Beards and Gay Marriage

[Charlemagne_III]

To be consistent you have to also include men and women who marry with no intention of having children and all sterile opposite sex marriages for any reason.

To be consistent means to be consistent. If marriage as an institution is designed primarily for the rearing of children with a parent of both sexes, male and female (a right that every child should ideally have, even when death or divorce remove the possibility) it seems that right cannot be fulfilled in a same-sex marriage. The right is certainly not fulfilled since in a same-sex marriage there is no relationship of husband and wife, father and mother. In a marriage between men and women who are sterile or have no intention of having children of their own (for any number of reasons) it is still feasible that they can adopt and give children both mother-father and husband-wife models to grow up with. This is a need society should honor.

As I said earlier, married same-sex couples will take from the pool of eligible children for adoption, and they will command their equal right to take, regardless of the equal rights of all children to take a mother and a father if possible. A child’s identity as a heterosexual cannot possibly be properly developed with same-sex parents who flaunt the homosexual rather than the heterosexual model. I pity any heterosexual child who unwittingly in early life is adopted by practicing homosexual couples.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

More evidence of the domino effect?

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10958728/Australian-judge-says-incest-may-no-longer-be-a-taboo.html

 

[Charlemagne_III]

For example “disordered morally” is faith based belief. From your response as well as other comments you have made I know you believe it to be true with every fiber in your body and I admire that.

His conviction may well be faith based, but you can’t say that the comments on homosexuality by Plato and Aristotle are faith-based. They spoke from a common sense and philosophical perspective since they could not have quoted Moses or St. Paul.

 

[frobert]

His conviction may well be faith based, but you can’t say that the comments on homosexuality by Plato and Aristotle are faith-based. They spoke from a common sense and philosophical perspective since they could not have quoted Moses or St. Paul.

I would not say they are faith based. Their comments are based on their philosophies. I don’t believe you expect that all philosophers to agree with those of Plato and Aristotle.

It is the same with religions which have some common beliefs but also different ones. If you read Rumi’s poetry on the the Virgin Mary and the holy family you will find common beliefs between Islamic Sufism and Catholicism and some difference.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I would not say they are faith based. Their comments are based on their philosophies. I don’t believe you expect that all philosophers to agree with those of Plato and Aristotle.

Since I have some degree of knowledge about Plato, I’ll pipe up here. Plato likely had personal experience of homosexual activity, almost certainly had experience of a pederastic relationship, and clearly – in all his writings – talks about how desirable such relationships could be. But he also connects these relationships with lust, and suggests that something greater can arise from these relationships if lust is avoided. This “something” is, in Plato’s view, the most wonderful thing imaginable: the vision of beauty and goodness and truth.

Plato was clearly not a homophobe.

Now, in the Laws, Plato says that homosexual acts are “against nature” – the same phrase used by Saint Paul. The way he says it, he clearly thinks that everyone else in Athens agrees with him – but he also clearly thinks that some people make arguments that sex between men is write *despite *its being against nature. He proposes the Athenians make gay sex taboo, which is precisely what the Christians did. He proposes this because he believes that sex between men is harmful to the soul, in that it involves too much of a focus on bodily pleasure.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I would not say they are faith based. Their comments are based on their philosophies. I don’t believe you expect that all philosophers to agree with those of Plato and Aristotle.

Of course not all philosophers agree with each other. But Plato and Aristotle come down very hard on sodomy as a psychological disorder. The rest of the human race pretty much agreed even the modern community of psychologists in the 70s … at least until modern political correctness polluted sexual morals beyond anything the world has ever seen.

HOMOSEXUALITY - PLATO

Laws 8.836c-e, in which Plato discusses what laws should regulate sexual conduct. It’s plain that Plato sees a historical decline in morals since the time of Laius.

“Suppose you follow nature’s rule and establish the law that was in force before the time of Laius. You’d argue that one may have sexual intercourse with women but not with men or boys. As evidence for your view, you’d point to the animal world, where (you’d argue) the males do not have sexual relations with each other, because such a thing is unnatural. But in Crete and Sparta your argument would not go down well, and you’d probably persuade nobody. However, another argument is that such practices are incompatible with what in our view should be the constant aim of the legislator - that is, we’re always asking, ‘which of our regulations encourages virtue, and which does not?’ Now then, suppose in the present case we agreed to pass a law that such practices are desirable, or not at all undesirable - what contribution would they make to virtue? Will the spirit of courage spring to life in the soul of the seduced person? Will the soul of the seducer learn habits of self-control? No one is going to be led astray by that sort of argument - quite the contrary. Everyone will censure the weakling who yields to temptation, and condemn his all-too-effeminate partner who plays the role of the woman. So who on earth will pass a law like that? Hardly anyone, at any rate if he knows what a genuine law really is.”

