Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[Starlight]

Starlight didn't even hint at you being a drunk duped druggie traitorous quisling

Is that a thing?

[seer]

I've copied your statement, and made my position clear. At this point it is fairly clear you are in 100% defense of your statement, so I'll leave you to it. I continue to find it offensive, and I suspect most adoptive parents would as well. I'll forward the link to a few (without comment) and see what their reaction is.

I think it stands to reason Carp that biological parents are generally more committed to their children than non-biological parents. Biology, blood, is a powerful motivator. And I'm not saying that there are not good step and adoptive parents - there are. I was a good step dad, and I'm sure you are a good adoptive dad.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, I've seen far ruder responses aimed at you. Starlight didn't even hint at you being a drunk duped druggie traitorous quisling, let alone use 'moron' every tenth word.

I thought about that Roy. Those were in a different category as far as I am concerned. But ... to explain why is to invite more of the same. So it's ok you don't understand why I reacted that way to his response.

Jim

[carpedm9587]

Yep. That was about the rudest response I think I've ever gotten here. Where I was raised, you don't laugh a people that are trying to be open and honest. Even if you think what they are saying is silly.

It would appear that where you were raised, anyone not in your 'little club' is hardly even another human being, or so it would appear from what I've seen from you so far. Have you considered the White House? Lots of folks that take that approach to others over there.

-----

So your solution is "Unless you are an expert - don't talk about it?" That is ridiculous.

And no - it is not at all like discussing if black people should be slaves. For reasons that have been discussed already in this thread multiple times by multiple people.

I know some things about this issue, and I am learning other things. I have opinions, which are contrary to yours - and that is your prime irritant. Your responses indicate this is unforgivable. That much is clear. I was wrong to link it directly to Atheism. You'll notice I preceded your response with that acknowledgment - if you look closely enough.

So far you've contributed little that isn't derogatory. So IF for some reason you take offense at something not perfectly nice in my posts, you need to take a long look in the mirror first.

Yeah - I haven't taken much time to learn about how female gay couples can make babies using modern technology. And? That has little to do with the topics I'm debating. It really didn't change the point in which it came up except in terms of the magnitude of the effect. But I conceded the point. And it would likely have very little to do with a discussion on the morality of same-sex relationships.

Other than that - what you will find is that if you approach a conversation with me with respect, you for the most part get respect back. Even now after this exchange I offer you reasoned respectful conversation if that is something you have any desire for.

But if you act like a jerk, well there is always 'ignore' - which I have used less times in almost 10 years than I have fingers on one hand. But it may be a legitimate option with you.

Jim

So I am only going to respond to the bold/underlined section. Perhaps conveying to you what the conversation looks like from the recipient might be useful? I agree that you have never "laughed" at me, which is commendable. Many people here do not follow that ethic.

However, I have responded to you straightforwardly with each and every post. Where I think your arguments fail I tell you. Your continual response is to attribute to me emotional states I do not have, to jump on the Sparko "dance/dodge" bandwagon, and to assume that I am un-receptive and close-minded to your arguments, often before you even make them. You are free to do all of these things, of course, but I have to wonder how that is all that much better than "laughing."

You have to choose how you're going to engage. Personally, I prefer to just look at the arguments, peel them apart, and see where they take me. When I agree, I say as much. When I disagree, I say as much. When someone provides an argument that is compelling, I acknowledge it and my views change accordingly. When the argument is not compelling, my views don't change. Because I try to think through my positions before I state them, the latter doesn't happen often here - but it does happen. I suspect that is why I am considered "stubborn" and "close-minded" by several people here. I cannot claim I am immune to the confirmation bias phenomenon - but I do try to make an effort to counter it. If I didn't, I would not frequent sites like this one.

So...with all that said, I'd be interested in where your argument, which has been started/stopped many times, was going. It has the advantage of being a unique approach (to me). I cannot see how it can succeed, but then I cannot judge that until I see the argument.

I leave it to you to decide whether you wish to put it forward. If you do, I WILL be critical of it, in a philosophical sense.

[oxmixmudd]

I will freely confess to not being able to remember the entire contents of the 87 pages of this thread, so of course, feel free to link back to the previous discussion.

However, it seems pretty straightforward to me:

Is the issue under discussion whether minority group X, is inferior due to alleged trait Y, and therefore should be denied human right Z?

Is the issue under discussion whether minority group X, is inferior due to alleged trait Y, and therefore should be denied human right Z?

