Bill Snedden

What Bible would that be? Cain & Abel were both farmers. Cain tilled the soil and Abel raised sheep. God was displeased with Cain's offering of vegetables and pleased with Abel's offering of blood and flesh. Cain's jealousy of Abel's favor with the Lord was the motivation behind the murder of Abel.

See Genesis 4:2-8

Regards,

Bill Snedden

yguy

Swell. How do we decide what "reason" is, and who decides what constitutes valid evidence?

I suggest that if a patently absurd conclusion can be extrapolated from any given paradigm, that paradigm is flawed. Whatever paradigm you operate under evidently allows for the idea that bestiality is benign, wherefore I would suggest that your foundation is nothing but sand at low tide.

The burden of proof rests on him who is determined to prove the assertion. I might as well try to prove that murder is wrong as prove that homosexuality is wrong. It is self-evident, and I suggest that one cannot believe otherwise on an intellectual level absent a corrupt intellectual foundation.

scigirl

So what? I'll never know what it feels like to have a penis. Maybe sex is better if you have one - it probably is, judging by the behavior of men and women regarding sex. What's your point?

Ha ha!!

scigirl

Fr.Andrew

(dk): "There’s no psychological basis for the word homophobia..."
(Fr Andrew): None's intended anymore. That's pretty much a strawman. It's become a descriptive word nowadays.
If you can think of a better word to convey antipathy for homosexuality and those who practice it, I'd be happy to use it.

(dk): "...it’s a derogatory term a gay psychiatrist invented to disparage Christians as fundamentally psychotic."
(Fr Andrew): Not that it matters, but George Weinberg is not gay. Kenneth Smith, either.
George Weinberg, the man who's generally given credit for having coined the the term, said, "Homophobia is just that: a phobia. A morbid and irrational dread which prompts irrational behavior flight or the desire to destroy the stimulus for the phobia and anything reminiscent of it."

Both he and Kenneth Smith came up with several criteria for determining homophobia--running from degree of comfort around homosexuals to whether or not society should lock them up. I've read nothing of either that speaks derogatorily toward or disparaging of Christians or Christianity, however.
I think it's simply a case of the shoe fitting.

(dk): "I won’t quote scripture..."
(Fr Andrew): More accurately, you can't quote scripture to support your assertion that any of those Biblical heroes you mentioned were "effeminate"--because none exists.

I'm sorry to come across as arrogant, dk. I simply want to slow the spread of misinformation when I can.
Education is key.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): Well I'm happy that you've removed the sorry state of the Netherland's immigration problems from the exclusive doorstep of homosexuality, but now I'd be interested in your demonstration of how "tolerance for and de-facto encouragement of self-indulgent behavior in general"..."has weakened the moral character of Hollanders individually and the Netherlands as a whole" and, therefore, has resulted in fewer children.
Please.

And, while you're at it, back up your assertion that, in the Netherlands, "Children aren't produced because they aren't valued."
Please.

What's a "Big O"?

scigirl

Heh, let's just say, if you have a girlfriend and you're asking this question, I feel sorry for her, if you know what I mean!

scigirl

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew):

Bill Snedden

Well, I could simply take your approach and answer that if you don't know what reason is, or how to evaluate evidence, then there's no point in continuing the conversation.

Or I could say that, in this context, "reason" is logical argument and that "evidence" would be statements, arguments, or documentation in support of the point. "Valid" would obviously be something to be decided, but in the final analysis, even if no-one's mind is changed, at least the participants will have an idea why the other side holds the opinion it does.

Leaving aside for a moment that I didn't suggest that bestiality was "benign", merely not immoral, AND that I only granted that for the sake of argument, "patently absurd" obviously represents a value judgement, so you're really begging the question with that. I could easily draw the same conclusions about what appears to be your "moral compass": things I don't like are immoral. So, okra, fat people in spandex, fast food, NASCAR, & football are all immoral. Why? Well, it's so obviously self-evident...

Apparently your paradigm is subject to absurd conclusions as well.

"Murder" is an extremely poor example to use here as the definition is "unjustified killing." The word presupposes a moral judgement.

If the immoral status of homosexuality were indeed self-evident, then no one could possibly believe that homosexuality was not immoral. As there are many, many people who do not accept that proposition, you must either concede that the moral status of homosexuality is not self-evident or that what you really mean isn't self-evident, but "evident to me".

And I could just as easily suggest that the non-existence of the soul is completely self-evident and that one cannot believe otherwise except on a corrupt intellectual foundation. Of course, I wouldn't expect anyone to take my assertion seriously unless I provided some reason for them to do so (I.e., some argument/evidence).

The point is that mere assertions don't carry much weight in these types of discussions. Why should others take your opinions seriously if you're unable or unwilling to explain them?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

dk

dk: First, my question is irrelevant only if ethics have no meaning.
Bill Snedden: No, your question is irrelevant regardless of whether or not ethics have meaning. Essentially, your "question" is a fallacy of distraction.
dk: My question was AND stands…Why should I concern myself with ethics?

