Is it objectively meaningful and functionally correct to class Same Sex Attraction as a genuine form of human Sexuality?

[John21652]

I think you’ve just given the lie to anyone who claims that “only the strong survive.” Some behaviours that are better for individual survivability are such as most people would find morally repugnant - like having your rivals murdered, for example, just so you don’t have to share your resources with them.

“Some behaviours” do not give grounds for making judgements about objective morality. “Some behaviours” are those behaviours which deviate from the norm. You yourself have given answers in your post, such as those who would liquidate their enemies for a greater share of resources. That is how the Mafia and Hitler behaved and the world turned on them, did it not? It is because that sort of behaviour, which is outside the norm, but which fits into the “some behaviours” category you gave us, is anathema to social well being and the survival of human societies. If you wish to address properly the argument you attempted to rebutt, you need to give us a category which explains “most behaviours”.

As for oblique reference to the survival of the fittest not applying, tell that to those in the “most behaviours” category and while you are at it, you’d better tell them on a genetic level. Genes, you see, recreate attributes that gaurantee survival.

Similarly, other behaviours that are considered morally upright tend to have detrimental effects upon personal survival, such as a parent sacrificing life or health for the sake of her or his offspring.

You have just given us proof that “most behaviours” trumps “some behaviours”. Most parents place the life of their children above their own and that is what gaurantees the survival of a society and of particular genes.

Again, evolution doesn’t care about individual survival. Only individual organisms with some level of subjective feeling and emotion have the capacity to care whether they personally survive or not.

According to your thesis, a slug’s self survival instincts are actually “subjective feeling and emotion” and the slug actually cares about itself. That contradicts your statement that “evolution doesn’t care about individual survival” , because you are telling us even a slug can care about itself. If a slug cares about itself, then evolution has indeed given individuals the ability to care about themselves and so your statement that evolution doesn’t care about individuals is false.

Nature’s laws are not prescriptive, …

More piffle. Nature’s laws are indeed prescriptive. If you are a polar bear, you have to act like a polar bear and kill your prey and even eat the young of others when you come across them so your genes triumph. And if you are a slug, you have to creep and crawl and cringe when a shadow crosses over you, because other slugs can’t enforce any morality that might protect you.

nor are they based upon any inherent understanding of what is morally best for any being.

You demonstrate here that you still do not know the difference between the laws of nature and moral law.

What is “morally best” for animals is that they be what they are. Their behaviour is amoral because they have no choice to be anything other than what they are.

Mankind, on the other hand, does indeed have choices. He can behave like a polar bear if he wants to, by killing the young of others, hording resources and enjoying a good long winter’s rest at the expense of others. However, “most behaviours” kicks in and other humans say that’s wrong, because we have a desire and a right to be left in peace. In fact, they tell the man who would behave like a polar bear that he is transgressing the rights of others and that transgression is called a moral wrong. You see, polar bears can’t tell other polar bears that they are morally wrong. Man, however, has a choice. Mankind makes moral choices and that is because morals are rules which govern our relationships with others. Moral choices cannot exist in nature and that is what you either can’t, or wont recognise. At this point I’d recommend you go read Thomas Hobbe’s ‘Leviathin’.

I’m sure there are empirical tests you could run on the survival outcomes of particular individuals based upon their behaviour patterns

. There is indeed a simple test - count their offspring!

But at the end of the day, that would not tell you anything at all about what was morally good; and that’s not what nature is all about, anyway.

Until you learn to differentiate between human nature and nature at large, you are confusing yourself, your argument and causing the rest of us to headbang brick walls…

As Bruce Bagemihl writes in Biological Exuberance, it is biological diversity and behavioural plasticity that provide the variety that allows any ecological system to be self-sustaining and adaptable. If all are pursuing precisely the same goals and the same outcomes, resources and opportunities will soon dry up. Or, to put it more mundanely, if we all wanted the same thing, life would get very boring, very quickly!

