Atheism, evolution and morals
Today I was asked by Rhett, a Christian pastor-to-be,
“Where would you say your concern for human suffering comes from in that you are an Atheist evolutionists. Forgive me for simplifying things terribly here, but do you see the moral compass as having evolved? And isn’t evolution all about survival of the fittest, might is right etc? How does concern for others suffering coming into you worldview?”
Evolution is a scientific observation about how life works. How living organisms change through the generations and the mechanisms that cause those changes. Many people see evolution as anti-Christian because the evidence claimed by the theory of evolution by natural selection (the proper name for the theory) flies in the face of a literal interpretation of the creation story in the Bible. Evolution is only anti-Christian if you define Christianity in such a way that it relies on an explanation that contradicts the scientific findings - in the same way that the theory of gravity would be anti-Christian if one of the core tenets of Christianity was that the spirit of God is what keeps planets in their orbits.
Many Christians have no issue with evolution and any controversy about the fundamentals of the theory is within Christianity itself and stems from a multitude of interpretations of scripture.
Atheists are people who don’t believe that there is a God. I’m the kind of atheist who thinks that the question “Is there a God” is one that is as unprovable as the question “Is there an invisible pink unicorn” because most people’s definition of a God seems to entail the same, non-observable or non-testable properties. On the question of whether it’s possible to prove God exists or not I’m an agnostic but my conclusion after looking at the arguments and the evidence is that there is none.
This is not necessarily what an atheist wants however. I would personally like to carry on after I die and the thought of bad people getting their comeuppance in the end is pretty appealing.
The link between atheists and evolution only really exists because there really is no other plausible explanation for how life develops. Evolutionists are not necessarily atheists but atheists are unlikely to be anything but evolutionists because of the lack of rival explanations that don’t include a god.
The theory of evolution by natural selection makes the observation that the offspring that are best suited for the environment they find themselves in are going to be more likely to have more offspring themselves and this will cause more of the population of their species to have similar traits because children inherit many of their parent’s genes.
This is sometimes termed as “survival of the fittest” which some people take to mean that “only the bullies win”. But to be successful as a species it’s not necessarily the strongest and most aggressive that do well. Being small and agile is a popular survival mechanism. So is being good in the dark or being camouflaged or being able to fly or being able to eat lots of grass or plankton and so on and so on. Another trait that has proved extremely useful is the ability to cooperate with other members of your species and this leads me to the core of Rhett’s question; Morality.
Altruism is defined as looking after the interests of others over your own. Reciprocal altruism is looking after the interests of others with the expectation that they will repay the favour. Reciprocal altruism has always been easily explained in evolution; if a species develops a trait that will allow individuals to help each other out not only will those members of the species do better than their siblings but the species as a whole is likely to do well as a result. At a simple level genuine altruism is also easily explained because a species that develops the tendency to be willing to die to help the survival of your direct offspring or of members of your family group is going to be more likely to pass that tendency on. Your children who survive because of your altruism will more than likely carry the same genes and close relatives have a higher chance of carrying that same trait. For an excellent discussion of this topic read Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene.
So, self-sacrificing behaviour is very much a part of evolution and easily explained in even relatively simple creatures. Where it gets really complicated is with the likes of humans who not only inherit genes but have the hardware (brains and language) to spread memes (ideas).
We get much of our morality from our culture. Memes are spread around from person to person and from culture to culture. Some memes are bad, some good, others neutral - just like genes. Some people think our morality comes from God and struggle to understand how someone who doesn’t believe in a God (or, specifically, their God) can have morals. But morals are really just memes for how to best live in a society. Some morals are built into us at the level of our genes (a parent who will fight to the death for their child) and some are developed by trial and error or even by reason and passed from person to person as a meme (washing your hands after defecating - a reasonably recent meme). Often morals are encapsulated in the form of a religion and passed from person to person that way, perhaps because religion has been an excellent medium for spreading memes with its use of repetition, documentation, authority and so on.
“Do you see the moral compass as having evolved?”
Yes, absolutely. Most of the core behaviours of morality can be explained by way of genes (especially if we can observe them in species that don’t spread memes - i.e. ‘learn’) and the rest in humans have been able to be propagated due to the fact that we have the hardware which allows us to be really good at spreading memes. And even memetic morality evolves, just not by the same mechanism as genes. In our current society it’s immoral to prohibit a woman from voting but our ancestors thought it perfectly reasonable.
“Isn’t evolution all about survival of the fittest, might is right etc?”
Nope. It’s all about how well suited you are to the environment you find yourself in. Also, please notice the difference between observing the process and mechanisms of evolution and believing in evolution (as if it were some kind of ideology).
“How does concern for others suffering coming into you worldview?”
Like most people I inherited my morality from my family and from the culture I was brought up in. I’ve also read a lot of literature on different people’s opinions on how to best live as a society since then.
Morality is a game we all play and it’s a function of society. Pretending that morality comes to us by divine revelation is a form of exclusivism and I would have thought that in this day and age we’d be smart enough to see beyond that.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Thanks for correcting my spelling ;-).
Nice, that’s interesting. Let me be clear; I don’t see evolution as a challenge to Christianity, and whatever side of the debate I end up coming out on, I still will feel that way. Also, I don’t think it is impossible for an Atheist to be moral, my question was asked out of sincerity and believing there would be some logical explanation. I’m glad you’ve given it to me.
The one major question I have after reading your post is: what is the measuring stick for deciding on morals? What makes something “right”, in our eyes? Does that operate in a democracy type of way?
For me, C.S Lewis argument makes a lot of sense here. Perhaps even more if I adopt evolution as an explanation for how the world works. It isn’t so much our capacity to KNOW right that makes me think there is something beyond ourselves, it is our capacity to DO wrong anyway, even when we want to do right or know that we should. Whether that is in lying to save my own skin, speeding even though I know it’s against the law, or yelling at my wife when I know it’s really my fault. The knowing at yet failing to be able to do a lot of the time points me beyond myself.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Good question. I can only speak for myself as I’m sure other people have many other ways of defining their morals. I’ve found that switching the words “right” and “wrong” (or good/evil) to “beneficial” and “detrimental” has made it easier for me to find my own morals. When I ask myself whether something is beneficial or not I am forced out of a binary mode of black and white and am able to see an issue in a gradient as most issues inevitably are.
For example, take the issue of homosexuality. When I was a Christian if someone was a homosexual it could only be right or wrong and when looking at what both the old and new testaments had to say about it it was fairly clear that it was wrong. Easy. No more thinking necessary.
But now when I ask myself whether homosexuality is beneficial or detrimental I am inevitably led to ask the question of “beneficial for what?” or “detrimental to what?”. Then I can see that really the only thing that homosexuality is detrimental to is if you happen to be a society that’s really needing to increase in population (which we definitely are not but which the precursors to early Israel probably were). Other than that it’s a natural occurrence that, in humans, usually results in love between two people and as long as both are willing participants and no one else is caused to suffer then it seems an absolutely trivial issue. Most people’s non-religious objections are either just health issues or of personal distaste but both of these have their counterparts in heterosexual sex.
Getting rid of black and white thinking for me has made issues more complex because I’m forced to delve deeper but now at least I feel I can confront moral issues thoroughly and honestly. I’m no longer an ‘authority’ on moral issues and am pleased to stand humbly beside the rest of humanity as we bumble around and try to make the best of what is often a world of compromises and conflict.
Have a go at using the words “beneficial” and “detrimental” and let me know if things make more sense.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:00 pm
That’s helpful, thanks…
“For example, take the issue of homosexuality. When I was a Christian if someone was a homosexual it could only be right or wrong and when looking at what both the old and new testaments had to say about it it was fairly clear that it was wrong. Easy. No more thinking necessary.”
- I hope that guys like Frank and Dale have been some kind of example that not all Christians operate in this narow-minded a fashion (no offense!). Again, I hate to harp on and on about this but looking at Scipture, Church tradition, reason and experience can be very helpful. I gather that you have experience in Pentecostal circles. My only real experience came from Titahi Bay, but on that I’d vouch that critical thinking isn’t a great strength of that arm of Christianity.
Thanks for taking the time to help me understand all of this!
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:37 am
Rhett, it’s a pleasure.
Oh? I was under the impression that Dale at least still viewed homosexuality as a sin (I don’t think I’ve heard Frank say anything about it). I’d be interested to hear your view of scripture, church tradition, reason and experience that leads you to believe otherwise.
