Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[carpedm9587]

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

While consequences CAN be a basis for making a moral determination, that typically applies in the context of intention.

Case in point: if I drive my car, statistically I have a non-zero chance of hitting and harming someone. After all, over 30,000 people are so harmed in this country every year. Even though there is a risk of harm, that does not make "driving my car" immoral. It would become immoral if I got behind the wheel of my car KNOWING that I was incapacitated and severely increasing the probability, or if I got behind the wheel intending to harm someone with my vehicle.

I have no idea how a cat/dog story can apply to morality since, as far as I know, neither species is capable of moralizing.

[rogue06]

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

00000000000sprkdr.gif

[seer]

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.

Carp, you are being irrational. The straight man has sex with a man, that act is immoral. How on God's green earth is that based on genetics?

[carpedm9587]

Carp, you are being irrational. The straight man has sex with a man, that act is immoral. How on God's green earth is that based on genetics?

Seer - you are being dense. A man (any man - straight, gay, bi, short, tall, fat, skinny, bald, hairy, ugly) has sex with another man (any man - straight, gay, bi, short, tall, fat, skinny, bald, hairy, ugly) and that act is immoral because the two people involved are genetically coded for MAN - XY. A woman (any woman - straight, gay, bi, short, tall, fat, skinny, bald, hairy, ugly) has sex with another woman (any woman - straight, gay, bi, short, tall, fat, skinny, bald, hairy, ugly) and that act is immoral because the two people involved are genetically coded for WOMAN - XX. There is NO context in which this sex can be moral. Ergo, the moral prohibition is based entirely on the fact that the two people both have XX (or XY) as their sex genome...ergo it is based on genetic coding.

And you say, over and over, "sex between two men is immoral" and "sex between two women is immoral" which translates to "sex between two XY-coded individuals is immoral" and "sex between two XX-coded individuals is immoral." Then you say, "it's not based on genetic coding."

I have NO clue how anyone could be this obtuse... if it wasn't so damn funny, it would be sad...

ETA: It dawns on me that you may have locked yourself into the belief that my reference to "genetics" is a reference to "sexual orientation." I have been clear, in multiple posts, that I am not talking about "sexual orientation." I am talking about "sex." The sexual orientation of the people involved is irrelevant.

[seer]

Seer - you are being dense. A man (any man - straight, gay, bi, short, tall, fat, skinny, bald, hairy, ugly) has sex with another man (any man - straight, gay, bi, short, tall, fat, skinny, bald, hairy, ugly) and that act is immoral because the two people involved are genetically coded for MAN - XY. A woman (any woman - straight, gay, bi, short, tall, fat, skinny, bald, hairy, ugly) has sex with another woman (any woman - straight, gay, bi, short, tall, fat, skinny, bald, hairy, ugly) and that act is immoral because the two people involved are genetically coded for WOMAN - XX. There is NO context in which this sex can be moral. Ergo, the moral prohibition is based entirely on the fact that the two people both have XX (or XY) as their sex genome...ergo it is based on genetic coding.

And you say, over and over, "sex between two men is immoral" and "sex between two women is immoral" which translates to "sex between two XY-coded individuals is immoral" and "sex between two XX-coded individuals is immoral." Then you say, "it's not based on genetic coding."

I have NO clue how anyone could be this obtuse... if it wasn't so damn funny, it would be sad...

Carp, you are being emotional, now logically tell me where this is off - be specific.

The straight man has sex with a man, that act is immoral. How on God's green earth is that based on genetics?

[carpedm9587]

Carp, you are being emotional, now logically tell me where this is off - be specific.

The straight man has sex with a man, that act is immoral. How on God's green earth is that based on genetics?

Seer, I assure you, that every post has me howling - which is the only emotion I am feeling. I have been in tears for the last couple of hours as each post adds to the inanity of the last. The bolded text (which I suppose could be confused for emotion) was my attempt to emphasize statements, with the hope you might actually finally get it. I have to admit I've been sharing the posts (anonymized) with a few close friends. They are as perplexed as I as to how two people (you and Sparko) could be missing so basic a point.

