Gods? Kewl.

But what if God ordained there be homosexuals?

He did. He also commanded them to behave morally. Theirs is a tough row to hoe.

And He also commanded the same of heterosexuals.

Calvin called man "an idol factory". Idolatry (and its main expression, pride) are given the worst rebukes in Scripture, not any of the 'dirty' sins that get so much airplay today.

Idolatry is easy to understand when someone kneels before a totem or an icon or a statue, but much harder to see when a modern (or post-modern) tries to define religion on his own terms.

I was stunned when George Stephanopolous asked Robinson about the accusation of idolatry. Maybe he borrowed that question from George Will. But man today thinks he is incapable of idolatry, and that is why it is more common (and bound deeper) than in the ancient world. Worshiping a fish-god is easy to reject if the statue keeps falling off the pedestal; worshiping sexuality, tolerance, science, even freedom, are more difficult to get away from because there is too much pride involved.

Gay sex is, in and of itself, not immoral, so the "tough row" must be the risk of getting beaten up by some less-moral straight folk.

Michael:

You would have a hard time getting many, many religious folks to agree with the statement: "Straight sex is, in and of itself, not immoral". So I guess the tough row for the heteros to hoe is being chased by some angry father or being dinged with lifelong child support. Appalling, eh? There oughta be a civil right here somewhere.

Well, Peter, is straight sex immoral?

Straight sex can be, but anal sex always is.

Jeff:

Often--just ask most women. I'm not sure I would go along with Orrin's physically graphic and categorical approach, but I'm not sure I wouldn't either.

I doubt you would disagree in principle, although we wouldn't come close on what constitutes immoral exploitation, how to recognize it and who decides.

I assume you are heading towards asking me whether it is fair to close off gay sex completely while allowing and even celebrating hetero sex in certain circumstances. Apart from scriptural authority, which I assume you wouldn't acknowledge, I'm against anything that offends natural selection, compromises fitness and leads to extinction!

Peter:

I think a rather larger discussion on what is immoral, and why, is in order.

According to the Catholic Church, any sex not open to the possibility of procreation is always immoral.

Now, as it happens, and at the risk of providing too much information, I have had a vasectomy. So, according to the Catholic Church, everytime my wife and I engage in marital relations, we immoral, committing a sin before God.

It seems to me that a sin is a sin, and immoral is immoral. So my wife and I are just as immoral as a gay couple, right?

And if not, why not?

Jeff:

Presumably sex between you and your wife is not premised on mutual degradation, as is anal sex, so you should be okay.

For a Christian to object to degradation is rich.

Is self-flagellation degrading?

If not, why not?

Harry:

Yes.

Jeff/Harry:

Nice try. I never said that sex not directed at procreation is immoral, and I do not believe that. Although I am not Catholic, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that that is not the current Catholic position. PJ, you had better get in here fast.

OJ:

I wasn't asking your opinion, was discussing Catholic morality. Which is pretty adamant on this point.

How adamant? After the Falklands war, the Catholic Church refused to marry an injured war veteran and the nurse he fell in love with. Why? Because his injuries precluded his having children.

Now, why is sex within the confines of marriage, but without the possibility of procreation, sinful?

Peter--you can bet John Paul II hasn't relaxed Church position on this one.

Jeff:

The couple may not act so as to prevent procreation, but need not have procreation in mind.

OJ:

Putting together all the statements I've seen you make regarding sex: Gay male sex involves mutual degradation, (even though anal sex is not necessarily performed), straight sex involves unilateral degradation and dominance, and masterbation leads to longer life.
Given that, it seems that lesbian sex would be the most moral kind.

Peter B.:

I am of the opinion that any organization that codifies the concept that sex is inherently immoral, is anti-human and self-loathing.

OJ:

I specifically acted--with my wife's consent--to avoid procreation. Therefore, in the Catholic Churches eyes, making for us anything other than marital celibacy immoral and sinful.

What test for immorality or sinfulness gets one to that conclusion?

Interestingly, I read recently that one of Pres. Reagan's letters contained the same conclusion as Michael's above.