The problem is that your generalization can apply to ANY moral assessment. consider:

Is the issue under discussion whether minority group [people who genetically are predisposed to addition], is inferior due to alleged trait [illegal drug use] and there for should be denied human right [ freedom through incarceration]

The issue is even more difficult because ones (presumed) genetic disposition is tied to a particular historically moral action (same-sex acts). In almost all cases we do not excuse immoral acts because a persons character or genetics predisposes them to commit the immoral act.

So the two elements (morality, inherited traits) are in this specific issue in significant and critical conflict.

1) The 3 major religions of the world define same-sex acts as immoral. Not merely immoral, heinously immoral. So that has been the moral position of a very large part of the worlds population for a very, very long time. Further, it is STILL the moral position on this for a very large part of the worlds population.

2) The entire issue of whether this is a genetic trait or a genetic pre-disposition is unsettled. How is that different. As a genetic trait, the feelings of same-sex attraction would not be malleable. As a genetic pre-disposition, they wold arise more due to environmental influences than be a necessarily inherited trait that can't be changed or avoided. (I am aware that people that hail from your POV see this issue as more or less settled).
I know personally several people that have found that their same-sex attraction was more of an environmental consequence. One of them left the gay lifestyle fairly early and has led a monogamous, hetero-sexual life ever since. The other left the gay lifestyle after more that 20 years in it. The issues that trapped him in that lifestyle and that were countered by working though the events that put him into that lifestyle were quite real and he now is married (to a woman) and spends a good deal of time trying to help others in the same position he was in - same-sex OR hetero-sexual. I have no reason to doubt either of their stories about how same-sex attraction intersected with their lives. Both people are people that according to modern counsel should have just accepted who they are as immutable and lived within those constraints. But both of them would reject that counsel and are so much happier as they are now than the ever were living under what would be called 'correct' by people that hail from your POV.

What you do with you simplification is dismiss a significant and very real component of this debate that makes this very different from the other issues you would try to equate it to.

Those a-priori assumptions and the dismissive disposition that drives you make it nearly impossible for you to be able to hear the voices of those that hail from a different position on this than your own.

Personally - I struggle with the moral side of the problem. But I do not condone or encourage any prejudice or bigotry or hatred toward people that deal with same-sex attraction. I understand that in this world most of those people will act on it. But that does not dismiss the fact that my religion very clearly defines the acts themselves as immoral. I am not alone and one can't just dismiss the moral conscience of billions of people. These issues of morality need to worked through within the various religious contexts. IF you think anything less is going to solve the problem, then you are demonstrating your own ignorance of conscience and the depth of impact religious teachings have on religious people.

And perhaps most importantly, there is somewhere between 5 and 10% of the Christians, Muslims and Jewish people out there that struggle with this. And you can't just declare that morality null and void and help them. There needs to be real conversation on these issues with peoples from both sides of the debate with an eye towards what is best for all, and most importantly, with an eye to what is true. You can't just dismiss the examples I give above because they don't fit your view this is all genetics, and I can't just dismiss the evidence there is a genetic component.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

So I am only going to respond to the bold/underlined section. Perhaps conveying to you what the conversation looks like from the recipient might be useful? I agree that you have never "laughed" at me, which is commendable. Many people here do not follow that ethic.

However, I have responded to you straightforwardly with each and every post. Where I think your arguments fail I tell you. Your continual response is to attribute to me emotional states I do not have, to jump on the Sparko "dance/dodge" bandwagon, and to assume that I am un-receptive and close-minded to your arguments, often before you even make them. You are free to do all of these things, of course, but I have to wonder how that is all that much better than "laughing."

You have to choose how you're going to engage. Personally, I prefer to just look at the arguments, peel them apart, and see where they take me. When I agree, I say as much. When I disagree, I say as much. When someone provides an argument that is compelling, I acknowledge it and my views change accordingly. When the argument is not compelling, my views don't change. Because I try to think through my positions before I state them, the latter doesn't happen often here - but it does happen. I suspect that is why I am considered "stubborn" and "close-minded" by several people here. I cannot claim I am immune to the confirmation bias phenomenon - but I do try to make an effort to counter it. If I didn't, I would not frequent sites like this one.

So...with all that said, I'd be interested in where your argument, which has been started/stopped many times, was going. It has the advantage of being a unique approach (to me). I cannot see how it can succeed, but then I cannot judge that until I see the argument.

