Morality

[slave2six]

A moral act, therefore, is not an act in which some divine or human law is obeyed but an act in which life intergrates itself in the dimension of spirit, and this means as personality within a community.

With this quote, I raise the question, "Is one's sexuality, in its self, a moral issue? And if so, how does one's sexuality become immoral?"

I think you are asking the wrong question based on a faulty assumption. This whole business of "the dimension of spirit" is entirely subjective and therefore not the appropriate basis for determining if something is "moral" or not.

The word "moral" is defined in many ways and all of them are based on the idea of right and wrong behavior. Is it moral to kill? Depends. If you are defending someone who is under attack and kill the attacker thus protecting the innocent then the action is moral. If you randomly shoot at children on a playground, it is not.

Why? Because the ultimate purpose of morality is to maintain the greater good of humanity at large. This is why slavery is immoral but employing people at the lowest wage that they will accept is not.

With regards to homosexuality - if the human population was a meager 1,000 people then homosexuality would be a really big deal simply because as a species we want to survive and grow. With 6 billion people on the planet, that's another story.

It is similar to biology. A certain percent of the population will have biological anomalies that make them weaker than other people or stronger than other people. In a low-population society, this plays out by the strong surviving and the weak not. In a large population society, the importance of being the strongest becomes less of an issue. There are enough of us who are of average strength who will care for the weak.

So, the answer to your question is that there is nothing about the current population or society in general that can be harmed by homosexuality provided that relationships are monogamous. The real danger is in polygamous relationships that result in the spread of diseases such as HIV. This happens in both homosexual and heterosexual relationships but far more often in the former. If there was a cure for these std's, there would be absolutely no basis for a moral pronouncement against homosexuality.

 

[Autodidact]

your mama told you to be discreet
and keep your freak to yourself
but your mama lied to you all this time
she knows as well as you and I
you've got to express what is taboo in you
and share your freak with the rest of us
cause it's a beautiful thang

--Macy Gray

 

[slave2six]

If gay sex is immoral, so must hetero sex be. They are both gross.

Agreed. What if a woman enjoys anal sex from her husband and someone found out about it. Would it be right to condemn the couple or seek to dissolve their marriage on this basis? It's preposterous. So why then would it be different for people of the same gender to whom sex is merely an intimate way of expressing deep affection? Is it really wrong?

And yes, just like most of the rest of the natural world, they are both gross.

 

[Oberon]

Nobody can deny anyone their claim to be a person.

What are you talking about? This has happened all the time throughout history.

Won't this integration of homosexuals affirm their moral standing in said community?

Absolutely.

 

[Autodidact]

For me, in general, sexual morality is morality. My actions should be kind, honest, respectful, compassionate, true to myself and equal, and that includes my sexual behavior. It has nothing to do with what acts I participate in or with whom.

To be more personal, I am seeking to make the best use of my limited time on the planet, and one of the key ways to do that is to cultivate and experience love. My love relationship provides me with an opportunity to experience true intimacy with another person, so it behooves me to treat it very well, to take excellent care of it. I should maximize every chance to be kind to her, to cherish her, to open myself and reveal myself to her. For that reason, I do not ever want to lie to her, especially about matters of the heart. I find that an exclusive sexual relationship is conducive to that, so I prefer that approach. Fortunately, so does she.

At a minimum, I should treat every sexual partner at least as well as I would like to be treated.

Those are some of my thoughts on sexual morality.

 

[slave2six]

Well, let's take a case of a man cheating on his wife. Assuming his wife doesn't find out, and assuming that the marriage is livable, should we say that, since there was no harm done, the cheater hasn't done anything immoral?

What "harm" are you talking about? Polygamy has been around for a very long time (even David and Solomon had a bunch of wives and concubines). From a rational standpoint, I think that this is strong evidence that there is a difference between something that is truly harmful and something that is simply contrary to the social norm. If we are talking about morality, then what is the basis for the morals that you cite above? Are morals nothing more than accepted social norms? Others might disagree but I don't think so.

A hundred years ago, divorce was practically unheard of. Today, who isn't divorced? And yet children of divorced parents still seem to manage to grow up to be decent human beings. This is of course not universally true but I think that whereas a hundred years ago everyone thought that divorce was immoral, you will be hard-pressed to find a sizable population today that believes that as strongly. Does that make divorce more or less moral?

 

[Caladan]

For me, in general, sexual morality is morality. My actions should be kind, honest, respectful, compassionate, true to myself and equal, and that includes my sexual behavior. It has nothing to do with what acts I participate in or with whom.