The church I belonged to in Titahi Bay was the Gospel Chapel and about as conservative as you get but I was too young to really be a participant - just an absorber of doctrine. It was later that my family became involved in more happy-clappy movements and then swung back to a more mainstream Baptist church where they remain. In all of these flavours of Christianity it was pretty clear that homosexuality was a sin and that practitioners of such would not be inheriting any kingdoms anytime soon.
Like I said, I’d be interested to hear your views on homosexuality. Gimme something fresh!
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:33 am
“Oh? I was under the impression that Dale at least still viewed homosexuality as a sin (I don’t think I’ve heard Frank say anything about it). I’d be interested to hear your view of scripture, church tradition, reason and experience that leads you to believe otherwise.”
I can’t speak for where they stand on the issue, I was speaking more about the integrity of the process they took to arrive there. For myself, it was actually a “reasoned” argument that changed my view on this. I was very much open to interpreting homosexual activity in the bible much like we interpret Paul’s passages on women’s roles. My current view on this is that homosexual orientation itself is not a sin, rather the act itself. I’d have no issue with a celibate, homosexual pastor. Having said that there are Christians (Brian McLaren springs to mind) who are advocating a kind of “moratorium” to reexamine the issue. I’m not expecting you to agree on my point of view, or Franks, or Dale, whatever they are, just trying to point out the the process isn’t always as narrow as “Oh the bible says this so that settles it.” Generally, a lot of Christians I know are genuinely inquisitive, intelligent people who’s thought process is good on these issues. Of course, it’s always easier to argue against something when one only engages the worst of it rather than the best.
The real point, as far as I am concerned, is not how people in my church understand the issue of homosexuality. It is how they would treat a homosexual person if he or she walked into our church, or they met them in cell group, or in a pub (my cell group has run in a pub, so this is possible!). I am pretty confident that the homosexual person would be treated with love and dignity. I think we would take seriously Paul’s advice in the bible not to judge outside the church. I’m not saying that there wouldn’t be eventual challenge to that person’s lifestyle, if they became involved in the church, but I feel sure it would be done with love and empathy being the driving motivator.
I’ve also been around the loop a bit with churches and I agree that this isn’t the general approach, which is a bit sad.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:54 am
Yes, that seems to be an increasingly more prevalent view within Christianity. But I wonder; can you tell me how you get to this Biblically without seeing some other “actions” (like shaving or mixing seeds in a field) in the same light? And are you able to give an explanation for why we should see this particular action as harmful without reference to the Bible?
The reason I ask this is because firstly it seems that even within the Christian context it requires double-standards when drawing through what were originally categorised as “sins” from the OT and, secondly, because it seems that many of the prohibitions that have stood the test of time from that era seem to be fairly ubiquitous across many other cultures that are demonstrably “beneficial” (there goes that word again!).
Oh, and one more… what is the difference between “being a homosexual” and “acting like one”?
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:09 am
“Yes, that seems to be an increasingly more prevalent view within Christianity. But I wonder; can you tell me how you get to this Biblically without seeing some other “actions” (like shaving or mixing seeds in a field) in the same light? And are you able to give an explanation for why we should see this particular action as harmful without reference to the Bible?”
- I would see many things in this light actually, and I’d say it was a biblical view. Alcoholism, for example. That may even be a genetic thing, but having the tendency towards it is not sinful, indulging it is. As for who we should see it as harmful? Because as far a natural systems go, it does not work. You might say in the sheme of evolution it is a fundamentally suicidal species activity long-term. You rightly point out that in many cases in our world countries have no need for a population increase. I would want to know then; hypothetically if a country, or our world, WERE in need of a drastic population increase (say, following a World War… I believe we were in a situation like this following the last one), what take’s precidence in your ethical framework? Would you place a temporary ban on homosexual activity? How would you ethically approach such a scenario from an Atheist perspective? Also, in terms of a natural perspective, I think (again, going with evolution here) that nature has evolved a great child-rearing team in a man and a woman, both of who, both physically and pscyologically, play very different and complimentary roles. A child raised by two men or by two woman does not recieve the benefit of this balance.
“Oh, and one more… what is the difference between “being a homosexual” and “acting like one”?”
- I find the distinction helpful because both Christians AND homosexuals have been guilty of tieing a homosexual person’s identity to their sexuality. I don’t think this is entirely helpful. The disctinction to me is between orientation and homosexual sexual activity. The latter I would define as sinful, the prior not. What is “being a homosexual”? Well, what is “being a hetrosexual?”. It is a part of us that defines our sexual preference. It is not our identity.
I’m always willing to hear other arguements though, and I do my best to keep an open mind.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:02 am
The whole “beneficial vs detrimental” approach is hugely “beneficial” to the Christian grappling with an understanding of sin.
at the Wesleyan family convention (The Gathering) I presented this approach to our youth during an open question and answer time they got to do with me… some of their questions were superb. I asked them to shift their question “is _____ a sin” to “is ______ beneficial” and I framed this using a couple of pertinent passages from Paul “everything is permissable, but not everything is beneficial” and his argument surrounding the eating of meat offered to idols.
It needs to be recognised that the New Testament approaches to sin are very different from the Old Testament. Whereas the Old relies on a divinely given law, the new relies on an innate intuition (which we believe is divinely gifted…. though we don’t answer how that gift has developed… it’s here where I would place much of Damian has offered as our development of morality) and demonstrates a certain subjectivity to what would be defined as ’sin’. What is sin for one may not be for another in some instances - simply because what is beneficial for one may not be for another.
In saying all this, there are still many grey areas. Paul offers a number of lists that he defines as licence to exclude some from the Kingdom of God.
The homosexuality issue is an interesting one and determining the connection we have to Old Testament law can be a tricky minefield to walk with some people, but also defining Greek words in particular, within their context to define what was actually being talked about. Some words and ideas are translated poorly in our English NT’s and their meanings within their context are vague - I feel this is the case with some of the understandings around how we read some of the issues relating to homosexuality. For this reason, I do my best not give give an answer either way in public.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Frank, thank you for taking the time to respond. I’m greatly encouraged to hear that you also see benefit in the switch to the use of “beneficial” as it gives all of us a common ground from which to find our way around in the world. We can both discuss the beneficial or detrimental aspects of different behaviours but only one of us can make use of the word “sin” because the concept of sin implies a framework that I can’t even relate to anymore. Just out of interest - and I respect your right to silence on the issue - is it fear of division that keeps you from discussing the issue of homosexuality in public or is it something else?
Rhett,
Great question! Let’s up the ante a bit and change the scenario so that almost all of humanity has been destroyed by a virus and there is only a single island left with two gay men and one heterosexual woman. Hehe, how’s that for extreme? A least we’re now talking about absolute survival of a species (ignoring inbreeding complications later on of course).
OK, here’s my approach but, like you, I’m fully open to ideas.
Firstly, there is no ruler in this situation and if there was a fourth person in a position of power then I see their job as being one of representing the wishes of the people who elected them in the first place (which sort of cancels them out on this island of three people).
If all three of the people are happy to be the last members of the human race and have no desire to have children (which would be a difficult genetic urge to lightly dismiss) then I can see no inherent issue with them living out their lives and that being the end of that. No one is sad, no one suffers, and I don’t believe there is a God who’s going to be pissed off.
If they wanted to procreate for either maternal/paternal reasons or for the idea of the survival of the species there are ways to do so that either involve technology or slightly distasteful determination.
If only one person wanted to procreate then it would have to be a matter of them attempting to convince the other/s into a compromise and any unwilling parties should feel under no obligation to participate. (Although it would be a bit mean not to in my opinion).
So, in the island scenario I think the solution is fairly simple from my perspective: No one can force someone else to do what they don’t want to and if the human race ceased to exist it’s not as if anyone is going to suffer for it in the end (do you feel a sense of loss thinking back 4 billion years ago?).
On the question of placing a temporary ban I think this comes down to how we view the power structures in this world. I’m of the opinion that no person is greater than anyone else and that those that are raised to positions of power need to represent the will of those who raised them in the first place. So because I don’t view homosexuality as “harmful” behaviour even at a survival of the species level I don’t think any leader would have the right to ban it even temporarily.