That quote you gave is only another example of how organisms in nature find a niche and learn not to compete directly with other species. It is also a pointer to the fact that only the fittest survive. The polar bear does not compete with seals for food, he eats them and so the fastest seals survive and the best polar bear hunters thrive and the best polar bear hunters also thrive by killing off the young of the dumb polar bears. That’s because, as your quote points out, there is competition within species for resources. Humans control that competition with moral laws, based on objective evidence, so that the subjective desires of those who exhibit* “some behaviours”* are regulated according to the “most behaviours” exhibited within a society.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, John21652

Great response:thumbsup: Yes, there are a lot of basic self-contradictions that are simply ignored to make an arguement.

I did go to the site: echonyc.com/~stone/Features/BioExEx4.html And it has an interesting observation: during periods of dramatic negative impacts on the environment homosexual behavior is seen by the author in the following animals:

1. Male pairing in Golden Plovers, for example, is claimed to be more prevalent in years when severe winter snowstorms have “disrupted” heterosexual pairing,
2. female coparenting among Grizzlies appears to be characteristic of animals living in conditions of environmental or social flux.
3. Ostriches, homosexual courtships may be linked to unusually rainy seasons
4. Ring-billed and California Gulls are more common in newly founded colonies that are experiencing rapid expansion,
5. Rhesus and Stumptail Macaques (and a number of other primates) are often associated with changes in the composition or dynamics of the social group.
   It also has a totally unsubstantiated hypothesis: " In other words, it is the presence of behavior flexibility in a system that is as valuable, if not more so, than its actual concrete “usefulness” or “functionality.”

What Bruce Bagemihl totally ignores is that if such obviously stressed behavior, as he claims to have observed, existed in any type of significant numbers - the entire species would be extinct. As I appreciate the argument - yes, there are people like serial killer Ted Bundy (1946-1989) and because of his existence, an entire social pattern can be based on him and other serial killers so that their behavior can be seen as just another way of expressing their human existence. Ultimately, it is rationalization to confuse others that disordered behavior is not really what it is - disordered.

Even on the natural order, homosexual behavior is ultimately debased because it is self-seeking and doomed to continually repeat frustrated acts, like a modern day Sisyphus.

God bless

“Some behaviours” do not give grounds for making judgements about objective morality. “Some behaviours” are those behaviours which deviate from the norm. You yourself have given answers in your post, such as those who would liquidate their enemies for a greater share of resources. That is how the Mafia and Hitler behaved and the world turned on them, did it not? It is because that sort of behaviour, which is outside the norm, but which fits into the “some behaviours” category you gave us, is anathema to social well being and the survival of human societies. If you wish to address properly the argument you attempted to rebutt, you need to give us a category which explains “most behaviours”.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Hi, Dakota,

I do not think anyone at anytime and under any post I am aware of has disparaged or ‘ruled out’ chaste love. In reality - all of our love, in whatever state we are (priest, consecrated religious, married, widowed, single, separated, divorced … did I miss any?) is to be chaste love. ‘Love’ that is un-chaste is just lust with a spelling problem!

Maybe if you gave a real life example, this would be helpful towards understanding your concern.

God bless

I am specifically referring to people of the same sex. What would be wrong with two people of the same sex being absolutely devoted to each other and loving each other deeply?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I am specifically referring to people of the same sex. What would be wrong with two people of the same sex being absolutely devoted to each other and loving each other deeply?

(Not addressed to me.)

Answer: nothing. It’s called friendship. This is also what extraordinary sibling relationships are characterized by.


Let’s bring back true friendship – both a lost virtue in society and a lost art.

 

[Mudgely]

One thing to keep in mind in these discussions is that meaning ascribed to behavior or events is a human invention. It only occurs in the human mind. In that sense, any reference to an “objective morality” is a made up construct, and obviously a red herring which is intended to lend a false gravitas and authority to those who invoke the concept as being foundational or of spooky origin.

This principle also applies to the notion of “Natural Law”, which is another human construction, which when people are unable to back their belief in it by any other means, will resort to the claim that it is a magical law of supernatural origin, which it obviously is not.

