Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[carpedm9587]

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

...which...as I have been saying from the outset...is a genetic criteria...

Talk about dense!

You took the words right out of my mouth, Seer. You clearly do not understand the concept of "controlling for a variable."

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

Yes - I have read your repeated forays into a statement that has nothing to do with my claim multiple times now.

I would change it:

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

So this is interesting. This breakdown says you have no problem with same-sex marriage. That's an interesting step in the right direction.

But it leaves you with the same problem. You are left saying, if all other requirements for morality have been met, sex between two males is still immoral because it is two males - that is a genetically-based moral code. There is no avoiding it.

You can see it this way as well:

male/female - there are situations in which sexual activity can be moral.
male/male - there are no situations in which sexual activity can be moral.
female/female - there are no situations in which sexual activity can be moral.

That is a moral code that is based (at least in part) on genetic coding of the sex. That is the quintessential definition of sexual discrimination/bigotry/prejudice. It has no basis in reason.

[carpedm9587]

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.

Jim

Given the discussion thus far, and in this context, it is not. We identified several places where exactly the same act in the same context would be moral in one and immoral in the other with no other differentiator the sex of the participants. That is the part that Sparko and Seer don't seem to get.

I frankly don't know why there is so much objection. The very statement, "sex between two people of the same sex is always immoral" makes it clear - the conditional statement is "between two people of the same sex." Sex is a genetically coded reality - so why these two guys seem to reject that they are making a moral statement on the basis of sex is beyond me.

It's like someone saying, "Red trucks are always reckless," and when someone says, "So you use color as a basis for determining recklessness," the answer is "No - not at all. I'm not. I can prove it, because drunk drivers are also reckless." That doesn't change the statement that "Red trucks are always reckless" is using color to evaluate the recklessness of the truck. Nobody said you were ONLY using color as a measure of recklessness. All that is being said is that it is a basis for the evaluation. If the truck is red - it is reckless. If it is not red, it might be reckless for other reasons.

Likewise, if they are both male, or both female, it is immoral. If they are not, it might be immoral for other reasons. Noting that it might be immoral for other reasons does NOT change the fact that sex (genetic membership in a class) is being used to establish morality in the first statement.

[seer]

...which...as I have been saying from the outset...is a genetic criteria...

Really you are dense Carp, your example can not work because a Christian requirement would include a man and woman.

You took the words right out of my mouth, Seer. You clearly do not understand the concept of "controlling for a variable."

BUT THERE IS NO POSSIBLE VARIABLE when the Christian requirement includes a MAN and a WOMAN.

But it leaves you with the same problem. You are left saying, if all other requirements for morality have been met, sex between two males is still immoral because it is two males - that is a genetically-based moral code. There is no avoiding it.

That is a complete falsehood Carp, I have already demonstrated that the act would be immoral if a straight man had sex with a male. And that would not be genetically-based - no matter how much you pout and stomp!

[Pluto]

As far as I know, the primary reason is "because the bible says so," or "because god says so."

This is pretty much correct. There might be complicated nuances to it,(Most people have some additional reasons used explain why it is so) but this is the core of it. I suspect you already know this, but the immorality of homosexual acts is a pretty much unavoidable conclusion from Christianity. Even though it probably doesn't count as a core doctrine, there is really no way to take the Bible seriously without concluding it. If you want some verses showing this I can give them to you, but that would only be for your information.

With this information, we can answer my first question. By the baker's perspective, the dilemma presented actually looks like this:

a) Go against Christianity
b) Don't bake wedding cakes.

Where the first prong(Bake wedding cakes for all types of weddings) has been replaced with the emotionally charged, logical consequence of that requirement. As you indicated previously, you'd prefer the baker to take option b), so you are not actually requesting a). While this form of the dilemma is not what you intend when you make this requirement, nor is it how you likely think about it, this is how a Christian is going to interpret it, so it is important to keep it in mind.

