God is real

[ubs]

Sternwallow wrote

IMV homosexuality is considered immoral because ancient people had no way to understand how benign it is or how it comes about. They only know that it is an anomaly that they don't understand and that makes it, prima facie, a threat to all.

After watching the yearning for zion crowd, I am convinced that left to their own devices dominant males will seek any means available for culling the heard of other males.

And pubescents with some identifiable "difference" be it rebellion, appearance, or sexual orientation would make an easy target for banishment.

[Sternwallow]

thomastwo wrote

In many societies over many centuries there clearly has been an issue regarding the morality of homosexuality. That much is clear.

Why don't you answer the question of why there has been a problem ?

Fear of the unknown coupled with a secret and perceived shameful attraction for it probably both contribute to people wanting it to be banned by the highest authority thought to be available.

[ubs]

Sternwallow wrote

Fear of the unknown coupled with a secret and perceived shameful attraction ...

That argument is circular.

[thomastwo]

Sternwallow wrote

Yes, those anxieties might be genetic (they are simple fear of the unknown which is inherited) and that does not at all make the expression of these anxieties valid or socially beneficial morals.

OK, but apart from morals driven through genetics what else is there that could be used to determine if a particular moral stance is valid or socially beneficial (other than personal opinion) ?

[thomastwo]

Sternwallow wrote

Stealing, if permitted, would risk the stability and even the survival of a society so it is reasonable for it to be prohibited. Some might call such a prohibition "morality" though that would be unnecessarily dramatic.

What is morality other than what one ought to do ? Presuming that one ought not do what is prohibited in law, I'd say that made it moral. No drama required.

Or maybe you have some other definition of moral ?

[Tenspace]

After re-reading what I wrote, I wanted to clarify, that I don't think homosexuality is a fight or flee fear, like that of spiders or snakes. I consider it to be more of the inverse of mate attraction, a traith that gives us hetero guys that "yuck" feeling when we think about sex with another man.

[Irreligious]

thomastwo wrote

OK, so just to make sure I'm tracking your argument. Morality can be due to either group survival (genetic) or alternatively due to an expression of societal anxiety about differences ? Do you think that perhaps those anxieties about differences are also related to group survival - i.e. genetic ?

It's not an either/or thing. I said there are many reasons why some behaviors are considered "cosmic" offenses by some people. The question is: Are they really offenses against some unseen deity?

You're asking me to explain to you why the various Powers That Be (or Were) across various civilizations and spanning epochs would have decreed that two men having sex with each other is/was "immoral." Again, the simple answer is, as you put it, that it caused them anxiety.

Well, historically, we humans have been and continue to be an anxious lot. There are so many things that cause us anxiety, though the anixety-producers are, by no means, universal.

The sexual attractiveness of woman, for instance, seemd to cause anxiety for the early practitioners of Islam (and many, many modern adherents of the religion). Hence, just viewing any uncovered part of the female of the species was considered "immoral" by them. The Polynesians of the South Pacific-- as an example of a group that tolerated their women walking around bare-breasted-- were not similarly afflicted. Did that make the Polynesians "immoral?" Was an invisible god offended by their sensibilities?

Little more than half a century ago, the sight of a black man and a white woman together caused some white people in my country great anxiety. These devoutly religious folks had long ago decided that it was "immoral" for a black man and white woman to be sexually involved. Their interpretation of what was "moral" and what was "immoral" justified a range of violent and oppressive measures that they took to ensure that their god was not offended by licentious black men and white whores. Do you think God was pleased by their efforts to keep him from being offended?

[Irreligious]

thomastwo wrote

OK, so morality is nothing more than social coercion ? You don't think there is any sense in which say stealing is immoral, other than that the "authorities" want to control you ?

If I stole from you, I would be causing you concrete harm. The results of my action might cause your children to go hungry or make it difficult for you to pay the rent.

What harm am I causing you by having a consenual sexual relationship with another man who is not you? If you are not harmed by my actions and neither is anyone else, why is it any of your business or anyone else's?

[thomastwo]

Tenspace wrote

After re-reading what I wrote, I wanted to clarify, that I don't think homosexuality is a fight or flee fear, like that of spiders or snakes. I consider it to be more of the inverse of mate attraction, a traith that gives us hetero guys that "yuck" feeling when we think about sex with another man.

Are you saying that aversion to homosexuality might also be a genetic trait ? And that therefore homsexuality being considered immoral is something that is probably unavoidable ?