Michael:

I agree. But I am of the opinion that any creed that fails to recognize that sex can be a destructive, life-ruining force and that the good life implies discipline, outward-looking love and sacrifice with respect to it is dangerous, selfish hedonism.

Jeff:

It's a form of selfishness--sex for your own pleasure rather than for the purpose God commanded: to go forth and multiply.

As I understand such things, not being Catholic either, it's a venial rather than a mortal sin.

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/venial+sin

It's Catholic doctrine, not Judeo-Christian morality.

http://www.cornerstonemag.com/pages/show_page.asp?200

Michael:

Close. Straight sex is based on natural dominance. But, I've got no major problem with lesbians.

Peter:

Let me get this straight, then: the morality of heterosexual sex solely due to its context.

OJ:

I never said it was J-C morality, but it certainly is Catholic Doctrine.

But it does lead one to wonder how fully thought out the question of morality is. Taken at face value, the only moral context for sexuality is for my wife to bear as many children as she can before dropping dead of sheer exhaustion.

Never mind the sheer illogic of it. For that conduct to be selfish, I would have to be depriving somebody of something. Who, of what?

The point I am leading to is that defining sexual morality in any other way than the context within which it takes place risks complete incoherence.

Jeff:

The world. Of people.

Self-flagellation is accounted a high form of Christian morality, and the pope you admire so much agrees.

Therefore, you'll have to find a different argument against gay sex besides that it is degrading. Being degraded is part of our Judeo-Christian heritage.

Catholic, not Christian.

I'm still looking for some coherence on this sexual morality thing.

That sure didn't supply it.

Jeff:

No, you are not looking for coherence. You are looking for scientific, rote, all-or-nothing certainty, and you won't get it. In a sense, you are like the medieval church in that you demand particular, concrete and universal definitions of what is right and wrong, easily recognizable in all circumstances. The difference is you want this to mock and undercut morality whereas they wanted it to support and enforce it.

Peter B:

Sure, like any other appetite, sex can be a force for evil.

Michael:

So why don't we talk about it that way? Why do we talk about it as if it was all about healthy self-fulfillment to be engaged in whenever and on whatever terms strike our fancy.

Peter:

That is the problem. The conservative side of this argument treats the act as a moral choice, when it isn't. And completely neglects the context within which the act takes place, which is where the moral choice lies.

A challenge I laid down in a previous post was to come up with some sort of morality litmus test, other than a laundry list, which would put heterosexuality per se in the moral category, and homosexuality in the immoral category. I doubt one can do it.

That is because it is the context that defines morality, not the act. Heck, even killing can sometimes be moral, given the right context.

Unfortunately, religious conservatives seem to lose complete sight of that distinction. Instead of risking thinking about the issue, they base their judgment on some conclave of Jewish elders in 500 or so BC that came up with some 600 commandments. Are they all the word of God? Is the entire Bible literally the word of God?

All behaviors are moral choices--that's the essence of free will. Of course, if you don't believe in free will then morality makes no sense.

Jeff:

No, that isn't the problem. The problem is you seem to think that the tenets of morality stand or fall on our determined birth characteristics. As far as I can tell, you include just about everything in that category and then go on to conclude that the only moral behaviour is to let us live out the impulses we were born with because it would be unfair and discriminatory not to. In the end you are going to give everyone the right to do whatever they damn well please because they were born that way.

Let us say I am a hetero born with a strong attraction or fetish for anal sex or bestiality, or an urge to gamble and drink. Or maybe my genes made me a compulsive philanderer. Let's say my DNA gave me very low self-esteem and therefore makes me a defensive liar in self-protection--it is much, much harder for me to simply face my troubles and tell the truth than it is for most folk.

Would that all mean society should accommodate my behaviour because I had no "choice"? Would it be cruel and a denial of my constitutional rights to try and change me or even to urge me to change?

Peter:

I specifically stated the morality of virtually any act lies in its context.

In a committed, monogamous, relationship, there is no victim, no spreading of disease, divorce court, etc. Contrast that with promiscuous sexual relationships. Notice that the outcomes don't depend on what kind of sex is involved.

In any of your alternative scenarios, is there a victim, an unwilling participant? There is the difference. Because in all of them there are.