There are a couple of consequence to this form. First, folks aren't likely to respond kindly to it, as perceived threats to fundamental beliefs are not typically liked or well responded too. This demands care to be taken in any implementation or discussion.(This is not meant as a condemnation of you or your actions. It does explain why a firestorm erupted when a baker was suddenly sued for a considerable sum of money.) Secondarily, This view is not likely to go away with time. Since it has its roots in a fairly straightforward reading of the Bible, as long as Christianity exists, this view(and the resulting dilemma) will exist.

Any questions so far? I do not think this is an argument against your position yet(Though the second consideration might suggest something).

So, next up, two more questions to consider the scope of the dilemma.(These I don't know your views on)

1) Would this requirement also apply to various other secular services such as wedding planners, wedding photographers, or catering services?(My initial assumptions would be 'yes' but I could be wrong. I base this on the following comment

...and in the other case the person is refusing to involve themselves in a gathering in which two people who love each other are celebrating their love, for no other reason than they object that people with the same sexual equipment should be able to do that...

Again, my extrapolation can be wrong, but it seems to apply to non-baking related wedding things as well, which is why I'm asking)

2) Would this requirement also apply to more religious services such as a pastor presiding or the use of a church building?(My initial assumptions would be 'no', based on your comment here

Actually, I said nothing about "wanting" to limit it to anything. I was simply noting that, if an agency is following religious precepts, they have every right to do so if they are operating within the bounds of their religion. So I would have no objection to a catholic adoption agency helping catholic parents find babies of catholic birth mothers according to catholic moral norms. That is an intra-faith issue that government/law has no business intruding on, IMO.

Which seems to be a similar catagory of things. Am I incorrect with my assessment?)

I'm willing to engage, Pluto. If you have something to offer that I have not considered, I certainly want to look at it. And you are a remarkably civil debater. Your focus appears to be the argument, rather than my purported stubbornness, anti-Christian agenda, or dishonesty. I find the exchange refreshing.

That's good :). Also, we are almost there. Probably in my next post an argument will actually be presented. Though it's more of worrisome consideration than an ironclad argument.

[Sparko]

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...

A logical argument would start with premises and then have a conclusion.

P1. All trees are plants
P2. An Oak is a tree
C. Therefore, An Oak is a plant.

And again, you chop up what I say and ignore the important part so you can claim again that your view is correct. As I stated, since only a man and a woman can be married, gay marriage is invalid to a Christian morally speaking. So in the eyes of a Christian they are single. Single sex no matter what the combination of sexual bits is (man/woman, man/man, woman/woman) is immoral. So no it is not genetically based.

[Sparko]

That is a moral code that is based (at least in part) on genetic coding of the sex. That is the quintessential definition of sexual discrimination/bigotry/prejudice. It has no basis in reason.

ok ignoring everything else. Why is it bigotry to have a moral code based on the sex of the participants?

[rogue06]

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

And here I pictured you wearing a tux and tails (top hat optional) but thanks to liberal application of brain bleach that image has been scrubbed from my mind.

[oxmixmudd]

Given the discussion thus far, and in this context, it is not. We identified several places where exactly the same act in the same context would be moral in one and immoral in the other with no other differentiator the sex of the participants. That is the part that Sparko and Seer don't seem to get.

I frankly don't know why there is so much objection. The very statement, "sex between two people of the same sex is always immoral" makes it clear - the conditional statement is "between two people of the same sex." Sex is a genetically coded reality - so why these two guys seem to reject that they are making a moral statement on the basis of sex is beyond me.

It's like someone saying, "Red trucks are always reckless," and when someone says, "So you use color as a basis for determining recklessness," the answer is "No - not at all. I'm not. I can prove it, because drunk drivers are also reckless." That doesn't change the statement that "Red trucks are always reckless" is using color to evaluate the recklessness of the truck. Nobody said you were ONLY using color as a measure of recklessness. All that is being said is that it is a basis for the evaluation. If the truck is red - it is reckless. If it is not red, it might be reckless for other reasons.

