- Was he wrong to also say having an affair is immoral?
- Is it immoral to say something is immoral? Or is it just immoral to say homosexuality is immoral?
- Is it immoral to SAY it's immoral or was it immoral that he was claiming it is immoral?
- If it's not immoral to SAY it's immoral what exactly was the problem?
- And, above all these others, exactly what should moral and ammoral judgements be based on?
I'd love to see some real discussion on these issues instead of the typical knee-jerk reactions.
30 comments:
It's becoming insane anymore. You can't say anything without the liberals of the world crapping their pants. And to answer your questions: It's only immoral if you say somthing that would offend a liberal. Everything a liberal beleives is moral, everything a conservitive says is immoral. It's that easy. And the guy better not apoligize for speaking his beliefs. On the other hand it's funny seeing how easy it is to offend liberals at this point in time. It makes being consevitive very entertaining.
Zimmerfly
Was he wrong to say having an affair is immoral?
I don't think that's what caused the hoopla... I think it was saying homosexuality is immoral.
Is it immoral to say something is immoral?
I don't think anyone is saying that. It seems moral to call an immoral thing immoral, right?
Or is it just immoral to say homosexuality is immoral?
I guess we need to agree on a definition of immorality... but I think we can agree to rephrase your questions as something like "is it bad/inappropriate to say homosexuality is bad/inappropriate?" then I would have to agree with the hoopla. I think it's bad to call homosexuality bad. Especially if you are speaking as a public/policy making figure. This is different than speaking off the record about your personal beliefs. The problem is some people think homosexual orientation (let's keep this distinct from homosexual behavior for right now) is (1) a conscious choice and (2) inherently bad/inappropriate. Some people do not think this way, and the lines are typically drawn along religious lines. So... regardless of anything else, it seem to show a lack of judgement for a public/policy making figure to make comments on "hot button" issues.
Is it immoral to SAY it's immoral? I guess that depends on your measuring stick... but I would say you should judge ACTS, and "speaking in a conversation" seems like it would be hard to be immoral by my definition. Speech, outside of a conversation, can be other things, such as a threat. A threat can be immoral. Lying and attempting to harm others or cause suffering with words can be immoral. Stating your beliefs should never be immoral.
If it's not immoral to SAY it's immoral what exactly is the problem?
His words can be interpreted to say that a group of people are by their nature fundamentally bad/inappropriate. (fundamentally exclusive of any behaviors of group members). This seems bad/inappropriate for a public figure to say as it leads to the group being considered "less" or "bad" and thus it becomes legitimate to exclude this group or alienate them or otherwise cause suffering.
above all these others, exactly what should moral and amoral judgments be based on?
I think it's tough to judge "people"... so let's talk about judging ACTS. An act can be judged moral or immoral (or amoral: neutral) based on the amount of suffering it causes.
Zfly... good thing we didn't reduce this to knee-jerk reactions, ha ha.
Here are all the inside rules I have on the Liberal Playbook. I live in Berkeley, I know some people, so they let me take a look sometimes.
o Liberals talk "ethics" not "morals" because it's snootier
o Liberals don't believe in ANYTHING because things change all the time
o For Liberals, EVERYTHING is relative and depends on your perspective, there is no right and no wrong
o Liberals will tolerate any behavior from anyone if they have ever been "oppressed" (by however they define that, it changes)
o The one thing a Liberal will NOT tolerate is someone who is INTOLERANT or anyone else for any reason
o Because Liberals are adrift in a sea of ever-changing context-dependent rules and feel depressed by their inability to believe in anyone or anything, they lash out with vitriol at anyone who forms a firm opinion. They most hate a person who takes a firm stand defending Good things because Liberals have no concept of Good because they destroyed their concept of Evil with moral relativism.
That's all I've got so far, I'll try to snoop more from their playbook.
"I think it's bad to call homosexuality bad."
Why?
"The problem is some people think homosexual orientation (let's keep this distinct from homosexual behavior for right now"
I think that's a good point. I don't he defined if if was talking about orientation or acts. Although we can assume he meant acts because he said he agrees with don't ask don't tell.
"...lack of judgement for a public/policy making figure to make comments on "hot button" issues."
What? So they shouldn't comment on prayer in public or the morality of the war in Iraq because those are "hot buttons" and often break down on religious lines.
So you would seperate bad/iappropriate from immoral AND you would say immorality is defined by if something causes suffering. Then you would agree homsexual acts would be immoral if it is shown to cause harm? Would you also consider all sex acts outside marriage in Africa immoral due to the fact that it is leading to the AIDS epidimic?
I think I'd agree a good way to judge something moral/immoral would be by the harm it does others. But I think homosexual acts (and I'd say all acts outside a completely monogomous relationship) can be shown to fit your definition of immoral. They defininitely have done more harm than good.
Perhaps all this hypersensitivity is being caused by global warming.
"I think it's bad to call homosexuality bad." Why?
If you are not specific, then you could be talking about intrinsic sexual orientation, or you could be talking about homosexual acts.
(1) It's bad to call intrinsic homosexual orientation bad for the same reason as calling red heads bad, or short people bad, or Lithuanians bad.
(2) If you are calling homosexual ACTS bad, that's bad because it's a choice between consenting adults and it's not your concern. Adult humans with a healthly sex drive need sexual release. If that's with other consenting adults in healthy relationships there are more important concerns (i.e. not cheating on each other, avoiding abusive relationships, being honest and open, etc) than having the same gender.
I don't think he defined if he was talking about orientation or acts. Although we can assume he meant acts because he said he agrees with don't ask don't tell.
I don't think you can make that assumption. Generically "homosexuality" is too broad a term. If he meant something specifically, he should say what he means. "Don't ask, don't tell" is a scary policy. It's like having selectively enforeceable laws. There are all kinds of reasons selectively enforceable laws are bad for a free and open society. If you selectively enforce seat-belt laws, and 5% of people don't use seat-belts, police have a free ticket to pull over 5% of the population whenever they want.
