How can homosexuality be immoral or contrary to natural ends if there is a genetic/evolutionary/biological reason for it?

[CatholicSooner]

goout:

Please everyone take note: nothing is said here about any religion whatsoever (hi Freddy and Jan!), and nothing negative was said about homosexuality.
Do we agree?

Why do you consider sexual acts that are not done for procreation immoral? It is well-known that sexual activity is healthy. It doesn’t matter if the act results in procreation or not. Are you saying once a woman reaches menopause the same sexual acts she performed the year before is now a sin? The Church directly promotes sexual activity that is done for non-procreative purposes (rhythm method). Many couples can’t bear children. Are they forbidden from having sex?

But here’s the key point. I couldn’t care less about convincing YOU. If you are convinced oral sex and masturbation are immoral activities, even between heterosexuals, that’s great. If you think condoms are immoral, fine. Don’t use them. But when you FORCE your morality on others, and prevent them from exercising their rights, then you are the one in the wrong.

Wow. so much is wrong with this post I’m not even going to attempt to break it down

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Your comments are not worthy of response by any standard. This will be my last to you on this thread.

Yeah, broke my own rule. Well here’s me doing it again to give a heads up. The other thread which had degenerated into shameful comparisons about the sex lives of gay people and unatural acts with animals (I even find it difficult to have to describe it in as neutral a tone as that) has been closed.

Could I please ask that we take a step back and take a moment to consider that there are members of the forum who are gay themselves and there are those who have gay family members and close friends. To say that discussions of the type that we had in that thread (and some in this) are hurtfull to those people is a massive understatement.

 

[Rau]

Is your moral framework on homosexuality only based on who the partner is, or is there more to it?

Sexual acts are good when they are in marriage and “ordered“ to procreation (I explained that term earlier - it’s about the physical form). Sexual acts with a person of the same sex cannot satisfy this requirement.

I’ve stated earlier, no one does wrong merely by experiencing a sexual inclination. It is only “human acts” that can be good or evil.

 

[Rau]

You’ve made a case why homosexual acts are not “good” (no intended procreation).

No - I did not say that. Intended procreation is not required. Possible procreation is not required.

 

[Rau]

Why is homosexuality not the same?

Sleep is necessary like eating. Sex is not, regardless of the inclinations or sex of the partner.

Sleep is not really a choice. Sexual acts are always chosen, thus subject to moral assessment.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

To tell you the truth, I am up to the back teeth with people reducing gay people to nothing more than sexual objects. Your last sentence sums that up perfectly. Ask someone else. I’m not the slightest bit interested.

There’s no need to get angry or fed up.

Look, here is one huge difference. Im talking about sexual acts, you are talking about the person. Try to understand that distinction. Disagreeing with someones practices doesn’t mean i hate them or that I think they are any less of a human or are bad people or anything like that

And so as i’ve said from the start im talking about anal sex from a medical science perspective, women and men as well.

The fact that u haven’t got any justification for anal sex tells me that you haven’t given the act much thought really.

One thing I find interesting is the length that hetro people go to defend practices or people they don’t conform to, have no experience in. I’ve had the best most productive conversation (in person, not online) with real gay person and been able to understand and accept each others opinions. His experience makes his perspective real, genuine. Being willing not to offend each other and reach a new level of understanding is also needed.

 

[C.Ray]

"This Ted talk [“Homosexuality- it’s about survival, not sex”] argued that homosexuality exists as an evolutionary means of birth control

My wife and I have a running joke between us. We can come up with an evolutionary biology reason for anything, no matter how trivial or ridiculous:

1. why toddlers prefer peanut butter and jelly
2. why some women think bald men are sexy
3. why universities overdo it on liberal arts
4. why Donald Trump won Pennsylvania

… go on try it, it’s fun!

 

[Pai_Nosso]

I just read the recent conversation… Interesting… I recently looked closely at what the RCC teaches is and isn’t appropriate in a marriage between a man and a woman as it differed greatly from a teaching from a Christian ministry. I think Rau looks to be informed. There are differences in the opinions of theologians through the ages.

Theologians like Jones, Prummer, Davis, etc. will generally say that oral sex without serious risk of a complete act outside of the vagina is not a grave sin in itself but anal sex is. Others like Fr Ripperger say that any intercourse that isn’t vaginal is always a mortal sin. Aquinas goes as far as to say that any sexual act that is performed only for sexual pleasure is a sin.

It’s all irrelevant to someone who isn’t a Christian but I can understand that.

 

[Freddy]

I’ve had the best most productive conversation (in person, not online) with real gay person…

A real gay person you say. Gee.

Was it a guy? In which case did you ask him if he could justify whatever he did sexually? From a medical science point of view of course. Had he given it any thought?