BUT… I’ve just thought of an scenario where we might get into a bit of a grey area: Imagine another devastated world where there are a thousand women trapped on an island with a single, gay man. The combined emotional ’suffering’ caused by this one man selfishly holding out (assuming all of the women really wanted the species to survive and also were gagging for children) might actually justify force although I’m not sure how this would work in practical terms. But this is taking it to some pretty bizarre extremes.
Fun eh? How would you approach the island scenario?
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:10 pm
It’s not a fear of anything
It’s pure pragmatism. Taking the stance I have has enabled me (on many occasions) to speak constructively to people on both sides of the argument… long may that continue.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Ahhh, all things to all people eh?
Just kidding fella.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:44 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:56 pm
A question about ‘objective morality’ or something similar. Knowing something is wrong and concluding this means there is ’something beyond.”
I can never get the meaning of objective morals when expressed this way by theists. Are there are set of rules written down somewhere out there? Has something out there imposed a set of rules as a detail in the structure of our DNA? Or is it objective in the same way that arithmetic is?
I actually feel, as an atheist, there is such a thing as objective morality - in the same way there are objective concepts - numbers principles of logic, etc. We do seem to have a concept of objective aspects to some of our ethical beliefs - at the same time recognising from a simple observation of history that many, if not most, of them are relative. As an aside, do I think there is a lot more to ethics/morality than this and there are some interesting conlsuions coming out of scientific research in this area.
But that recognition of objective morality (or objective arithmetic, logic, etc.) does not lead to a god whereas the theist argument of objective morality is presented as inevitably proving that conclusion.
So, what is actually meant by this use of the term objective morality?
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Damian - I think I’ll go with your solutions to the bizarre island scenario! I think you’re right that is would be wrong to force the issue, and it would right (sorry - beneficial) to let the people choose. It’s for this same reason I’d be against legislating on the issue of homosexuality (child-rearing is another issue though, because in my view it would involved thinking of the detriment to the child).
I do think that a post world-war scenario with a decimated population would be an interesting one.
I find your ethical framework fascinating, because it seems to transcend natural selection as a driving force. Do you think democracy is always the solution? Would you think this if the “moral majority” in the US managed to deomcratically create legislation that infringed on human rights in your view?
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Good question Ken. I’m still getting my head around objective/subjective. Is it the same as absolute/relative? What’s the difference?
When religious people talk about objective morality they usually mean that it’s a morality that comes from an external source. Namely, God.
But when pressed for examples either everything can be shown to be relative (i.e. spiders eat their young without it being wrong) or only objective within defined boundaries (i.e. humans in our culture are wrong to eat their young). The only thing I can think of that might be objective is when the statement is logically self-contradicting like the statement “It’s wrong to murder your child without purpose” because murder implies intent and “without purpose” implies no intent.
Rhett,
This is an interesting one too because if you can show a person who’s been raised by gay parents who is happy and well-adjusted then it becomes more a question of child-rearing techniques rather than the sexuality of the parents. When heterosexual couples raise maladjusted children we don’t jump all over their sexuality.
I think that to the contrary this is probably a simpler scenario because you only need a small amount of “breeders” to eventually repopulate a species and with today’s technologies even gay people can conceivably conceive.
I really don’t know. I can’t think of a better solution for our culture than a democracy with some kind of constitution that protects individual rights but I know that even this system is pretty flawed at times. I’m a bit wet around the ears when it comes to politics though. I’d love to hear ideas for better systems (disclaimer: that actually work in real life, not just on paper!).
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Oh, and also,
Absolutely. Natural selection (and a healthy dose of meme-sharing in the most recent stages of our evolution) got us to where we are but I feel no obligation to continue with it in the same way that I’m happy to not have to still go to school every day. As I’ve mentioned before, being an evolutionist means that you believe it happens not necessarily that you believe in it as you would an ideology. A germ-theorist doesn’t necessarily believe that everyone should be infected.
I’m glad you find my ethical framework fascinating! The word ‘framework’ sounds a little too deliberate and well-constructed; mine’s held together with duct tape and chewing gum. I promise you I’m quite aware I haven’t got it all figured out (far from it) and am open to suggestions as long as they are ‘reasonable’ in the true sense of the word.
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Sorry… it appears my woding of that makes you seem like a frog to be dissected! My bad ;-).
I’ve found this discussion really helpful and I’ve learnt quite a bit. I think the democracy issue is a big one and quite important when finding a basis for moral thinking and decision making. That’s a big “I don’t know”!, and one worth looking into. I might do a post on my blog sometime. Until then…
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
…adios amoebas.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Interesting discussion.
One of the most basic things I could say about ‘morality’ is that from a Christian perspective, ‘morality’ is about becoming like Christ. I would want to emphasise that all humans are moral agents. Christians (or followers of Christ) are those who have oriented their lives toward becoming more and more like Christ. This gives a ‘target’ to morality, so to speak. I’ll leave that there…
On the homosexuality thing, I’ve posted on this before here and here. My main distinction (and I’ve found it infinitely helpful in discussions) has been between a) sexual desires, b) sexual actions, and c) sexual identity.
We all have sexual desires, and we all exercise restraint/self-control over them - all the time [otherwise many men would - and some do! {pardon the 'phrench'} 'hump anything that lets them']… Sexual desires, then, are much like any other kind of desire (money, food, fame, success, blog-hits, etc.). Nobody ever gives in to all their desires - unless they have (quite literally) no self-control.
Sexual actions, then are not some ‘automatic’ thing. Sex doesn’t just ‘happen’. Generally, people like it to happen with consent given! And just wanting to have sex doesn’t mean you’ll ‘get it’. And, of course, if marriage and fidelity mean anything (which is another conversation!), we don’t just ‘do’ sexual actions when we ‘feel like it’.
Then you have ’sexual identity’ which is just strange to me. I am not summed up by my sexual/physical attraction to the opposite sex. It’s just not all who I am. I’m a brother, a son, maybe some day a dad/father, a friend, a blogger, a pastor, a freekin’ durn good coffee-maker (on my good days), a cousin, a grandson, etc., etc. It is utterly needless for a person who happens to experience same sex desires to feel like they can’t be ‘who they are’ if their desires aren’t acted on. By the way, keep in mind that there are several ways for their same-sex desires to not have the chance to be acted on; 1a) they could temporarily or 1b) permanently lack a partner for whatever reasons, 2) they could live in (and obey the laws of ) a society having laws against the act, 3) they could have a bodily disfunction preventing the act, etc. Whatever one feels about the ethical-ness of homosexual actions (or any sexual actions at all), I submit that forming one’s entire identity based on the desires for such action completely ignores the rest of their life.
off to bed now…
-d-
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:21 am
Sounds complicated. (Or is that just the brackets [aka parentheses, if you want to be posh {or a bit cheeky}] making it look complex?).
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:34 am
Dale, is the essence of what you are saying:
1. A man who has sex with a man is doing wrong.
2. A man who desires to have sex with another man but doesn’t act is doing no wrong. Or does this come under Jesus’ if-you-even-think-about-it rule?
3. Being a homosexual is a bit like being a psychopath in that the condition itself is not wrong but acting it out is.
4. A man can live with another man as long as they don’t have sex or touch each other in a sexual way.
Let me know if I’ve misunderstood where you stand on this issue.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:40 am
Thanks Damian,
(sorry about the {complicated} post - I’ll try [hard] not to do that too often)
I’m saying lots of things.
But what do you actually think about the distinction between desires, actions and identity? I find them quite helpful for many reasons; one of which is that it helps to keep the ’same sex’ conversation related to the multitude of other kinds of sexual desires and actions (and of course, identities).
For me, it’s not a matter of focusing on ‘homosexuality is wrong’; it’s just one instance in a much larger picture of human sexuality in general - including our need to have self-control and value sex rightly (not cheapen or ‘transactionalise’ it).
If desires (sexual or otherwise) rule our sexual lives - I don’t think that’s ‘beneficial’ for society…
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:50 am
That, my friend, looks very much like a dodge.
Would you mind terribly going through my list of four items and letting me know if you agree with them? I’ve tried to cover aspects of desire, action and identity within them.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
OK then, I honestly wasn’t trying to ‘dodge’ anything - I’m genuinely interested in what you think of the distinctions…
OK then…
1. (Dale tries to think of a way to give an affirmative answer and not sound like he dares to think that he never ‘does wrong’ either)
2. Yes, in very much the same way as a married man desires to have sex with his close female friend, but doesn’t. And yes, like any temptation; the impulse itself is not ‘wrong’ - it’s what we do with the impulse.
