Homosexuality - a moral issue?

[Bravus]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

Answered in considerable detail: http://www.bravus.com/blog/?p=1562

Hi Bravus :-)

I did not really see an answer to my question, so I will rephrase it:

In brief, upon what basis do YOU make moral judgements?

Do you have an absolute standard of morality you adhere to, or do you adhere to a subjective standard of morality?

And where do you derive the authority for your moral standards from?

You may need to read the blog post again. The notion that moral standards *require* an external source of authority is itself the thing under discussion. The alternative, however, is not a purely subjective moral code: that's a false dichotomy. It's a discussion I've had many times before, and I've said what I can in that blog post...

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

Hi Bravus :-)

I did not really see an answer to my question, so I will rephrase it:

In brief, upon what basis do YOU make moral judgements?

Do you have an absolute standard of morality you adhere to, or do you adhere to a subjective standard of morality?

And where do you derive the authority for your moral standards from?

You may need to read the blog post again. The notion that moral standards *require* an external source of authority is itself the thing under discussion. The alternative, however, is not a purely subjective moral code: that's a false dichotomy. It's a discussion I've had many times before, and I've said what I can in that blog post...

If you do not have an absolute external standard of morality, then you have an internal standard of morality.

It sounds like you are rejecting both whilst not supplying an alternative.

If it is not objective or subjective, what is the third option?

[Bravus]

Intersubjective.

[Tom Wetmore]

Whether religious people are willing to admit it or not there is a very strong presence of Intersubjectivity to what is claimed as an "objective" external source of their moral code. There is agreement amongst the group of each religious group of what the external source is. A moral code of any kind is inherently a set of intersubjectivity rules of conduct in relation to others.

From the wiki article - " Love is a prime example of intersubjectivity that implies a shared feeling of care and affection, among others." ... "Recent research on mirror neurons provides evidence for the deeply intersubjective basis of human psychology, and arguably much of the literature on empathy and theory of mind relate directly to intersubjectivity."

[lazarus]

I was recently at a meeting of Pastors where a conference officer shared that his son had recently came out and said he was Gay. The pastor had was spent the last year working through his feelings in relation to his son.

It's easy to preach "hard" against homosexuality when you don't have a relationship with someone who is gay he told us. It was very moving to hear him speak.

As regards to homosexuality, this pastor's reality has changed.

[Twilight II]

Whether religious people are willing to admit it or not there is a very strong presence of Intersubjectivity to what is claimed as an "objective" external source of their moral code. There is agreement amongst the group of each religious group of what the external source is. A moral code of any kind is inherently a set of intersubjectivity rules of conduct in relation to others.

From the wiki article - " Love is a prime example of intersubjectivity that implies a shared feeling of care and affection, among others." ... "Recent research on mirror neurons provides evidence for the deeply intersubjective basis of human psychology, and arguably much of the literature on empathy and theory of mind relate directly to intersubjectivity."

So what is the "source" of "intersubjectivity rules of conduct"?

Sounds to me like some people want to call subjective morality by a different name and claim everyone adheres to subjective moral principles.

Subjective morality is still subjective morality, even if it is re-labelled "intersubjective morality"...

Which is really just a claim that there is only really subjective morality anyway...

Which then takes us back to the original question, what is the source of this subjective morality?

What is its ultimate standard of authority?

[Tom Wetmore]

If you would take the time to at least read the definitions in the provided link and think about them, you will have your answer. Your question reflects a lack of understanding of what is meant by intersubjectivity. It either suggests you didn't read it or simply chose to disregard it in favor of continuing with your own point of view of only two alternatives that was resoundingly rebutted by a single word by Bravus.

Your response is simply argumentative. Read (or reread) the wiki link.

[Stan]

[JoeMo]

again! You're on a roll, dude! Thanks for the link to intersubjectivity. I though Bravus was going all genius on us or something!

[CoAspen]

Stan,

Nice to see your sense of humor still exists!!!

[doug yowell]

I'm not gonna engage you in this topic any more, Doug - that is one of my rights. You sound angry and upset; and I deal with enough of that without choosing to take on your aggression, as well. Happy New Year to you.

Joe, you were the one who chose to post your thoughts (or were they feelings)on this forum. One of my rights is to respond to what you willingly opinionated here. One does not need to be angry or upset to question your reasoning (or mine)or your conclusions.If you deem a defense of what you attacked, as an aggression, then maybe you should think twice about putting your own position out for public scrutiny. One right you do not have is the right to be the only one heard and to have your opinions go unquestioned. But thanks for the New Year wishes, I wish you more of the same.

[doug yowell]

Whether religious people are willing to admit it or not there is a very strong presence of Intersubjectivity to what is claimed as an "objective" external source of their moral code. There is agreement amongst the group of each religious group of what the external source is. A moral code of any kind is inherently a set of intersubjectivity rules of conduct in relation to others.

I completely agree with this assessment and I believe that the Bible does also (Rom.1) Yet it does not annul the objectivity of the outside source of morality set in the spiritual world. From what I gleaned from the quick scan of the articles that Brav posted it only treated morality from a strictly naturalistic standpoint as if the spiritual did not in reality exist and therefore wasnot part of the equation. This, of course,would represent an incomplete analysis of the subject for a religious person, and place an impassable divide for the anti,or non-religious person. But it was a quick look so I might be missing something else.