If one keeps these two facts in mind, then 80% of what the long winded poster of dubious eruditoin opine can be seen for what it is… merely an opinion with as much or as little merit as the reader cares to ascribe to it.

 

[michelleds]

One thing to keep in mind in these discussions is that meaning ascribed to behavior or events is a human invention. It only occurs in the human mind. In that sense, any reference to an “objective morality” is a made up construct, and obviously a red herring which is intended to lend a false gravitas and authority to those who invoke the concept as being foundational or of spooky origin.

This principle also applies to the notion of “Natural Law”, which is another human construction, which when people are unable to back their belief in it by any other means, will resort to the claim that it is a magical law of supernatural origin, which it obviously is not.

If one keeps these two facts in mind, then 80% of what the long winded poster of dubious eruditoin opine can be seen for what it is… merely an opinion with as much or as little merit as the reader cares to ascribe to it.

That’s awesome, Mudgely. can you please tell us all where you live? I’d like to come over and take a look at your television, computers, and other such things, see if there’s anything I want. also, if i’m particularly angry when i get there, i might hit you. maybe even if I’m not angry. of course, since everything is nothing and all morality is a human invention, you won’t have much to say about either.

 

[michelleds]

I am specifically referring to people of the same sex. What would be wrong with two people of the same sex being absolutely devoted to each other and loving each other deeply?

Dakota, you keep bringing this up, over and over. is there some reason that you think friendship is immoral or do you actually have something else in mind? You have identified yourself in other posts as having homosexual attractions/inclinations but that you accept the Church’s teaching regarding Chastity. I sense a hidden (perhaps even from yourself, at times) agenda to these questions about friendship. Please remember that we are to avoid near occasions of sin and would be well served to avoid the attachment to the sin as well.

If you are attempting to see just how fine the line can be drawn, to push as close to the edge of the cliff as possible, then I recommend that you re-think your quest.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mudgely,

A truly unique insight - and one that deserves additional thought…

One thought may be that mathmatics, spelling and grammar are concepts that are human inventions. These inventions have only been ascribed to the human mind - because there is no evidence that animals have ever bothered with using their minds for these purposes. In that sense, “objective math errors” is a made up construct, and obviously a red herring for anyone interested in how much 2 + 2 equals. There are those who have been know to proclaim - dare I say, pontificate … that there is an objective answer and that is 4! Ah, beware of that ‘false gravitas’ from some distant authority figure… especially one whose foundation would be from a ‘spooky origin’.

And, of course, spelling and grammar fall into that same category - there simply can not really exist an objective way for how to properly get a thought conveyed to another human being by using the written word. Ah, but let me leave this area and move to one with a clearer end: sports.

I have never seen anyone champion the idea that rules in sports are just a human invention, of no real value and can be taken or left at will. Actually, just the opposite - where total knowledge of the rules is not enough - these rules must be mastered in the application of actual engagement of an oppoent or opposite team. Nuiances, while critical in certain applications are actually secondary to basic rules. For example, in US football, either the player was off-sides before the ball wa snapped or he wasn’t - the playe’s intention do not count. The offending team may have true sorrow, but that does not impact the ref who now announces the penalty in yards - and this according to the rules, too. And, we still have one more concept when it comes to sports -

Winning! Not that is not winning at all costs is the way to go (the members of the opposing team can not be shot by the home team so that they win!) Winning is not only a good idea - it is actively sought - but, that would be winning by the rules… maybe a sporting way of saying that objective morality has been put into rules. Ah, but those rules were really written by ‘spooky’ authority figures who were knowledgeable in math, spelling and grammar - so that their message would be clear to all. It is probably true that football is not inscribed in everyone’s heart (just a few) but fair play and respect for others probably is.

I submit, Mudgely, objective morality really does exist - and, I think you know it does.

God bless

One thing to keep in mind in these discussions is that meaning ascribed to behavior or events is a human invention. It only occurs in the human mind. In that sense, any reference to an “objective morality” is a made up construct, and obviously a red herring which is intended to lend a false gravitas and authority to those who invoke the concept as being foundational or of spooky origin.