I leave it to you to decide whether you wish to put it forward. If you do, I WILL be critical of it, in a philosophical sense.

Thanks for offering your perception. When I say I perceive your arguments as dancing, I am telling you I see you dodging the point I've made. Raising issues around the point irrelevant to the point rather that responding to the point itself. It is not meant to be a personal attack, but to let you know that I am at whits end trying to communicate my point to you in that each time I try to direct you to it, you come back over here or over there and not dealing directly with the issue I've presented.

laughing at a person is one of the most shaming things one person can do to another. If you have ever been laughed at for who you are - you know why that is different.

I had a gay roommate in college for a while. I was very naive at that time and didn't realize he was gay. But the people around me knew it and they thought I was gay too. I have never been treated so poorly and with such hatred by a large group of people in my entire life. I know first hand what gay people endure. At the time I thought is was because I was Christian (I used to play my Christian music fairly loudly sometimes). But I later figured it out. From that time I have always had great compassion for people in that position. That does not change the fact I struggle with the morality of it. IT does inform my struggle. But I am NOT a person that despises gay people or that would want to hurt them or anyone. I am a person trying to work through the moral conflict I described in my previous post to starlight.


Jim

[Roy]

Is the issue under discussion whether minority group [people who genetically are predisposed to addition], is inferior due to alleged trait [illegal drug use] and there for should be denied human right [ freedom through incarceration]

As a mathematician, I'm worried.

[Roy]

Is the issue under discussion whether minority group X, is inferior due to alleged trait Y, and therefore should be denied human right Z?

The problem is that your generalization can apply to ANY moral assessment.

I don't think it can. Most moral assessments are not aimed at minority groups, but are based on behaviour rather than inherited characteristics. Many moral assessments don't lead to denial of human rights.

[carpedm9587]

Thanks for offering your perception. When I say I perceive your arguments as dancing, I am telling you I see you dodging the point I've made. Raising issues around the point irrelevant to the point rather that responding to the point itself. It is not meant to be a personal attack, but to let you know that I am at whits end trying to communicate my point to you in that each time I try to direct you to it, you come back over here or over there and not dealing directly with the issue I've presented.

We clearly have different perspectives on this. I still am not clear what your argument was, so I had nothing to respond to but the piece-parts you fed me. When those piece-parts made no sense, I told you as much. If they actually make sense in a larger context, and you refuse to provide that context, there is not much I can do about it. After multiple pages of exchanges, I still have no idea where your argument was going.

laughing at a person is one of the most shaming things one person can do to another. If you have ever been laughed at for who you are - you know why that is different.

My friend, I have been laughed at and ridiculed for much of my life, for one reason or another. In my youth it was my disability. In my college days it was my faith. In my early career, it was my lack of a degree in an academic environment. Throughout my life, it has been my family's propensity for mocking humor. The list goes on. It is why I long ago came to realize that nothing a person says about me can alter who I am. The laughing person is saying more about themselves than they are saying about me.

It's why the various mocks here really don't have much impact on me, other than tedium. Sparko can put up his dancing emojis and gifs until the cows come home. My posts stand for anyone to read, and I know my own motivations and approaches. Sparko (or you) cannot change who I am by mocking me. Only I can do that. The same is true of laughter. I choose not to mock people (other than occasional playful teasing, as I am wont to do with CP and a few others) not because they are undeserving, but because it's not the kind of person I want to be.

There is a saying attributed to Jesus that comes close to this. I don't recall the exact words, but I believe he was challenged about eating on the Sabbath and noted, "nothing that a man puts in his mouth can dishonor him; only what comes out of his mouth can do that."

I had a gay roommate in college for a while. I was very naive at that time and didn't realize he was gay. But the people around me knew it and they thought I was gay too. I have never been treated so poorly and with such hatred by a large group of people in my entire life. I know first hand what gay people endure. At the time I thought is was because I was Christian (I used to play my Christian music fairly loudly sometimes). But I later figured it out. From that time I have always had great compassion for people in that position. That does not change the fact I struggle with the morality of it. IT does inform my struggle. But I am NOT a person that despises gay people or that would want to hurt them or anyone. I am a person trying to work through the moral conflict I described in my previous post to starlight.

