cmkeller:Speculation proves and disproves nothing.
Right, which is why it’s not scientifically or medically defensible (although it may be theologically correct) for Schlessinger to characterize homosexual sex as “deviating from the sole purpose” for which human sexuality exists. Your golf-club analogy is inadequate. A putter is a comparatively simple and recent mechanical construct which can be identified as having a very limited range of purposes, driving not among them. Human sexuality is a physiologically and psychologically complex aspect of human existence that is extremely important for reasons besides procreation. To assert that its most obvious and important function, sexual reproduction, is necessarily its “sole purpose” is just speculation.
Quote:
Comparison to one another? Or comparison to a separate, fixed standard?
We only have comparisons to one another for which to judge.
Quote:
If we don’t have a number line with 0 in it, what is our basis for placing 1 to the right of 2 or to the left of it?
Only once we place 0 on that line do we know that 1 should be closer to it than 2.
Number characters have an artificial set value attached and thus we get the current format of 1,2,3… If we chose different values for those characters then the progression/placement would change.
Quote:
By the same token, if we are to ever assert one moral system’s superiority or inferiority to another, there must be a fixed standard by which we are doing the judging. Otherwise, how do you know in which direction to judge?
The whole point Ive been making is that we don’t have a fixed system from which to start. It has developed over time and presumably would keep evolving to keep pace with societal change. Essentially morality is a societal construct. It just happens to serve a purpose.
Lets use marriage as an example. Prior to the mid-20th century or so women married pretty young. Basically nearly as soon as they were able to produce children. It wasn’t uncommon to find a bride as young as 13. As a society we now recognize that a 13 y/o is not as mature as an 18 y/o and have shifted the age for allowable marriages up. The same thing with sex, basically now and adult having sex with someone that young would be considered a pedophile. What happened? Morality changed to keep up with societal change.
I don’t think morality did change here; what changed was a behavior. The morality in this instance is based on an immature person not being able to make an informed choice and being taken advantage of by a mature person. What has changed is the age at which a person is considered mature, and this is a relative judgement based on social and physical circumstances. The underlying principle is the same.
How far do you take the position that you outline? If someone had a psychological condition which made them want to walk on their hands, would you think it was deviant, based on the feet being designed for walking?
Well Jeff, then where would you draw the line between changing morality and changing behavior? You could find an “underlying principle” in common between almost any two moral precepts that seemed superficially contradictory, if you looked deep enough.
Izzy:If someone had a psychological condition which made them want to walk on their hands, would you think it was deviant, based on the feet being designed for walking?
If I saw good evidence that a significant percentage of people in all human societies throughout history considered it normal and desirable to walk on their hands, and that such behavior was also observed in many non-human animals (though I guess there aren’t that many that distinguish between hands and feet :)), then I would be very skeptical of anyone who attempted to define such behavior as “deviating” from the “only true purpose” of hands and feet.
I don’t think morality did change here; what changed was a behavior. The morality in this instance is based on an immature person not being able to make an informed choice and being taken advantage of by a mature person.
Sure it did. A older man marrying a 13 y/o wasn’t an uncommom occurence, and was acceptable. A older man showing amorous attention to a 13 y/o in todays society would immediately be deemed a pervert or worse. How society viewed these actions is not the same as it was even 40 years ago.
Drawing the line between changes in morality and changes in behavior is not always easy. (Damn, I hate when people try to pin me down.) When evaluating rules that society has set up to govern behavior, I think you need to look at the rationale behind those rules. Assuming you accept the rationale behind a rule, changing circumstances can result in a modification to the rule without the rationale changing.
Using a non-moral example, take a look at the speed limit. Let’s say the rationale behind having a speed limit is to increase safety. Using that rationale, the speed limit on highways is set at 55 mph in 1975 (hypothetical). 25 years later, advances in road design and automobile safety indicate that 65 mph is a safe limit. The rule changes but the rationale is the same. Neither is “right” from an absolute point of view, but the rationale still holds.
How this applies to individuals, I’m not quite sure. Here we get into the difficulty of evaluating a person’s circumstances, knowledge, intentions, etc. This is what makes rule-base ethical systems appealing to a large number of people. I personally have problems with rigid sets of rules, but I also have problems with excessive relativism and utilitarian calculations.
I hope my previous response sheds some light on what I’m trying to say.
I think part of the problem here is what we are calling morality. For me, the moral principle involved is one person should not take advantage of another; it is not a 18 year old should not have sex with a 13 year old.