Plato, Laws [636c] “And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.”

Aristotle
Nichomacean Ethics Book 7, Section 5:
“Some things are not naturally pleasant, but can become so through injury, habit or congenital depravity. And for each unnatural pleasure there is an abnormal state of character. There is the brutish character, as in those tribes around the Black Sea who eat human flesh. Also, morbid states, like nail-biting or homosexuality … may have been acquired by habit, for instance if someone has been sexually misused as a child.”

Then Aquinas chimes in with respect to natural law theory buttressed by St. Paul

(Summa, II-II, 154), other types of acts are also correctly termed unnatural sexual acts:

“I answer that, As stated above (A6,9) wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called “the unnatural vice.” This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution *, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of “uncleanness” which some call “effeminacy.” Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called “bestiality.” Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Romans 1:27): and this is called the “vice of sodomy.” Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.”

In the history of western civilization can anyone name a major philosopher who defended sodomy? *

 

[frobert]

Since I have some degree of knowledge about Plato, I’ll pipe up here. Plato likely had personal experience of homosexual activity, almost certainly had experience of a pederastic relationship, and clearly – in all his writings – talks about how desirable such relationships could be. But he also connects these relationships with lust, and suggests that something greater can arise from these relationships if lust is avoided. This “something” is, in Plato’s view, the most wonderful thing imaginable: the vision of beauty and goodness and truth.

Plato was clearly not a homophobe.

Now, in the Laws, Plato says that homosexual acts are “against nature” – the same phrase used by Saint Paul. The way he says it, he clearly thinks that everyone else in Athens agrees with him – but he also clearly thinks that some people make arguments that sex between men is write *despite *its being against nature. He proposes the Athenians make gay sex taboo, which is precisely what the Christians did. He proposes this because he believes that sex between men is harmful to the soul, in that it involves too much of a focus on bodily pleasure.

Thank you for the interesting information. I believe St Paul studied Plato and that many of his ideas where influenced by Plato.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Of course not all philosophers agree with each other. But Plato and Aristotle come down very hard on sodomy as a psychological disorder.

Plato didn’t describe it as a psychological disorder. He actually considered people who have heterosexual attractions inferior to those who have homosexual attractions. He just thought that consummating these attractions was wrong.

In the history of western civilization can anyone name a major philosopher who defended sodomy?

Epicurus may have. Plato definitely defended romantic/passionate relationships between men, but clearly opposed sodomy. Mill and Hume would have, if it had been socially acceptable, and Jeremy Bentham did.

And then there’s Callicles, but he’s hardly a major philosopher!

 

[frobert]

Of course not all philosophers agree with each other. But Plato and Aristotle come down very hard on sodomy as a psychological disorder. The rest of the human race pretty much agreed even the modern community of psychologists in the 70s … at least until modern political correctness polluted sexual morals beyond anything the world has ever seen.

As Prodical_son pointed out. Plato spoke strongly against carnal pederasty.

Plato’s thinking has influenced some of the brightest minds of psychology such as Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung. There is no doubt that great ideas and concepts have been derived from the great thinkers of the past.

We both agree that modern morals leave a lot to be desired. At the peak of the Roman Empire morals were pretty polluted. As Mark Twain noted “History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” We could learn a lot from history…

Best recommendations I have come across for the hard times ahead. Simplify and desire little. I believe it came for the TAO.

Peace

 

[Prodigal_Son]

As Prodical_son pointed out. Plato spoke strongly against carnal pederasty.

Also against adult sexual relationships between men.

 

[Bradski]

Just like you can’t show a single concrete example of how it harms your relationship if you cheat and your wife never finds out. Yet you still believe it’s wrong.

It would seem that frobert understands this without any difficulty:

The spouse does not ever need to find out but the adulterer knows. The damage is to the relationship. The cheating spouse has abused the marital relationship.

As I think do you (understand it, that is). Leaving aside any argument as to whether an adulterous act may not be immoral (which is where the bone of contention lies), I think we can all understand that if there is a relationship of trust between a wife and her husband and either of them breaks that trust, then that constitutes harm. Let’s do a simple Q and A:

Q: Do you have a strong relationship with your wife?
A: Yes, it’s one that is based on love and trust.
Q: You wouldn’t cheat on your wife?
A: No, I wouldn’t.
Q: If, hypothetically, you did cheat, even if she never found out, what would be the outcome?
A: I wouldn’t do it, but hypothetically if I did, then that relationship of trust between us would be broken.
Q: So the relationship would be harmed. Even if she herself was unaware of it.
A: Yes.

