Tom Piper

free12thinker,

In response to an earlier statement I made to the effect that "same-sex sexual activity is morally wrong" is one of my basic moral principles, you said I then said to you, Note that the request was for a defence of a moral principle you hold; a defence of the kind that enables one to escape a charge of a 'shallow approach to life and morals' that you mention in your post to me.

So far, all you have done is mention some of the moral principles that you hold. I would very much like to see a defence that doesn't rest, at some point, on moral principles that you hold to be basic, lest you be hoist by your own petard.

Tom

Veil of Fire

"Joe sleeps with Men,
and Joe sleeps with Women.
He doesn't tell either about his other sexual preference.
He doesn't use protection.
He tells each one "I love you, we are monogamous...""

Try this:

Joe sleeps with women.
Joe sleeps with two women.
He doesn't tell either about his promiscuity.
He doesn't use protection.
He tells each one "I love you, we are monogamous"...

Trying to pin that only on homosexuals is stupid.

SmashingIdols

Yeah, of course. I was just using the example above it. I think homosexuality is a natural sexual preference.

Joe is not immoral because he is bisexual (I just wanted to include every option), but only because he is a liar, a cheat, and exposes his partners to risks without permission.

That was the whole point - western moral codes now accept homosexuality, just not promiscuity without partner knowledge (or lying).

Nobody is pinning anything on homosexuality at all. Sorry if you were confused...

Here is a far better one:

Jerry and Joe are in love and have had a monogamous relationship for the last eight years. They love kids. They desire to adopt a child.

John and Jane are married for eight years, and also wish to adopt a child. John is a Christian Minister. He cheats on his wife with young girls from the congregation (telling them that it is "God's will.") Jane knows, but doesn't want the scandal of making it public, because she wants to adopt a child.

Which couple is moral?

Which couple will get the child?

What would YOU do (WWYD)?

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]</p>

Mageth

Please explain why you would consider "homosexuality is wrong" as a "basic moral principle."

I prefer to base my morals on very simple principles which (you might say selfishly) focus on me, not on others (as the above does). A first principle is an adaptation of the Golden Rule:

1) In most if not all instances, it's best to treat others as one wishes to be treated.

Justification: I don't steal because I don't want to be stolen from.

Another principle, related to the first, is:

2) When possible, one's actions should be chosen based upon the potential for causing the minimal amount of harm.

I try not to deliberately cause pain or harm (to myaself, other humans, other animals or the environment); I try to minimize the negative impact I have on the world.

Again, I want others (humans, other animals, the environment) to minimize the harm they may cause me, so I try to minimize the harm I may cause them.

Yet another principle, also related to 1), is:

3) What I or others do (in private or public) that conforms to 2) is no one else's concern and is not "wrong."

I don't want others trying to prohibit me from doing what I wish in private or public that conforms to 2) simply because they feel it is "wrong." Therefore I will not try to prohibit others from doing what they wish in private or public that conforms to 2) simply because I feel it is "wrong."

I argue that, under the above principles, two men having sex in their bedroom, a gay pride parade, or an episode of "Helen" in which two women kiss are not "wrong."

Note that all of the above focus on what I want to get from my interactions with the world. One might argue that "Being selfish, it might occasionally be beneficial for me to steal from others if I can do it without being caught and without causing much actual harm." This may be true, but on average I think the above principles have the higher "return on investment."

SmashingIdols

Nor does our society judge it as wrong or immoral either. There are a few individuals who will, but they are excercising the same individual freedom that you are - freedom of (or from) religion (or thought).

Society's moral code (the law of the land, not the bible anymore) prohibits people with their own version of morality from taking action against you for those events. They can't stop you, they can only call names. So can we.

That's the best we can hope for. Am I missing something here?

Mageth

No, I more or less agree with you. Based on the above principles, I definitely defend anyone's right to believe what they wish, serve any religion they wish, or hold any moral stance they wish, as long as they don't force their beliefs/religions/morals on others.

But I think you're a little naive if you think that some aren't at least trying to codify their particular morals to stop me and others from doing what they consider wrong under their particular moral system. Anti-abortion is a case in point. My hope is that our society can withstand their attempts.

free12thinker

I have to claim ignorance. When you were looking for a defence of a moral principle, I thought you were looking for a defense. I apologize. I thought you may had just misspelled defense, and was just looking for me to defend my moral principles on some grounds.

Anyway, what is defence?

droolian

I don’t see how homosexuality is immoral as long as, as with heterosexuals, it’s consensual, safe and/or responsible and those engaging in it aren’t cheating on anyone else.

Tom Piper

free12thinker,

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.  2000.
 
defence
 
SYLLABICATION: de·fence
PRONUNCIATION:   d-fns
NOUN & VERB: Chiefly British Variant of defense.
------------------------------------------------------------
The defence that you have offered appeals to a moral principle-- It is wrong to do something that negatively impacts on other people. What are the grounds for this moral principle? Your complaint against my stand with resepct to the wrongness of same-sex sex was

I assume that the moral principle on which you base your defense has a foundation; otherwise you are subject to your own complaint.

Tom

free12thinker

The grounds for this moral priniciple are simple: The progression of life, be it mine, yours, or someone else's, is the only thing that we are all entitled to, by virtue of our being born.

In this, when someone negatively impacts us, it halts or hinders (temporarily or permanently) our ability to progress in our own lives. This right of progression is expressed by laws that have been laid out to protect our lives, protect our properties and protect our freedom's.

Everything else though (homosexuality, gambling etc...) does nothing to halt our progression in life, and therefore should not be deemed immoral, as they do not halt progression of one's life.

This rationale differs from a spiritual belief that: All morals had to come from some overall authority, such as god, otherwise, who can truly state that they are the morally right, when the morally right hasn't been defined. Is this your belief?