This principle also applies to the notion of “Natural Law”, which is another human construction, which when people are unable to back their belief in it by any other means, will resort to the claim that it is a magical law of supernatural origin, which it obviously is not.

If one keeps these two facts in mind, then 80% of what the long winded poster of dubious eruditoin opine can be seen for what it is… merely an opinion with as much or as little merit as the reader cares to ascribe to it.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dakota,

I have been trying to think of an appropriate response … and … ‘bingo!’ two excelent reponses were presented - one by Elizabeth502 and the other by Michelleds… You are really quite fortunate - but, that now must mean you need to respond to these honest posters.

The thought that you have a hidden (OK, Michelleds … even from himself…) agenda has been with me for some time. Your inability to give a concrete example of just what is it you mean is significant. This would surely unmask the ‘theory’ of your question into a very clear set of behaviors. And, you do not want to do that… do you?

One thing, even the most casual observer to this thread would notice, Dakota is that you have a group of people who are sincerely responding to what I believe is a cry for help. The mental picture I have is someone adrift in the water with just a life preserver on. There are various boats out there call their location and you take a deep breath, put your head under the water and shout, “Over here!” This process has been repeated now for some time. Please be advise that people die in the water from hypothermia and not drowning. Just because you are not actively sinking does not mean you are in a safe position.

Some envelopes appear to invite people to push them … and then the envelope breaks and the person is lost. Prudence tells us to back off from the near occasions of sin (even though this other person is: Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent… he is also an occasion of sin!

It is past time to fish or cut bait. Please give an example of what it is you are talking about so this topic can advance.

God bless

I am specifically referring to people of the same sex. What would be wrong with two people of the same sex being absolutely devoted to each other and loving each other deeply?

 

[tonyrey]

The real issue is whether** any** form of sex attraction harms our personality in the long term. If it dictates our way of life to such an extent that **physical pleasure **is the overriding consideration it must be suspect because it means no holds are barred (in more senses than one!). Opposite sex attraction can destroy our health and happiness when it becomes an obsession. Those who submit to same sex attraction are even more vulnerable because it leads to isolation from a normal family life and problems with the opposite sex. The inability to have children of one’s own and enjoy bringing them up is not something to take lightly. The tragedy of homosexuality is that it is not always based on **genuine **same sex attraction but fostered by our cultural environment - which persuades people that our sexual orientation is a matter of choice. The most flagrant example of such conditioning is the notion of bisexuality which is simply an excuse for having sexual relations with anyone who happens to meet our expectations…

 

[Elizabeth502]

Those who submit to same sex attraction are even more vulnerable because it leads to isolation from a normal family life and problems with the opposite sex.

And any profound imbalance in our lives, especially in the most fundamental areas necessary for human happiness – areas such as love relationships, attachments – bring with them a propensity to distortion: distortion of perception, distortion of what we define as “need,” distortion of growth in the fullness of our humanity. Genuine love expands us; it does not contract us. There is an expansiveness not only in the natural procreation to which tony aludes, but also in the gender inclusivity of that, which also promotes that openness.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

(Not addressed to me.)

Answer: nothing. It’s called friendship. This is also what extraordinary sibling relationships are characterized by.


Let’s bring back true friendship – both a lost virtue in society and a lost art.

True friendship in the Modern World is a rather dead and gone thing, these days “friends” are people you talk to when you have nothing better to do, how sad eh? But even for those who are far more than that they still are only but a trace of what it was. People loved each other and were intimate once upon a time, they fully understood that sex is utterly unnecessary for love of any sort. Marriage is breaking because now because people no longer have true friends, they are taught that the person they marry will complete them. People can’t really sustain being an another person’s presence 24/7 for years and years, is it any wonder why people burn out and can’t stand each other? That kind of flawed thought is also what lead to people to think that marriage’s definition should be expanded, that we are unfairly denying people happiness. The family is the building block of society, but what good are bricks without mortar?