 

[Freddy]

TheDefaultMan:

"This Ted talk [“Homosexuality- it’s about survival, not sex”] argued that homosexuality exists as an evolutionary means of birth control

My wife and I have a running joke between us. We can come up with an evolutionary biology reason for anything, no matter how trivial or ridiculous:

1. why toddlers prefer peanut butter and jelly
2. why some women think bald men are sexy
3. why universities overdo it on liberal arts
4. why Donald Trump won Pennsylvania

… go on try it, it’s fun!

1. Fat and sugar. Both of which were hard to come by when we were hunter gatherers so we evolved to eat as much as possible when it was available.
2. Baldness is generally associated with a genetically determined higher rate of testosterone. Evolutionary beneficial.
3. Can’t find a connection there.
4. All I can find there is that I believe the average IQ in Pennsylvania is lower than the national average.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

A real gay person you say. Gee.

Was it a guy? In which case did you ask him if he could justify whatever he did sexually? From a medical science point of view of course. Had he given it any thought?

U got nothin mate. Uv just given up.
It was a guy. I didn’t have to ask him cos he is conscious of the risks. Had he given it any thought? Off course he had, thats what i mean, it was a different conversation.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

A real gay person you say. Gee.

Was it a guy? In which case did you ask him if he could justify whatever he did sexually? From a medical science point of view of course. Had he given it any thought?

U got nothin mate. Uv just given up.
It was a guy. I didn’t have to ask him cos he is conscious of the risks. Had he given it any thought? Off course he had…

But he couldn’t justify it? You should have asked him why he was still gay.

 

[Grizzly1]

If the standard assumption that homosexuals represent 1-2% of the population is true, then that doesn’t seem like it would be very effective in reducing competition for females. Its too small of a number.

On the other hand, humans are not driven solely by instinct. Homosexuals, or men with homosexual urges, can still marry and have children to cover up their desires. That may not apply so much anymore in Western societies anymore where homosexuality is not severely condemned, but in third-world nations that could definitely be a factor.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

But he couldn’t justify it? You should have asked him why he was still gay.

I didn’t ask him to justify it we were just having a conversation not a debate.

 

[o_mlly]

I believe morality is subjective, we’d have to argue along another path for me to change your opinion.

I agree. The utilitarian will not agree with the theist on matters moral. If not revelation then perhaps reason presents a common path to synthesize differences.

To argue productively, paradoxically, agreement on some things must precede the disagreement. What sexual acts does your subjective morality deem immoral?

 

[o_mlly]

Well, if you are putting me on the spot - my moral worldview, which based on a limited and modified then expanded form of Utilitarianism,(which if you are interested, seems to be what everyone follows anyway - and is what we evolved to have) would be as follows:

As an overview:

• A moral act is one that decreases, stops or limits pain and suffering, or reduces the probability of future pain and suffering from occurring.
• An immoral act is one that increases, initiates or expands pain and suffering, or increases the probability of future pain and suffering from occurring.
• The degree of morality is dependent upon two factors - how close a relationship you have with the parties involved, and the amount/rate of the suffering.

Note that this is NOT Utilitarianism. It is similar, but there are significant differences. For one, acts that increase ‘pleasure’ are NOT moral acts.

Not wanting to put you or anyone else on the spot, just want a civil conversation. Let me ask a clarifying question to insure I understand your position as it relates to sexual acts.

In general regarding the dichotomy your philosophy introduces for the pain/pleasure experience: Does not an act that decreases, stops or limits pain simultaneously ipso facto produce pleasure, that is the cessation of pain?

In other words, is not relief from pain a pleasurable experience as in the sigh of relief, that experience of an intense feeling of happiness or relief because something particularly stressful, unpleasant, or undesirable has been avoided or completed.

We know that the body emits pleasurable hormones in painful situations. Endorphins released in painful experiences are often perceived as pleasurable. Stress and pain can also stimulate the serotonin and melatonin production in the brain, which transforms painful experiences into pleasure ones.

How would your philosophy characterize the masochist, one who only finds pleasure in pain? Are the masochist’s acts always immoral?

So, I do not quite see the dichotomy you suggest that would allow the removal of the pursuit of pleasure from the utilitarian’s moral code. The two experiences of pain and pleasure, it seems to me, are just two sides of the same coin. As Blake put it, “Joy and woe are woven fine, a clothing for the soul divine. Under every grief and pine, runs a joy with silken twine.”

Secondly in the particular, would you characterize one who is experiencing an unfulfilled sexual desire to be in a painful state? As is, for instance, the one who is hungry. Would one in such a state who chooses to abstain from sex or fasting thereby expanding their pain into the future be considered an immoral actor?

 

[Freddy]

Secondly in the particular, would you characterize one who is experiencing an unfulfilled sexual desire to be in a painful state? As is, for instance, the one who is hungry. Would one in such a state who chooses to abstain from sex or fasting thereby expanding their pain into the future be considered an immoral actor?

I can’t see much to disagree with what Jan posted. Although there will always be some subtle (and perhaps not so subtle) differences depending on the individual circumstances. But as to avoiding something that would give you pleasure (eating or having sex), it must be assumed that whoever is doing it feels they are doing some good in themselves by avoiding food or sex (excepting psychological problems of course).

