Originally posted by carpedm9587
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation
Collapse
X
-
Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
-
Originally posted by seer View PostAlcoholism, like homosexual inclination, would be an innate characteristic. Not that we know homosexual inclination is an innate condition. But Carp, I'm not sure what your argument here is, are you saying that because it may be an inherent condition that that makes it moral? If not what are you saying?
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostJim - I know you are trying to make a case that the same rules apply for all people, but your starting point just doesn't work, and we are miles apart in terms of sexual morals. For you, the rule, "no one may have sex with a same sex partner" is being equally applied to all people. But that is (excuse me for being blunt) a ridiculous notion. Only a homosexual or bisexual is going to have same-sex attractions, by definition. So the rule has no application to heterosexuals and only impacts bisexuals and homosexuals. The "difference" I am referring to is this: you can marry and physically love your partner, but only if you are heterosexual. If you are in love with a same sex partner - you cannot be physically intimate. That is what the position here boils down to.
Your attempt to position homosexuality as akin to alcoholism speaks volumes. Alcoholism is a disease. Homosexuality is not. Homosexuality is merely a different sexual orientation. And your rules about sodomy simply make no sense to me. What two people do with one another in their intimate moments is between them and morality is simply not an issue. Morality, with respect to sex, comes to play when one person objectifies another. Other than that, I see no reason to place boundaries on how two people sexually pleasure one another.
I also compared the issue to sodomy (in more vulgar terms, anal sex). This is simply a sexual act that can occur between two people of either orientation, and can be part of either a heterosexual or homosexual relationship, and it in Christian moral terms it is immoral. It also is significantly more dangerous in terms of disease and potential damage the the sexual partner than normal intercourse.
Yes, only a person with same-sex attraction in some form will be tempted to commit same sex acts, but that does not change the fact the act is a itself choice, not a mandate, not something the person has no control over.
The issue we can't ever get to is why might a same-sex act be considered immoral. But perhaps that is a goal? I have no idea. Nevertheless, I have laid out a very clear case for why the issue is morality and choice, not discrimination. And as far as I can tell, you have no argument at all to present against that. Of course a person that wants to do an immoral act will be limited by the fact it is immoral. But that is as it should be. The morality of an action is not determined by how badly someone wants to do it.
The only way it could be about discrimination is if we could show the creation of the moral standard is based not on what is best overall for all people, but it is based solely on prejudice against people with same-sex attraction. But we likely will never get to that potential element for discussion.
One can differentiate between the apparent unfairness of the moral mandate and the issue of how we apply morality. But in the end you apply two completely different strategies to morality. For something like theft well that applies to everyone, no matter how muh the person has a problem resisting the temptation to steal, no matter how much the person thinks he needs the thing stolen. But in terms of sexual morality, it's all about how convenient it is for the person to resist doing the sexual act - except not for pedophelia of course. Very situational, not at all based on basic principles.
I'm trying to lay out a discussion of the issue from first principles and applying the moral system to all in the same way. That is the starting point. Then we would discuss what morality makes sense. Does the fact people with same-sex attractions face celibacy or if they have some bi-sexual element restriction to heterosexual intimacy constitute an unfair burden? And also, equally important but far more difficult to assess, do same sex acts present any sort of danger to society that makes them immoral from that perspective (they impose intrinsic harm on people outside the relationship). I'm sure that last question is nearly impossible for you to consider. But I am not so sure. Sodomy does present a greater threat to society than most sexual actions. It can damage a persons ability to control their bowel movements. it facilitates transmission of disease more than most other sexually related activities. Sodomy is on the increase in the heterosexual population, which may reduce the tendency to be a same sex issue, but that is more due to the degradation of morals than any improvement in moral standards. Aside from sodomy, there is also a much higher incidence of promiscuity in male (and I think female) same-sex populations than heterosexual populations*. Those elements, I believe, create a greater potential danger outside the relationship than found in heterosexual interactions, and may well be the reason same-sex relationships ended up under prohibition in many religions over the millenia.
*some argue the higher promiscuity is due to prohibition and the lack of a construct like marriage. We don't have enough data to know at the present time if same-sex marriage will become sufficiently wide spread and that the monogamous implications of marriage will actually be honored sufficiently to help change that.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostAnd some people inherit a propensity to addition. Others have no such elements in their physical and mental makeup. But the law is that drunk driving is illegal. And the moral imperative is that we are to remain sober. The morality applies to all, regardless of the propensity to addition. And the law applies to all, regardless of their propensity to addition, physical capacity to resist intoxication, or their health status in terms of alcoholism. There is no 'discrimination' against alcoholics by imposing those laws, nor by announcing the moral imperative. But it would be valid to call it discrimination against people with a genetic propensity to addition if one extended your logic used in this discussion to addition to alcohol and laws against drunk driving.
