Fr.Andrew

(dk): "Pedophilia being a matter of sexual orientation..."
(Fr Andrew): No, sexual orientation is defined as an attraction to a member of the opposite gender (heterosexuality), a member of the same gender (homosexuality), or to members of both genders (bisexuality).
Sexual orientation has nothing to do with the age of the object of the attraction.

dk

• Autonomous: Bill: You've said this means nation-state independence, but you still haven't connected it with same-sex relationships. dk: I said the nuclear family was autonomous of the nation-state.
• Capable: Bill: You've provided no context or meaning yet nor have you connected it with same-sex relationships. dk: Capable means possessing the necessary attributes to perform. For example people 2 people that tried to cross the Atlantic in a canoe would lack the capacity to perform.
• Stable: Bill: You've provided no context or meaning yet nor have you connected it with same-sex relationships.
  dk: stable means permanent fixture necessary to human countenance in a volatile world.
• Suitable to human nature: Bill: It would seem that you indicated the definition of this as "biological function", but it's not yet clear. If true, however, you've merely begged the question. dk: Not only biological, … human nature requires a life ordered by reason, free will and aesthetics to serve and perfect human purposes (ends) i.e. the nuclear family as a foundational unit suits human purposes.

Bill Snedden: If you're serious about pursuing this line of argument, we really need to get some definitions and context for these terms...
dk: I try to avoid special terminology. Civilization and nations grow and prosper by solving problems presented by time. Ethics is the primary means by which people acquire the experience, trust, knowledge and judgment to resolve problems that arise in time, by a careful observation and analysis of the change the particular problem presents. Therefore “causes” are the building blocks for all ethical norms. Ethics examines a person’s life with a sense of causation to understands what he/she might reasonably become, or people participate in what they become by leading an ethical life. Aristotle founded systematic ethics by breaking causation down in 4 senses
1) material cause; substance of change
2) efficient cause; inducement of change (tools)
3) formal causes; agents of change, essence
4) final causes; reason of change, goal
on the premise that knowledge proceeds from the known (experiential facts) to the unknown (metaphysical). An ethical life teaches/orders/perfects the subject with the will/virtues/means necessary to become happy i.e. the means in and of themselves being necessary but not sufficient for happiness. The “science of ought” can’t bridge the gap between necessity and sufficiency(n&s). To bridge the gap between n&s requires a leap of faith otherwise inaccessible to temporal creatures.

dk

dk: There are many peer to peer relationships, and when one peer compromises they become subordinate.
Bill Snedden: For that purpose and for that moment. It certainly doesn't mean that they become subordinate for the entire relationship. How absurd.
dk: huh? To be sure, when a dispute is resolved between peers the basis of the resolution becomes precedent, and absent the precedent the dispute hasn’t been resolved at all.

dk: In a marriage both parties may subordinate themselves to the marriage, not each other.
Bill Snedden: Exactly as I said. However, this behavior/arrangement certainly isn't limited to marriage. In fact, this is the way most healthy friendships work as well.
dk: We are in total agreement, the rules that govern a marriage are suitable and established protocols by which husbands and wives order their lives. This demonstrates the normative nature of ethics.

dk: Domestic violence and divorce follows from two peers trying very hard to be dominant. The dispute in these unfortunate instances sooner or later gets escalated to family or criminal courts.
Bill Snedden: Irrelevant.
dk: I’ll take that as a dogmatic statement, obviously when a dispute between peers puts one or both parties into jail/hospital/morgue it affects the relationship.

dk: If my line of thought has gotten wacko its because I’m trying to reconcile homosexuality with an ethical form. It obvious that two peers can’t resolve a dispute unless one compromises, and when one compromises they cease to be peers.
Bill Snedden: BZZZT! No, they don't. Your contention assumes that a momentary compromise or submission on the part of one immediately identifies him/her as somehow less than the other peer for the duration of the relationship. But that's simply absurd.
dk: I don’t follow, why do you presume the dominant party becomes superior. For example parents have authority over children, yet its children that derive the benefit and parents that sacrifice of themselves for the child’s sake. Please explain…

Bill Snedden: You also assume that two peers can't both submit themselves to the relationship between them...but wait, you already argued that they could...Ah, you've contradicted yourself yet again.
dk: I never said or implied that, you jumped to the conclusion. I simply said peers can’t resolve a dispute without subordinating themselves. In fact if I act with the interests of my friend in mind, then my actions are subordinate. I frankly don’t necessarily see a problem with subordinating oneself to another, that’s how friends develop trust.

dk: Disputes that can’t be resolved between peers must submit to binding arbitration. Schools, cities, factories,,, virtually every human cooperative endeavor takes on a hierarchal form.
Bill Snedden: So? Friendships and marriages don't. That's essentially what we're discussing here, right? Personal relationships?
dk: I don’t follow… The vast majority of my peer relationships are professional not personal. I have no problem submitting myself to a close friend, parents, my children or wife. You’ve genuinely lost me.

dk: If we are to reconcile homosexuality with an ethical form there’s simply no other reasonable course. If you wish to concede that homosexuality has no ethical form, cool.
Bill Snedden: Frankly, I think "ethical form" is another one of your smokescreens. You don't appear to be able to explain it yourself in 5,000,000 words or less...
dk: Ethics is normative. How can I knowingly act ethically without the judgment and knowledge to discern the appropriate ethical form… you’ve lost me again…

dk

Self evident means elemental, accepted true on face value. "We hold these thruths to be self evident..."

Because the nuclear family has survived as the basic unit(building block) of Western and Eastern Civilization. For the same reason the nuclear model is considered the basis of modern chemestry, because it works.

dk

You've lost me...