Dakota, you keep bringing this up, over and over. is there some reason that you think friendship is immoral or do you actually have something else in mind? You have identified yourself in other posts as having homosexual attractions/inclinations but that you accept the Church’s teaching regarding Chastity. I sense a hidden (perhaps even from yourself, at times) agenda to these questions about friendship. Please remember that we are to avoid near occasions of sin and would be well served to avoid the attachment to the sin as well.

If you are attempting to see just how fine the line can be drawn, to push as close to the edge of the cliff as possible, then I recommend that you re-think your quest.

Why would I think friendship is immoral?
Near occasions of sin? How could you cause someone you truly love to sin? I can’t think of anything more unloving them using someone for your own sexual gratification. How could someone think that something that is mortal sinful could possibly be an expression of love? I have no desire whatsoever for sex anyway, the idea is morally repugnant. What attachment to sin?

Hi, Dakota,

I have been trying to think of an appropriate response … and … ‘bingo!’ two excelent reponses were presented - one by Elizabeth502 and the other by Michelleds… You are really quite fortunate - but, that now must mean you need to respond to these honest posters.

The thought that you have a hidden (OK, Michelleds … even from himself…) agenda has been with me for some time. Your inability to give a concrete example of just what is it you mean is significant. This would surely unmask the ‘theory’ of your question into a very clear set of behaviors. And, you do not want to do that… do you?

One thing, even the most casual observer to this thread would notice, Dakota is that you have a group of people who are sincerely responding to what I believe is a cry for help. The mental picture I have is someone adrift in the water with just a life preserver on. There are various boats out there call their location and you take a deep breath, put your head under the water and shout, “Over here!” This process has been repeated now for some time. Please be advise that people die in the water from hypothermia and not drowning. Just because you are not actively sinking does not mean you are in a safe position.

Some envelopes appear to invite people to push them … and then the envelope breaks and the person is lost. Prudence tells us to back off from the near occasions of sin (even though this other person is: Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent… he is also an occasion of sin!

It is past time to fish or cut bait. Please give an example of what it is you are talking about so this topic can advance.

God bless

How about Englishmen during the Middle Ages as an example? The absurd devotion of Amis and Amiloun perchance?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dakota,

Without a doubt this is truly a unique set of responses. The way I see it, you appear to both whine, be self-contradictory and evade direct answers simultaneously. There is no real effort that I can detect to advance this topic. So, let’s take a look at what you have presented:

True friendship in the Modern World is a rather dead and gone thing, these days “friends” are people you talk to when you have nothing better to do, how sad eh? But even for those who are far more than that they still are only but a trace of what it was.

So, here is your obituary for ‘True Friendship’… and you are correct, such a description is very sad, indeed. But, don’t expect many people to buy into this self-indulgent view of disordered human relationships as typical. Now, it may be that you have nothiing better to do, but that is strictly your self-absorbed perception, that honestly sounds like whining to me.

People loved each other and were intimate once upon a time, they fully understood that sex is utterly unnecessary for love of any sort. Marriage is breaking because now because people no longer have true friends, they are taught that the person they marry will complete them. People can’t really sustain being an another person’s presence 24/7 for years and years, is it any wonder why people burn out and can’t stand each other?

Here is a personal note for you: in December, my wife and I will have been married for 41 years… or almost 15,000 days…and you know, she still, ‘… teaches the torches to burn bright’! Actually, I am guessing that you have not heard many success stories - but, I want you to know that not only are they out there … you can be one of them in your own way. Of course, this means dropping this pathologic view of genuinely positive human relationships and moving on to develop a healthy and ordered relationship.

Why would I think friendship is immoral?
Near occasions of sin? How could you cause someone you truly love to sin?

Here is the example of being self-contradictory concerning friendship - especially when viewed in light of your opening paragraph. Many of the posters have been asking you what do you mean - and you still can not rise to provide an answer. Just more questions that continue to evade a straight forward answer. You will never make your position understandable if you continue in this manner - and it certainly is not advancing this topic thread. Of course, this implies that you want to be understood and advance this topic - and this is just an assumption on my part. It may be that these posts have developed into a form of gamesmanship with demands for ever increasing amounts of sympathy. This is not the same as asking for help.