3. Hmm… you’d probably have to give me your definition of psychopath. But yes, any desire which is either excessive, false, obsessive or otherwise ‘wrong’ would also be ‘wrong’ to act upon.
4. Yes, of course, and this happens all the time. It is not ‘wrong’ for men (or women of course) to be the closest of friends, fully sharing themselves emotionally and heck even sharing financial responsibilities etc., etc. That is called intimate friendship, and is to be distinguished from same-gender sexual actions.
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Thanks Dale.
OK, stepping through the questions again;
1. What is it specifically that makes the homosexual act wrong?
2a. Isn’t it the fact that the man is married that makes it wrong? How does this relate to two, single, gay men?
2b. How does this align with Matthew 5:28: “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman[/man?] with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”?
3. Someone who’s biological makeup will predispose them to feeling or acting a certain way. I can give you reasons for why a psychopath shouldn’t act on their urges but can think of none in the area of homosexuality that don’t equally apply to heterosexuality.
4. What about sleeping in the same bed without having sexual contact? For comfort and companionship.
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Actually, you can forget questions 2, 3 and 4. The key question is number 1: What is it specifically that makes the homosexual act wrong/sinful/harmful/detrimental?
I can tell you that the homosexual act is sinful if the definition of ’sin’ is drawn from the Bible. But that’s a circular argument.
I can’t think of any reasons why the homosexual act is wrong in its essence. Is it just that the majority of us are heterosexual and so therefore the thought of homosexuality is distasteful? There would be sound evolutionary and perhaps even cultural reasons for this distaste but there are probably similar evolutionary and cultural instincts that make us wary of people of different races. We call the latter ‘racism’ and now we call the former ‘homophobia’. Isn’t it likely that Christianity is just lagging behind a bit on this one?
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Thanks for narrowing it to #1. This conversation has been going for quite a while, and I don’t expect it to end here…
[By the way, I know that same-gender sex acts 'happen' in the animal world (though sometimes, I suspect that 'animal homosexuality' can be 'read into' various animal behaviours; i.e. two female birds sharing a nest). Just because an animal does something doesn't necessarily mean humans should - fair enough? Animals violently eat each other too.]
Well, for one, same-gender sex-acts… well… aren’t sex-acts. You could make a biological distinction (let’s just narrow it down to mammals, shall we?) between actual sexual intercourse (requiring ‘male part’ and female part’) and sexual stimulation (requiring any genitalia and either a hand, imagination, a couch, a dog, or umpteen billion other things to ’stimulate’ it).
In this sense, two males and two females don’t actually ‘have sex’. They actually cannot ‘do it’ (intercourse). That is what I’d call the ‘biological reality’ of things.
Looking wider (in terms of human sexuality now), same-gender sexual stimulation (which is [biologically] all ‘homosexual actions’ really are) is but one of many, many actions which are other than genuine sexuality. And that is the audacious claim of the Judeo/Christian (as well as other) traditions - that genuine sexuality is fully realised between fully-committed males and females.
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:53 pm
But what is it specifically that makes the homosexual act wrong/sinful/harmful/detrimental?
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:03 pm
It’s false - it’s not sex.
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:04 pm
mind you, the consequences of various actions differ. Sex without a condom with many women whom you never see again could result in fatherless children, abortions or both. Pointing a loaded gun at someone and pulling the trigger has different consequences - and so on…
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Chewing gum is false - it’s not eating. But is it wrong?
Eating chewing gum instead of food will be detrimental if your goal is to live longer than a month or so and in the context of survival we could say that choosing to eat chewing gum exclusively is ‘wrong’.
Copulating with a member of the same sex (or by yourself) instead of sexual reproduction will be detrimental if your goal is to reproduce but is reproduction what you are concerned with here?
Your obvious response to this could be that sex is not the same as eating and I would agree but your stated reasons for homosexuality being wrong fit the example of eating just as well.
I’m sorry to keep pressing you on this question but as you might imagine I’m not seeing an actual reason here for your belief that it’s wrong other than the core reason that the Bible lists it as a sin. If it’s not purely based on what the Bible says what is it? Personal distaste? Concern that society will collapse? A desire that everyone form the perfect family unit?
And with regard to your most recent comment on consequences; yes, there are consequences for many actions but it seems the ones you lists here are not specific to homosexuality.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Thanks Damian,
My conviction about same-gender stimulation is part of a larger worldview in which ‘Life’ (living/being in the world) cannot be reduced to mere ’survival’ (your first paragraph) or ‘reproduction’ (your second). (Mind you, there are, perhaps, worldviews in which ‘life’ is only about surviving/reproducing…)
Likewise, human sexual activity, (in my worldview) will never reach its fullest expression in me doing everything I feel like (neither will it do so by my doing nothing I feel like - or my doing everything I dispise). In my worldview, human sexual activity finds its fullest expression between males and females.
And again, ‘Life’ (in my worldview) is not about human sexual activity. Many people life full, robust lives of deep fellowship and rich relationship to God, others and the rest of creation - while never engaging in human sexual activity.
However, one aspect of ‘Life’ (in my… you guessed it) is respect and care for one’s own body (not to mention the bodies of others). This involves a lot of things I don’t do well. Eating well, exercise (a quite modern concept - at least with the view to ’stay fit’; when you have to hunt, gather, etc. you don’t need to ‘exercise’ do you?), etc. Modesty (an ethic which is, of course, worked out relative to cultural surroundings) comes in here, because we as ’selves’ are relating to ‘others’ in our embodied existence/life. We are continually ‘presenting’ our bodies to each other, and should do so with modesty (which should perhaps simply mean ‘in loving and respectful consideration of the “other”…’ ). Then, of course, comes how we use our bodies sexually. Sex is not just an ‘act’ - it is a giving or offering of your ’self’ to an ‘other’. Giving yourself sexually to countless others (sex with anyone at any time - otherwise known as ‘whoring around’) reflects (sadly - tragically) a low and/or ‘cheap’ view of ’self’. In this vein, same-gender stimulation reflects an ignoring of and/or disregard for the bodily form and function of your ’self’. Again, there are countless other ways to ignore or disregard our bodily existence, but you’re asking here about same sex scenarios. To end on a more positive note, in this vein, marriage is seen as two ‘others’ (each of them a ’self’ to themself and an ‘other’ to the other) becoming one and (among other things) freely offering their bodies to one another.
I don’t suspect we’ll resolve this in this thread…
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Dale, I’m afraid you’ve still not defined anything inherently wrong with homosexuality.
What you’ve done is said that the homosexual act is wrong. Not just wrong for you but inherently wrong. It’s this perception of inherent wrongness that you are failing to define.
I think it’s perfectly OK for people to have opinions and personal tastes but don’t you think it’s a bit rude to imply that someone else is wrong without really having a reason? Do we accuse people of wrongdoing simply because they are not achieving what we perceive as some kind of “full potential”? Isn’t that a bit blinkered?
Live and let live bro. Until you can point out harm it’s probably these kinds of opinions that are doing more damage. My hope is that mainstream Christianity will join the rest of the progressive and inclusive world on the issue of gender preference. Perhaps we need a modern-day William Wilberforce for gays to initiate yet another sea change within the church.
If there are any Christian homosexuals (or any gays for that matter) reading this I would love your input on this topic. Feel free to post anonymously - I promise not to disclose your details.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Thanks Damian,
I don’t think I’ve been ‘rude’ - you asked for my thoughts.
I gave ‘reasons’. You don’t agree with them - and you’re entitled to. But please don’t make me out as if I were some self-righteous jerk who loves telling others how ‘wrong’ they are (and how right I am).
I’m quite aware (as I tried to indicate in comment 30) that what I’ve called ’same sex stimulation’ is not as harmful as other things; rape, murder, etc., etc. Why not actually interact with what I’ve (very carefully) said about the importance of respecting and regarding the body of your ’self’ and the ‘other’? Why resort to calling me ‘rude’ and ‘blinkered’? I’m trying to seriously engage with a very hot potato topic.
I have a view on same gender sexuality. I have communicated why I have them. Engage if you will.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Dale,
When I said ‘rude’ I didn’t mean that you were being rude to me but to a group of people in society by judging their actions as ‘wrong’ without being able to define what it is about their actions that is inherently wrong in the first place. And when I said ‘blinkered’ it wasn’t pointless name-calling; it was the the best word I could think of to describe a view that seems to support this backwardness.