What? So they shouldn't comment on prayer in public or the morality of the war in Iraq because those are "hot buttons" and often break down on religious lines.
I was wondering if this guy is just trying to stir up controversy or if it was a political statement to gain support with the conservatives. "hot button" issues are politically devisive so when you are a representative of a large organization or group of people, you have to understand that when you are speaking in public, you have to differentiate between personal and professional statements. So I think he showed lack of judgement in creating the hoopla.
Obviously, there are public arenas where debate on controversial issues are is not only good and acceptable, it is required.
So you would seperate bad/inappropriate from immoral AND you would say immorality is defined by if something causes suffering.
I was saying "bad/inappropriate" instead of "immoral" because "immoral" is a loaded term with multiple definitions and "bad/inappropriate" was more generic and less specific and we could kinda agree on what it means. Example, you might define "immoral" as "a sin" or "acting against God's will". A selfish materialist might define an "immoral" act as "something which causes me pain or unhappiness". I was proposing that an immoral act is something which causes suffering.
Then you would agree homsexual acts would be immoral if it is shown to cause harm?
If an act, homosexual or other, causes suffering, then I think it is immoral. Note this isn't "black and white" because suffering isn't "on" or "off". There are gradients and gray areas which is why people are required to put thoughts into their actions and we are not robots.
But are you stating that you think homosexual acts cause more suffering than heterosexual acts?
Would you also consider all sex acts outside marriage in Africa immoral due to the fact that it is leading to the AIDS epidimic?
Well, you are talking mostly about HETEROSEXUAL sex there. But I don't know that I can agree with your supposition "all sex acts outside marriage in Africa are leading to the AIDS epidemic." AIDS is being spread because someone who is infected is having sex with someone who is not. In a committed mariage, it can STILL be spread if one partner is infected and the other is not. Is THAT immoral?
So despite the fact that this is offtopic a bit, YOU BROUGHT IT UP.
Let me tell you what is absolutely immoral in no uncertain terms, and I would even call it Evil. The Catholic Church telling people in Africa NOT TO USE CONDOMS. (a fact they are proud of). The US government changing is policy to reduce existing funding for condom use. Condoms are cheap and proven to be effective to stop the spread of HIV. It is tantamount to allowing people to suffer and die because they don't subscribe to your moral code.
I think I'd agree a good way to judge something moral/immoral would be by the harm it does others.
What are viable alternatives, given that not everyone agrees on what is Good/Evil, and what God's Will is?
But I think homosexual acts (and I'd say all acts outside a completely monogomous relationship) can be shown to fit your definition of immoral. They defininitely have done more harm than good.
Absurd. My friend John has butt-sex with his boyfriend of ten years, Bill. My other friend Jack only does the missonary position with his wife Sue. What makes one immoral and the other not? What if Jack and Sue have butt-sex sometimes? Can you help me to understand your point that "they definitely have done more harm than good"? Because I can't see how that is in any way a justified statement.
"(2) If you are calling homosexual ACTS bad, that's bad because it's a choice between consenting adults and it's not your concern."
Based on your comment than it's ok for any consenting adults to have a sexual relationship.
*So if a 40 old father wants to have consentual sex with his 18 year old daughter you ok with that and don't think it's bad.
*If a 18 old guy wants to have sex with his 19 year old sister, your ok with that and don't think that's bad.
*If a 25 year old mormon guy wants to have 8 women that are his wives your ok with that and don't think it's bad.
*If a 65 year old grandpa wants to hook up with his consenting 18 year old grand daughter your cool with that.
The list could go on.
Zimmerfly
"What are viable alternatives, given that not everyone agrees on what is Good/Evil, and what God's Will is?"
If you don't beleive in a God than there are no viable alternatives at all including the one you gave.
Zimmerfly
Just the fact that you have to bring condoms into the conversation right off that bat shows homosexual and non-monogomous sex is inherently dangerous.
And the whole consenting adult thing makes it moral is pretty weak.
"But are you stating that you think homosexual acts cause more suffering than heterosexual acts?"
I'm saying monogmous sex has the least chance of causing suffering. Any other is inherently risking suffering.
"(2) If you are calling homosexual ACTS bad, that's bad because it's a choice between consenting adults and it's not your concern."
Based on your comment than it's ok for any consenting adults to have a sexual relationship.
Your examples are skewed. 3 of your 4 examples are incest examples. There are all kinds of reasons incest is a taboo, and I am not condoning it in anyway. It's hard to find an example of a healthy relationship of ANY kind involving someone over 40 and someone under 19, let alone an incestuous relationship. People in these kinds of relationships are almost certainly sick people and are almost certainly suffering or causing suffering and are thus immoral. As for polygamy, I personally can't imagine this working out sucessfully, and it seems likely to be immoral (some of the wives were forced into it, were manipulated, are unhappy, are being harmed, etc.). However, I can imagine a situation where everyone involved is of sound mind and healthy and the kids are well cared for... HBO's "Big Love" paints a picture of a moral polygamous family, just as it shows some very immoral polygamous relationships.
But if consenting adults have a sexual relationship outside of marriage, and they are healthy emotionally mature people, I don't consider that immoral. That might not be the choice I make, but people are individuals.
If you don't beleive in a God than there are no viable alternatives at all including the one you gave.
But not everyone on the planet (or even in this country) (1) believe in the same God, (2) believe he operates by the same rules. And even Christians don't agree on many fundamental issues. There is an entire body of study, "Ethics", that seeks to provide a viable alternative, let alone many, many schools of Philosophy and various religions that seek to provide a moral framework. Clearly there is "no viable alternative at all" for you, but doesn't it seem valuable to find a common metric for making decisions between Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, and even Mormons and Scientologists?