OK, to move on…

You have said that gay marriages cause harm. Not just sometimes, but always and in all cases. Could you please tell me how that harm manifests itself?

The problem with assuming a “sentience” perspective on harm is that it restricts your definition of harm to that which you palpably feel to be harm.
In the case of a spouse being cheated on, you have a difficult time explaining how harm could have occurred if the cheated on spouse is not aware of the harm.

I’m not sure I have any difficulty at all. As I’ve noted, others seem to understand this quite well. The person who cheats recognises something has been harmed even if the person being cheated on does not. It has to assumed, obviously, that there is a relationship of trust within the marriage to start with.

Human beings have, beyond sentience, reason as a method of determining real harm. We don’t need to rely solely on sensory awareness. We can judge harm to our interests even where that harm is not palpable in some sensory way.

Do you imagine that I’m suggesting that there has to be physical harm? What about psychological harm? What about guilt or anguish? Are those examples of harm? I would say so.

The spouse being cheated on is being harmed because her/his interests - in a relationship that s/he has totally committed him/herself to on the assumption that the other person has as well - have been compromised.

Quite right. Are you not repeating here what I have been suggesting? That the relationship itself is harmed? The wronged person doesn’t actually have to be aware of this. It’s the breaking of the relationship that is wrong. Breaking it means…it is broken.

I would argue that your “harm must be sensed” requirement, by itself, is an indicator that your moral senses are compromised.

I’m not necessarily stating the case that it must be sensed but that is purely because it is impossible for harm to be done, from a moral perspective, when no-one is aware of it. The harm must be done intentionally otherwise the action which causes it cannot be construed as immoral so at least the perpetrator is aware of it. How could it be otherwise?

Can you conceive of something immoral where no-one is either harmed by it or is even aware that it has occurred?

The fact that “gay” individuals rely totally on sensory based hedonism to define what makes them who they are belies the fact that they have done harm to their own interests by replacing real long-term, though intangible, moral interests with fulfilment of pleasure seeking.

Being attracted to members of your own gender is ‘sensory based hedonism’? Gay people who want to get married are self-harming because they are just seeking pleasure as opposed to long term moral interests? Can you please explain what you mean by ‘long term moral interests’ that these gay people have rejected?

Interests such as having a happy marriage, a wonderful family with responsible, well-adjusted children, etc. are compromised by an insistence that their interests must be based upon uncompromised satisfaction of pleasure/emotion, conveniently forgetting that happy marriages and families are made by hard work, sacrifice and eschewing self-interest for the sake of others.

I think you’re showing some prejudice here. You are assuming, incorrectly and unfairly, that the aims you have just described and the requirements to achieve them are either not available to gay people or are not considered by them to be relevant. I have no idea how you might reach such a conclusion. Maybe you could expound…

A moral position that says, “My pleasure satisfaction will be my prime focus and any moral principles will be subordinated to that end,” will hit a conflict wall very quickly.

Ah yes. More hedonism. More pleasure seekers. These immoral lotus eaters aren’t really interested in the same things we are, are they. The pleasures of the flesh are what counts!

Gay marriage will likely not do much more harm to our culture…

A reasonable comment at last.

 

[Bradski]

The state has an interest in stability and in protecting norms that cultivate a prosperous society.

That’s not necessarily correct. Slavery made a lot of societies prosperous. Did they have (and should they have had) an interest in protecting what was considered normal?

When a man and woman decide to share their lives together, children might result.

From a Catholic viewpoint, the aim of marriage is to produce children. But yes, they may or may not ensue.

Children do well when they are raised by a mother and a father in a stable environment.

Indeed they do. But I hope you’re not suggesting that therefore all other environments are *therefore *unsuitable. That would not necessarily follow.

From the state’s perspective, a stable family unit (Mother/Father/Children) is a norm worth protecting – and promoting – because stable families foster growth and prosperity.

That’s not necessarily correct. A stable family unit does not have to consist of a mother, father and children and the state in any case has no business in making any decision on what constitutes the ideal family unit. China actually enforces what it considers it to be to ‘foster growth and prosperity’. Do you agree with their perspective?

When marriage becomes redefined as an emotional connection between two people, the norm of Mother/Father/Children becomes devalued.

As opposed to a simple legal agreement or as simply a cooperative for producing offspring? I don’t know about you, but my marriage can definately be described as an emotional connection between two people and I can guarantee that the relationship between parents and children is not devalued in any way whatsoever.

