Sounds like a good reason to believe promiscuous sex is different from monogamous sex.

Sounds like a good reason to believe promiscuous sex is different from monogamous sex.

Jeff's right, it is.

My dad's a GP doc in a small Southern town. He told me that in the early days of his practice (the early 60's), when the state health authorities thought there was a general upsurge in syphilis infections, the first thing the local authorities would do is round up the known homosexuals and and bring them in for a check-up (whether they wanted to go in or not). If a substantial number of gay men had it, then they assumed it had worked down to the local prostitutes, & so on down the vice chain. From that isolated & parochial bit of evidence, it would appear that the gay population has been considered a belweather disease vector for a long time.

Regarding syphilis in general, apparently people brought would often deny they had any symptoms of the disease, or had ever had it before -- even if they were displaying obvious signs of it. An x-ray of the rear end (in men & women) would tell the truth: the remedy involved injections of a compound containing silver, usually administered in the buttocks, which would leave a tell-tail deposit of silver at each injection point. . . .

(I always chuckle over the often delicate position of a small town doc -- my dad [still practicing] probably knows enough about everybody's business to blackmail the whole town. . . .)

TWN-

Let's not confuse reality with the world as we'd like it to be, now. Just because things were a certain way in small town America a number of years ago doesn't mean that's the way people still behave. I mean, human beings are more enlightened now, surely. If heteros can get VD and gays can get VD, then,uh......sorry, what's AIDS got to do with this again?

Jeff:

"Sounds like a good reason to believe promiscuous sex is different from monogamous sex."

Here's an offer for you. If we agree with you on gay marriage, will you support re-criminalizing adultery?

Not re-criminalizing adultry, but higher civil penalties, sure.

Maybe a smaller share of marital assets, in a divorce.

Michael, that's wicked. Let homosexuals into marriage and then get rid of no-fault divorce? Cool.

Restore the common law notion that adultery makes for justifiable homicide.

David:

I'll bet if we agree to polgymous marriage as well, Michael will let us abolish divorce altogether.

Peter:

Now you're talkin'

Isn't there an old saying about "giving it to them good and hard"? Broadening the definition of marriage while making it almost impossible to dissolve one (like in the bad ol' days), and I betcha there might be a few homosexual unions, but a lot less than the advocates say there will be. The real problem is that modern marriage has become a variation on the limited liability corporation, shared partnership or some other business model, in that it's just another way for two people to share and protect assests, profits and responsibilities, and for tax writeoffs and other perks.

Peter:

I don't know anything about the laws regarding adultery.

A couple women friends of my wife's have philandering husbands.

Just being male is enough to make me feel soiled.

Raoul:

I know some 747 Captains buying three houses for three angry women that would contest your notion that marriage protects assets.

It's not their fault, Jeff, they're born that way.

Peter B:

I would never abolish divorce, nor allow a situation where one partner can refuse.

However, I could support a system where the party that most wants to get out, or who behaves the worst, pays dearly.

Jeff:

Re: Those captains and philandering husbands. As they were hardwired to behave morally and exercised their freedom of choice, who are you to criticize? For me, that kind of monarchical comment brings to mind the Inquisition. Shame on you.

Michael:

I guess once polygamy and polyandry are legal we won't have much need for divorce laws, will we? We'll just move on up.

Those men made a promise to behave in a specific manner. They broke the promise, and their breaking of the promise left victims. How much more reason does one need to conclude their behavior was wrong?

Peter:
I have never gotten within shouting distance of asserting people are hardwired to behave morally

Total new cases in the entire nation in 2002 - 759
Total new cases in San Francisco - 315
The S.F. total is concentrated "in a population of 50,000 gay men".

All info from here.

Assuming the info is correct, and deducing from the above: a population of 50,000 people accounts for about 40% of the entire nation's new cases of syphilis.

The "promiscuity" argument is true, but ignores the bigger picture - as the doctor in the article says, "the rate tells us where we should be focusing our resources".

If promiscuity leads to various public health crises - and it does - and if it is a bigger problem in the gay population than the straight - and it is - you target the gay population to change it. Which is why Orrin's original point is right on, both as public policy and as the truth.

Jeff:

"All humans, psychopaths aside, share an innate moral sense, the gift of our evolution as social animals."

Jeff Guinn-November 13th, 2003

My wife the ex-syphilis identifier for the the No. Carolina Dept. of Health in the late 1960s, had similar reports to Twn's father. Hetero and homo.

It's the promiscuity.

Harry:

I can believe that. But, if males are naturally more promiscuous than women, and if heteros pair off with women, and if gay males pair off with gay males, what conclusions, if any, can be drawn?