When you say that same sex stimulation is not as harmful as the likes of murder you imply that it still is harmful. But so far you’ve not actually defined what this harm might be other than to talk about actions that are not specific to homosexuality.
So far the closest you’ve come to defining what is inherently ‘wrong’ with it is that “It’s false - it’s not sex”. But what is inherently wrong with this? (And I assure you there would be plenty of people who would disagree with your definition of what ’sex’ is). Your reply to this was that you believe that human sexuality has its fullest expression when practised between a man and a woman and you disclaim that with an “in my worldview”.
I can completely dig it if you have a “worldview” but to say that what someone else does is wrong without anything more than a “worldview” is a bit on the nose for those who have been accused of wrong doing. This is the bit that I call rude and blinkered.
I have a worldview that causes me to consider vomiting in public is wrong - disgusting, even. I can justify this opinion by showing objective evidence that if someone vomits on or near me I stand a good chance of contracting any bugs they may have. I can also subjectively explain that the smell makes me nauseous. Now, if someone goes and vomits for leisure in the comfort of their own home I’m fine with that. A little bemused but I can think of no way they are harming anyone.
I can explain what circumstances I deem this behaviour to be ‘wrong’ but I don’t blanket-label vomiting as wrong which is what I believe you are doing with the issue of homosexuality. You don’t like it and you’d rather not have it done to you but you don’t appear have any inherent reason for saying that what two people of the same sex do with their own bodies in the privacy of their own home is wrong.
You say this is a hot-potato topic but I truly can’t see a reason that it should be one.
On a conciliatory note I genuinely don’t think you are a rude or blinkered kind of person. I’m describing the appearance of your stance. I’m loving the sinner, not the sin
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:33 pm
…and that’s metaphorical love there too; not hot hot man-love.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Cheers Damian,
I said ‘in my worldview’ not to pretend that “whatever I believe is find in my own little world[view]…”, but rather to give context for what I’m saying about the topic. It is significant (and worth mentioning) that my Christian belief in the value of human physical bodies informs my views on human sexuality.
After all, we all have different worldviews that find expression in much of our values and ethics. The worldview mention was indeed relevant, in this sense.
And I intentionally mentioned heaps of other types of sexual behaviour (heck, even ‘modesty’ which isn’t directly sexual - usually!?) just to emphasise the way that valuing our bodies affects my view on human sexuality.
My view that same sex stimulation is ‘wrong’ is not some detached, itemized opinion I have that sits ‘on its own’ apart from any others - it is a part of a much wider value-system concerning human bodies and their use.
***begin tangent***
By the way, people think other people are wrong all the time. It’s quite a normal thing. Vegetarians (often) think meat-eaters are wrong - and have reasons. I think Corporations are by their very nature almost certain to be evil - and I have reasons.
Many people who call themselves ‘homosexuals’ are quite used to people thinking it is wrong and many are quite able to discuss it calmly. Of course, there are those that aren’t and get very offended. If I’m talking directly to such a person, I’m going to try to have the most fruitful conversation possible. Might not even talk about the ‘issue’ if it doesn’t feel appropriate. But if the conversation is able to be had - and in a fruitful manner - I’m keen, because the topic does interest me.
My point, of course, is that thinking someone else is ‘wrong’ or ‘doing wrong’ is a) quite common and b) often directly a result of differing worldviews. In this sense, my disagreeing with someones same-sex stimulation need not be at all “on the nose”. Being called a ‘homophobe’ need not be ‘on the nose’ either… It’s a perfectly valid position to have - let’s talk about it, etc.
***end of tangent***
Interestingly, the word ‘privacy’ is often used like you’ve used it. What business have we to care about what people do ‘in private’, etc. Well, since public human sexuality is often viewed to be uncouth anyway, where the heck else are people going to ‘do it’? In private. The ‘in privacy’ distinction doesn’t really affect the rightness or wrongness of it - in this case, at least. What is probably really meant is “who are you to tell someone else what to do?” Well, see the tangent above.
We’re not going to agree on this one, Damian.
All moral/ethical discussions are outworkings of differences of values and worldviews. You don’t share my wider set of values about humanity and human sexuality, so you won’t agree with me on the ‘wrong-ness’ of same sex stimulation.
Thankfully, we both agree that two men (or women, of course) touching each other ‘down there’ has less severe direct consequences than the amount of $$$ spent on missiles in the world, etc.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:58 am
But Dale, you still haven’t defined why homosexuality is wrong.
Perhaps it’s to do with the definition of the word ‘wrong’? Let’s try to clarify that to see if it helps.
In the context of human behaviour I would define ‘wrong’ in three ways:
If you can think of any other categories of ‘wrongness’ please feel free to suggest them but I think I’ve covered all the bases here.
The first type of wrong is the kind where you can demonstrate that a person’s actions have been to the detriment of another person or group of people. This also covers inevitably harm like driving a car recklessly on the open road. This kind of wrong is usually fairly easy to define and is the kind I used in my public vomiting example.
The second types introduce the issues of a person’s right to harm themselves and the many grey areas around suffering in other species. In the case consensual or self harm this requires a careful definition what ‘harm’ is. With the harm of other species there is a massive grey area that probably isn’t relevant to this topic. This can also dovetail into harm of the environment which usually inevitably ends up back at wrong #1; harm to others.
The third type requires the definition of a goal and then an example of a behaviour that it detrimental to achieving that goal. An example of this might be turning left when you needed to turn right to get to your destination.
So far it seems that you’ve been arguing in the third category because you have said that homosexual sex is not as good as it could be. If this is correct then you need to demonstrate why people aught to have the goal of a heterosexual relationship and justify why you don’t deem a person who chooses to remain single and childless as ‘wrong’ also.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Thanks Damian,
Your three points about ‘wrongness’ are helpful.
In some way, my conviction/view about same sex stimulation touches all three, though (as you say) most directly the third. I’ll comment on each, though…
1. Actual harm to others
I’m under the impression that some same sex stimulation (i.e. ‘anal penetrative stimulation’ - again, not normative ’sex proper’; and yes, I’m aware of the difference of opinion) is in fact harmful - biologically speaking. In another sense, if we find (which of course not everyone does) that same sex stimulation is in fact wrong, then encouraging it in others would also be ‘harming’ them. The finer points of that one could be discussed heaps…
2. Harm to self or animals
This is also relevant. Firstly, many would admit that we do all kinds of things that knowingly or unknowingly harm ourselves - in big and small ways. Our self-consent to these things (i.e. smoking) doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t harmful. Now, making the claim that same sex stimulation is harmful to self is very very un-PC. But nonetheless, I think it is (at least potentially) harmful physically (at times, depending on the method of stimulation) as well as emotionally (and that’s the one that’s hardest to demonstrate) - and we won’t even ‘go there’ regarding it being harmful ’spiritually’. Being ’scientific’ about how people are feeling is very dodgy; it’s subjective and in order to be more objective, you’d have to test people who didn’t know they were beign tested at all - and that would be immoral to most. My line of argument for emotional harm would be that we are consciously/emotionally aware of our biological functioning purpose, and disregarding this creates emotional trauma, which of course can be masked, denied, played-down, etc. A very intricately detailed (sub)topic indeed…
3. Inappropriate for given goal
This I’ve already mostly communicated. Though I’d not put it as you’ve paraphrased me. I wouldn’t merely say that same sex stimulation “is not as good as it could be”. To use your traveling metaphor, it’s not just a matter of turning left when you should have turned right; it’s that you’re travelling in the wrong direction, or perhaps you’re not even on the road (i.e. the organs aren’t being used properly).
The difference between those engaging in same sex stimulation and the celebate, single person is the difference between the mis-use of their sexual organs and the non-use of them (whereas normative male-female sexual intercourse is their proper use.)
And again, I must re-assert my ever-awareness that this is merely one topic/issue in a world of much confusion, pain, greed and violence. We’ve simply chosen to focus on it here.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Rhett - as a total aside - what does “My bad ;-).” mean. As a young fella who uses this term I thought you might be able to enlighten me. I’ve noticed a lot of college kids using it this year. They will make some little mistake in their working and when I show them their error they often say “My bad” I thought they were saying “Am I bad?” (deaf and over 30, its not looking good for me!) so I’ve been replying “No you’re not bad, its just a mistake, you have to make them to learn… blah blah blah” No wonder they then look at me weirdly.
