) - Not only that, but you used a context that is already controversial in our discussion and set up an impossibility because in the Christian paradigm you can't have married relationship except between a man and a women.


The marriage itself would be immoral. and null and void. So the statement would be equivalent to a Christian as: [Sexual intimacy] + [between two unmarried adults] = Immoral.

[seer]

And since "man" and "woman" is a genetically coded reality, and you cannot make this decision because you do not know what this genetic coding is, you just made my point. Since EVERYTHING ELSE is equivalent, your moral decision is based solely on genetic coding. I represented this with logical symbolism in my post to Sparko.

No it isn't Carp, you said the relationship would meet EVERY Christian requirement. It CAN'T. And again you know that with the straight man example - it is about the act and not genetic coding. You came close to admitting it, but you could not swallow your pride.

I consider it immoral to place different moral requirements on people solely on the basis of their genetic coding. As with race, it is a form of discrimination/prejudice/bigotry. Specifically, it is sexual bigotry. I know you and Sparko find that accusation offensive. I see no difference between letting you know why I find your position immoral, and you telling a homosexual person why you find them immoral. Nobody likes being told they are not acting morally. But, IMO, you're not.

No I don't find your accusations offensive, I find them utterly and completely meaningless.

[carpedm9587]

You didn't actually make any logical statements.

You have already changed the formula by adding a specific context to ACT (in a married relationship) - Not only that, but you used a context that is already controversial in our discussion and set up an impossibility because in the Christian paradigm you can't have married relationship except between a man and a women.


The marriage itself would be immoral. and null and void. So the statement would be equivalent to a Christian as: [Sexual intimacy] + [between two unmarried adults] = Immoral.

So all you've done is pushed it back to:

ACT - getting married
CONTEXT - male/male, male/female
STATEMENT - moral/immoral

ACT + CONTEXT = STATEMENT

getting married + male/female = moral
getting married + male/male = immoral

Since the act is the same, the differentiator is the context - which is (again) genetically based. Same outcome.

And if you can say there are no logical statements here, then I truly wonder about your grasp of basic logic...

[carpedm9587]

No it isn't Carp, you said the relationship would meet EVERY Christian requirement. It CAN'T. And again you know that with the straight man example - it is about the act and not genetic coding. You came close to admitting it, but you could not swallow your pride.

As I said, SEER - it meets every Christian requirement EXCEPT that you do not know the gender of the participants, because that is the variable we are controlling for. The entire point was to show that your moral differentiation is dependent on knowing the sex (male/female) of the participants, and you cannot complete the moral statement without that information, which is what I have been saying all along. That there are other things that can render something immoral or moral (much as you keep wanting to go there) is irrelevant to the claim I have been making.

No I don't find your accusations offensive, I find them utterly and completely meaningless.

That someone who struggles with basic logic as badly as you (and Sparko) have done here comes to this conclusion is not particularly informative, Seer. "Meaning" - at least for this topic - is apparently not your strong suit. But this exchange has shed an enormous amount of light on our previous discussions with respect to relative morality. I am beginning to understand why we never really got anywhere.

[seer]

As I said, SEER - it meets every Christian requirement EXCEPT that you do not know the gender of the participants, because that is the variable we are controlling for. The entire point was to show that your moral differentiation is dependent on knowing the sex (male/female) of the participants, and you cannot complete the moral statement without that information, which is what I have been saying all along. That there are other things that can render something immoral or moral (much as you keep wanting to go there) is irrelevant to the claim I have been making.

No it doesn't meet every Christian requirement Carp, because a Christian requirement would NECESSARILY include a man and a woman. Talk about dense!

That someone who struggles with basic logic as badly as you (and Sparko) have done here comes to this conclusion is not particularly informative, Seer. "Meaning" - at least for this topic - is apparently not your strong suit. But this exchange has shed an enormous amount of light on our previous discussions with respect to relative morality. I am beginning to understand why we never really got anywhere.

Are you kidding, I already demonstrated with the straight man example that is the ACT not the genetic makeup.

getting married + male/female = moral
getting married + male/male = immoral

I would change it:

getting married + male/female with sexual relations = moral
getting married + male/male without sexual relations = moral

[oxmixmudd]

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.

Careful. Correllation does not imply causation. The immorality of same-sex 'sex' may be independent of genetic code, even if there is a 1-1 correspondence between the genetic code and the moral code. That is, we may be able to derive the moral code from the genetic code, but the driver of the moral/immoral classification can be a variable independent of genetic code itself.


Jim