I guess I am a mathaphobe.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostJim - I know you are trying to make a case that the same rules apply for all people, but your starting point just doesn't work, and we are miles apart in terms of sexual morals. For you, the rule, "no one may have sex with a same sex partner" is being equally applied to all people. But that is (excuse me for being blunt) a ridiculous notion. Only a homosexual or bisexual is going to have same-sex attractions, by definition. So the rule has no application to heterosexuals and only impacts bisexuals and homosexuals. The "difference" I am referring to is this: you can marry and physically love your partner, but only if you are heterosexual. If you are in love with a same sex partner - you cannot be physically intimate. That is what the position here boils down to.
Your attempt to position homosexuality as akin to alcoholism speaks volumes. Alcoholism is a disease. Homosexuality is not. Homosexuality is merely a different sexual orientation. And your rules about sodomy simply make no sense to me. What two people do with one another in their intimate moments is between them and morality is simply not an issue. Morality, with respect to sex, comes to play when one person objectifies another. Other than that, I see no reason to place boundaries on how two people sexually pleasure one another.
You are being a hypocrite. You just draw the line in the sand just a little different than we do. But there is still the same line there.
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostIt doesn't 'speak volumes', and it is not an attempt to 'position homosexuality' but rather to find an analogous moral term that is devoid if the stigma and irrationality associated with this debate so you can see past your own internal biases and to the actual issue in play. A propensity to addition is not a disease, but rather an inherited trait and my analogy focused on THAT. Alcoholism as a disease is a CONSEQUENCE of that inherited trait, but not the trait itself. The battle with controlling how much alcohol a person consumes and the effect of that is directed by the genetic propensity to addition. The more difficult element here is that you know if you admit moral actions are a choice the attempt to classify the issue as discrimination fails.
I also compared the issue to sodomy (in more vulgar terms, anal sex). This is simply a sexual act that can occur between two people of either orientation, and can be part of either a heterosexual or homosexual relationship, and it in Christian moral terms it is immoral. It also is significantly more dangerous in terms of disease and potential damage the the sexual partner than normal intercourse.
Yes, only a person with same-sex attraction in some form will be tempted to commit same sex acts, but that does not change the fact the act is a itself choice, not a mandate, not something the person has no control over.
The issue we can't ever get to is why might a same-sex act be considered immoral. But perhaps that is a goal? I have no idea. Nevertheless, I have laid out a very clear case for why the issue is morality and choice, not discrimination. And as far as I can tell, you have no argument at all to present against that. Of course a person that wants to do an immoral act will be limited by the fact it is immoral. But that is as it should be. The morality of an action is not determined by how badly someone wants to do it.
The only way it could be about discrimination is if we could show the creation of the moral standard is based not on what is best overall for all people, but it is based solely on prejudice against people with same-sex attraction. But we likely will never get to that potential element for discussion.
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostOne can differentiate between the apparent unfairness of the moral mandate and the issue of how we apply morality. But in the end you apply two completely different strategies to morality. For something like theft well that applies to everyone, no matter how muh the person has a problem resisting the temptation to steal, no matter how much the person thinks he needs the thing stolen. But in terms of sexual morality, it's all about how convenient it is for the person to resist doing the sexual act - except not for pedophelia of course. Very situational, not at all based on basic principles.
I'm trying to lay out a discussion of the issue from first principles and applying the moral system to all in the same way. That is the starting point. Then we would discuss what morality makes sense. Does the fact people with same-sex attractions face celibacy or if they have some bi-sexual element restriction to heterosexual intimacy constitute an unfair burden? And also, equally important but far more difficult to assess, do same sex acts present any sort of danger to society that makes them immoral from that perspective (they impose intrinsic harm on people outside the relationship). I'm sure that last question is nearly impossible for you to consider. But I am not so sure. Sodomy does present a greater threat to society than most sexual actions. It can damage a persons ability to control their bowel movements. it facilitates transmission of disease more than most other sexually related activities. Sodomy is on the increase in the heterosexual population, which may reduce the tendency to be a same sex issue, but that is more due to the degradation of morals than any improvement in moral standards. Aside from sodomy, there is also a much higher incidence of promiscuity in male (and I think female) same-sex populations than heterosexual populations*. Those elements, I believe, create a greater potential danger outside the relationship than found in heterosexual interactions, and may well be the reason same-sex relationships ended up under prohibition in many religions over the millenia.