July 5th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Hehe, I would have replied earlier Dale but I went out last night… to a musical… you probably wouldn’t have enjoyed it all that much
Your objection to type 1 - physical harm to others - is not implicitly tied to homosexuality so we can ignore that. Unless you want to narrow your criteria for the ‘wrongness’ of specific sexual acts.
Ignoring the physical self harm as per type 1 I think you may have a case to make about emotional self-harm but you will need to demonstrate how this is implicit and unavoidable with homosexual relationships and I don’t think this is true. People are emotionally harmed in relationships of all kinds and from what I’ve seen much of the emotional complications in homosexual relationships come from societal pressures that stem from opinions and worldviews such as your own. If you would like to go down this particular path I think I can provide more evidence for a greater degree of emotional harm caused by your worldviews.
This leaves us with the third type; inappropriateness to a given goal. You state that “male-female sexual intercourse is their [organs'] proper use” which would imply that proper use is the goal you are using to judge inappropriateness. I agree; anatomically speaking we’ve evolved so that, for the task of reproduction, male and female parts are very well suited for each other. And I would agree with you if you were to say that “in the context of using your genitals for reproduction, homosexual sex is one of many wrong ways to use them”.
Is this what you actually mean then when you say that homosexuality is wrong?
And I completely agree also that there are many issues in the world today that are of infinitely more importance than of homosexuality. I would go one step further and say that I see no inherent harm at all and therefore no ‘wrong’. And I would also point out that if I were to catalogue a list of ‘issues’ that the Christian church seems to be most concerned about, homosexuality would actually be disproportionately near the top of that list in most situations.
—
Jack, “My bad” is the equivalent of “My mistake”. Rhett is quite street-wise and a bit of a gangsta rappa.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Cheers for that Damian - don’t forget I’m from the rural mainland - these terms take awhile to drift our way. Mind you the Ministry of Ed just spent $55 000 providing teachers with badges that say stuff like “Was up” as a means of improving the educational outcomes for Maori and Pacific Island students…???!! And then there was this study that found that kids who had two food groups in their breaky did better so now they think feeding underachieving kids some magic food will sort things. Talk about assumptions on cause and effect. Somehow they missed the possibility that good parents make their kids breakfast and children of good parents do better in school. But I’m off the topic so onto the current one…
I’ve found it interesting reading your and Dale’s dialogue and thanks for pushing for specifics its refreshing to see the topic debated more openly and honestly. Its not something I’ve given a lot of thought to in the past and on reading this and thinking about it, I’d have to say that being a parent can make you rethink things. I find myself falling into a group that says “Yes homosexuality is fine…but I’d strongly prefer that my son wasn’t.” Or to give another example, “Yes, its fine if women choose prostitution as a career… but I’d strongly prefer that my daughter didn’t.” As a teacher, when students are under my care I am supposed to care for them as a parent would, so should I say its fine for them? Your dialogue here has me asking myself why I prefer that my son wasn’t gay and I know its more than the exposure to discrimination that he would suffer. I need to give some more thought as to why not…
July 5th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Cheers Damian & Jack,
Jack thank you for your thoughts. The daughter/prostitution example is quite helpful, because (at least at one level of consideration) the question of morality of same sex stimulation is very much the same as prostitution or any other consensual sexual act (including consensual pedophilia).
Whether we like it or not, whether it’s PC or not, moral questions are always questions of value. How do we value the human body? Why? How do we value the sharing of one’s sexual self? Why? What set of values helps a stable society? One where sexuality is valued in the sense of physical stimulative gratification and pleasure alone? These are huge value questions. And, perhaps frustratingly to some, questions of value are also questions asked and discussed out of a worldview (what matters and what doesn’t, etc.).
Damian,
Thanks for your constructive reply. I’ll respond a bit more…
I take your point about #1. I still think it’s valid, but I’m happy to leave it for now.
On #2 (self harm), I agree that all kinds of emotional problems arise from all kinds of causes. And yes, I’m fully aware that bigotry and intolerance can and does (all too often) cause un-needed stress in people’s lives.
The scenario you’ve implied (which is often how the conflict is imagined) is that of two competing views; on one hand, you’ve got people who affirm same-gender ['gender', btw can be a highly debated term; some arguing for a physiologically determined gender, and others a psychologically determined one...] desires as being either ‘good’ or ‘just fine’, etc., and on the other hand, those who think these same-gender desires are ‘bad’ or ‘not fine’, etc… In this scenario, people tend to avoid extremes. Jack’s comment expresses quite a common view of many; “Yes homosexuality is fine… but I’d strongly prefer that my son wasn’t.” You, Damian, take a middle ground expressed in the statement “live and let live” (and I’m not trying to give an unfair caricature of your view)… In this scenario of opposing voices, my view sounds extreme, exclusive, intolerant, bigoted, etc; hence your comment about the harmfulness of my worldview. But I suggest the scenario of two competing voices doesn’t reflect the entire picture.
There is another voice here - that of our bodies themselves. Our bodies ‘tell us’ how things work. This is part of the reason why I do think that emotional conscious trauma is inherent to a deliberate mis-use of the body. When we ‘don’t listen’ to our bodies, we are conscious that we are doing so. Of course, we do this with over-eating, lack of exercise, getting a sun-burn, etc. (though, of course, these examples aren’t a 1-to-1 parallel, of course)… And, again, we humans are quite skilled at covering up and hiding our various kinds of emotional trauma…
So, my point here is that it’s not a simple ‘he said, she said’ or ‘liberal v. fundamentalist’ matter. Our own bodies are, as it were, continually ’speaking’ into the issue as well. So it’s not just ‘those d*#n Christians’ doing the (so-called) ‘harm’, it’s the ‘voice’ of our own bodies also troubling us…
Interestingly, (and this relates to my earlier mention of the debate over what ‘gender’ is) as we all know, some people value their psychological/mentality/emotions/etc. so much higher than the ‘voice’ of their physiology that they choose to actually have operations (gender/sex-changes) to ’silence’ their bodies… They grow so tired of the ‘voice’ of their own body that they alter its very nature (and of course, many have either changed ‘back’ after a while or opted for a ‘both’ position) The swirling confusion of (what some have called) ‘gender identity’ is what I would say is happening here… going in psychological and emotional (even physiological) circles…
As for #3, it’s quite simple, I guess. Yes, I do think that reproductive organs are supposed to be used (primarily) for reproduction. Again, your driving metaphor is quite helpful here. The ‘mis-use’ of the reproductive organs (such as the various kinds/methods of same-gender stimulation) is not only making a ‘wrong turn’, but it’s actually not to be on the road at all. And yes, I do have a quite physiologically determined definition of what normative or ‘proper’ sexual intercourse is.
And (finally!) in full agreement, I do think Christians have had infinitely the wrong method of response to same-gender sexuality. Some have thought that making fluorescent signs (’god hates fags’, etc.) and holding them at certain people’s funerals is helpful. It doesn’t get any more extreme (in one direction) than that. On the other hand, some have sought to be so affirming of people that they have opted for affirming the behaviour as well. I, however, think there’s another way. A way that both affirms people and at the same time attempts the audacious and risky task of moral guidance; which, of course, we all need - not just some of us.
My stance is not ‘anti-gay’ - it is pro human sexuality, and pro human body. Mind and body, self and other in harmony and right relationship. Body doesn’t kill desire, but desire doesn’t rule body either.
July 5th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
sorry that was so long - it’s a detailed topic!!!
July 5th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Thanks Jack.
Yes, it’s good to be able to have a conversation such as this without the noise of polemic, emotion and side issues getting in the way.
I completely agree with you regarding our natural, deeper feelings on homosexuality. I’m heterosexual and quite frankly the thought of having sex or even being slightly intimate with another man makes me feel nauseous. And there’s very good evolutionary reasons for this; if we weren’t chemically rewarded for being attracted to the opposite sex we probably wouldn’t have survived. There are probably also very valid cultural reasons for the traditional taboos around same-sex bonding for much the same reasons. I have no doubt about it.
I am also aware that it’s perfectly natural to be distrustful of people from outside what we consider our “in-group”. Until recently (and still in many parts of the world) this was pretty much anyone who looked or acted differently. These days, in our culture at least, we tend to be quite inclusive and it’s considered racist to say that you don’t like black people. But it is a natural thing to emphasise the positive aspects of one’s own group and demonise those of those outside - probably because it helps you form a more cohesive unit this way. We’ve since discovered that it’s more to our benefit to form alliances with people of different races, especially in the form or trade, and so we’ve had to almost consciously suppress these natural feelings of distrust.