Does it simplify things for you to write off a significant percentage of the human race as "immoral" if they don't share your beliefs? And is there no sense trying to dialog with immoral people?
Just the fact that you have to bring condoms into the conversation right off that bat shows homosexual and non-monogomous sex is inherently dangerous.
I brought up condoms in our conversation about heterosexual sex and the spread of HIV in Africa. And I brought up the point that AIDS can spread between monogamous married people, too. I don't know how much morality has to do with "risk", only causing suffering in others. There are a lot of dangerous and moral acts we can perform in service of the ones we love. Safety is important, but so is liberty/freedom. "sex" is dangerous and powerful, like "fire". I agree cooking on a gas stove at home is safer than building a bonfire camping with friends. If I as a single person have sex with my girlfriend and get an STD, or if I get hepatitis from my wife who got it from a blood transfusion, I have accepted these risks. But I don't think that speaks to the morality of the acts.
Promiscuity is it's own punishment, just like cheating on your wife, or having sex with someone 20 years younger than you, (or as Scott brought up, committing incest). These are bad decisions that cause harm to others in various ways, and I would call them immoral. But if I'm a single person and my girlfriend is a single person (say we are in our late 20s?) and we have sex (probably using a condom to avoid bringing a third person into this arrangement), I wouldn't call that immoral.
the whole consenting adult thing makes it moral is pretty weak
Only when some other adult claims to have a stronger moral authority. Or if you claim I am unable to make moral choices.
If I am a healthy and emotionally mature adult, my choices must be as valid as yours. Choices that affect society are decided by the majority (cultural morality) and if my choices run against that (killing someone), I am punished. BUT... if my choices harm no one and affect only myself, your opinion can't count unless you are claiming a higher morality (which to me seems immoral to do).
I'm saying monogmous sex has the least chance of causing suffering. Any other is inherently risking suffering.
I don't disagree with you. I think if you are outside of a committed monogamous relationship, there are disadvantages and opportunities for pain and risk. But life isn't pain free, and we choose our own risks and pain thresholds. Lifting weights or running causes "pain" and "suffering" but it leads to muscle growth. I'm not trying to make blanket black and white statements. Clearly, I'm a proponent of monogamous commited relationships, it's working just fine for me! But I don't claim to speak for everyone.
And I still don't see any distinction between "promiscuous heterosexual sex" and "promiscuous homosexual sex" and "committed monogamous heterosexual sex" and "committed monogamous homosexual sex".
...
To boil this down... and you may disagree, but I think, in general, we agree pretty strongly about what are "moral" and what are "immoral" acts. Everything Scott brought up is pretty immoral. We probably disagree about "homosexual acts" which I can't see as being any different that "heterosexual acts", and I don't see a big problem with single consenting adults having sex though I agree this probably won't make them happiest in the long run. I think the major difference is how far you let people who are making "bad" decisions go and what you do about them. In general, I think you need to give people the freedom to make their own bad decisions in so far as they aren't harming anyone.
I'm not trying to have the last word or anything, so I'll stop dragging this out to infinity... I'm just trying to clarify my points, but instead I'm just rambling. I'm not trying to convince you to embrace homosexuality but hopefully you'll agree that people who don't share your exact same beliefs are moral creatures who can make moral choices even if you don't agree with them.
"I'm not trying to convince you to embrace homosexuality but hopefully you'll agree that people who don't share your exact same beliefs are moral creatures who can make moral choices even if you don't agree with them."
I can't agree with that because if you beleive in an absoulte moral code (which you beleive comes from the creator) than just because something doesn't hurt another person doesn't make that act moral, it's still an offence to the creator. That action will still be hurtful to the individual because it's goes against the creator's desire. Anything that goes against the creator's desire will bring harm to an individual or limit thier effectivness to be used by the creator.
Understand I'm coming from a Christian perceptive so that this all makes sense.
At the same time I understand the Christian church (or the cathloic church)which I have no love loss for, has been a very judgmental organization over the centuries. I also understand there are christian groups who use incredible vial langugne and action against those they see as immoral and support their action with by saying they're doing them in the name of God.
My concern is for the individual as much as it is for those that others might hurt. So just because something doesn't hurt others it still hurts themselves even if they can't always see it. I don't want to see them get hurt either way. And at the same time I don't think less of them because they have some immoral actions. All of us have immoral actions.
Zimmerfly
James said:
"Condoms are cheap and proven to be effective to stop the spread of HIV. It is tantamount to allowing people to suffer and die because they don't subscribe to your moral code."
They do not. Every place that more and more condoms are handed out the Aids infection rate continues to stay the same or continues to increase. The only place in Afica that has seen significant improvement in the Aids fight is Uganda where the huge push is for abstinence and being faithful. They are having huge success. Much greater success than any where else in Afica that is just handing out condoms.
Zimmerfly
I'm thinking a couple things:
If there is not a belief in an intelligent design to what we see and think and feel then any plea to a "morality" is just an intellectual excercise.
And I'm with Zimmerfly. I think the way many Christians act toward the immoral acts of a homosexual while letting immoral acts of the greedy in our pews go unsaid is hypocritical at the least. It really takes away the opportuntites for Christians who really genuinely care about the issue to even have a chance to be heard in the debate.
I have nothing personal against the immoral. I'm immoral. The question is what do we do about it? I think most try to minimize the damage of it. I think true biblical Jesus followers (and those who beleive in a design in general) try to do that in a different way, based on what they see as an objective design basis, which is different from those who believe this is all just biology and choice try to do.
Therefore you get "condoms" as the answer for those trying to slow down the physcial damage of the behavior (which tends to be their only concern) and the other side trying to change the spritual and moral side of the issue believing this is more than a physical issue.
Now their are those on both sides who are just brainless and filled with venom but they shouldn't be allowed to silence those looking for serious dialogue.