How about Englishmen during the Middle Ages as an example? The absurd devotion of Amis and Amiloun perchance?

This is a truly tragic fictional poem - and, not even close to coming up with an appropriate response. More evasion. At this point I really have to ask why you are continuing on with these ‘duck and weave’ responses as your sorely abuse other posters. I submit that because you have not advanced this topic and have shown no change in the way you respond to others that you consider why you are continuing to post. In my opinion, no one is apparently wringing their hands as you trash stable marriage and ordered relationships and productive societies. Maybe this is a wake up call.

God bless

 

[John21652]

One thing to keep in mind in these discussions is that meaning ascribed to behavior or events is a human invention. It only occurs in the human mind. In that sense, any reference to an “objective morality” is a made up construct, and obviously a red herring which is intended to lend a false gravitas and authority to those who invoke the concept as being foundational or of spooky origin.

Woo Hoo, Mudgely’s back on deck!
And with more errant nonsense!!

C’mon Mudgely, you know very well that there are “objective facts”. One of them keeps you firmly rooted to the ground. And yes, it does indeed take a human mind to figure out what it is, conceptualise it and give it a name. Wonderful thing, the human mind.

This principle also applies to the notion of “Natural Law”, which is another human construction, which when people are unable to back their belief in it by any other means, will resort to the claim that it is a magical law of supernatural origin, which it obviously is not.

It is human intellectual categorisation of what is to be found in the world we live in Mudgely. By the way, you don’t need to believe in God to be able to discern the Natural Law. Like I said, wonderful thing, the human mind. You should try opening yours up a bit more!!

If one keeps these two facts in mind, then 80% of what the long winded poster of dubious eruditoin opine can be seen for what it is… merely an opinion with as much or as little merit as the reader cares to ascribe to it.

You deny the existence of facts pertaining to the real world, yet then have the audacity to tell us about the “facts” of your opinion.

Oh, Mudgely, too funny…

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Hi, Dakota,

Without a doubt this is truly a unique set of responses. The way I see it, you appear to both whine, be self-contradictory and evade direct answers simultaneously. There is no real effort that I can detect to advance this topic. So, let’s take a look at what you have presented:

So, here is your obituary for ‘True Friendship’… and you are correct, such a description is very sad, indeed. But, don’t expect many people to buy into this self-indulgent view of disordered human relationships as typical. Now, it may be that you have nothiing better to do, but that is strictly your self-absorbed perception, that honestly sounds like whining to me.

Here is a personal note for you: in December, my wife and I will have been married for 41 years… or almost 15,000 days…and you know, she still, ‘… teaches the torches to burn bright’! Actually, I am guessing that you have not heard many success stories - but, I want you to know that not only are they out there … you can be one of them in your own way. Of course, this means dropping this pathologic view of genuinely positive human relationships and moving on to develop a healthy and ordered relationship.

Here is the example of being self-contradictory concerning friendship - especially when viewed in light of your opening paragraph. Many of the posters have been asking you what do you mean - and you still can not rise to provide an answer. Just more questions that continue to evade a straight forward answer. You will never make your position understandable if you continue in this manner - and it certainly is not advancing this topic thread. Of course, this implies that you want to be understood and advance this topic - and this is just an assumption on my part. It may be that these posts have developed into a form of gamesmanship with demands for ever increasing amounts of sympathy. This is not the same as asking for help.

This is a truly tragic fictional poem - and, not even close to coming up with an appropriate response. More evasion. At this point I really have to ask why you are continuing on with these ‘duck and weave’ responses as your sorely abuse other posters. I submit that because you have not advanced this topic and have shown no change in the way you respond to others that you consider why you are continuing to post. In my opinion, no one is apparently wringing their hands as you trash stable marriage and ordered relationships and productive societies. Maybe this is a wake up call.

God bless

That’s a general observation of teenagers and adults, the 30 and under crowd is really screwed up. I actually have rather good relationships with my friends, but it holds nary a candle to what once was.