This is not to say that it’s beneficial for all of us who are heterosexual should become homosexual. Just that as there is no demonstrable harm inherent in homosexuality it would appear that only our judgemental attitudes are harmful and we’d all be better off if we were more accepting.
There is probably a very valid genetic reason why, as a father, the thought of your son being homosexual is a little unappealing. But applying this to your son (who I understand is fairly young?) clouds the issue in the same way discussing the possibility of your pre-pubescent daughter having sex does. While you are caring for children any issue surrounding sex is going to be distasteful.
Dale,
Regarding the emotional issue you still need to demonstrate: 1. emotional damage that is inherent to homosexuality, not just how emotionally damaged you would feel if you were to have to be homosexual, and, 2. why, if this is about ‘denying’ nature, it is not also wrong to abstain altogether or masturbate.
And on the issue of ‘mis-use’ you need to demonstrate: 1. why this is ‘wrong’ rather than just not ‘useful’ for a specific task (i.e. reproduction), and, 2. why other kinds of organ ‘mis-use’ are not also wrong (i.e whistling is not what the mouth was made for and wearing watches is not what wrists were made for).
I fully respect your right to feel that homosexuality is wrong for you and even for you to feel that it’s wrong because you think that everyone should be doing their best to increase the population and form nice, family units (which you would need to demonstrate was necessary for full participation). Or even, because you would like everyone to experience what you feel is the ideal in the way of sexual relationships. But I can’t respect your opinion that homosexuality is inherently wrong without being able to demonstrate some kind of harm or detriment.
It should be a fairly simple thing to do. For example I can ask you the following:
1. What is wrong with murder?
2. What is wrong with paedophilia?
3. What is wrong with driving recklessly in public?
4. What is wrong with sending spam?
5. What is wrong with stealing?
6. What is wrong with owning shares in weapons manufacturers?
I’d imagine that all these can be answered in a single, simple sentence. In your worldview homosexuality probably falls somewhere in amongst these but so far you’ve not been able to say what specifically is wrong with it or give any examples of why it is inherently harmful.
(And concerning your use of the oxymoron “consensual paedophilia”: paedophilia is considered harmful for the very reason that it is deemed that a child isn’t mature enough to give informed consent.)
I know that you’re not ‘anti-gay’ fella. And I can understand that you are pro human sexuality but I think that you are trying to find rational justification for something written in a book which happens to affirm your own, natural feelings. But I charge that, in doing so, you are actually doing more harm than not by making people who’s sexual preferences are different from your own feel judged.
July 5th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
“Rhett - as a total aside - what does “My bad ;-).” mean.” … sorry to take so long to reply, just saw this. Damian got it. Basically: “My mistake”.
I had no idea it was a fashionable term now. I’ve heard it used in many movies/tv shows and just in general everyday life for a long time. But there you go; it’s good to be able to stumble into “coolness” once in a while!
July 5th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
“And there’s very good evolutionary reasons for this; if we weren’t chemically rewarded for being attracted to the opposite sex we probably wouldn’t have survived”
And yet homosexuality survives. Does anyone know where the nature vs nurture argument is at regarding homosexuality?
“I am also aware that it’s perfectly natural to be distrustful of people from outside what we consider our “in-group”.”
I have doubts on this as well, as in my experience, young children are naturally very accepting of difference. And variety in gene pools is good for building resilience to environmental changes. I’m not worried if my kids have same sex relationships with people from a different culture to mine. Which brings me to: “While you are caring for children any issue surrounding sex is going to be distasteful” Not the case - I’m quite able to accept the idea that my kids will grow up and have sex.
I’m with you on the oxymoron though! Clarification Dale?
Your ‘what is wrong with…’ examples are good and show that consensual homosexuality is perhaps not harmful to the wider community providing population levels are OK. But would it be true to say that something is only wrong if it harms others and could therefore potentially harm me. What about caring about their harm to self? Do I have a moral obligation to warn someone that I fear what they are doing is harming them or is it none of my business and an impingement on their rights to live as they choose - is it even ‘choice’ though if I havent told them of the potential harm. Is it wrong to get stoned all day in your own home? Is it wrong for a teenager to self harm,ie wrist cutting etc? Is it wrong to drink booze all day at home? Is it wrong to be bulemic (spelling?)? Our bodies are not designed to eat food then throw it up so people who do this are labelled as having a mental illness. Isn’t it offensive to call homosexuality an illness?
July 5th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
I’m not sure what you’re asking here? What is your distinction between ‘homosexuality’ (as in ’same-gender sexual acts’?) and having ‘to be homosexual’ (as in ‘having to identify with such desires and actions’???)… In your clarification, could you humour me and use my distinctions between ‘desires’, ‘actions’ and ‘identity’ please? I think they’re very helpful in talking accurately about these things - they help avoid confusion..
Again, the human body (in general) is not only ‘for’ sexuality, so abstinence is not to ‘deny’ or ‘mis-use’ the nature of our bodies (as I’ve argued that same-sex stimulation does), but to ‘not use’ them (in that specific way). But to be clearer still, there are times when abstinence could be ‘wrong’; for example the (albeit far-fetched) scenario of ‘one woman left’ - or (far less far-fetched) a partner ‘withholding’ sex from their partner in a selfish and/or manipulative way.
As for masturbation, I suspect we could split hundreds of ethical hairs on this one… In general, and because of bodily functions such as nocturnal emissions (i.e. ‘wet dreams’), I suspect that masturbation is at best unnecessary and at worst a selfish form of sexual stimulation. I know, I know, you’ll argue till the cows come home that its perfectly harmless… Another point here is that masturbation is almost always accompanied by lustful thoughts (with or without the use of pornography). With masturbation, the ‘wrongness’ would not simply be the sexual self-stimulation, but what is taking place in the mind(i.e. ‘lust’). I know… you think I’m crazy… that’s OK.
I think (again) your road/driving metaphor is useful on this one (though all metaphors have limitations). Same-gender sexual stimulation is a ‘wrong use’ or ‘mis-use’ in that the car is spinning it’s wheels in the ditch, and not even on the road, so to speak. The reproductive organs are not being used for reproductive sexual activity, etc.
Again, the driving metaphor. You can do lots of things with your mouth. Eat, spit, whistle, smile, blow out a candle, etc., etc. The multitude of of actions here represent using a car for other things than getting you from ‘a’ to ‘b’, like pulling a tree stump, pulling some one out of the ditch, blocking a driveway, etc. Now there are other things that cars are not used for… typing, digging in the ground, boiling water for a cup of tea, etc. These are mis-uses. To bring it back to sexual organs, (for example) the male penis is ‘for’ both reproduction and disposal of urine. It is not ‘for’ picking up the remote control, opening your car door or being ‘put’ in various places - other than one particular kind of place.
But, again, it’s not just ‘mis-use’. There is also the strong conviction of a need for a) respect for one’s body and self-control over various kinds of desires.
You keep saying I’ve not given any examples of how it’s inherently ‘harmful’. But haven’t I given many (physical harm, emotional harm, & harmful as ‘mis-use’ - which were your three types of ‘wrong-ness’)??? Just because you don’t agree with them doesn’t mean I’ve not given them. You can’t really say I’ve not ‘given’ any until you’ve knocked each one down, so to speak.
(and on the paedophilia issue, 1) thanks for the spelling correction [though my dictionary suggested the 'non-a' spelling], and 2) but you’ll admit the haziness of when ‘un[non?]consensual paedophilia’ precisely becomes ‘consensual intercourse’… On that, how precisely… nay, how scientifically are we to ‘deem’… nay, judge (ooh, we hate that word don’t we?) how ‘mature’ someone is? Sounds a bit… well… judgmental to me. I know of a few teenagers who are quite convinced they are mature enough for sex, whilst their parents may or may not agree…
This leads me to my point on your last sentence about people ‘feeling judged’… Judgment is a universal activity. We constantly make ethical, moral, value judgments - even when we deem… er… judge others to be judgmental… The point is not to never judge at all (or be automatically offended when you’re on the other side of the pointed finger), but to relate well to one another and make wise and helpful judgments for the betterment of humanity. Judgment is thus a neutral term.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Cheers Jack (missed your comment),
On the above quote, I’m less and less interested in the nature v. nurture argument. Are there ‘nature v. nurture’ arguments about people who are attracted sexually to animals or children or people other than their spouses? We all have potential to do all kinds of things. The point (for me) is to respect my own body (using it how it’s meant to be used), the body of others (not harming them and not encouraging them to harm themselves or others - physically or emotionally), and to have self control (not let desire ‘rule’ my body).