Oh and by the way, I was in Africa two years ago and went to a hospital in which people (men, women, children) were literally laying outside on balconies and courtyards dying of aids because their was no more room in the building. The doctors we're quick to say that the only thing that was going to stop it was getting back to a moral standard on sexual issues and responsibility. They were actually having problems with teens having sex in the open in school hallways. The problem isn't just a physical thing. And there won't be a purely physical solution. Condoms wasn't slowing it.
Anecdotal, but i still found it eye opening in person.
In my opinion.
P.S. That last comment by "Annymous" was not from Zimmerfly.
I agree that Truth is always truth. But that doesn't mean everyone will aknowledge or agree on what's true.
It is nice to have an objective standard no doubt. It's nice to have someone (Bible, Koran, Al Gore) tell you what is true. But, just because it's nice doesn't mean it should be accepted. The source needs to be investigated with an open mind to determine if it is an objective source of truth.
I think the reason our culture's version of truth seems to now be changing and is wildly incosistent is because most are no longer able to or even see a need to investigate the sources of what they deem true. They are more likely to prefer to be lazy and just accept someones spoonfed version of truth.
We value ease over effort. And it's far easier to have someone tell me what's true than investigate it myself.
Zimmeryfly says: ...just because something doesn't hurt another person doesn't make that act moral
I agree. Intentions count. If I try to shoot you but miss and you don't know that I fired at you (I'm a sniper and you don't hear the shot so you aren't scared)... that's still an immoral act. If I'm trying to give you CPR but break your breastbone, that's still moral. It's not black and white.
Zimmeryfly continues: ...it's still an offence to the creator. ... Anything that goes against the creator's desire will bring harm to an individual or limit thier effectivness to be used by the creator. Understand I'm coming from a Christian perceptive so that this all makes sense.
I follow.
Zimmeryfly continues: At the same time I understand the Christian church (or the cathloic church which I have no love loss for), has been a very judgmental organization over the centuries. I also understand there are christian groups who use incredible vial langugne and action against those they see as immoral and support their action with by saying they're doing them in the name of God.
That's the tricky problem. Even the three God religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) have vastly different understandings of God's Will, let alone various the Christian denominations (not even counting the Mormons and Scientologists). Add in the non-God religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism, New Agers, etc.), and that's a pretty broad spectrum of interpretations of what The Creator intends for His creations. Since it's unlikely everyone is going to convert to Christianity in the next 20 years (End Times notwithstanding), we have to tolerate people we don't agree with.
Zimmeryfly continues: My concern is for the individual as much as it is for those that others might hurt. So just because something doesn't hurt others it still hurts themselves even if they can't always see it. I don't want to see them get hurt either way. And at the same time I don't think less of them because they have some immoral actions. All of us have immoral actions.
This goes to my point that one of the major differences in opinion that we have is in how far you let people who are making "bad" decisions go, and what you do about them. It sounds like you want to protect people "from themselves" or "for their own good", for example, by outlawing homosexual behavior. You "know" their actions are immoral, but they don't know that, and there is disagreement in the general population. In these kinds of cases, I think you have to let people do their own thing so long as they aren't hurting other people. It gets messy when you dictate behavior to other people.
It is my personal belief that these 18-year-olds getting tatoos are making a big mistake and they are going to regret their decision later in life. I can try to talk them out of it, but I wouldn't want to outlaw tatoos. And I admit that I have seen some tatoos that were very artistic.
So to bring this back to homosexuality...
Anonymous says: Why do "people" claim that incest in wrong, but insist that "homosexuality" is okay and individual's choice?
I'm one of these "people" I guess. Why do I make this claim? Incest generally involves rape and abuse. There are power imbalances (father-daughter, grandfather-daughter, uncle-nephew) so establishing "consent" is nearly impossible. You can't say "she agreed to it" if she's 15 (or 16 or 17 or even older)! These power imbalances are the same reasoning why college professors are forbidden to have relationships with their adult students, and bosses shouldn't date the secretaries. Children should not be having sex regardless of their famial relationship. This very harmful to the child and clearly immoral. Child abuse is immoral. Rape is immoral. And most incest falls into these categories. So I think in 99% of the cases, it's very clear cut. Now, "amongst peers" (adult, consenting sister-brother), I think there are still deep biological reasons we consider this wrong. Still, it's an interesting thought exercise if siblings are put up for adoption and raised apart and meet later in life and fall in love... is that immoral? I would say the same thing I say about homosexuality, it's not my business if they want to have sex. I would say IT IS immoral if they have children, because there are very good odds those children will have genetic problems. BUT that raises the murky issue of "normal" married couples finding out they have genetic diseases that could be manifested in their children... at what odds should you not have children? If the odds are 100% that your child will be deformed, the answer is clear. If the odds are 3%, maybe it's not that clear. I think it's a mistake to try to set this percentage IN LAW and force people to obey. They have to make their own choice.
So that's why incest is wrong. Homosexuality (the orientation, not the behavior) is different. It is not a choice. People are born that way. It exists in all other species. You may disagree with me on this point, but you would be wrong. Sexual orientation is not a choice. We can debate this particular point if you want, but it might not be worth it if you can't open your mind to the possibility that it is not a choice. I was taught and have believed for a long time that it was a choice and I have changed my mind based on research and experience. I know a lot of gay men and women and I have heard earnest and heart rending testimony. I don't know who would choose the kind of heartache and pain that some of my gay friends have had to endure. Now, obviously, "behavior" is a choice. Gay people can choose to have homosexual sex or not. Here is why I say homosexual sex is not immoral. (1) it is found in the natural world, (2) homosexuals didn't have a choice to be that way, (3) like healthy humans, homosexuals have a sex drive that requires release, (4) like healthy humans, homosexuals have a need to be physically and emotionally close to those they love. How can you deny another person something that they need to be healthy, especially if it is something that you are enjoying with your partner? To deny that to another person seems immoral to me. "It's ok for me to have sex, but you can't have sex." I'm talking about sex between consenting and healthy adults. Individuals with sex drives that involve rape, sex with children, scaring people by exposing themselves on the streets, masturbating in public... these are sick behaviors that harm, intimidate, and cause suffering to others. What two adult males or two adult females consentingly do to each other in their bedroom is not my concern. And while many would state that they know God's Will on this issue, many others would disagree with that interpretation. So in cases where people disagree about what God wants, why not leave it up to the individual when it isn't harming anyone?