When the family unit becomes devalued and weakened, then permanence and exclusivity become arbitrary; roles like Motherhood and Fatherhood become optional; and the only possible result is instability.

Skeptical? Take a look at the impact of no-fault divorce.

This is an argument against divorce. Maybe you should start another thread about it.

 

[Bradski]

Children do well when they are raised by a mother and a father in a stable environment.

As I said earlier, this seems to imply that they do not do well when raised in a same sex families, but there are no independent surveys of which I am aware that show this (please, please don’t mention that buffoon Mark Regenerus).

However, there are a few, albeit with small samples, that show the opposite. And there is one recent survey, authored this year, by an Australian that has close to 500 families included. This is a parent-reported survey but was compared, naturally, to other parent reported findings of familes with heterosexual parents. The conclusion?

Australian children with same-sex attracted parents score higher than population samples on a number of parent-reported measures of child health.

The only problem reported was that of the experience of perceived stigma, which is hardly a problem of upbringing but more a reflection of the attitudes that still prevail in some sections of society. When, for example, gay parenting is compared to ‘throwing children at sodomites’. I wonder how much better they would score without that.

Read it all here: biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/635

 

[stewstew03]

As I said earlier, this seems to imply that they do not do well when raised in a same sex families, but there are no independent surveys of which I am aware that show this (please, please don’t mention that buffoon Mark Regenerus).

However, there are a few, albeit with small samples, that show the opposite. And there is one recent survey, authored this year, by an Australian that has close to 500 families included. This is a parent-reported survey but was compared, naturally, to other parent reported findings of familes with heterosexual parents. The conclusion?

Australian children with same-sex attracted parents score higher than population samples on a number of parent-reported measures of child health.

The only problem reported was that of the experience of perceived stigma, which is hardly a problem of upbringing but more a reflection of the attitudes that still prevail in some sections of society. When, for example, gay parenting is compared to ‘throwing children at sodomites’. I wonder how much better they would score without that.

Read it all here: biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/635

I’m familiar with that study. And I find it curious – though not surprising – that you would bar the mention of Regnerus’s study, but fail to point out the flawed methodology in the Australian study…

 

[Bradski]

I’m familiar with that study. And I find it curious – though not surprising – that you would bar the mention of Regnerus’s study, but fail to point out the flawed methodology in the Australian study…

Regenerus’ study was a farce (it had a grand total of two families where the family could be described as gay. Count them…two!).

But if you know of any problems associated with the Australian one that wasn’t admitted to in the study itself, then please let me know. I don’t want to put knowingly post incorrect information.

 

[Bradski]

Regenerus’ study was a farce (it had a grand total of two families where the family could be described as gay. Count them…two!).

But if you know of any problems associated with the Australian one that wasn’t admitted to in the study itself (I presume you read the Limitations section), then please let me know. I don’t want to put knowingly post incorrect information.

Edit: Apologies - double post…

 

[PRmerger]

It would seem that frobert understands this without any difficulty:

The “adulterer knows”.

Ok.

And if the adulterer doesn’t think what he’s doing is wrong…

is it still wrong for him to cheat on his wife?

If she never finds out?

 

[frobert]

The “adulterer knows”.

Ok.

And if the adulterer doesn’t think what he’s doing is wrong…

is it still wrong for him to cheat on his wife?

If she never finds out?

In your original post on incest and SSM your logic was confined generally to the religious perspective and more specifically to Catholic religious perspectives.

Somewhere along the line adultery was interjected and now you appear to be placing it outside of religious perspectives. When you did that I injected the trust perspective. Whether or not cheating spouses believe adultery is moral or not it does not change the wrongness of the act from either religious or trust perspectives which cover both religious and non-religious perspectives.

A Buddhist might say that adulterous spouses are cheating out of ignorance. The remedy is learning how adultery causes suffering to the spouses and to society in general.

 

[PRmerger]

The remedy is learning how adultery causes suffering to the spouses and to society in general.

So if you could give some concrete examples of how cheating causes harm, esp if the adulterer doesn’t find it wrong, and if the spouse never finds out.

 

[frobert]

So if you could give some concrete examples of how cheating causes harm, esp if the adulterer doesn’t find it wrong, and if the spouse never finds out.

If I were to give you examples would it change the fact that adultery is wrong from religious, trust, Buddhist and natural law perspectives?

Isn’t it enough that we all agree on the wrongness of adultery. Why attempt to change it into a scientific inquiry?