This is where the old trope of ‘if it feels good then do it’ falls down. By all means do it if it feels good. But that outlook is very shallow and swaps long term benefit for instant gratification. There are certainly very many people who do that and it’s certain that we all do it to some extent ourselves. But if there’s one thing we could teach our children it’s to take a more nuanced and long term view of matters.

By all means have an extra slice of pizza and have sex if you both want to. IF it’s not harmful in the short term AND the long term. Have another slice of pizza if you like IF you’re not overweight already and it will make you more unhappy.

So I guess we could swap ‘if it feels good, do it’ to a more accurate and responsible ‘if it is good, do it’. And that can mean allowing yourself a pleasurable experience or denying yourself one.

 

[Freddy]

o_mlly:

Does not an act that decreases, stops or limits pain simultaneously ipso facto produce pleasure, that is the cessation of pain?

It certainly could (for example, relieving a full bladder qualifies ), but that is not the moral component. The moral component is ending the suffering.

How would your philosophy characterize the masochist, one who only finds pleasure in pain? Are the masochist’s acts always immoral?

This example is brought up with Utilitarianism. This is why you cannot consider increasing pleasure as a moral act. For example, with Utilitarianism, 10 masochists beating up a person would be considered ‘moral’ because the combined pleasure of 10 people is greater than the suffering of the one. This is where I disagree with Utilitarianism - increasing pleasure for just pleasure’s sake is not a moral act.

This is more Bentham’s view. Whereas the type of utilitarionism that Mills argued for separated the simple pleasures from the more esoteric intellectual sense of satisfaction. For example, you’ll get more immediate pleasure eating that pizza than you would spending the time doing the next lesson in your course on Russian. But you’ll be more satisfied as a person being able to speak another language then you would be being overweight having stuffed too many margueritas in your mouth.

As he said: ‘Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied’. So the pleasure of beating someone up cannot be classed as improving one’s overall satisfaction. How you determine this of course is not a simple matter.

 

[sainteriksrose]

Just because something CAN be done…

Doesn’t mean it SHOULD be done. Making lampshades out of murdered people’s skin in Nazi Germany comes to mind. I’m guessing our Lord wasn’t okay with THAT sin, either. But the government over there at THAT time in history, unbelievably LESS THAN a hundred years ago, unbelievably was.

Twelve million people were killed in that holocaust. Today abortion and other sins of a fornicating, adulterous, UNNATURAL nature (and these ALL are unnatural) are OKAYED within public schools supported with the tax dollars of every U.S. citizen.

This garbage is confusing the young. And excuse me, but who is the father of lies and confusion? Who actually believes this behavior is okay? Where do the adults who’ve okayed and perpetuated this behavior over the last half dozen decades think they’re going to be within the next 50-100 years or less?

Prayer needs, all.

 

[o_mlly]

It certainly could (for example, relieving a full bladder qualifies ), but that is not the moral component. The moral component is ending the suffering.

Leaving aside the relationship of pain to pleasure for the moment, please answer 3 questions to help me understand your proposed system:

Does your code allow as moral all human acts which mitigate suffering?

Does your adjustment to Bentham/Mill utilitarianism limit the actor’s calculation of the pain mitigated to his/her own pain or ought the actor calculate the net pain mitigated by all people affected by the act?

If the actor ought make a social pain mitigation effects calculation, may we assume your system allows that calculation be the reasonably foreseeable effects, that is the effects and their calculation as made by a reasonable person?

This example is brought up with Utilitarianism. This is why you cannot consider increasing pleasure as a moral act. For example, with Utilitarianism, 10 masochists beating up a person would be considered ‘moral’ because the combined pleasure of 10 people is greater than the suffering of the one. This is where I disagree with Utilitarianism - increasing pleasure for just pleasure’s sake is not a moral act

The example was rather 1 (or 10, if you like) sadists beating on one masochist. All experience pleasure in the act. But, as I understand your system, this act would be considered amoral and, therefore, not proscribed.

You have a bad itch on your back you can’t reach. I scratch it for you because that is the ‘moral’ thing to do - it reduces your discomfort.

I think I see your point. Is one obligated, in as much as they are able, to reduce the pain of another person? Presuming, your answer to the question above on socializing the calculation of pain mitigation, that obligation would exist iff a reasonable person calculates that the act’s net mitigation of pain to all affected by the act was positive.

These are very interesting questions, but basically the resolution is that actions one performs on one’s self are not moral acts (either good or bad). Morality must be selfless.

So one’s own acts that merely reduce one’s own pain are amoral in your system? It is neither good nor “evil” to do so (or right or wrong, if you prefer)? Pain, evolution’s warning system that the body has some disorder, may be ignored. Have we no obligation to maintain our health or our life?

Thanks again for expanding on your adjusted utilitarian system of morality. Now that I have a better grasp (but not complete) of its underlying principle, let me ask again: What sexual acts does your system proscribe?