1) sexual orientation is biologically determined.
2) gender id is developmental.

pedophilia is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children.
homosexuality is sexual attraction to same sex.
heterosexuality is sexual attraction to opposite sex.
bisexuality is sexual attraction to same or opposite sex.

Egoism (Freud, Erickson, Kinsey) agree these attractions are biologically determined. Its unreasonable to call one unethical, and the other ethical.

Bill Snedden

Um...actually, yes, you are.

No, this is but a further demonstration of your confusion.

Normative ethics is only one type of ethics, dealing with theories of right and wrong. Meta-ethics is the study of the foundations of ethical theories. Applied ethics deals with the application of ethical theories. You're conflating all three here and in the discussion. Perhaps that explains why it appears to be so difficult for us to determine why you believe what you appear to believe.

Ethics is not an attempt to nor does it actually explain human behavior. Normative ethics deals with theories of why we should behave a certain way. The "why" is generally provided by a meta-ethical theory (a base value or set of values).

As you've still not explained what you mean by "ethical form", I can't really comment on this except to say that while it is possible that sexual orientation is biologically determined, it is far from proven. If by "gender roles" you mean sexual identity, the source of that is also unproven although speculation abounds.

If by "gender roles" you mean traditional male/female societal roles, they are certainly learned although completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Sorry, but this is a non sequitur. Sexual identity has nothing necessarily to do with sexual orientation. There are lesbian transsexuals (men who underwent sexual re-assignment surgery and live as women and who are lesbians). Kind of destroys that point doesn't it?

WTF? This is either equivocation, a strawman, or merely another distraction. Fr. Andrew laid it out quite well. "Pedophilia" is not an issue of sexual orientation. Didn't you say earlier that you were using standard definitions? This is clearly a non-standard definition of "sexual orientation."

Since the premise that generated this doomed train of reasoning is invalid, the conclusions are invalid as well.

On what basis? What is the meta-ethical grounding for such a proposal? What is the primary value that supports such a rationale?

Still waiting for answers on autonomy, capability, stability, and suited to human nature...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

dk

You assume homosexuals are wired wrong, I don't. I've argued the concept of homosexuality lacks an ethical form, not that gays or lesbians are wrong. If you disagree, then please correct me by offering an ethical form. Short of an ethical form then homosexuality becomes a fetish. A fetish doesn't determine a person's identity because a fetish is non-essential.

Bill Snedden

In other words, you're saying that once one of the parties has decided to subordinate him/herself to the other a precedent is set for their subordinate position in the future.

Not only is this absurd, but you directly contradict yourself later.

I seriously doubt that we're in agreement as I'm not convinced you have any idea what you're saying.

"Rules that govern a marriage?" There are no reified "rules" that govern a marriage. How the partners choose to run their marriage depends upon their unique situation and is determined exclusively by the partners.

And this in no way demonstrates the "normative nature of ethics". Normative ethics is about theories of right and wrong. That fact that people should behave ethically (including husbands and wives) proves nothing about theories of right and wrong.

And I'll take this as yet more evidence that you have no idea whatsoever of what you're talking about.

I obviously don't deny that people who can't get along often end up in court. But again, that is irrelevant to the discussion; yet another distraction.

And here is where you directly contradict your earlier statement. First you say that a submission between peers sets a precedent, then you say that the dominant party does not become the superior.

You appear to be unable to decide how relationships work. Perhaps you could think about it some more and then post when you've figured it out.

It's no surprise that you're lost, but I think you've gotten there all by yourself...

The relationships that we're discussing are personal ones (marriages, friendships), in fact, intimate personal ones. Your attempt to shift the discussion with talk of corporate and professional relationships is yet another distraction.

We've already covered your confusion re: ethics.

It would appear to me that you see your "ethical form" as a normative theory allowing you to identify same-sex relationships as wrong. In the next post, we'll examine its inadequacy as such.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Dr Rick

Freud and Kinsey did not claim that pedophilia is biologically determined; I'm not sure about Erickson, but if he did, he had no way to make that conclusion. We don't know the origins of sexual orientations, and we know even less about the origins of paraphilias.

Even if what you said was not a lie, it would still be a naturalism fallacy; something that is natural or "biologic" is not necessarily right or wrong. Ethics are not determined by nature.

Bill Snedden

I see that you did respond to my request for clarification. In the interests of continued clarity, I'm going to summarize here your responses:

From the discussion thus far, this would seem to comprise what you see as the "ethical form" or normative ethical theory that prescribes right or wrong in the context of human sexual relationships.

One point: your definition of "capable" is still unclear. Perform what?

Other than that, I still see no reason why homosexual relationships don't fit this "form"

Autonomous: No human relationships are completely autonomous. As free members of society, we all depend upon and are depended upon by others.

Therefore, no human relationship is any more or less autonomous than any other.

Capable: Your definition is still unclear, so I can't really comment here.

Stability: I see no reason to believe why same-sex relationships are any more or less necessarily stable than opposite-sex ones.

Suitable to human nature: It seems self-evident that people have an innate desire to love and be loved. Human purpose isn't "written" in stone; people decide for themselves what brings meaning to their lives. Again, no reason to believe same-sex relationships are unable to meet this characteristic.

No one asked you for special terminology, only to define the terms you are using.

Nice, but none of it militates against same-sex relationships. After all the discussion that's taken place, don't you think you can take it as a given that your opponents understand the meaning and place of ethics in human life? Why would we be here if we didn't?

Regards,

Bill Snedden