Given the number of times I have answered this question, there is only one possibility I can think of. I think when I say "genetics" you hear "sexual orientation." I have been clear, in multiple posts, that I am not talking about "sexual orientation" (e.g., gay/straight) I am talking about "sex" (e.g. male/female). The sexual orientation of the people involved is irrelevant.

If that doesn't help - then I have to assume the insanity will continue...

[carpedm9587]

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.

"Not caring about" and "immoral" are not equivalent statements.

And I would dispute your statement that governments care about legalizing marriages for procreative purposes. I know of no legal documents that make this claim. Marriages involve the government for taxation, and legal rights purposes (e.g., inheritance, rights of decision making, etc.). Certainly the parent/child relationship is part of that, but the same relationship can be achieved through adoption, and adoption does not even require a married couple (i.e., single people can adopt).

Sorry for the delayed response, but with all of the exchanges with Sparko and Seer today, I missed your post. I only saw it when I was reviewing the thread to find all of the places where Seer/Sparko said, "it's not about genetics" only to follow it up with some variation on "man-with-man" or "woman-with-woman" is immoral. I am beginning to think they don't understand that "man" and "woman" are genetically encoded traits.

[seer]

Seer, I assure you, that every post has me howling - which is the only emotion I am feeling. I have been in tears for the last couple of hours as each post adds to the inanity of the last. The bolded text (which I suppose could be confused for emotion) was my attempt to emphasize statements, with the hope you might actually finally get it. I have to admit I've been sharing the posts (anonymized) with a few close friends. They are as perplexed as I as to how two people (you and Sparko) could be missing so basic a point.

Given the number of times I have answered this question, there is only one possibility I can think of. I think when I say "genetics" you hear "sexual orientation." I have been clear, in multiple posts, that I am not talking about "sexual orientation" (e.g., gay/straight) I am talking about "sex" (e.g. male/female). The sexual orientation of the people involved is irrelevant.

If that doesn't help - then I have to assume the insanity will continue...

'

Nonsense, you have been talking about genetic coding, not just about male and female. And if genetic coding is not about orientation then what is it about? Using the term genetic coding makes no sense if you are speaking only of male and female.

You said: The ONLY difference is the genetic coding for sex - so your moral code is based on the genetically coded sex of the participants.

Is this just about gender or being coded for sexual attraction/orientation? If it is only about gender, then yes it is immoral for a man to have sex with a man, and a woman with a woman. So?

[carpedm9587]

Nonsense, you have been talking about genetic coding, not just about male and female.

Think about what you just said. Male/Female is entirely about genetic coding. Maybe you don't know this? XX is female. XY is male? Chromosomes and all that?

And if genetic coding is not about orientation then what is it about? Using the term genetic coding makes no sense if you are speaking only of male and female.

OK, the teacher in me is beginning to hang his head. It may well be that I just assumed more knowledge than you had. If that is the case, then I owe you a HUGE apology. There is no shame in not knowing. There are always things we do not know.

Seer, the condition of male and female is coded for in genetics. Without getting into detail, men have XY chromosomes, and women have XX. When the egg is formed, it always carries an X chromosome - because that is all the mother has access to. When sperm are formed, however, they carry either an X or a Y chromosome, because the father has both. If the "winning sperm" carries an "X," a daughter is born (X from Mom, X from Dad). If the winning sperm carries a "Y," a boy is born (X from mom, Y from Dad). So maleness and femaleness is genetically coded (and Dad is the one that contributes the variability).

You said: The ONLY difference is the genetic coding for sex - so your moral code is based on the genetically coded sex of the participants.

Is this just about gender or being coded for sexual attraction/orientation?

I have made this clear in several posts - here are two:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post543438

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post543626

These are two posts in which I explicitly said "it has nothing to do with sexual orientation."

Meanwhile, the number of posts in which I clearly said it was about the sex of the two participants is legion. I'm not going to go back through and find everyone one of them. It's in almost every post. But if you did not know that sex is a genetically coded construct, then none of this would have made sense to you.