Leviticus also tells us not to eat shrimp or have sex with a woman during her period. Some highly religious people don't think God wants us to eat pork. If no one is being harmed, I think we have to leave these prohibitions up to the individuals.
I think it is unhealthy to supress a sex drive. I think that's a lesson the Catholic Church has yet to learn. Their priests can't have sex, they can't masturbate, and they can't think "impure" thoughts. But they are not angels, they are human. I think it's pretty clear why the Catholic Church was having the issues they were having, they are enforcing unhealthy behavior.
Anonymous continues: 50 years ago, the vast majority (of Americans - that's my only experience)believed, without a doubt, that homosexuality was WRONG and so was incest. If you believe in any kind of absolute truth, then both of these actions will ALWAYS be immoral!
Only if you believe that "the vast majority" was right. I might believe in absolute truth, but that homosexuality was ALWAYS moral, and that everyone was wrong 50 years ago. The vast majority of people once believed, without a doubt, that the world was flat. We learned some stuff since then. So scientific truth certainly changes, but I think moral consciousness can grow and change too. Think about slavery, women's right to vote, child labor laws. It is certainly possible to accept that homosexual orientation is not a choice (and thus homosexual behavior becomes necessary for emotional health), while still concedeing that it is vile and repugnant for a father to sexually molest his daughter.
Anonymous continues: Since many have changed their belief system and now say that homosexuality is [not] immoral, just wait another couple of decades, and those same people will be saying that incest is NOT immoral either. "TRUTH IS TRUTH" is a very (inner)peaceful way to live. That's why God's Word will always be TRUE!
I'm sure it will be. I just don't think everyone will ever all agree on what God's Word is, exactly. I also disagree, and hopefully I'm right, that incest will ever by considered moral. I am willing to bet there was the same general percentage of homosexuals in the 1960s as today. I'm not going to go into a Rainbow Coalition History Lesson right now (not least of which because I'm unqualified), but I'm sure you are aware there are many many influential homosexual artists, scientists, writers, philosophers, athletes, and leaders throughout history. If someone is gay, you don't have to like it or support them, but it seems unfair and immoral to work to change them, or deny them rights, or intimidate them. "Tolerance". Not everyone has the exact same interpretation of Leviticus, let alone God's Will.
Barry says: If there is not a belief in an intelligent design to what we see and think and feel then any plea to a "morality" is just an intellectual excercise.
Ok, but it's an intellectual exercise that affects the quality of my own life. I can recognize that the living beings around me are capable of suffering and the other people around me are also capable of moral choices, I see that by changing my behavior, I can increase happiness or I can increase suffering. There are real lessons to be learned from this "exercise", however those other beings came to exist.
Barry continues: The question is what do we do about it? I think most try to minimize the damage of it. ... Therefore you get "condoms" as the answer for those trying to slow down the physcial damage of the behavior (which tends to be their only concern) and the other side trying to change the spritual and moral side of the issue believing this is more than a physical issue. ... The doctors we're quick to say that the only thing that was going to stop it was getting back to a moral standard on sexual issues and responsibility.
Physical damage is easy to measure. Spiritual damage, not so much. It sounds like your trip to Africa was very difficult. There is a lot of good work being done by compassionate Christians in some very trying circumstances. I can't imagine what that must have been like. You are courageous and I know a lot of my liberal friends who could never come as close to putting their money where there mouth is. When teens are having sex in the open in school hallways, there are some serious social problems. Obviously condoms aren't going to solve that... all they are going to do is reduce the transmission of the HIV virus that would otherwise occur through unprotected sex. Condoms certainly will have that effect (1) if they are available, (2) if they are used properly. The facts are they their availability has been reduced, and education in their proper use has been curtailed. But that is besides the point because kids having sex on the classroom floor are probably not carefully unrolling and using a condom. There are areas devestated by poverty, illness, and war, such that hope for any kind of better life has been destroyed and people are engaged in nihilistic and destructive behavior. Yeah, a box of condoms is not going to help. Yeah, giving them Hope and an opportunity for Love and community, that IS going to help. But you know what else will help? Economic assistance, proper nutrition, basic sanitation and medical care, and education. I'm agreeing with you that it will take more than condoms. I'm suggesting it will take more than prayer. It will take works: economic aid, scientific education, as well as compassionate spiritual/moral guidance/comraderie/community. i.e. things that require work and sweat and money and caring... things that are in short supply.
Barry says: I agree that Truth is always truth. But that doesn't mean everyone will aknowledge or agree on what's true. ... The source needs to be investigated with an open mind to determine if it is an objective source of truth.
I agree.
Barry continues: it's far easier to have someone tell me what's true than investigate it myself.
I agree so much that I'm just going to accept what you say as true from now on. Seems easiest.
James said,
"That's the tricky problem. Even the three God religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) have vastly different understandings of God's Will, let alone various the Christian denominations (not even counting the Mormons and Scientologists). Add in the non-God religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism, New Agers, etc.), and that's a pretty broad spectrum of interpretations of what The Creator intends for His creations."
Through a very simple thought process all of the religions you talk about here can be ruled out as being the truth from the creator except for Christianity (Non-Catholic) and Judaism. If you beleive in a creator than all the other relgions don't fit the possiblility of being the message from that creator because they all have multiple messages that they accept as truth and those myltiple messages that they accept as truth from the same creator have major contridiction between them.