Bill Snedden: First, you completely missed the point re: McDonalds. I was referring to our national problem with obesity.
dk: You lost me…

Bill Snedden: Second, all of that is interesting, but none of it militates against my point. There is certainly a calculus of benefit involved whenever we make these kind of choices as a society, but one of the principal "babies" (to use your expression) with all of them (and the one in question) is individual freedom.
dk: I don’t know why you brought it up. Ok why should I be concerned with freedom?

dk: We can expand the list, I don’t see any reason to think sticking one’s penis into the anus of another man has any benefit, apart from the sensation. I can’t conceive of any possible world where sensations alone can possibly become a reason to act, can you? Reason finds the anal sphincter valve functions to keep foreign material from invading the digestive track, and the digestive track processes food, and expels waste. AIDS/HIV surveillance reports a lot of death, disease and suffering follow from incidence of MSM. I don’t see any baby in this bath water, so have no problem calling anal sex unethical based upon on the simple but meaningful premise “do good and avoid evil”.
Bill Snedden: Well, as to sensation becoming a reason to act, pain would be a very good example. That aside, reason also finds that the mouth functions to process and deliver food to the stomach as well as aid in speech functions. Does that mean that all other uses of the mouth are immoral? If I use it to hold my briefcase while I struggle with the door have I committed a sin? "Primary purpose" is a poor standard upon which to base a moral system.
dk: We aren’t free to ignore pain. We are free to deliver pain, and for all the empathy and sympathy I can possibly muster, I don’t feel your pain. I said “do good and avoid evil” because it has meaning.

Bill Snedden: "Pleasure" and "human freedom" are two material "babies" that militate against your attempted argument. However, the most telling would be that anal sex is most certainly not exclusive to nor necessary for homosexuality. There are homosexuals who are exclusively oral. As there is no necessary connection between "homosexuality" and "anal sex", any attempt to determine the moral status of the former based upon the moral status of the latter will inevitably be a failure. Not to mention that you also haven't demonstrated that anal sex is "evil".
dk: You’re out ahead of me. Aesthetic pleasure may be immaterial, and I don’t have a clue what you mean by freedom. Offhand, I don’t have a problem with pleasure, I simply note that pleasure alone is not a reason to act, so can’t possibly be ethical in and of itself.

Bill Snedden: Not to mention that HIV/AIDS is only one of a host of sexually transmitted diseases, all of which are endemic to and rampant among the heterosexual population as well.
dk: I agree, and this takes up the issue of promiscuous sex that spreads stds.
Bill Snedden: As there's no necessary connection between promiscuous sex and homosexuality, this is another non-sequitur.
dk: There is a necessary connection between promiscuity and the epidemic of stds gays suffer, and the epidemic poses a threat to everyone on the planet. I view stds as a problem that obliges all good people to a unity of purpose, an ethical obligation to mitigate the common threat.
Bill Snedden: Um, no, I'm talking to you.
dk: I don’t mean to be agrumentive, but you are speaking falsely of me, not to me at all. In this last parlay you’ve completely dehumanize me by denying I even exist.
Bill Snedden: Unless you mean to argue that every male who engages in anal sex with another male does so explicitly intending to cause harm and spread disease, then you most certainly are arguing that the ethical status of an act is determined by unintended consequences.
dk: First I can’t read anyone’s mind, but an ethical act requires knowledge and commitment (judgment by the active intellect). So when a person with full knowledge freely commits to a course of action that necessarily threatens another person, that course of act is unethical, and the person by committing to it becomes unethical. Rationally, I need to recognize the unethical guy, because that guy threatens me and mine. I need to be afraid to avoid the threat.

A person may without knowledge commit themselves to some course of action that threatens others, and become addicted to that course of action. That guy is no longer free, and for all intents and purposes has no judgment over the acts he commits by compulsion. I’m not describing an ethical act/person, but a degenerate. What I want to emphasize is that a rational person needs to recognizes a degenerate that poses a threat, to avoid the threat.

dk: Hey 7% of gay protégés 14-20 years of age carry and will die of hiv/aids, at this rate, by the time these gay protégés reach 30 years of age 50% will carry and die of hiv/aids. I see no baby in the bathwater, and who in their right mind would knowingly and willingly call this madness ethical.
Bill Snedden: And yet more irrelevancies. The willful and deliberate spreading of disasease is certainly unethical, but you have as yet failed to demonstrate any necessary connection between this and homosexuality.
dk: Now you’re being irrational. Suppose you and I teach at a NYC high school… a gay protégé that we know is AT RISK, statistically. We know that, right! We, me and you, being ethical people are obliged to mitigate the threat to the AT Risk kid … somehow. How do we as teachers mitigate the threat to the kid?…By teaching the kid about ethics in the context of hiv/aids. If you and I succeed we become ethical people, and the kid has a better chance for a good life. Imagine that, in an ethical world life gets a chance that didn’t exist before, even if its 1 chance in a hundred we are ethically obliged to take the chance.

dk:

1. With ethical pluralism, I reference the many conundrums called moral relativism.
2. I am pursuing some clarity from Fr. Andrew, but essentially I’ve contended that “sexual orientation” poses a conundrum that’s unethical given the psychological definitions. I'd rather discuss that on the post (this thread) already began, if that’s ok.
3. I think everybody agrees absence consent the act is unethical.
4. This however raises two more issues, and I’m going to drop the “homosexual” term for “gay” for reasons being discussed on this thread concerning sexual orientation. Until these issues are ethnically resolved we can’t possibly make the “correct question” much with less answer it with a resounding “NO”.