Jim

That does provide some insight, Jim. But you have to understand that I hear that statement like this:

I had a black roommate in college for a while. I was very naive at that time and didn't realize he was black. But the people around me knew it and they thought I was black too. I have never been treated so poorly and with such hatred by a large group of people in my entire life. I know first hand what black people endure. At the time I thought is was because I was Christian (I used to play my Christian music fairly loudly sometimes). But I later figured it out. From that time I have always had great compassion for people in that position. That does not change the fact I struggle with the morality of it. IT does inform my struggle. But I am NOT a person that despises black people or that would want to hurt them or anyone. I am a person trying to work through the moral conflict I described in my previous post to starlight.

OK - so "wondering is you were black too" is an admitted stretch. But you get the idea. As the father of black children, I see a lot of different kinds of people with respect to blackness. I find they fall into three large groups: the people who are truly and abhorrently racist; the people who see racism as a bad thing, but still struggle with some of it within themselves; and the people who truly have no racism to them at all. That middle group is the tricky one. They give themselves away with their actions and their words, but I believe they truly do not want to be racist at all. My wife's uncle was a case in point. He was a catholic priest. When we adopted our boys, he began the practice of having a "black revival" in his church every year - honoring the men and women of color throughout history. He always wanted our boys to go down and he would brag about them. Every gift he gave the boys had something to do with being black: traditional African clothing, African drums, etc. He would make odd comments like, "you'll probably be great at basketball!" We eventually confronted him and pointed out that, in his quest to recognize and honor their heritage, he was singling them out as "different." It was much later that he acknowledged that he still struggled with "feeling different" when face-to-face with a black person than when face-to-face with a Caucasian person, and didn't know what to do with it.

You appear to be in the middle group with homosexuals. Your church teaches you that their actions are immoral, but you have direct experience of what their life is like, creating a tension. You want to do the right thing (I believe that), but you are, in the process, doing harm (I believe that too). But to stop doing harm, you have to reject a fundamental tenet put forward by your particular brand of Christianity, which means challenging that brand of Christianity. It is a struggle, and I recognize it. I didn't hate my wife's uncle, and I don't hate you. But I do have to challenge both of you, or I would not be doing what I consider to be moral.

So - if you are interested in pursuing that discussion on those terms, I am interested in looking at your argument. I leave that to you.

[Roy]

1) The 3 major religions of the world define same-sex acts as immoral. Not merely immoral, heinously immoral. So that has been the moral position of a very large part of the worlds population for a very, very long time.

1) This appears to be untrue, since Hinduism does not condemn homosexuality.
2) It wouldn't matter if it was true.

[carpedm9587]

1) This appears to be untrue, since Hinduism does not condemn homosexuality.
2) It wouldn't matter if it was true.

Not to mention that Jorge thinks atheism is a religion...which makes us one of the big three!

[oxmixmudd]

As a mathematician, I'm worried.

those kinds of mistakes i find very hard to catch despite multiple reviews before i submit. fortunately human language carries with it multiple redundancies and context usually helps.


jim

[oxmixmudd]

I don't think it can. Most moral assessments are not aimed at minority groups, but are based on behaviour rather than inherited characteristics. Many moral assessments don't lead to denial of human rights.

I disagree. ALL moral assessments are aimed at minority groups. There are minority groups that want things so bad they will steal them. In fact, a good case can be made they at least partially inherit characteristics (e.g. a lack of impulse control) that make them this way. There are minority groups that want to commit adultery all the time. And there have been cases made that some people inherit or are genetically predisposed to prefer multiple partners to a single one, to the point they find is incredibly difficult to fit in the the normal morality of marriage. There are minority groups that inherit an incredibly volatile temper. When something sets them off, they literally can't control themselves. It might be a chemical imbalance. Could be a bad environment growing up. But at least part of it is inherited. But we demand they control themselves. We might help them if we can find a cause by giving them medication. But we still expect them to live according to the moral code. They are not excused because they have some sort of inherited characteristic that makes following the moral code very hard.

One thing that is becoming clear to me in this debate is that this issue can't really be simplified or mapped into a single analogue that allows simple comparisons to be made. This issue pits two or three major moral imperatives against each other. And a simple resolution by appealing to one or the other of the elements at odds with each other is not going to work. I am especially annoyed at the tendency to dismiss or treat as unimportant this element of the problem. It is the central issue. It's sort of like trying to get an old car to work and ignoring the fact the gas tank is empty.