So the God who created can't get his story right???
Christianity (non-Catholic, they beleive the Pope is infallable and it's easily proven that different Popes have opposed each others teachings and opposed teachings in the Bible so they also have multiple sources of truth from the creator that contridict each other.) has one source of truth. The Bible. Now people can choose to beleive it's not the creators communication to man kind but it is a vaible possibility and it does not contridict itself.
People can also beleive that there is no creator which is even easier to disprove because that opinion holds no logical wieght.
The above comment was from Zimmerfly. Sorry forget to write that.
James you also seem to imply I want to outlaw homosexuality (that's the feel I get from several of your comments). I think you might be mixing gay marriage and homosexuality. Gay marriage I'm opposed to and have no problem with the goverment controling the standards of marriage. Gay couples are a decision of individuals and I would have a problem with the goverment involving itself there.
On the other hand you seem to base your feelings that homosexuality is moral based on your observations of nature and experence. But the same way people are born with a homosexual leaning others are born with a alochilic leaning, lying leaning, stealing leaning, drug abuse leaning, violence leaning, the list could go on. Each person still makes the choice to engage in those behaviors. So nature and science have no influence on what should be considered moral or immoral. The only thing that should be considered is if you beleive in a absoulte truth from the creator or not.
If you do beleive in a absoulte moral code from the creator than you have something to stand on when you discuss what's moral and what's not moral. People don't have to agree with it but if their intellectually honest they can understand where those people are coming from and it's not a bad place to make your moral decisions from (if you've thought and researched the source you are basing it from).
But people who don't beleive in a creator have nothing to stand on when it comes to what's moral and immoral. They can have their own opinions but they are just 1 in 6 billion humans and what gives their thoughts and opinions any more weight than anyone else? It's all just relative and a fruitless exersice in order to make oneself feel good but it holds no intellectual weight or authority over anyone else. So in that world anarchy should rule because no one should be allowed to establish whats right or wrong. If it's right to you, great more power to you, if it's wrong to you, great more power to you. Just don't judge anyone else no matter how vile it might seem to you.
Zimmerfly
This is a test to see if my screen names comes up so I don't have to sign every post.
"It is not a choice. People are born that way. It exists in all other species. You may disagree with me on this point, but you would be wrong. Sexual orientation is not a choice."
But, I'm not talking orientation I'm talking action. Homosexual action is no more "born with" than heterosexual action. We have lots of oreintations we are expected not to act on.
Besides, there are lots of people who don't value helping others and value helping themselves at the expense of others and it works out pretty well for them. Think of some kings and dictators. Without a moral basis you can't say there wrong or have ground on which to oppose them.
[Sorry don't have time to organize my thoughts real well here, so you're getting a shotgun]
I don't agree with the whole "every other species does it" basis. I know some species exhibit the behavior but no species has it as the majority behavior. And if they all did it's goodbye species. If nothing else you'd think evolution would have done away with any "gay genes" long ago. (Actually, I've been toying with thinking one way of seeing moral vs. immoral is taking an action out to the universal and seeing your result. IE. Everyone heterosexual and monogomous= no sexual disease spread through a population and perpetuation of species. Everyone homosexual and/or multiple partners= widespread disease and goodbye species. OR Everyone can lie if it is in their best interest= society and court system breaks down, injustice reigns. Everyone tell the truth no matter what the consequences= fairness and justice and openess reign.)
But even if you can say you observe the action in other species...a few things:
-Are we saying we base morality on animal behavior?
-Most species have males that have young by multiple females and don't stick around.
-Most species defend their territory with violence.
-Most same sex actions in animal species is perpatrated as an act of domination not mutual consent.
-Most species don't attach relationship to sex acts.
-Most species don't seek privacy for sex acts. (So those students in Africa should be given the go ahead).
Now realize I only say most because I'm not an expert on animal behavior but I am a thinker. I betting some of those are as
So let me take your points:
(1) it is found in the natural world [So are alot of things we wouldn't advocate]
(2) homosexuals didn't have a choice to be that way [Tendicies don't require action and studies of twins would contradict this view]
(3) like healthy humans, homosexuals have a sex drive that requires release [This is an old Jr. High line for guys to get girls, plenty of humans have had healthy fullfilled lives without having sex with others. No one has ever died from not having sex]
(4) like healthy humans, homosexuals have a need to be physically and emotionally close to those they love. [And this means sex how? Do I need to have sex with my children then? There aren't healthy and unhealthy ways to express love? I'd say homosexual acts (among other things) is an unhealthy way to express love. My definition of love is doing what's in the best interest of someone else even at personal sacrifice. And as we've all stated their are real dangers involved in homosexual (and I would add multiple partners) sexual actions.]
"...these are sick behaviors that harm, intimidate, and cause suffering to others."
Who decides it's sick? There's alot of things most of us would consider sick that have been accepted in other societies throughout time. Certain levels of Rome certainly didn't consider sex with children sick. Once again without a objective basis you can't make these judgements.
Also, be careful of lumping all Christians in together. I have no desire to force anyone to follow biblical moral guidline. I think that'd be immoral according to scripture. I also don't think their are things in Leviticus that apply to today's world (principles do but not practices). I choose to convince them. On the other hand, we live in a society where those who can get the most power to come to bear can force their morality or lack of on others. So we all need to accept the system for what it is. If someone can get enough votes to allow homosexuality, or child rape for that matter, more power to them but if other can get enough votes to disallow it... hey that's how this system works. Now the system use to base at least some core things on biblical guidelines. That's out the window so now it'll be interesting to see where our foundation is laid. For example the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case. Since our inception judges would have said "obviously drug use is an immoral act based on a common reference" and the case wouldn't have even been brought. Now you got a bunch of judges sorting out their personal opinions. "Disallowing drug speach is wrong but we can disallow rape speech". "I disagree drug speech should be disallowed, but religious talk should be allowed. "I disagree, religious speech should not be allowed but unless you're Muslim." Ad nausem. There's no common basis and things break down.