To be more personal, I am seeking to make the best use of my limited time on the planet, and one of the key ways to do that is to cultivate and experience love. My love relationship provides me with an opportunity to experience true intimacy with another person, so it behooves me to treat it very well, to take excellent care of it. I should maximize every chance to be kind to her, to cherish her, to open myself and reveal myself to her. For that reason, I do not ever want to lie to her, especially about matters of the heart. I find that an exclusive sexual relationship is conducive to that, so I prefer that approach. Fortunately, so does she.

At a minimum, I should treat every sexual partner at least as well as I would like to be treated.

Those are some of my thoughts on sexual morality.

Aye, well said.

[sexual] morality is not whether you are heterosexual or not. its the nature of your sexuality, are you selfish or unselfish with your partner. how important for you it is to make your partner enjoy, the special moments you share, the respect and affection you express.
in this case, sexual orientation loses its meaning in regards to morality.

 

[slave2six]

He challenged me to come up with a society which did not use a moral code as a basis for laws.

I could challenge you to come up with a society in history that did not make war on its neighbors. Even among relatively small populations such as native American or African tribes you would be hard pressed to find any that meets the criteria. I'm not saying that you wouldn't succeed but as a percentage of the human population the number would be insignificant. Does that mean that war is moral?

 

[slave2six]

Not really. For one, if you don't enforce the law very well, it doesn't matter what the penalty is. for another, I don't think this penalty would lower crime rates immensely.

You clearly have never traveled in the Middle East. I have. I can tell you without any doubt that their crimes rates are low because they enforce very harsh laws. This is why in Riyadh, for example, the gold market looks just like a farmer's market here. All the stuff is on display and within easy reach with no cameras or security systems in place because no one in their right mind would try to steal from a vendor when he knows that he stands a good chance of losing a hand as a result.

 

[slave2six]

I would disagree that no harm was done. He has harmed himself by injecting dishonesty and reducing true intimacy in his most important relationship. Also, any "no-harm"argument based on lying fails for me; honesty is at the core of morality.

So, as long as the wife knows that her husband has a girlfriend and chooses to stay married to him then you're OK with that? Just trying to understand your position.

 

[Autodidact]

Aye, well said.

[sexual] morality is not whether you are heterosexual or not. its the nature of your sexuality, are you selfish or unselfish with your partner. how important for you it is to make your partner enjoy, the special moments you share, the respect and affection you express.
in this case, sexual orientation loses its meaning in regards to morality.

Thank you. Also honesty--not lying to any partner, extending the same consideration, response and fidelity that you want, things like that.

For example, say sex with 3 people. If everyone is open and honest with each other, everyone wants to participate, everyone respects each other, treats each other kindly, I don't consider it immoral. It's not what I want to do right now, because I'm working on maximizing intimacy with my beloved, but I wouldn't think someone was immoral for doing it.

Now pedophile priests, Mormon fundamentalists who use their position to obtain multiple child-brides, and Governor Sanderson, those people are sexually immoral.

 

[Caladan]

For example, say sex with 3 people. If everyone is open and honest with each other, everyone wants to participate, everyone respects each other, treats each other kindly, I don't consider it immoral.

LOL, I can tell you that with guys, no one would even think of calling you immoral in this case, instead you'll get a pat on the back.

moral declarations when it comes to sexuality are all based on double standards.

 

[Oberon]

I could challenge you to come up with a society in history that did not make war on its neighbors. Even among relatively small populations such as native American or African tribes you would be hard pressed to find any that meets the criteria. I'm not saying that you wouldn't succeed but as a percentage of the human population the number would be insignificant. Does that mean that war is moral?

I think you missed my point. All societies must come up with a moral basis for laws. No society possesses any objective evidence or tests which make their morality superior.

 

[slave2six]

I think you missed my point. All societies must come up with a moral basis for laws. No society possesses any objective evidence or tests which make their morality superior.

If you define "moral" as those behaviours that we as a society agree are necessary for the common good then I agree with you. There can be no moral basis against homosexuality because homosexuality does not harm society at large.

I presumed from your father's challenge that he meant the kind of morals that exist independent of the law and which are a law unto themselves. If you take a set of morals that are not based in reason but rather are based in religion and build laws based on those morals then you are essentially saying, "it is moral because it is" which isn't logical. There are no self-evident morals with regards to sexuality. The only self-evident morals are, as others have pointed out, are things like honesty. But those have nothing to do with sexuality or physician assisted suicide or abortion or cloning which are all moral issues that affect the law in the US.

 

[Oberon]

There can be no moral basis against homosexuality because homosexuality does not harm society at large.

That is because you accept a particular definition of harm. In most western countries, public sexual acts and nudity are illegal, yet they don't really harm anyone either. They are considered inappropriate.

Likewise, those who believe that homosexuality is morally wrong believe that public sanction of homosexual behavior gives rise to further immoral action (and it does, if you consider homosexual behavior immoral). It is therefore harmful.

