yguy

There are no morals which are not axiomatic at root. Inevitably you get to a point where the question "Why?" has no answer.

yguy

Had the JW's been slick enough to worm and intimidate their way into positions of power in the mainstream media where they would be able to make sure they were never cast in a bad light - and able to cast their detractors as Nazis - you wouldn't see them going door-to-door either.

I don't countenance intimidation of "gays" by straights. Why do you countenance the reverse behavior?

dk

First, my question is irrelevant only if ethics have no meaning. From a rational perspective, only a fool wastes time on a matter that has no meaning. You at least appear to consider ethics of some importance, which implies ethics is meaningful, yet for some unfathomable reason find the meaning of ethics irrelevant, to me.
Next: Alcohol: Recent studies have determined alcohol is a food with considerable health benefits, when ingested at regular intervals in normal quantities. We can probably agree that food abuse is unethical. It’s hard to say whether the costs to society of alcohol abuse outweigh the benefits of alcohol use, but its certainly unethical to throw the baby (alcohol use) out with the bath water (alcohol abuse). Cigarettes: are a more complex matter. From a monetary perspective smoking generally kills older (retired) people with diseases like vascular/coronary/lung cancer, which more often than not are untreatable and terminal, therefore saves Medicaid, social services and SS $billions, add on the taxes cigarettes smokers pay and it’s a no brainier. But, despite the monetary benefits of smoking, from as pedagogical perspective they are certainly unethical, if we are to order ethics with happiness in mind. SUVs were popularized by mandatory child seats. SUVs appear to unnecessarily pollute and waste gas for no good reason. I think we need to examine why SUVs became so popular. Truth stranger than fiction, its nearly impossible (sometimes impossible) to safely put a kid in child-seat in most sedans or coupes. SUVs became popular when parents were required by law to strap kids into child seats. Though SUVs are certainly wasteful and harmful to the environment, parents with kids were forced to buy them. So its seem clear, its not unethical to drive an SUV, but from a pedagogical perspective its unethical for government to pass laws and regulations that make SUVs necessary. When the law violates the law people are forced to live unethically, out of necessity. Go figure, truth stranger than fiction. McDonalds is another mixed blessing, but there’s nothing inherently unethical about selling food, whether its fast food or slow food. Gambling from a pedagogical perspective is certainly unethical, for example state lotteries gouge the poor and promote vice.

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: 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: In the complex and modern society in which we live, nothing that we do is devoid of effects, possibly adverse, on the lives of others. Your assignation of negative moral status to any activity having a possible unintended negative consequence is a non-starter unless you want to argue that virtually all human activity is unethical.
dk: You must be talking to somebody else, I never said ethics was based on unintended negative consequences. For a person to commit an [un]ethical act the deed must be done freely of one’s own will with knowledge. An unethical person is someone that has knowingly and willingly committed themselves to some course that intends harm. A person without knowledge of the harm doesn’t commit an unethical act for two reasons 1) they lack the knowledge 2) they lack commitment (judgment of the active intellect).

Bill Snedden: In addition, you are speaking of the acts of gay men as though every sexual contact involved a necessary transmission of disease. But this simply isn't the case. I would agree that unprotected sexual contact is unethical, regardless of sexual orientation, but it is obviously true that the decision to have unprotected sex is not restricted to homosexuals and thus cannot be used to demonstrate a negative moral status for homosexuality.
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.

dk: I agree ethics pertains to a person’s free actions, and has nothing to do with a person’s identity. The confusion stems from the question. “Is homosexuality unethical?”. The correct question is, “Is it ethical to stick one’s penis up a consenting male partners anus?” Mokeybot, ul30 and winsonjen inextricably associated an incidence of MSM with the identity of gays. The Gay Rights Movement makes the same mistake, and so do many ethical pluralists.
Bill Snedden: I have no idea what your last sentence means, but the first part of this paragraph, as Fr. Andrew noted, displays a material lack of knowledge of male homosexuality, not to mention completely ignoring female homosexuality. However, were we to continue with the line of reasoning you are trying to develop, you've still framed the question incorrectly. The correct question would be, "is it ethical to stick one's penis up a consenting male partner's anus without taking any precautions whatsoever to prevent the spread of infectious disease?" The answer to that is a resounding "NO", but of course that has nothing necessarily to do with homosexuality, which is the topic of this thread.
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”.