One set of grandparents celebrated their fiftieth this year and another set celebrated their sixtieth several years ago, the first set has a rather large set of friends which is part of how they stay sane and I’ve witnessed the latter set’s relationship deteriorate in part because they have been spending nearly all their time together (the family has scattered quite a bit and many of their friends have died as you can imagine). So I do in fact know of couples that have been together quite a while, but my worry is about the younger generations, having seen what has become of San Francisco. Do you spend much time with other friends?

I was specifically addressing “Please remember that we are to avoid near occasions of sin and would be well served to avoid the attachment to the sin as well.”

No, that’s a romance (well, more of an Anglicized chanson de geste). If you think it’s tragic you really need to read it as it isn’t at all. The epic actually has an existing societal structure known as sworn friendship as the centrepiece which sets in motion the events. To understand sworn friendship you really have to pick up Alan Bray’s The Friend which is the authoritative book on the subject, in a way the Eucharist is the focal point of the book. Here’s a short article on it. (To reiterate my point I’m referring to the devotion two people shared which can be seen with the societal structure of sworn brotherhood.)

 

[Sair]

That’s awesome, Mudgely. can you please tell us all where you live? I’d like to come over and take a look at your television, computers, and other such things, see if there’s anything I want. also, if i’m particularly angry when i get there, i might hit you. maybe even if I’m not angry. of course, since everything is nothing and all morality is a human invention, you won’t have much to say about either.

So, um…since when did you stop being human?

 

[tonyrey]

That’s a general observation of teenagers and adults, the 30 and under crowd is really screwed up. I actually have rather good relationships with my friends, but it holds nary a candle to what once was.

One set of grandparents celebrated their fiftieth this year and another set celebrated their sixtieth several years ago, the first set has a rather large set of friends which is part of how they stay sane and I’ve witnessed the latter set’s relationship deteriorate in part because they have been spending nearly all their time together (the family has scattered quite a bit and many of their friends have died as you can imagine). So I do in fact know of couples that have been together quite a while, but my worry is about the younger generations, having seen what has become of San Francisco. Do you spend much time with other friends?

I was specifically addressing “Please remember that we are to avoid near occasions of sin and would be well served to avoid the attachment to the sin as well.”

No, that’s a romance (well, more of an Anglicized chanson de geste). If you think it’s tragic you really need to read it as it isn’t at all. The epic actually has an existing societal structure known as sworn friendship as the centrepiece which sets in motion the events. To understand sworn friendship you really have to pick up Alan Bray’s The Friend which is the authoritative book on the subject, in a way the Eucharist is the focal point of the book. Here’s a short article on it. (To reiterate my point I’m referring to the devotion two people shared which can be seen with the societal structure of sworn brotherhood.)

Thank you for the reference to that fascinating and moving article which underlines the fact that it is only in our sex-obsessed society that chaste love between individuals of either sex is not only possible but essential if our lives are to be fulfilled. There is a vast difference between regarding a man or a woman as a sex-object and a person…

 

[Sair]

Indeed, sex is primarily for reproduction, notwithstanding your note on the incidence of pregnancy in the total number of human copulations. Incidentally, if there were not many couples contracepting and bisexuals were to choose to have intercourse with members of the opposite sex instead of the same sex (people of such orientation can’t say they don’t have a choice to which sex they get attracted!), the incidence of pregnancy would certainly be higher, no?

But who is going to cull the excess humans, as we humans have decided it’s better for populations of other animals if their numbers are decreased? Are we the only animals who are privileged to have an indefinite environmental impact? What moral rule is this?

Sure, sex between a male and female can result in reproduction (less often than not, but anyway…) and sex evolved as a means of reproduction. You’re still confusing this with teleology, in supposing that there was an overarching intention that sex must always be used for reproductive purposes. That’s a bit like saying that hair should always and only be used for insulation…

In the three living generations with mine, the pattern mostly is that when one finds his/her mate, one looks forward to beget and raise children.

Yes, that is the standard narrative.

It is said and there is truth in that children are our future.