Likewise, if they are both male, or both female, it is immoral. If they are not, it might be immoral for other reasons. Noting that it might be immoral for other reasons does NOT change the fact that sex (genetic membership in a class) is being used to establish morality in the first statement.

What your not understanding is that the reason it is immoral might be related to a consequence of sex between same-sex people, not the fact they are the same-sex. It is a subtle distinction, but a real one.

consider this: It has recently been discovered that a there is a virus that can live in cat poop that actually can modify the brain of a dog so that it craves cat poop. In this way the virus survives. So one could say that eating cat poop is bad for a dog because it makes the dog ravenous for cat poop. But it isn't actually the eating of the poop itself that is bad for the dog, but rather the fact the virus can live in the poop and make the dog prefer cat poop over real food that is bad.


Jim

[seer]

consider this: It has recently been discovered that a there is a virus that can live in cat poop that actually can modify the brain of a dog so that it craves cat poop.
Jim

Is that what happened to my dog?

[rogue06]

What your not understanding is that the reason it is immoral might be related to a consequence of sex between same-sex people, not the fact they are the same-sex. It is a subtle distinction, but a real one.

consider this: It has recently been discovered that a there is a virus that can live in cat poop that actually can modify the brain of a dog so that it craves cat poop. In this way the virus survives. So one could say that eating cat poop is bad for a dog because it makes the dog ravenous for cat poop. But it isn't actually the eating of the poop itself that is bad for the dog, but rather the fact the virus can live in the poop and make the dog prefer cat poop over real food that is bad.


Jim

Mad props for your patient attempts to explain this over and over

[carpedm9587]

Really you are dense Carp, your example can not work because a Christian requirement would include a man and woman.

BUT THERE IS NO POSSIBLE VARIABLE when the Christian requirement includes a MAN and a WOMAN.

That is a complete falsehood Carp, I have already demonstrated that the act would be immoral if a straight man had sex with a male. And that would not be genetically-based - no matter how much you pout and stomp!

And your repeating over and over "man and woman" and then turning around and denying that your moral criteria is based on genetically coded criteria is perplexing beyond words.

"Yes, your honor, I want to divorce my wife because she's cheating on me - but my decision has nothing to do with her having an intimate relationship with someone else outside of our marriage."

It's rather unbelievable...

[Cow Poke]

And here I pictured you wearing a tux and tails (top hat optional) but thanks to liberal application of brain bleach that image has been scrubbed from my mind.

No, that's the guy who the doc told was impotent - he decided, if I'm gonna BE impotent, I'm gonna LOOK impotent!

[carpedm9587]

This is pretty much correct. There might be complicated nuances to it,(Most people have some additional reasons used explain why it is so) but this is the core of it. I suspect you already know this, but the immorality of homosexual acts is a pretty much unavoidable conclusion from Christianity.

Apparently not "unavoidable" because many Christian groups have moved away from this, preferring to emphasize the love aspect of the NT and not the sexual-prejudices of the culture in that age.

Even though it probably doesn't count as a core doctrine, there is really no way to take the Bible seriously without concluding it. If you want some verses showing this I can give them to you, but that would only be for your information.

It would not help the discussion. The bible is an interesting piece of literature and has some historical significance - but it is not the basis for my beliefs by any means.

With this information, we can answer my first question. By the baker's perspective, the dilemma presented actually looks like this:

a) Go against Christianity
b) Don't bake wedding cakes.

Yes, but I would add "his definition of Christianity." I suspect that won't be widely accepted here.

Where the first prong(Bake wedding cakes for all types of weddings) has been replaced with the emotionally charged, logical consequence of that requirement. As you indicated previously, you'd prefer the baker to take option b), so you are not actually requesting a). While this form of the dilemma is not what you intend when you make this requirement, nor is it how you likely think about it, this is how a Christian is going to interpret it, so it is important to keep it in mind.