*some argue the higher promiscuity is due to prohibition and the lack of a construct like marriage. We don't have enough data to know at the present time if same-sex marriage will become sufficiently wide spread and that the monogamous implications of marriage will actually be honored sufficiently to help change that.
You seem to want to try to explain why same-sex intimacy is implicitly immoral, so why don't you attempt to do that. I'd be interested in seeing where you are going.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostPedophilia is a sexual orientation. But it is immoral and illegal. You expect those with that orientation to make the choice not to act on it and have no conflict with holding that concept in your head. Pedophilia is probably just as much an innate drive as homosexuality. Yet you don't go around claiming that people who think pedophilia is immoral are being bigots or compare pedophiles to being black.
You are being a hypocrite. You just draw the line in the sand just a little different than we do. But there is still the same line there.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostYou do love the word hypocrite, Sparko. It's not a very effective way to engage in discussion. Your opinion is duly noted. I've explained why pedophilia is different. I'll refer you to my previous responses.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostCarp, you seem to be falling back on the argument that if an inclination or desire is innate then it is moral.
Originally posted by seer View PostThat is why pedophilia, is not different. If innateness is not the standard that you are using, then what is?The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostYou do love the word hypocrite, Sparko. It's not a very effective way to engage in discussion. Your opinion is duly noted. I've explained why pedophilia is different. I'll refer you to my previous responses.
Above you say:
Based on sexual orientation alone, a person may or may not be intimate with the person they love. Heterosexual married people are permitted to and it is "moral." Homosexual people are not permitted to and it is "immoral" if they do. But the only difference between the two is their sexual orientation. Therein lies the discriminatory nature of the position.
So do you think that back then it was NOT discriminatory to not permit homosexuals to be intimate with the person they love but it is now?
Basically your only consistent answer here is to say that you think it was not discrimination to make gay sex illegal back then. Because you don't think it is discrimination to make pedophilia illegal today.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostAt no point have I said that or thought it.
You and I have discussed this ad nauseum, Seer. I'm not sure what value is had by repeating it all over again. I understand your basis for morality is what you believe your god wants as you have interpreted it from what is written in the bible. I believe morality is rooted in the things we value and the actions that affirm/enhance those thing (moral) and the actions that destroy/diminish those things (immoral).Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostBut of course you have, that is why you keep bringing up orientation, with nature and nurture. If those are not central to you argument they why bring them up in the first place?
I have no idea what you mean by that Carp, really. What things to WE value?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYou said it because was illegal because of the age difference.
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYet at one time homosexual sex and gay marriage were just as illegal as pedophilia is today.
Above you say:
Based on sexual orientation alone, a person may or may not be intimate with the person they love. Heterosexual married people are permitted to and it is "moral." Homosexual people are not permitted to and it is "immoral" if they do. But the only difference between the two is their sexual orientation. Therein lies the discriminatory nature of the position.
So do you think that back then it was NOT discriminatory to not permit homosexuals to be intimate with the person they love but it is now?
Originally posted by Sparko View PostBasically your only consistent answer here is to say that you think it was not discrimination to make gay sex illegal back then. Because you don't think it is discrimination to make pedophilia illegal today.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostNo. It has always been discriminatory, but we are only now becoming conscious of it as a society. In much the same way, slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc. were always discriminatory, but it took time for society at large to accept it as such, and we are STILL struggling with denial that racism continues to be a problem.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostBut of course you have, that is why you keep bringing up orientation, with nature and nurture. If those are not central to you argument they why bring them up in the first place?
Originally posted by seer View PostI have no idea what you mean by that Carp, really. What things to WE value?
However, I have to admit that our previous exchanges leave me thinking that your question is just bait/trolling. If I am wrong about that, and your question is genuine, then tell me and I promise to respond.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Yesterday, 05:12 PM
|
3 responses
37 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sam
Yesterday, 05:26 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 02:07 PM
|
17 responses
62 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 09:40 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 02:00 PM
|
6 responses
51 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 09:43 PM
|
||
Started by whag, Yesterday, 10:21 AM
|
10 responses
86 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Starlight
Today, 01:31 AM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 08:53 AM
|
42 responses
166 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 12:38 AM
|
Comment