"I agree so much that I'm just going to accept what you say as true from now on. "
So if we take that to the extreme:
Everyone agrees with me= world a perfect place. I think you'd be making a very moral choice ;)
Oh, and I really need to know how to use "there" "their" and "they're". They should come up with some different words.
One last thought:
Who exactly establishes "health and not harming anyone" as the ultimate goal? That seems to be what a lot of your opinions are based on.
My reply to Zimmerfly comments:
Zimmerfly writes:
Through a very simple thought process all of the religions you talk about here can be ruled out as being the truth from the creator except for Christianity (Non-Catholic) and Judaism.
Tell that to the rest of the world. The Hindus and Buddhists and Atheists and Mormons will say the exact same thing about you. The "I'm right and you're wrong" argument doesn't lead to someone saying "oh, yeah, I see that my faith is weaker than yours now".
So the God who created can't get his story right???
I'm sure He can. But the Budhists and Hindu's have a pretty complex conception of "God" so we can assume their understanding of God the Creator is pretty different from the "God of Abraham" religions. Of the Christians, Muslims, and Jews, only the Muslims think they have the DIRECTLY WRITTEN by their Prophet books. The others are divinely inspired and written down second or third hand, and even the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke have minor differences. But that's besides the point, because even if the Bible is 100% accurate and non-contradictory, and I won't debate that it isn't, different Christians preaching from the same 100% accurate and non-contradictory passages and going to use different words and metaphors when presenting it because all people are different. Even when you read it yourself, and even if God guides you to the 100% correct understanding, every person puts this into action themselves their own way when dealing with the world. That guy gave the bum $2. That lady donated a bag of clothes to the shelter. Both tried to help the poor. Who understood God's story better? Ultimately, you are your own moral authority because ultimately you have to make choices dealing with world.
Christianity ... has one source of truth. The Bible. Now people can choose to beleive it's not the creators communication to man kind but it is a vaible possibility and it does not contridict itself.
I won't debate that Christianity has one source of truth, and I won't debate whether the Bible contradicts itself or not. I will concede these points entirely. But I will say, that if Christianity has one source of truth... Christians DO NOT. Christians have MANY sources of truth (or accuracy or ways to make predictions about the way the world works). There is mathematical truth, there is scientific truth, there is historical truth. I would even say scientific truth IS THE SAME as "physical truth" about how the world works. Our "understanding" of physical truth is FAR from 100% and is often contradictory, but contradictions are GOOD because they show us where the problems are, and we can fix our understanding by learning more about how the world works.
One quick aside on "scientific truth" as another source of truth for Christians: Christians can make use of scientific truth as much as anyone, which is true if you fly in a plane or take anti-bioitics or use a computer. Some religious people choose not to take advantage of "the fruits of science" when they think there is a contradiction between scientific truth and God's truth. Of course, there are non-Christians who reject science as well. I think "scientific truth" cannot contradict God's truth because all science does is explore the world as it exists and help us to understand it.
I think I've made the case the you are already relying on your own moral judgement (authority) when you accept as a moral guideline one phrase from the Bible (about homosexuality) and reject another from the Bible (about not eating shellfish or killing adulterers). So rather than saying "I'm immoral for eating lobster" why not say "the Bible is providing me with a valuable moral framework with stories from history, and I will supplement them with the moral compass which God has given to me to decide the best choices to make in my relationship with other people." Isn't that a legitimate understanding of the Bible? And that doesn't conflict with Science. Science gains it's accuracy and truth through direct repeatable observation and measurment of the physical reality that God created. Science will never be able to refute God's existence. Individual scientists can be wrong and frequently are, but the collective "picture" painted by all the scientists all over the world is only ever going to become more accurate. I think it is counter productive to fight the illumination and insight that Science provides to Christian and non-Christian alike.
People can also beleive that there is no creator which is even easier to disprove because that opinion holds no logical wieght.
I think if you can either "prove" or "disprove" the existence of a Creator, you probably aren't doing it with science, and thus you are going to have a tough time convincing anyone else. That is one thing science is good for... it's a good currency for cross-cultural exchange of "facts". Chinese people, Australians, Brazilians, Pakistanis, and New Yorkers all agree the Earth orbits the Sun, regardless of their religious beliefs.
On the other hand you seem to base your feelings that homosexuality is moral based on your observations of nature and experience.
Exactamundo. "observation" is the hallmark of science. And to repeat myself, those things you mention: lying, stealing, alcoholism, drug abuse, etc. all of these things are harmful and cause suffering. This is not true of homosexual behavior. Futhermore, you state that tendencies toward "lying" and "stealing" are in-born. That is debateable. I would suggest any slight genetic bias towards "stealing" (if it exists) is greatly overruled by upbringing. If you start trying to say there is a "genetic basis" for "being a thief", you have to watch who you say that to... because "genes" run in families of course. Imagine saying something like "people from that part of the world tend to be thieves"... well, that kind of talk makes some people uncomfortable.
Each person still makes the choice to engage in those behaviors.
Yes, based on their personal conscience. It's not black and white deciding when lying or stealing or killing is immoral either: lying to an enemy torturing you to make you reveal troop positions, killing an enemy soldier, a poor man stealing apples from rich man's orchard to feed his children. If these "obviously immoral" acts which cause harm to others have a gray zone... what about benign "non-of-your-business" harms no one things like homosexual acts?
So nature and science have no influence on what should be considered moral or immoral. The only thing that should be considered is if you beleive in a absoulte truth from the creator or not.