Further, you have so dehumanized homosexuals that you take it as an article of faith that their orientation is something they chose, and with sufficient moral guidance/punishment could unchoose.

Tell me, how much guidance/punishment would it take for you to choose a life of celibacy?

The really funny thing about this whole Episcopalian brouhaha is the elepant in the room. There have been many homosexual priests in all Christian sects, including those conservative African ones.

If they conservative Anglicans were true to their beliefs, it would be Inquisitioning time.

So who are the unwilling victims in the scenarios I recounted? I'm not counting the sheep.

In what context is paedophilia okay?

Anonymous:

None. For all acts, the morality is dependent upon context. However, for some acts, there is no context that allows a moral outcome.

That was my original, insufficiently apparent meaning. I should have said that for many acts, there is a context that allows a moral outcome; for others, none.

Peter:

Are your anal sex partners willing adults? Does your family, or you, find your drinking and gambling harmful? Does your habitual lying harm anyone else? Do you find it harmful to yourself?

Jeff:

Assume not. My philandering partners are willing and discreet, I'm rich, my kids are grown and my wife doesn't care what I do. My lying never entails criminal fraud. Oh sure, it is all destroying me, but that is my choice, freely and rationally made. No cuts and bruises. Zero impact on rational, scientific principles.

Peter:

If your wife doesn't care what you do, you aren't philandering.
Lies that cause no harm aren't immoral, only undignified.
Same for bestiality, assuming that the animal is large enough to be unharmed, and is either owned or leased by you , or wild.

As for human sex, part of the reason that the mainstream culture talks of sex only in terms of pleasure, is that previous sexual guidelines by organized religions over-reached.
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that there's not a lot of difference between missionary position and doggie, and to say that one is approved, while the other is the path to hell, drives home the point that a lot of "moral" teachings by authority are really about the power and proclivities of said authorities, and not honest attempts to lead followers to higher moral ground.

Essentially, if one is not addicted to sex, consorts only with willing and of-age partners, and provides for any offspring, what more should be required ?

Further, regarding your point about self-destruction: Freedom must allow one to destroy one's self.

That was the central issue in Lucifer's dissent with Jesus, and Jesus won. Thus, it ill becomes humans, especially followers of Jesus, to maintain that people should NOT have the right to self-destruction.

Michael:

One thing only is required--that we love one another. None of your scenarios involve love.

Peter:

If your actions are destroying you, then they are their own reward.

Are you contending that the morality of your actions would be unchanged no matter how many people get harmed? Or, put differently, maybe the complete absence of harm is a good indicator of the absence of immorality.

OJ:

Those scenarios didn't seem to involve a lot of hate, either. And not all activities we humans engage in need to feel the love, either.

Think telemarketing. Or buying a car. Or ad infinitum.

Peter:

If your actions are destroying you, then they are their own reward.

Are you contending that the morality of your actions would be unchanged no matter how many people get harmed? Or, put differently, maybe the complete absence of harm is a good indicator of the absence of immorality.

OJ:

Those scenarios didn't seem to involve a lot of hate, either. And not all activities we humans engage in need to feel the love, either.

Think telemarketing. Or buying a car. Or ad infinitum.

Michael:

Jeff can destroy himself. He can't make others do it for him. His soul is his to squander--those of others aren't.

Jeff:

Treating another human or yourself like a beta and sharing diseases and physical deterioration like that demonstrates that it is exactly hate which is involved, mostly self-loathing, but also hatred of the other. In past times we cared enough about such people to try and help them get past their hatred, especially of themselves. Now we leave them to their degradation. It's called progress, don'tya know.

OJ:

I hate to rain on your parade, but considering the trauma the gays I have known experienced coming to terms with themselves, they are an amazingly well adjusted bunch.

No self loathing to be seen, and certainly no hatred of their partners and friends. All in all, they are as nice a group of people as I have ever known. Amazing, how well they mask their hatred.

But since you come armed with 2000 years of thoughtless prejudice, I shouldn't be surprised at the baseless insults.

Really? I think my prejudices quite thoughtful.

Such is your faith.

Jeff:

Now you're getting it.