Hopefully, now it does.

[seer]

Think about what you just said. Male/Female is entirely about genetic coding. Maybe you don't know this? XX is female. XY is male? Chromosomes and all that?

No, because we were also talking about orientation earlier. This whole thread has been about "Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation", that was your title.

OK, the teacher in me is beginning to hang his head. It may well be that I just assumed more knowledge than you had. If that is the case, then I owe you a HUGE apology. There is no shame in not knowing. There are always things we do not know.

Seer, the condition of male and female is coded for in genetics. Without getting into detail, men have XY chromosomes, and women have XX. When the egg is formed, it always carries an X chromosome - because that is all the mother has access to. When sperm are formed, however, they carry either an X or a Y chromosome, because the father has both. If the "winning sperm" carries an "X," a daughter is born (X from Mom, X from Dad). If the winning sperm carries a "Y," a boy is born (X from mom, Y from Dad). So maleness and femaleness is genetically coded (and Dad is the one that contributes the variability).



I have made this clear in several posts - here are two:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post543438

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post543626

These are two posts in which I explicitly said "it has nothing to do with sexual orientation."

Meanwhile, the number of posts in which I clearly said it was about the sex of the two participants is legion. I'm not going to go back through and find everyone one of them. It's in almost every post. But if you did not know that sex is a genetically coded construct, then none of this would have made sense to you.

Hopefully, now it does.

Ok, so now what - it is immoral for a man to have sex with a man, and a woman with a woman. And...

[carpedm9587]

No, because we were also talking about orientation earlier. This whole thread has been about "Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation", that was your title.

Yes, it was. As with many threads, the topic skewed. For post after post for the last three pages the discussion has been about the basis of morality in the sex of the participants. I explicitly noted this when the skew occurred.

Ok, so now what - it is immoral for a man to have sex with a man, and a woman with a woman. And...

So your morality is based on genetic coding. Going back to the parallel drawn multiple times:

Couple A: white/white - moral
Couple B: black/white - immoral

Today we see such a distinction as highly morally suspect. It smacks of racial bigotry. Why? Because the only reason for the distinction is the genetically coded characteristic "race." So now take a parallel case:

Couple A: male/female- moral
Couple B: female/female (or male/male) - immoral

Once again, the only distinction between Couple A and Couple B is their genetically coded characteristic "sex." So if the previous scenario is "racial bigotry," how is this scenario not "sexual bigotry?" In both cases, a genetically determined trait is being used to say, "immoral." That simply does not seem right.

And yes, I know there are some cases where white/white and black/white sex is immoral. But those cases are not because they are black/white or white/white. So yes, there are cases where male/male and female/female and male/female sex is immoral. But should that not, likewise, NOT be because they are male/male or male/female?

THAT is the question.

[seer]

Yes, it was. As with many threads, the topic skewed. For post after post for the last three pages the discussion has been about the basis of morality in the sex of the participants. I explicitly noted this when the skew occurred.

Yes, but you were going on about that whole "state of being" thing until recently.

Once again, the only distinction between Couple A and Couple B is their genetically coded characteristic "sex." So if the previous scenario is "racial bigotry," how is this scenario not "sexual bigotry?" In both cases, a genetically determined trait is being used to say, "immoral." That simply does not seem right.

That doesn't seem right to you. It seems right to me. A man having sex with a sheep may seem right to you though it doesn't to me. Logically I guess that may be sexual bigotry too.

And yes, I know there are some cases where white/white and black/white sex is immoral. But those cases are not because they are black/white or white/white. So yes, there are cases where male/male and female/female and male/female sex is immoral. But should that not, likewise, NOT be because they are male/male or male/female?

THAT is the question.

And yes, it is about who we choose to have sex with - if a woman chooses to have sex with a woman, then that ACT immoral, if she chooses to have sex with a German Shepherd then that ACT is immoral too.

[carpedm9587]

That doesn't seem right to you. It seems right to me. A man having sex with a sheep does not seem right to me, though it may seem right to you. Logically I guess that may be sexual bigotry too.