I think I'd prefer to think that our morality while it may be influenced by our genetics should be seperate from it. For example, a guy with high-testosterone levels may be more likely to be an adulterer, but for me that doesn't make the adultery less immoral for that person. It seems to me that it's the action not the inclination that defines morality.

[thomastwo]

Irreligious wrote

If I stole from you, I would be causing you concrete harm. The results of my action might cause your children to go hungry or make it difficult for you to pay the rent.

What harm am I causing you by having a consenual sexual relationship with another man who is not you? If you are not harmed by my actions and neither is anyone else, why is it any of your business or anyone else's?

So, then your argument now is that immorality is defined as an action that causes harm ? I thought you said that morality was a function of group survival and genetics ? I'm struggling to keep up with your position.

[Irreligious]

thomastwo wrote

For the purposes of this argument the cause is not relevant. The only relevant point is that it is considered a moral issue. My only question is regarding the source of morality, i.e. why do humans have a common concept that there is a correct and an incorrect way to behave ?

How in your worldview do you explain the existence of morality. Homosexuality is just a case in point. Why in your worldview is it a moral issue ?

Others in this thread have suggested that morality is an evolutionary by-product related to the need for group survival. If that's the case then doesn't that suggest that homosexuality (or anything else considered immoral by a group) should be something that negatively impacts group survival.

Also, doesn't this theory suggest that morality would be genetic ? What would the implications be for morality if it was genetic in nature ?

thomastwo, I am not a scientist, and neither are you, apparently. I think you are making a grave error in assuming that there is some strict biological code that evolved in humans which makes the species universally uncomfortable with homosexuality. That is what you seem to be suggesting and, clearly, you are out of your depth on the topic. Frankly, I would be, too, if I wanted to go there with you.

My point is, the way you are framing your argument is not scientific. That much, I can figure out.

[thomastwo]

Irreligious wrote

It's not an either/or thing. I said there are many reasons why some behaviors are considered "cosmic" offenses by some people. The question is: Are they really offenses against some unseen deity?

You're asking me to explain to you why the various Powers That Be (or Were) across various civilizations and spanning epochs would have decreed that two men having sex with each other is/was "immoral." Again, the simple answer is, as you put it, that it caused them anxiety.

Well, historically, we humans have been and continue to be an anxious lot. There are so many things that cause us anxiety, though the anixety-producers are, by no means, universal.

The sexual attractiveness of woman, for instance, seemd to cause anxiety for the early practitioners of Islam (and many, many modern adherents of the religion). Hence, just viewing any uncovered part of the female of the species was considered "immoral" by them. The Polynesians of the South Pacific-- as an example of a group that tolerated their women walking around bare-breasted-- were not similarly afflicted. Did that make the Polynesians "immoral?" Was an invisible god offended by their sensibilities?

Little more than half a century ago, the sight of a black man and a white woman together caused some white people in my country great anxiety. These devoutly religious folks had long ago decided that it was "immoral" for a black man and white woman to be sexually involved. Their interpretation of what was "moral" and what was "immoral" justified a range of violent and oppressive measures that they took to ensure that their god was not offended by licentious black men and white whores. Do you think God was pleased by their efforts to keep him from being offended?

I think you sort of skipped my question. What is the cause of the societal anxieties that you are proposing as a source of morality ? Is it about group survival (genetic) or does it have some other cause ?

[Irreligious]

thomastwo wrote

So, then your argument now is that immorality is defined as an action that causes harm ? I thought you said that morality was a function of group survival and genetics ? I'm struggling to keep up with your position.

No, thomastwo, that is what you keep suggesting. I already told you that morality is like God. We made it up.

[thomastwo]

Irreligious wrote

thomastwo, I am not a scientist, and neither are you, apparently. I think you are making a grave error in assuming that there is some strict biological code that evolved in humans which makes the species universally uncomfortable with homosexuality. That is what you seem to be suggesting and, clearly, you are out of your depth on the topic. Frankly, I would be, too, if I wanted to go there with you.

My point is, the way you are framing your argument is not scientific. That much, I can figure out.

Woah, stop just a minute. I'm just asking you what is your proposal for why humans beings even have the concept of morality. I'm trying to propose possible positions that I might hold if I was you. If you've got some other coherent explanation I'm happy to hear it.

[thomastwo]

Irreligious wrote

No, thomastwo, that is what you keep suggesting. I already told you that morality is like God. We made it up.

Yes, but why ? What is your reason why we did that ?