I don't believe this, but that is because I do not accept a moral system where homosexuality is immoral. That doesn't mean I can prove my system is right and another's is wrong.

 

[blackout]

So, as long as the wife knows that her husband has a girlfriend and chooses to stay married to him then you're OK with that? Just trying to understand your position.

Is there a reason we shouldn't be ok with that?

Just wondering.

 

[Alceste]

Well, let's take a case of a man cheating on his wife. Assuming his wife doesn't find out, and assuming that the marriage is livable, should we say that, since there was no harm done, the cheater hasn't done anything immoral?

I'd count knowingly taking an action that is very likely to be harmful is immoral even if by some improbable twist of fate (i.e. a wife not suspecting her husband was unfaithful) the potential harm is avoided. Besides that, by lying and / or deceiving somebody else for selfish ends you hurt yourself, even if they never find out about it. Deception is cowardly, and cowards have no self respect.

I've personally known men who would disagree though.

 

[strange]

I think you are asking the wrong question based on a faulty assumption. This whole business of "the dimension of spirit" is entirely subjective and therefore not the appropriate basis for determining if something is "moral" or not.

The word "moral" is defined in many ways and all of them are based on the idea of right and wrong behavior. Is it moral to kill? Depends. If you are defending someone who is under attack and kill the attacker thus protecting the innocent then the action is moral. If you randomly shoot at children on a playground, it is not.

Why? Because the ultimate purpose of morality is to maintain the greater good of humanity at large. This is why slavery is immoral but employing people at the lowest wage that they will accept is not.

With regards to homosexuality - if the human population was a meager 1,000 people then homosexuality would be a really big deal simply because as a species we want to survive and grow. With 6 billion people on the planet, that's another story.

It is similar to biology. A certain percent of the population will have biological anomalies that make them weaker than other people or stronger than other people. In a low-population society, this plays out by the strong surviving and the weak not. In a large population society, the importance of being the strongest becomes less of an issue. There are enough of us who are of average strength who will care for the weak.

So, the answer to your question is that there is nothing about the current population or society in general that can be harmed by homosexuality provided that relationships are monogamous. The real danger is in polygamous relationships that result in the spread of diseases such as HIV. This happens in both homosexual and heterosexual relationships but far more often in the former. If there was a cure for these std's, there would be absolutely no basis for a moral pronouncement against homosexuality.

Locally, the city of Fairbanks, Ak., there is a problem with chronic public inebriants. The city council is trying to establish a list of chronic inebriants and making a law that forbids bars and liquor stores from selling liquor to these people. Individuals have a right to privacy and this list may have a legal challenge if passed. There is a negative affect of drunks stubbling around and sleeping on benches in the down town areas. They push away shoppers and become the site to see for tourist. Tourism is a big part of our ecomomy. It is said that Fairbanks really has a problem. And then there is the extreme cold winters where drunks end up frozen to death.

This is a moral issue and a tough one to solve. But homosexuality does not even come close to being a problem like chronic public inebriants. You alude to the fact that monogamous homosexual couples by establishing that a polygamous homosexual population is a danger to society. May be that they are a danger to themselves, as an isolated social group. But to the general population? I doubt that a polygamous homosexual population puts the general population at risk. Does it cost the general population money to treat AIDS, yes it does and it becomes a moral issue. But since this moral issue concerning AIDS is within the heterosexual population too, it is no more a moral issue with homosexuals then with heterosexuals. Fact is, AIDS is more rampant within the Black communities. May be that the moral issue is more about why certain populations end up affected with AIDS.

The issue of lower wages as opposed to slavery is another moral issue in our ecomomy. This issue of our ecomomy keeps me coming back to Naomi Klein's, Shock Doctrine. It also brings to mind, corporate fascism. Many issues that need a moral review.

The issue of "This whole business of "the dimension of spirit" is entirely subjective and therefore not the appropriate basis for determining if something is "moral" or not.", is not a determining factor as to whether something is "moral." My point, and Tillich's, is that how everyone contributes to society, to life in general is one's spirit. You may define spirit differently but this is how I am referring to "spirit." Hence, we are talking about the same thing, morality as it is acceptable within a community.

 

[strange]

[/color]

What are you talking about? This has happened all the time throughout history.



Absolutely.

Read my position closer and you will see that there is a difference between being exploited psychologically but never in the sense of one's spirit. You can take away from an individual, say their rights but, you cannot take away their thoughts, their being. As in the psychic of an individual. Which is addressing the living principal of an individual. Or as with this discussion, one's spirit, and hence the morality issue.

 

[strange]

At a minimum, I should treat every sexual partner at least as well as I would like to be treated.

Those are some of my thoughts on sexual morality.

This is a good post. If sexuality is a moral issue, and I agree with you, the issue of whether homosexuality is immoral is something that needs to be addressed by communities.