Sexual bigotry is when your ONLY basis for declaring an act immoral is the sexual coding of the individuals involved, just as racial bigotry occurs when the ONLY basis for declaring an act immoral is the racial coding of the individuals involved.

And yes, it is about who we choose to have sex with - if a woman chooses to have sex with a woman, then that ACT immoral, if she chooses to have sex with a German Shepherd then that ACT is immoral too.

Then your morality is based on genetics. You earlier said that genetics says nothing about the morality/immorality of an act. You are reversing yourself.

So I am going to suggest to you that your only basis for doing this is a) tradition and b) disgust. Neither is a reasonable basis for declaring an act immoral.

• If a woman falls in love with a man, wants to spend the rest of their life with them, and is willing to engage in a monogamous, mutually loving relationship, this is a good thing.
• If a woman falls in love with a woman, wants to spend the rest of their life with them, and is willing to engage in a monogamous, mutually loving relationship, this is a good thing.
• If a man falls in love with a man, wants to spend the rest of their life with them, and is willing to engage in a monogamous, mutually loving relationship, this is a good thing.

Love is love. Devotion is devotion. To tell two people "your love is immoral" simply because of their sexual genetic profile is an exercise in sexual discrimination as surely as telling two people "your love is immoral" simply because of their racial genetic profile is an exercise in racial discrimination. You cannot separate the two. If you think the racial distinction is immoral, then the sexual distinction is likewise immoral. In both cases, membership in a genetic class is being used to dictate morality.

There is no justification.

[seer]

Sexual bigotry is when your ONLY basis for declaring an act immoral is the sexual coding of the individuals involved, just as racial bigotry occurs when the ONLY basis for declaring an act immoral is the racial coding of the individuals involved.

Of course, we are starting from completely different assumptions. I believe there is a teleology for human sexuality, you don't. Therefore you could fit almost any sexual behavior into your worldview. I can't.

Then your morality is based on genetics. You earlier said that genetics says nothing about the morality/immorality of an act. You are reversing yourself.

I was speaking of orientation when you were going on about "state of being." I explicitly said that orientation was not moral or immoral - but only the sexual act. So don't take me out of context. And of course you can not have an immoral homosexual act without two individuals involved.

So I am going to suggest to you that your only basis for doing this is a) tradition and b) disgust. Neither is a reasonable basis for declaring an act immoral

.

No thanks...

Love is love. Devotion is devotion. To tell two people "your love is immoral" simply because of their sexual genetic profile is an exercise in sexual discrimination as surely as telling two people "your love is immoral" simply because of their racial genetic profile is an exercise in racial discrimination. You cannot separate the two. If you think the racial distinction is immoral, then the sexual distinction is likewise immoral. In both cases, membership in a genetic class is being used to dictate morality.

Again, a black and white couple being married and having sexual relations is not immoral in my worldview, two men or two women doing the same thing are...

There is no justification.

And I should take your relative opinion seriously why?

[carpedm9587]

Of course, we are starting from completely different assumptions. I believe there is a teleology for human sexuality, you don't. Therefore you could fit almost any sexual behavior into your worldview. I can't.

No. The reality is that you have locked yourself into one teleology. I have not.

I was speaking of orientation when you were going on about "state of being." I explicitly said that orientation was not moral or immoral - but only the sexual act. So don't take me out of context. And of course you can not have an immoral homosexual act without two individuals involved.

And I was repeatedly clear about the context of my discussion. I'm sorry you missed it - but you did.

No thanks...

That doesn't change that this is exactly what you are doing.

Again, a black and white couple being married and having sexual relations is not immoral in my worldview, two men or two women doing the same thing are...

And are willing to ignore genetic coding for the first - but not for the second - so you are being inconsistent.

And I should take your relative opinion seriously why?

You can simply follow the logic and see where it leads you. Or you can give way to your emotional response, remain "disgusted" and act accordingly.

I would suggest that a moral position based in "disgust" is not a moral position. It's just emotion.