[doug yowell]

I was recently at a meeting of Pastors where a conference officer shared that his son had recently came out and said he was Gay. The pastor had was spent the last year working through his feelings in relation to his son.

It's easy to preach "hard" against homosexuality when you don't have a relationship with someone who is gay he told us. It was very moving to hear him speak.

As regards to homosexuality, this pastor's reality has changed.

So you are suggesting that one's feelings towards someone they love should take precident over what the Bible condemns. Can't then we apply that emotionally based response to every behavior that the Bible condemns? I believe that we should feel the same way about every sin that a loved one is engaged in. The reality of how we feel about the living situation we face should never change our perceptions of right and wrong and the impending consequences of both.Preaching hard against what a loved one is doing does not require that you must stop loving that offender.There are eternal consequences at stake and people's lives. Love also means "You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him.You shall not take vengence, nor bear any grudge...but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I Am the Lord."

[doug yowell]

If you would take the time to at least read the definitions in the provided link and think about them, you will have your answer. Your question reflects a lack of understanding of what is meant by intersubjectivity. It either suggests you didn't read it or simply chose to disregard it in favor of continuing with your own point of view of only two alternatives that was resoundingly rebutted by a single word by Bravus.

Your response is simply argumentative. Read (or reread) the wiki link.

And your remark is simply condescending. Why don't you simply explain to TWII what he doesn't seem to get rather than commenting on his ignorance? Maybe not everybody is as smart as you and Bravus??

[CoAspen]

Hmmmmm...pot calling the kettle black?????

[lazarus]

So you are suggesting that one's feelings towards someone they love should take precident over what the Bible condemns.

Sure. Of course I'm suggesting that.

[lazarus]

I believe that we should feel the same way about every sin that a loved one is engaged in.

I wonder if the father of a mass killer and a serial snickers bar thief feel the same? Proverbs 6 says there are things that God hates....

[Bravus]

Sorry, I didn't intend to be dismissive - it was my younger daughter's 19th birthday yesterday and I was rushing around (doing fun stuff!) all day. Long forum debates weren't really on my agenda yesterday.

By 'intersubjective', I mean something like Kohlberg's Level 5 - the social contract. There is something essentially different about subjective - by which is usually understood an absolute relativism where every person makes up his/her own moral code - and intersubjective moral codes that arise from the good-faith interactions of whole communities and societies.

Intersubjective morality is not perfect - there are issues around social justice, for example, on which I believe my society (as a whole - I am a member of a smaller, dissenting society (but not a lone individual) on this issue) is morally wrong.

The thing is, 'objective' morality is *also* not perfect. Witness the Biblical genocides. Those are morally wrong actions, claimed to be commanded by the supernatural guarantor of morality.

I don't dismiss the relevance of the spiritual realm, not at all, but (a) there are many very different 'objective' sets of standards derived from it (which is illogical) and ( its track record is not great.

[joeb]

Originally Posted By: joeb

I don't really see any difference between sins. One is as bad as another. The penalty for indulging in any of the behaviors proscribed in 10 commandments is the same. Thus, I can't see condemning someone for being a homosexual any more than for lying.

So you'd be for, or against, having a Prevericator Pride Parade??

LOL.

Seriously, I would be dead set against such a thing. Glorifying something that does so much harm would be idiotic.

[doug yowell]

Hmmmmm...pot calling the kettle black?????

I think I'm caucasion and Laz is not.But then....maybe not.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

I believe that we should feel the same way about every sin that a loved one is engaged in.

I wonder if the father of a mass killer and a serial snickers bar thief feel the same? Proverbs 6 says there are things that God hates....

And some that He "hates" more? All Adam and Eve did was to eat a Snicker's that they were told not to. Why the drastic response? Of course the feelings would probably be more intense but would not change the outcome. God has revealed how He "feels" about both the practice of homosexuality and the consequences to those who practice it. "Those who are not sick need no physician." According to the moral handbook I've studied from, the symptom of a sickness is the practice of homosexuality, it's cause is much deeper.

[GoLions]

Why the drastic response?

The drastic response? The drastic response is right, are there not any words that could describe this better? How about amazing or wonderful! I don't know, I am at a loss of words.

(we are talking about the plan of salvation, riiiiiight?)

[GoLions]

According to the moral handbook I've studied from, the symptom of a sickness is the practice of homosexuality, it's cause is much deeper.

Now that sounds very interesting, and for me quite believable (as much as I can gather from just one sentence) what is this moral handbook? (if its the Bible your referring to, then my bad, sorry I didn't grasp the snarky intent of your post).

[doug yowell]

The drastic response? The drastic response is right, are there not any words that could describe this better? How about amazing or wonderful! I don't know, I am at a loss of words.

(we are talking about the plan of salvation, riiiiiight?)

Exacto mundo.

[doug yowell]

Now that sounds very interesting, and for me quite believable (as much as I can gather from just one sentence) what is this moral handbook? (if its the Bible your referring to, then my bad, sorry I didn't grasp the snarky intent of your post).

No snark intended. It's the only objective authority on morals that I trust. Apart from that I couldn't care a lick about the morality of the issue being discussed.