Undoubtedly. But if every human couple procreates, how are all these children to survive? Where are resources to be found without depriving anyone - since all humans are supposed to be - morally - equally valuable? You might notice that in the wild, animals that are prolific procreators are so because only a small fraction of their offspring actually survive to reproduce in their turn. We humans have so shaped the world (at least in the West) that the majority of our children survive to reproduce, whilst at the same time ensuring that our elders survive to a ripe old age. Not saying these things are bad in and of themselves - quite the opposite - but it does call into question the supposedly burning need to reproduce that we ‘must’ all carry because it’s a biological imperative. Indeed, those who panic about what they call “demographic winter” are only concerned with economic production, generation of funds, not with the quality of life of those who are already here, through no choice of their own. But that is a subject for another thread, really.

Sure, there are married or cohabiting couples who engage in regular sex without the thought of children ever getting in the picture or their plans, those without sterility issues. They contracept, making the choice of denying the life giving aspect of lovemaking, the unitive part of sex which still traditionally is deemed to be possible only between a man and a woman.

Oh, I see. So now sex can only be unitive if it is life-giving? Does that mean every couple should throw caution to the wind and say, “Oh, well - God will provide”? Capitalists beware…

We operate from different definitions and have different sets of boundaries. In your worldview, the primary reason couples have sex is NOT reproduction but for social bonding and pleasure.

I would suggest that it’s only the advent of settled civilisation that has allowed for the separation of pleasure, bonding and reproduction in sexual interaction. Back in the day, when humans lived in cooperation with nature (mostly because we had no choice), our reproductive capacity was shaped by environmental concerns, and by the necessities of lifestyle. Even in present-day foraging societies, girls reach reproductive maturity later than girls in settled societies, and they have fewer children, on average, since breastfeeding (which, amongst foragers, goes on for far longer than it generally does in Western society) interferes with the ability to fall pregnant. There would thus be many occasions on which pregnancy could not result from sexual intercourse. On the other hand, sexual intimacy tends to result in bonding between partners, due to shared pleasure, mutual vulnerability, hormones and so on. In fact, it is my personal belief that it is only the ‘norm’ of monogamy (springing, as some have suggested it does, from settled agrarian culture) that has allowed for such tragedies as broken homes and single parents, in which sexual partners have disavowed responsibility for their offspring because their partner wasn’t “the one.”

Deriving sensual pleasure and sharing intimacy with one’s partner in expressing love is not being denied in this debate on same sex attraction as a meaningful and classifiable as a genuine human sexuality. It is an important aspect but is still secondary to the procreative purpose of sex. That is what I’m saying and so have others in their posts to you upthread…

The point, or so I gather, is not whether homosexual interaction is a ‘primary’ purpose of human sexuality, but only whether it is an ‘objective’ one - that is, one that has a discernible, empirically evaluable outcome that is beneficial to humans. Of course, there are many who would claim that the only ‘objective’ purpose of sexual interaction of any kind is procreation, but in my view, that is a terribly narrow outlook that denies the variety inherent in any species, not just humans.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Thank you for the reference to that fascinating and moving article which underlines the fact that it is only in our sex-obsessed society that chaste love between individuals of either sex is not only possible but essential if our lives are to be fulfilled. There is a vast difference between regarding a man or a woman as a sex-object and a person…

I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you’re saying at sll

 

[tqualey]

Hi, John21652,

I am half expecting an effort to repeal the Law of Gravity … after all, only subjectivity should be considered as real.

Fasten your seat belts…

God bless

Woo Hoo, Mudgely’s back on deck!
And with more errant nonsense!!

C’mon Mudgely, you know very well that there are “objective facts”. One of them keeps you firmly rooted to the ground. And yes, it does indeed take a human mind to figure out what it is, conceptualise it and give it a name. Wonderful thing, the human mind.

It is human intellectual categorisation of what is to be found in the world we live in Mudgely. By the way, you don’t need to believe in God to be able to discern the Natural Law. Like I said, wonderful thing, the human mind. You should try opening yours up a bit more!!

You deny the existence of facts pertaining to the real world, yet then have the audacity to tell us about the “facts” of your opinion.

Oh, Mudgely, too funny…