dk: Obviously it is unethical to knowingly act to put another person’s life in grave danger, it is ethical to avoid acts that put others in danger.
Bill Snedden: Not quite. Consider driving your car. By doing so you take on a high degree of responsibility. You could, at any moment, lose control, through no fault of your own, swerve suddenly and smash into oncoming traffic. Does that mean that it is unethical to drive a car because the very act of doing so puts your life and the lives of others in danger?
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: No, of course not. People who drive assume the risk (or should). They get into their cars and onto the road knowing that there is a minute possibility that something could go wrong. However, they take every precaution (or should) to ensure that nothing will. And other drivers depend upon this being the case. IOW, they consent to a level of danger to their own lives based upon the reasonable assumption that you will behave in a responsible manner.
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: Now, consider a car that has never been serviced or maintained. Suppose further that you never had driving lessons. Suppose further that you couldn't read traffic signs. And finally, suppose you had been up drinking all night. Would driving a car in this condition be unethical?
dk: I don’t care what scenario you wish to entertain, an ethical act requires “knowledge and an free will”. A person deprived of a reasonable expectation of “knowledge or free will” can’t act [un]ethically. Drunk driving gets complicated.

Bill Snedden: Certainly, because you would be introducing a dangerous element beyond the knowledge or consent of the other people in the equation.
dk: No, only a reasonable expectation of knowledge and liberty determine an act to be [un]ethical. Lets take the hypothetical Drunk driver, me. I would never drive drunk. The problem is once I get drunk I love to drive. Therefore, it is not unethical to drive drunk, but unethical for me to drunk because I can’t control myself once drunk.

Bill Snedden: Consider further the case of a military general who must order his men into combat. He knows that some of them will die, but still he compels them to go. Is this an unethical act?
Not at all, because the men under his command understand and accept the danger.
Therefore, I would have to amend your synthesis thusly:
dk: I disagree. But, we should examine the Theory Of Just War, but let us for the sake of argument assuming the General fights a just war. Soldiers will die in combat no matter what the general orders. The general’s only ethical course is to order the men into combat to win the war by any and all ethical means at his command.

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.

dk:

1. Males who have Sex with Males (MSM) are essentially homosexual
2. Incidence of MSM kills, exposes and spreads a deadly epidemic across the US
3. the epidemic poses a threat to the whole nation, costs irreplacable resources... human and capital resources.

Bill Snedden: Well, no because heterosexual sex is not immune from the same line of reasoning:
dk: The Marital Act is, that’s why the only ethical sex consummates and celebrates a marriage.

Bill Snedden: Males and Females who have sex with each other (OSM) are essentially heterosexual
Incidence of OSM kills, exposes, and spreads deadly diseases across the US (HIV/AIDS, gonorrhea, syphillis, herpes, etc).
The epidemic poses a threat to the whole nation, costs irreplaceable resources...human and capital.
Heterosexual sex must be stopped at all costs!
dk: You’ve jumped the gun, Go back to the Marital Act and begin again.

dk: An incidence of MSM is unethical because of the epidemic of deadly stds. Anyone that promotes MSM commits an unethical act for pedagogical reasons.
Bill Snedden: Not true, for reasons already covered. The mere possibility of danger does not render an act unethical or almost every human activity would be unethical.
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

Leaving aside for a moment whether or not that's actually the case, essentially what I've asked is that you reveal the axioms supporting your moral judgements.

If they are no more than "X is immoral" without any further foundation, then they would seem to be irrational at base.

Rational moral schema don't consist of a bunch of axiomatic "X is immoral/moral" premises. They consist of a foundation (God, Humanism, Evolutionary biology, reason, etc) from which the premises or means for evaluating the moral status of human actions are adduced.

So, the request was for you to describe the axioms or foundations of your moral schema. Why is homosexuality immoral?

If your answer is "it just is", then the discussion need continue no further; rational discourse would be impossible.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Machiavelli

Whatever you want. But if you have a child, I'll feel sorry for the hardship it will face.

If I had a homosexual child, I'd feel sorry for it's inability to experience and appreciate his/her body, which is a product of heterosexual evolution. But it wouldn't affect my love or devotion.

Someone brought up corrective lenses. To use this as an analogy, had corrective lenses never been invented, it's arguable that we would have a much lower occurance of flawed vision today. I know you're dying to jump at me and say, "so if you wear glasses, you are immoral?", but please restrain yourself for just a bit and try to get my point.

There is nothing at all immoral to the individual with the need to wear glasses, but it isn't ideal. However it is wrong to ignore the problem of nearsightedness and consider it just as desirable as 20/20.

everlastingtongue

I don’t understand what you mean by this. How does being homosexual prevent a person from experiencing and appreciating his or her body?

Machiavelli

Since we are hard wired physically for heterosexual intercourse, I think there are advantages to heterosexuals in realizing and appreciating the potential of their bodies sexually.

dk

Hi trillian1,


First the Netherlands’s population is about the size of NYC or LA, so lacks a basis for comparison.