I disagree. When you do such a thing, you’re engaging in circular definition. 1 is defined as something less than 2, and 2 is defined as something more than 1. Only when the two are compared to an independent standard (e.g., 1 is close to 0, 2 is far from 0) does the comparison stand on solid ground.
The fact that it is more complex than a putter does not mean that the principle does not hold. Even if you believe in chance evolution (if one believes in a creator, it’s pretty much a moot point what we think the purpose is; the creator defines its purpose), in which case, the survival of the species (or at least the non-extinction of the species) is the paramount purpose of a specimen’s body parts, it cannot be denied that sexuality that does not serve the purpose of propogating the species does not do that. And saying that does not constitute hatred or moral judgment.
cmkeller: *the survival of the species (or at least the non-extinction of the species) is the paramount purpose of a specimen’s body parts, it cannot be denied that sexuality that does not serve the purpose of propogating the species does not do that. *
Then by that standard, other non-procreative sex (e.g., oral or anal sex, or genital sex for those who are temporarily or permanently infertile) is also deviant.
**IzzyR:[/]b Do you agree then, that the disagreement here is over what percentage is considered “significant”?
No, the disagreement is over whether and how we can identify the “true purpose(s)” of body parts. The question of how many people use their body parts for what purposes is only part of the issue.
True indeed, with the exception of the infertile ones, as the act is still the same act that the parts are there for…except their parts, as it were, are deficient. In other words, in that case, it is the parts that are deviant rather than the act being done with those parts.
cmkeller: *True indeed, with the exception of the infertile ones, as the act is still the same act that the parts are there for…except their parts, as it were, are deficient. In other words, in that case, it is the parts that are deviant rather than the act being done with those parts. *
Then I consider it rather unfair of Schlessinger, and irresponsibly conducive to anti-homosexual prejudice and hatred, to go around mouthing off all the time about the “deviant” behavior of homosexuals and never mentioning the “deviant” behavior of married couples doing sixty-nine, or the “deviant” parts of infertile or postmenopausal couples.
Ok, instead of trying to convince you :rolleyes: why don’t you provide me with your “0” for the basis of your argument? My contention is that the point we’re starting from in which we’re judging morality is our present position, and we’re comparing based on that reference point.
[thread killer]
We’ve had a call for a definitive answer to whether Dr. Laura is a good Jew citing a specific infraction, and an authority (rather than personal agreement or disagreement with her beliefs).
I think I can tie in one of the earlier arguments and close this discussion once and for all.
Infraction: Advocacy of human sacrifice (see Arnold Winkelried’s post on the first page of this thread)
Authority for prohibition thereof:
The Torah, Genesis 22: The story of Abraham and the Sacrifice of Isaac
Short version: Human sacrifice goes against Jewish beliefs
QED
There you have it: the act, the prohibition, the proof.
(And I’m not even touching the fact that Dr. L was saying she should be sacrificed to Incan gods…)
[/thread killer]
No, rather, it is unfair of you and most of her critics to focus on those few statements of hers to the exclusion of the rest of her show. She does not make comments about homosexuality unless there is a specific issue to which it applies that comes up. She spends the large majority of her time (in the context of her monologues and the calls she receives) railing against such heterosexual follies as hasty divorce, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, absentee parenting and adultery, and non-sexually-oriented issues as general selfishness and irresponsibility, excessive youth sexuality, and interreligious conflicts. Her comments on homosexuality, if I recall correctly, came mostly in the context of either youth sexual education, where homosexual activists are visibly active but “deviant married couple activists” are not, if they even exist, or in the context of gay couples or single people wishing to adopt or bear children to raise, where her issue is not the sex the people practice, but the fact that she thinks a child is best raised with both male and female involvement. She has suggested that gay or single people who wish to use their nurturing insticts adopt or foster an older child, who is unlikely to be adopted by heterosexual couples, and would be clearly better off being raised by a “deviant” parent or parents than by none at all.
Whole weeks of her show go by with no mention of homosexuality. But to hear the folks at stopdrlaura.com, you’d think that she deals with nothing else, and that she is a fount of unrelenting hostility. And folks like you, because your views in general are more like theirs than like hers, buy into this.
Well, while it’s somewhat vague, I’d say that the “0” point on this scale is a society based on respect for human life, personal dignity, freedom of expression and responsibility for one’s actions. Seems to me that proximity to this ideal (and perhaps it’s a mythical one, given the compromises in one that might be necessary to achieve in the other) is the measure by which various moral systems are judged.