Bill Snedden: I'm unsure of what you're saying in 2 and 4. Are you attempting to separate male and female homosexuality in this discussion? The discussion is about same-sex sexual attraction and activity. If you want to argue about whether certain sexual acts are or are not ethical, you're welcome to do so, but that has no necessary connection to same-sex activities. There simply are no sexual acts that are restricted to same-sex vs. opposite-sex interactions.
dk: Huh?

dk: I’ll parse this if you want, but essentially unethical acts require knowledge and an act of judgment by the active intellect (commitment). If I drive an unsafe vehicle, drive recklessly/drunk etc… or intentionally ram a car in a fit of road rage then I have acted unethically. Otherwise I had a car accident beyond any reasonable expectation of good judgment or knowledge.
Bill Snedden: None of which contradicts anything I said. I'm glad to see that we agree.
dk: You lost me Bill… I simply don’t know what you mean.

dk: Sorry, but you’re wrong, for example… Suppose, A kid dashes before my car traveling the speed limit at 40mph (my car not the kid). I swerve to miss her but hit a car with a family of 4 head on traveling the opposite direction at 40mph. I kill the whole family. In retrospect I'd have hit the kid, to save the of family of 4. But since I had no reasonable expectation of hitting the car when I swerved, or any knowledge of killing a family of four, my act wasn’t unethical. but accidental.
Bill Snedden: Please reread what I originally wrote. You say that I'm "wrong", but your example says nothing essentially different from what I wrote.
dk: I don’t know what you mean, and please don’t clip text that you reference in your response. .
(snip)
Bill Snedden: It is unethical to knowingly put another person's life in grave danger without their knowledge or consent and it is ethical to avoid acts that put others in danger without their knowledge or consent.
dk: You’re wrong. In fact I submit war is in and of itself the product of ethical confusion, that stems from immorality, and immorality can lead people into such a degenerative state that war becomes the last vestige of hope. Morality is derived from of 1st Principles that rest upon human nature (free will), knowledge and intelligence. Ethics is the science that applies the principles in a variety of different situations and circumstances.
Bill Snedden: You say that I'm wrong, but then the rest of this statement does nothing to demonstrate my error. I can only assume that you either misspoke or you misunderstand.
dk: You said, “without knowledge and consent”. Its unethical to put someone’s life in grave danger, whether they consent or not.

dk: The Marital Act is {immune from the same line of reasoning dk uses to "condemn" SS behavior}, that’s why the only ethical sex consummates and celebrates a marriage.
Bill Snedden: I'm sorry, but this is fallacious. There is no necessary connection between a monogamous relationship and heterosexuality.
dk: I didn’t say there was. What are you talking about?

dk: The Marital Act is safe, but open sex exposes a household to deadly microbes through acts of fornication, adultery and anonymous promiscuous sex. Open Sex defiles the Marital Act, Marriage Union, Children, family and home, therefore open sex is unethical in any possible civilized world. There are savage primitive worlds where people become so degenerate they can’t help themselves. The marital act matters and has great pedagogical importance to secure the progeny of a culture, society and civilization. This brings us face to face with the proposition of scandal, what consideration does scandal brings to bear on ethics?
Bill Snedden: Nice polemic, but ultimately irrelevant. There is no necessary connection between "open sex" and homosexuality. There is also reason to suppose "open sex" per se is immoral; you certainly haven't given any.
dk: Open sex exposes a spouse and children unnecessarily to disease.

Bill Snedden: Up to this point, your entire moral schema seems to be nothing more than a set of ad-hoc rationalizations designed to condemn a behavior that you find distasteful. I'll ask you the same question I asked yguy: Why is homosexuality immoral? You've provided no non-question begging reasons here; do you have any suggestions for moral standards against which this question can be decided?
dk: Heterosexuality and Homosexuality are apples and oranges. Hetero (man and woman) is a form composed of a man and women, a union of two distinct entities. Homosexuality is a concept (sexual orientation) with two forms 1) gays and 1) lesbians. Heterosexuality is necessary for procreation, and the Marital Act suits the form. This isn’t a polemic, but rational and necessary statement of concepts and forms.

Fr.Andrew

(dk): How do we as teachers mitigate the threat to the kid?

(Fr Andrew): Teach him safe-sex techniques and supply him with condoms.