Defining Morality

[MSizer]

LOL

OK, but why is it not immoral?
1) All concerned individuals are consenting to the act.
2) All concerned individuals are of legal age.
3) Risk of STD's is minimized through contraception.
4) There is very little chance of causing physical harm.

Agreed?

I think #1 is critical, #2 is critical, but I'd prefer to say that they are of a certain capcity of mind (meaning they're mature enough and healthy of mind enough to understand the consequences of their actions). I think #3 is advisable but not a factor when evaluating morality (although it would be immoral if one knew s/he had an STD but failed to disclose it), and # 4 does not matter, as it should be rendered unnecessary by #s 1 & 2.

8^)

 

[tumbleweed41]

I think #1 is critical, #2 is critical, but I'd prefer to say that they are of a certain capcity of mind (meaning they're mature enough and healthy of mind enough to understand the consequences of their actions). I think #3 is advisable but not a factor when evaluating morality (although it would be immoral if one knew s/he had an STD but failed to disclose it), and # 4 does not matter, as it should be rendered unnecessary by #s 1 & 2.

8^)

I can agree with that.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Now if we change it slightly to read...

Is safe-sex between two consenting unmarried legal adults of the same sex immoral?

Do we come up with the same results?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Now if we change it slightly to read...

Is safe-sex between two consenting unmarried legal adults of the same sex immoral?

Do we come up with the same results?

1) All concerned individuals are consenting to the act.
2) All concerned individuals are of legal age.
3) All concerned individuals are mature enough and healthy of mind enough to understand the consequences of their actions.

So therefore, same sex sexual relations would be considered moral.

Agreed?

 

[tumbleweed41]

So, outside of religious dogma, it would be reasonable to place the act of homosexual sex as not being immoral.
In fact, by encouraging stability and monogamy in homosexual relationships through legalized marriage, we would be increasing morality by discouraging promiscuity that can lead to the hurting of a partner emotionally, as well as limiting the physical danger of STD transmittance.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

So, outside of religious dogma, it would be reasonable to place the act of homosexual sex as not being immoral.
In fact, by encouraging stability and monogamy in homosexual relationships through legalized marriage, we would be increasing morality by discouraging promiscuity that can lead to the hurting of a partner emotionally, as well as limiting the physical danger of STD transmittance.

The underlined part is overreaching, just a bit.

Marriage means little more today than a choice when considering what is financially best for taxes and other benefits. And offers very little of what you suggest above. 100 years ago maybe, but not today IMO.

 

[MSizer]

So, outside of religious dogma, it would be reasonable to place the act of homosexual sex as not being immoral.
In fact, by encouraging stability and monogamy in homosexual relationships through legalized marriage, we would be increasing morality by discouraging promiscuity that can lead to the hurting of a partner emotionally, as well as limiting the physical danger of STD transmittance.

Yes, I agree, it is highly unethical to treat homosexual people differently than heterosexual people. However, you say "outside of religious dogma" in your post. I don't agree that religious dogma determines what is ethical. Religious dogma is a list of descriptions of opinions of certain people of what is ethical, but it is not necessarily always correct.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The underlined part is overreaching, just a bit.

Marriage means little more today than a choice when considering what is financially best for taxes and other benefits. And offers very little of what you suggest above. 100 years ago maybe, but not today IMO.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Marriage is recognized as a responsibility to your partner and resulting family. An official marriage has a much better chance of survival than a common law partnership.

 

[MSizer]

I disagree wholeheartedly. Marriage is recognized as a responsibility to your partner and resulting family. An official marriage has a much better chance of survival than a common law partnership.

I think you're both correct, depending on the people involved. I agree with itwillend that marriage was considered more sacred by most people in the past, although I don't know that's necessarily good for humanity. I think that many people lived in bad marriages because they didn't have the commitment tumbleweed is talking about, but didn't consider it an option to divorce. Unfortunately, the wider acceptance of divorce also opens the can for people to give up easily, and I think people can cheat themselves that way too. But, surely there are people who do value commitment the way tumbleweed describes it (me for one) and my marriage is not recognized by the gov't or by any church. I don't care - they're not married to me, my wife is.

 

[imaginaryme]

While you seem to display an intelligent front, the speed with which you respond and post hurts what would normally be a respectable post.

Holy Guacamole, Batman! Clear thought is a sin! We're all going to burn!

Here's my philosophy. When two people of obvious intelligence (MSizer and itwillend) have to dance around the proscribed idiocy of "political correctness," the only resultant is greater complexity - word salad, when a few simple words would do. Why?

Everything exists between sympathetic alignment and desire. Morality is merely another form of law used to structure society, and nothing more; it has no "intrinsic worth." Do we spend our days tormenting ourselves with senseless moral questions based upon chains of causality that can't even be processed by the fastest computers on the planet? We subscribe to different philosophies and religions due to sympathetic alignment - that what is said by another "speaks directly to our soul." We feed our children before our neighbors children as a function of desire. It is truly "in error" to completely separate philosophy from science, as they have been wed "in holy matrimony" through the symbolic language of mathematics - and what god has wrought, let no man break asunder. You have been warned... :devil:

Don't sweat the evil; I'm evil. I exist solely to "elevate all mankind in the name of Gwyneth Paltrow." Today is Horus day... what are you doing? :angel2:

 

[imaginaryme]

I think you're both correct, depending on the people involved. I agree with itwillend that marriage was considered more sacred by most people in the past, although I don't know that's necessarily good for humanity. I think that many people lived in bad marriages because they didn't have the commitment tumbleweed is talking about, but didn't consider it an option to divorce. Unfortunately, the wider acceptance of divorce also opens the can for people to give up easily, and I think people can cheat themselves that way too. But, surely there are people who do value commitment the way tumbleweed describes it (me for one) and my marriage is not recognized by the gov't or by any church. I don't care - they're not married to me, my wife is.

In my opinion, it is a question of "the spirit of the law," vs. "the letter of the law." The letter of the law works as a function of capitalism, the spirit of the law works as a function of the natural order of things. We are, in essence, monogamous. Polygamy is only expressed as status - even the Sultan has a favorite wife. By the letter, I am single, and probably doomed to remain so. By the spirit, I am wed to Gwyneth Paltrow - and that is never going to change.