The Netherlands has a long tradition of tolerance and neutrality that dates back to the Middle Ages. As a nation they have grown up dependent upon neighbors for national security and safe trade routes. To the tumultuous 60-70s their response was framed with tolerance, and they institutionalized the drug problem and sexual liberties. Fiscally they profit as a tourist destination. With respect to the US the Netherlands resembles an Indian Reservation. They benefit by selling vice at the cost national integrity and autonomy. .

hiv/aids is a contagious disease transmitted by body fluids primarily through intimate contact. The risk factors for a person to catch hiv are determined by 1) exposure 2) Risky Behavior(RB) 3) virulence of the virus. The gay population in NYC is pretty high, and the RB very high. SY, GO and other stds lower resistance to hiv. I think about 1 in 4 of all the gay people in the US live around NYC, SF and LA. I’m not sure why, I suppose its because they love one another so much. At any rate I hate to imagine what x factor would be if you compared the NYC, LA or SF area to the Netherlands, probably 100x. This might indicate gays are drawn to media centers, like moths to a flame. However the immigration laws and small size of the Netherlands together with other factors I’ve mention probably explain the hiv problem in the US.

I think you’re last question was… How has the Netherlands suffered? Today the Netherlands can’t raise enough children to protect their borders, maintain infrastructure or run the industry complex. They were forced in the 1980s to import cheap Moslems labor to fill the vacuum. In a recent election the leader of an anti-immigrant grass roots party was assassinated. I suppose at this juncture the integrity and autonomy of the Netherlands doesn’t count, but I’ve recently read articles that marijuana tolerance has sparked a thriving black market for hard drugs. We’ll have to see how things work out but I wouldn’t jump gung ho on the Netherlands’s band wagon just yet. The veneer is clearly wearing thin as political instability grows with cheap but prolific Moslem laborers. If the labor problems Germany and France have had with Moslem labor there will be more to follow. We may be seeing the first sparks of genuine political upheaval. Under the protected by the US Europe has enjoyed half a century peace. I don’t know, but it seems to me nations and civilizations grow and prosper by solving problems in time, and when time runs out they are ruined.

everlastingtongue

But if we are indeed hardwired for heterosexual intercourse – the only sexual activity that leads to procreation – than wouldn’t other forms of heterosexual sex also be unhelpful in appreciating our bodies sexually?

Oral sex is just one example. I would imagine you are going to run into a lot of resistance if you claim that oral sex is not helpful in appreciating our bodies sexually.

Fr.Andrew

(dk): That's an interesting comment, and broadly illustrates how misinformed most people are about homosexuality.
(Fr Andrew): Having been active in the gay community since I came out forty-five years ago, I tend to agree with you that many people are misinformed about homosexuality. Hence my remark about your ignorance.

(dk): First: I'm not sure homophobia extends to lesbians, and I knew a group of lesbians that appeared to despised effeminate men and women equally.
(Fr Andrew): Yes...homophobia extends to lesbians. It's a recently invented word and it's precision and accuracy are still open to question, but most people (myself included) use it as Byrne Fone does in his Homophobia--A History:
"Homophobia names antipathy to homosexuality and to those who engage in it. To discuss that antipathy while avoiding locutions like "disapproval of boy-lovers" or "disgust with effeminacy in males" or "hatred of sodomites" or "fear of people who engage in homosexual behavior" or "prejudice against gay people", I use "homophobia".
It is not satisfactory, constructed as it is from a slang abbreviation for "homosexual" joined with "phobia", which means fear but not dislike."--p424

(dk): Any person that broadly employs derogatory labels to demean “other” groups becomes a bigot.
(Fr Andrew): True. Your point?


(dk): Homophobe has no special medical, social or psychological quality and fits nicely into a group of derogatory pseudo scientific pseudonyms crassly employed to dehumanize others e.g. moron, imbecile, senile and homophobe.
(Fr Andrew): See above.

(dk): In many biblical instances God favored effeminate men over masculine men, most notably Jacob and Esau, but also in Cain and Able and even David and Saul.
(Fr Andrew): Can you cite scripture to the effect that Jacob, Able, David or Saul were "effeminate"? Or that God may have thought that they were? Thanks.

(dk): One of the most prosperous groups of derogatory slurs is directed at masculine men… heyseed, bumpkin, clodhopper, hick, hillbilly, jake, rube, yokel,,,
(Fr Andrew): Where I come from (the rural South), none of those words are associated with "masculine" men, but rather at the uncultured and unrefined.
And...I miss your point again.