Peter B:

I would point out, that KNOWING what's right, and doing what's right, are two different things.
Thus, the concept of sin.

Further, it seems that these much-married pilots betrayed their spouses, in one way or another - I'm hard pressed to think of any culture, of any time period, where betrayal wasn't regarded as an ultimate evil.
That is one moral code bred into us by eons of evolution. We humans are social animals.

Michael:

Hold on now. In previous debates you and Jeff have argued for the J.S. Mill-like "cuts and bruises" definition of harm, at least the only kind of harm you say that society can legitimately condemn and act on. You have always demanded a rigorously objective, almost scientifically quantifiable test. Now you are telling me breaking marriage vows is ipso facto wrong (Remember, we know nothing about these guys, their pain, what they think is good for them, what their wives were like, etc.) Suddenly, the word "sin" pops up and we're into condemning marital betrayal on principle.

Furthermore, Jeff is waxing so lyrically about the moral "gifts" this random, purposeless force called evolution has given us that I wonder if he isn't on the verge of sacrificing a goat in thanks. Are you guys starting to get that religion thing?

Have you ever watched a group of two year-olds playing together? Not too much evidence of in-bred sharing and recognition of the golden rule, is there? In fact, if their mothers aren't policing constantly at three paces, WW 111 would break out. So why do we need years of education, discipline, example and love to develop what you and Jeff say are natural, innate qualities? And why do so many fail to do so?

Peter:

I haven't waxed lyrically on those "moral gifts."

Rather, I have noted, as substantiated by an article here last month or so, that all known human societies have shared certain prohibitions, regardless of time or religion--murder, theft, incest, betrayal, and lack of reciprocity among them. When something is that uniform across all humanity, then what else would you call it? In all known societies, women are the primary care givers. Do you think maybe that across the population of women, you could say they are hardwired to do so, even if individually they might not?

You would have to look far and wide before you find a culture where people don't try to hide murders or thefts they have committed. Or that celebrates incest.

Having a hard wired moral sense doesn't mean we are hard wired to do the right thing. Rather, it means that we expect to pay a heavy price should our commission of certain acts ever be discovered.

A more thorough quotation of what I have written here would include my assertion that evolution has bequeathed us morality that, in practice, is every bit as shambolic as you would expect from a witless process.

It is interesting you note children's play. One of the striking things is their developing complex rules governing their games, and nearly obsessive, if one sided, focus on reciprocity, and violent reactions to perceived theft.

So, as Michael said, we are hard wired for just enough moral sense to provide just enough fitness for us to survive as social animals. That is nowhere close to saying we are hard-wired to be good.

Peter:

I haven't waxed lyrically on those "moral gifts."

Rather, I have noted, as substantiated by an article here last month or so, that all known human societies have shared certain prohibitions, regardless of time or religion--murder, theft, incest, betrayal, and lack of reciprocity among them. When something is that uniform across all humanity, then what else would you call it? In all known societies, women are the primary care givers. Do you think maybe that across the population of women, you could say they are hardwired to do so, even if individually they might not?

You would have to look far and wide before you find a culture where people don't try to hide murders or thefts they have committed. Or that celebrates incest.

Having a hard wired moral sense doesn't mean we are hard wired to do the right thing. Rather, it means that we expect to pay a heavy price should our commission of certain acts ever be discovered.

A more thorough quotation of what I have written here would include my assertion that evolution has bequeathed us morality that, in practice, is every bit as shambolic as you would expect from a witless process.

It is interesting you note children's play. One of the striking things is their developing complex rules governing their games, and nearly obsessive, if one sided, focus on reciprocity, and violent reactions to perceived theft.

So, as Michael said, we are hard wired for just enough moral sense to provide just enough fitness for us to survive as social animals. That is nowhere close to saying we are hard-wired to be good.

Jeff:

Oh c'mon. The average dog is obsessive about eating what I get to eat and reacts violently when I try to take away its ball. So it is hardwired for "just enough moral sense..."?

Two year olds develop complex rules for their games?

Peter:

Murder, theft, betrayel, incest, and lack of reciprocity are considered immoral across all known societies, irrespective of religion.

That is what I mean by humans, as social animals, have evolved a hard-wired moral sense.

I didn't specifically limit my example to two year olds, BTW. But it is amazing how early, and in the absence of any instruction, young children are able to determine reciprocity violations. Although they are rather better at perceiving them when on the receiving end.

It is also noteworthy what isn't on that list. For example: you and I would view shared paternity very negatively. But there are some cultures, with material circumstances far different than ours, that would view exclusive paternity precisely the same way.