You can't just say 'Its discrimination'. You can't just say 'Its about morality'. And you can't just say 'It's about personal, private behavior". It's ALL of those and perhaps more. And they are at odds with each other. And it is, I believe, intellectually dishonest to try to limit the problem to just one of these issues. Not to mention it leads to a lot of name calling: "You're a bigot", "You're an immoral person", "You're a busybody" and so on.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

1) This appears to be untrue, since Hinduism does not condemn homosexuality.

Here is the breakdown:

The world's 20 largest religions and their number of believers are:

Christianity (2.1 billion)
Islam (1.3 billion)
Nonreligious (Secular/Agnostic/Atheist) (1.1 billion)

I was actually talking about the first two and calling it 3 by putting Judaism in there as it is the predecessor to and very closely tied to number 1.

So Carpe has it right as to what is the official 'big three'. :)

We are still talking about 3.4 billion people. Depending on when that breakdown was done, around 1/2 the worlds population. Wikipedia puts the religions I had in mind at 57.1% of the worlds population

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...us_populations


---

Hinduism (900 million)
Chinese traditional religion (394 million)
Buddhism 376 million
Primal-indigenous (300 million)
African traditional and Diasporic (100 million)
Sikhism (23 million)
Juche (19 million)
Spiritism (15 million)
Judaism (14 million)
Bahai (7 million)
Jainism (4.2 million)
Shinto (4 million)
Cao Dai (4 million)
Zoroastrianism (2.6 million)
Tenrikyo (2 million)
Neo-Paganism (1 million)
Unitarian-Universalism (800,000)

2) It wouldn't matter if it was true.

I disagree. Ignoring the moral teachings that drives the behavior and belief of 1/2 the worlds population is ideological suicide. There must be a rational discussion of the issues. Rational people that are religious will listen to well thought out arguments that address the basic issues. If there are such arguments to be made. OTOH, If there are not compelling reasons these religious moral ideals are misdirected, then not only won't you be able to convince the Rational people in these religions, the specter also looms that those religious moral declarations might be right after all.


Jim

[carpedm9587]

I disagree. ALL moral assessments are aimed at minority groups. There are minority groups that want things so bad they will steal them. In fact, a good case can be made they at least partially inherit characteristics (e.g. a lack of impulse control) that make them this way. There are minority groups that want to commit adultery all the time. And there have been cases made that some people inherit or are genetically predisposed to prefer multiple partners to a single one, to the point they find is incredibly difficult to fit in the the normal morality of marriage. There are minority groups that inherit an incredibly volatile temper. When something sets them off, they literally can't control themselves. It might be a chemical imbalance. Could be a bad environment growing up. But at least part of it is inherited. But we demand they control themselves. We might help them if we can find a cause by giving them medication. But we still expect them to live according to the moral code. They are not excused because they have some sort of inherited characteristic that makes following the moral code very hard.

Just for clarification, are you saying that moral statements are only aimed at minority groups, or they are aimed at minority groups as well as majority groups.

One thing that is becoming clear to me in this debate is that this issue can't really be simplified or mapped into a single analogue that allows simple comparisons to be made. This issue pits two or three major moral imperatives against each other. And a simple resolution by appealing to one or the other of the elements at odds with each other is not going to work. I am especially annoyed at the tendency to dismiss or treat as unimportant this element of the problem. It is the central issue. It's sort of like trying to get an old car to work and ignoring the fact the gas tank is empty.

So identify the moral imperatives that are being pitted against one another and let's look at them.

You can't just say 'Its discrimination'. You can't just say 'Its about morality'. And you can't just say 'It's about personal, private behavior". It's ALL of those and perhaps more. And they are at odds with each other. And it is, I believe, intellectually dishonest to try to limit the problem to just one of these issues. Not to mention it leads to a lot of name calling: "You're a bigot", "You're an immoral person", "You're a busybody" and so on.

Jim

So are these the "moral imperatives" you were referring to in the previous paragraph? If so, I can see how non-discrimination is a moral imperative, but then you identify "morality" itself, so I'm not sure how you see this as a moral imperative. And "personal, private behavior" doesn't seem to me to be a moral imperative.

As for the name calling - I would be interested in knowing how you would go about communicating that a particular position is a prejudicial one without calling the person expressing it "prejudiced." I make the attempt (hopefully consistently) to keep the language about the argument/position, and not about the person. It's the best I can do. But if you have suggestions for how to approach this, I'm interested.

Michel