You didn't prove your point. Homo butt-sex is not the same as stealing as measured by causing suffering in others and as measured by my God given conscience. I would rather see (not literally) a happily coupled gay man enjoying his partner than a repressed and crazed celibate gay priest day-dreaming about manipulating boys. Your moral code would seem to prefer the second case, whereas mine would prefer the first.
If you do beleive in a absoulte moral code from the creator than you have something to stand on when you discuss what's moral and what's not moral.
Otherwise, you have to resort to (1) your conscience and in-born sense of empathy and compassion, (2) your understanding of physical reality and that certain behaviors will have negative consequences for yourself and your society and your world. Which is why I was using phrases like "bad/inappropriate" originally rather than "immoral"... because if your DEFINITION of "morality" is "agrees with the Creator's Will", than you immediatly "write off" vast segments of the human population as immoral and unworthy of dialog... and that could have some pretty serious negative consequences.
If it's right to you, great more power to you, if it's wrong to you, great more power to you. Just don't judge anyone else no matter how vile it might seem to you.
That's my point. This is the world we live in right now! What's right and wrong to me is different from what's right and wrong to you BECAUSE most people base it on conflicting and contradictory "authoritative" texts (the Muslims and Budhists don't agree with your Biblical interpretations). Having everyone agree on the exact same interpretation only works in small like-minded groups. Where there are healthy communities of heterogeneous peoples with different beliefs, it is because they have chosen to go beyond their fixed pre-programmed interpretations and listen instead to their internal moral conscience and sense of compassion for others. Is the Living God interacting in your life more likely to guide your thoughts when you read a certain passage in the Bible to give you a specific understanding of rules to obey in the future? Or is He more likely to touch your heart when you are faced with a particular situation and you have to decide what is the right course of action?
To distill my point, it is purely dogma which makes homosexual sex seem more immoral to you than eating lobsters. You need to question dogma especially if it leads you to be intolerant of other moral creatures. Fundamentally, there is very little difference between hetero and homo sex. So it's not on me to say why homoxsexual sex is moral (which I think I've done based on the "suffering" analysis but see my response below to Baz), it's on you to say why this dogma is worth obeying and other dogma is not.
It is now too long for me to care;) but I've enjoyed the discussion.
Comes down to a few things for me:
1) I do believe homosexual acts are harmful and unhealthy to all involved. Physically, socially, spiritually, and emotionally.
2) I think we would need a much longer discussion on how most Christians would understand why some OT practices are no longer followed while some are. I think there can be an inherent logic to it.
3) I think science clearly proves their must be a designer through simple observation. Figuring out who that designer is and what He/she/it is like is another thing.
4) I think the person and words of Jesus is historical fact (as much as anything historical is "fact") and that is what most people need to deal with. Everything else is seondary. If he is who he said he is other things fall into place (relevence of Bible, moral teachings/athourity, etc.) If he is not who he said he is then you can throw it all aside and try finding something more logical. Personally, I think the evidence points to him being exactly who he said he is and that directs the rest of my thoughts.
It's been fun.
Oh, and most disagreements between religions don't come over interpretation of texts but over athourity and origions of texts. Most all Christian groups agree on the vast majority of basics. Catholics and Prostestents disagree when Catholics accept other athourities outside scripture (Popes, traditions, etc). Chrisitans and Muslims disagree when Muslims add other athourities or reject Chrisitian athourities(prophets, visions, Mullahs, "Christian bible flawed"). Christians and Mormons disagree when Mormons add sources of athourities or change the supposed origon of scripture. Christians and Christians disagree when adding other athourities (famous Pastors, different scholars,further revelations, etc.)
I believe the Bible is meant to be understood by the common man and is often made far to complicated by half. If two people sit down with nothing but the Bible as the guideline and are able to open mindedly examine it I think most major differences disapper. At least that's been my experience with everyone from atheists to Mormons to Hindus.
Once again, when you closely examine the source of various groups athourities I think the Bible wins hands down for reliablity and a seemingly supernaturally inspired source documents. But, they have to be examined as any other ancient documents would be AND you have to be willing to go where the evidence takes you (that's the big one!)
For example, when the average Mormon reads the Book of Mormon they read it as "God's Word". He accepts it on, what I'd say is, blind faith that what it says is true. I, not being Mormon, read and examine it as an historical document. I have no reason at that point to put any faith in it. Doing such I find it sorely lacking and not very convincing and withold placing faith.
However, I must also read and examine the Gospels as historical documents (although there are many Christians who are no different than that blind faith Mormon). Holding them to the same criteria I would any other ancient documents. They fare remarkably well and lead me to believe I can trust them to give me an accurate descripriton of this Jesus guy. The big question becomes what do I do with this information? Am I willing to go where the evidence takes me. I personally made a step of the will to actually act on what I believed was true. He was exactly who he said he was. At that point those historical documents take on whole new perspective.
Many people reject those same documents outright because of what acceptance would mean... a change of worldview. But, I don't think most reject them based on honest investigation but on internal fear of what it might mean if they are true or based on second hand sources not personal open-minded investigation. I think an honest examination of the Gospel documents, done with a mind open to the possibility they might be reliable, leads to interesting results. It has for millions throughout history and many far more brilliant and educated than myself. But, man, is it a scary endeavour at the outset.
Ok, now I'm done?
Good disscussion. I wish we had a better format to continue the disscusion rather than this one long page. Anyways those were dead on points Barry in your last two post.
Thanks Barry and James for a real disscusion. We actually had a thinking debate between a true thinking liberal and 2 true thinking Christians. How often does that happen in today's world??
Yeah, I kinda feel bad about letting that happen. It doesn't seem to honor the whole blogging world. So to set things right with the universe...
James you anti-Jesus doo-doo head, you're going to hell and you're little dog too! Your just stupid and so are you thoughts!
Ahhh... now all is right with the world.
Post a Comment