A few moral precepts are universal. Most are not.

Jeff:

Where did you hear that? All are common in various cultures.

Though I agree with you that there is a hard-wired sense of morality--and a wirer.

Jeff:

"...you and I would view shared paternity very negatively."

Oh heck, Jeff, after the posts of the last week I'll give anything a try. It's all sounds like too much damn fun to pass up.

"A few moral precepts are universal."

Like, men marry women, maybe?

The Hawaiians not only tolerated incest but celebrated it and made it a religious requirement.
Ancient Egyptians, too.

It is, perhaps, not as easy to make a working society that operates with incest as without, but it can be done.

Same with murder etc.

If we can invent gods, we can do anything.

Peter:

Marriage isn't universal. So how could men marrying women be?

Once again, I point to the distinction between religious and civil marriage.

Harry:

Apologies. I thought incest was the universal taboo.

Maybe near-universal is closer to it. Most, if not all, primates, observe this taboo, BTW.

OJ:
You make a conclusion from ignorance.

You two are very scary.

Peter:

Why?

If you assert human nature is not a blank slate, then humans must have some fundamental, species-wide, moral basis.

Otherwise, the -isms are right, and we are simply moral tabla rosas upon which the totalitarians may write their pet moralities.

I doubt you believe the latter, so how do you believe the former without assuming some innate, hard wired, basic moral sense?

I think both OJ and I agree it is there, and probably pretty much agree on its parameters. It is only the source upon which we differ.

Havelock Ellis proposed that the widespread aversion to incest was based on familiarity.

That would imply that societies where closely related people do not grow up in familiar relations would view incest with less disfavor, though it does not quite explain why the congruence of familiarity and sex should create quite the horror that incest commonly does.

But I am a Southerner and grew up in a culture that approved cousin-marriage. In fact, two of my wife's first cousins married each other last month. Somewhat old-fashioned these days, but the custom persists.

Marriage/mating is a complex matter. Orrin opined the other day that divorce is "wrong." Yet I believe it has been sanctioned by every society.

Even New Guinea tribes have fairly elaborate rules for divorce and they are not unlike what European Christians consider acceptable.

Harry:

I just spoke with the last remaining European Christian and he doesn't agree with you. Then I called the last remaining traditional New Guinean tribal chief and he doesn't agree with you either. But, don't despair. The entire anthropology faculty at Berkely is with you all the way.

Jeff:

"lack of reciprocity"? What are you talking about? As Orrin pointed out the other day, the golden rule has nothing to do with reciprocity. It does not say: "Treat me nice and I'll do the same to you."

However, I'm delighted to hear that you and Orrin have worked out your other differences and now see eye to eye on the parameters of natural morality.

Peter B:

Where did you get the idea that I wasn't religious ?
I often refer to my religion when posting.

Breaking marriage vows is wrong. Being unfaithful is wrong. Having sex with a person other than your spouse doesn't necessarily fall under either of those catagories. (Although it usually does).

Perhaps Jeff insists on physical damage before calling it "harm"; I merely want some example of quantifiable harm, something other than you don't like it.
Defrauding someone of their life's savings does no direct physical harm, but I'd be the last to say that no harm has been done.

Harry:

I have no problem with a couple with no dependent children ending their marriage. They shouldn't get the social and legal benefits of remarriage though.

Peter:

The Golden Rule does in fact have something to do with reciprocity.

In the environment of evolutionary relevance--hunter/gatherer--hunters weren't equally lucky all the time.

Group survival, so the theory goes, was dependent upon lucky hunters sharing with the unlucky ones. The expectation was that when the worm turned, the newly lucky would share in return.

That is reciprocity, and consistent with the Golden Rule. Share with others, if you would like them to share with you.

As has been clearly demonstrated, children as young as 3, absent any instruction on the subject, are acutely attuned to reciprocity failures.

Thanks for your congratulations. I am sure you have noted that the only difference worth arguing is the malleability of human nature, not its source.

Michael:
I couldn't have said it better, or possibly even as well.

OJ:
Both? What if one was flagrantly at fault? Or a little less flagrantly? The devil is in the details.

I might take Christian strictures against divorce more seriously if the churches did not have an exception for rich people.

Even the Catholics do. They call it anullment, but that's a distinction without a difference.

Expensive to suborn a cardinal, though. My uncle did it and it cost him a large bundle.

Thus the camel and the eye of the needle.

I can only wonder what would happen to the US first time marriage rate if divorced people were never allowed to remarry. Never mind the fertility rate.

I'll bet they would both tank.

The devil is in the details.

Yes, but the institution would be restored and it is more important than those who won't live by it.