I would say the existence of Option B provides the baker with an avenue for being true to his beliefs.

There are a couple of consequence to this form. First, folks aren't likely to respond kindly to it, as perceived threats to fundamental beliefs are not typically liked or well responded too. This demands care to be taken in any implementation or discussion.(This is not meant as a condemnation of you or your actions. It does explain why a firestorm erupted when a baker was suddenly sued for a considerable sum of money.) Secondarily, This view is not likely to go away with time. Since it has its roots in a fairly straightforward reading of the Bible, as long as Christianity exists, this view(and the resulting dilemma) will exist.

I recognize all of this. But that something is "not well received" is not an argument for not saying it. Going back to the civil rights era, the operators of the bus were not happy to be told their seating arrangements were immoral. It still needed to be said.

Any questions so far? I do not think this is an argument against your position yet(Though the second consideration might suggest something).

So, next up, two more questions to consider the scope of the dilemma.(These I don't know your views on)

1) Would this requirement also apply to various other secular services such as wedding planners, wedding photographers, or catering services?(My initial assumptions would be 'yes' but I could be wrong. I base this on the following comment

Anyone, in any context, who offers a service to People A but not People B based solely on their membership in a class is acting in a discriminatory fashion unless that choice is informed by that membership (e.g., not providing haircuts to a bald man, not providing gynecological services to a man, etc.).

Again, my extrapolation can be wrong, but it seems to apply to non-baking related wedding things as well, which is why I'm asking)

2) Would this requirement also apply to more religious services such as a pastor presiding or the use of a church building?(My initial assumptions would be 'no', based on your comment here

No. While I still believe the choice/action is immoral, it is protected by the 1st amendment. Within bounds, what a church does within its confines is up to the church. There are, of course, limits, but bigotry/prejudice/discrimination are not part of those exceptions.

Which seems to be a similar catagory of things. Am I incorrect with my assessment?)

Yes, as far as I can tell.

That's good :). Also, we are almost there. Probably in my next post an argument will actually be presented. Though it's more of worrisome consideration than an ironclad argument.

Worrisome considerations are also welcome.

[carpedm9587]

A logical argument would start with premises and then have a conclusion.

P1. All trees are plants
P2. An Oak is a tree
C. Therefore, An Oak is a plant.

And again, you chop up what I say and ignore the important part so you can claim again that your view is correct. As I stated, since only a man and a woman can be married, gay marriage is invalid to a Christian morally speaking. So in the eyes of a Christian they are single. Single sex no matter what the combination of sexual bits is (man/woman, man/man, woman/woman) is immoral. So no it is not genetically based.

That is a syllogism, Sparko. It is not the only valid construct for a logical discussion. Indeed, take a look at Jim's breakdown earlier of the parallelism between the white supremacist and the baker's situation. It did not take the form of a syllogism. It was an attempt to show the parallelism between two things, and to show if one accepted A they also had to accept B. It was almost perfectly structured, and would have made the point were it not for a minor flaw at one point in the comparison.

The same is true here. I took YOUR symbolic representation of how a moral statement is arrived at, and showed you how it leads to the inevitable conclusion that the differentiator is a genetic coding. Which you and Seer continue to deny, and then turn around and say, "but if it's too males, it HAS to be immoral." You have not shown where the comparison breaks down (or any other comparison I've offered), and merely go back to tangential assertions that have nothing to do with the argument being made.

How you cannot see that you deny it on one hand and reaffirm it in your next breath is beyond me. If it wasn't just a tad funny, it would probably be annoying...

[carpedm9587]

ok ignoring everything else. Why is it bigotry to have a moral code based on the sex of the participants?

You are holding different people to different standards on the basis of nothing other than their membership in a genetically coded group. So it is wrong for the same reason that telling two people their marriage or sexual activity is wrong because of their racial make-up. My genetic make-up should not be the determinant for what is and is not moral.