And yes, on the whole ‘in-group, out-group’ thing, you make a good point about how accepting children are - until they learn how to be not accepting…
(I think I’ve clarified the ‘oxymoron’ in my last comment.)
And also, your various examples of questionable activities being done ‘at home’ are excellent. The truth of the matter is that our actions in private do generally influence (directly or indirectly - immediately or eventually) ‘the rest of the world’. And at any rate, something is generally going to be ‘wrong’ even if nobody else knows about it.
July 6th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Rhett - “I had no idea it was a fashionable term now. I’ve heard it used in many movies/tv shows and just in general everyday life for a long time. But there you go; it’s good to be able to stumble into “coolness” once in a while!”
Thanks for that gangsta rapper, can’t believe I’ve had a reply from one so cool - you don’t even have to try … I mean that’s genuine coolness and quite a rarity ; )
Dale - interesting stuff. To clarify - are you saying it is wrong to withhold sex from a partner in a selfish way? So if one partner simply isnt in the mood and says no, is this withholding in a selfish way and wrong?
July 6th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Jack,
). However, choosing not to have sex because one is not “in the mood” doesn’t mean one is being ’selfish’. Self-ishness is a relational term. It signifies an over-valuing of ’self’. And this ‘over-valuing of self’; this ’selfishness’ isn’t something that’s done in a relational vacuum, but rather in relation to an ‘other’, in this case the partner. Relationships (real ones at least - and certainly ones worthy of the term ‘partnership’) last longer than a moment, so it’s a process. This is why the odd occasion where one partner isn’t “in the mood” isn’t necessarily ’selfish’. The kind of selfish, sexual withholding I was referring to is less seen in a one-off “not tonight, honey”, but rather is seen more in a continual denial of sex to manipulate the other person… Relationships are a beautifully ’subjective’ things; meaning (among other things) that different couples will have different levels of sexual activity.
Yeah, it’s a bit of a tide tangent from the ’same-sex stimulation’ conversation, but yes, I do think that selfishly witholding sex from a partner (and of course, it matters infinitely what you mean by ‘partner’ - hint, I don’t mean a one night stand
July 6th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
err… ‘tide’ –> ’side’
July 6th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Sorry can’t help myself here…
Also, the kind of ‘partnership’ I’m talking about (i.e. what we commonly call ‘marriage’ of ‘life-partners’, etc.) is constituted by sharing. No other kind of relationship (i.e. casual friendship, business/work relationship, etc.) shares as much as that of a marriage/life-long-partner relationship. You share your entire lives and selves with each other - time, posessions, experiences, feelings, values… not to mention a bed and your body (and possibly children). I suspect that much marital strain and failure is fuelled by the lack of sharing of one’s entirety (in one or more forms)…
July 7th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Dale, I realise that you are probably genuinely answering as best as you can but I still don’t think you’ve stated what is inherently wrong or harmful about homosexuality. You’ve said that it might be emotionally damaging and you’ve said that it’s inappropriate use of an organ. But these examples are not specific to homosexuality.
Let’s try to simplify the conversation once again. Here are four of the ‘wrongs’ I listed above. I’m going to list them in an order of what I considerer most harmful to least harmful and give a reason for why I think each is wrong:
1. Murder is wrong because it is the forceful taking of another’s life. You cause suffering to the friends and family of the victim and you almost certainly wouldn’t like to be murdered yourself.
2. Paedophilia is wrong because if a child is not mature enough to give informed consent they are prone to abuse which they will later regret. You wouldn’t have liked to have been coerced into sex by an older person before you were able to fully understand what you were doing.
3. Driving recklessly in public has a very high likelihood of physically harming other people or their property. You wouldn’t like it if someone were to drive recklessly and crash into you.
4. Sending spam is wrong because you are forcing people to waste time and resources for your own gain and more often or not this is done deceptively. You wouldn’t like it if you had to invest in spam filters and/or spend time every day deleting unwanted emails.
OK, so there are my answers to four of those questions. They don’t have to exactly match what you would give as answers to these wrongs but are provided as examples for how simple it can be to define. I’m going to ask you now to do a similar thing but with the statement that starts: “Homosexuality is wrong because…”. Try to keep it nice and succinct like I’ve done with my answers and then we’ll see if we can identify what it is that you see is truly detrimental about homosexuality.
And one more thing; I’ve ordered this list from what I consider most harmful to least harmful (and I realise that this is subjective and dependent on the degree of each one but, for me, it will do for now), would you be so kind as to tell me where you think homosexuality should fit in this list? I promise I’m not going to criticize your positioning.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I’ll make some very quick observations as to the nature of our exchange and then I’ll respond…
Observations
You’ve not (for some reason?) ‘humoured me’ and used my distinctions between desires, actions adn identity. You continue to use words like ‘homosexuality’ (as if ‘it’ were some ‘thing’). I repeat that I think the use of these distinctions will aid our conversation immensely…
You’ve continually pointed out that I’ve not given reasons ’specific’ or ‘inherent’ to ‘homosexuality’ (by which I can only assume you mean same-gender stimulative actions?), but I think I have. For example, same gender stimulation is a specific/inherent misuse of bodily organs and it is a specific/inherent conscious disregard for the ‘voice’ of the body (hence emotional trauma - which can be, of course, masked, etc.). The fact that there happen to be other mis-uses of bodily organs and/or other causes for emotional trauma don’t negate this.
Response
You say that your answers to those four questions are “examples for how simple it can be” to define why something is wrong. I don’t deny that some wrongs are more universally agreed upon than others. However, one would expect much detail to be involved in a controversial topic as this. There is always a spectrum from simple to complex. Many seemingly ’simple’ issues can be discussed in detail (whether or not they should be or need to be is another question). On those four questions (and of course, the current topic as well), each can be discussed at great detail. Simply defining terms can highlight the ‘fogginess’ that each is characterised by.
For ‘murder’, one has to assume certain definitions of not only ‘murder’ (as opposed to ‘killing’), but also for ‘forceful’, ‘another’, ‘life’, ’suffering’, etc.
For ‘paedophilia’, one has to (as I pointed out earlier) deal with the tricky matter of discerning/deeming/’judging’ maturity, not to mention the ensuing clarifications from the use of phrases/words such as ‘informed consent’, ‘abuse’, ‘regret’, ‘coerced’, ’sex’, ‘an older person’, etc.
All of these definitions and clarifications inherent to the detail of these matters makes all the more clearer that under-lying values are being assumed. Equality, value of human live above animal life (and animal above plant, etc.), wisdom, freedom, justice, rights, etc.
I emphasise detail and complexity here not as a smoke-screen maneuver, but precisely because your answers were intended to demonstrate some kind of ’simplicity’ in moral judgments.
Further, I wish to point out that I’m not only giving detailed reasons, I’m also giving quite simple ones. It shouldn’t be hard to discern the simple gist of what I’m saying within our more detailed conversation (i.e. same-sex stimulation is a conscious ‘mis-use’ of one’s reproductive bodily organs which causes emotional trauma).
And another thought on ‘worldview’…
I’ve said before that certain values of my worldview (to do with such things as family, human sexuality, the human body - and it’s relationship to one’s mental life) are significant in forming my opinion/conviction about same-gender stimulative acts. Your complaint here is that my worldview causes emotional harm.
But that specific complaint is made out of your worldview. A worldview in which it could appear that greater value is given to the emotional comfort than things like bodily action?
Finally, in order to fulfill your request to know where I would rank ‘homosexuality’ in your list, I must give multiple locations on the list, because of the vagueness of the term ‘homosexuality’ (by this I’m drawing attention to the multiplicity of methods of same-gender stimulative acts)…
I don’t think any expressions of same-gender stimulative acts could ever be so harmful as to reach the ‘murder’ level, though physically and violently forced anal rape would seem to me to be utterly dehumanising (as any rape is). This is actually interesting, because some forms of ‘killing’ could serve a more humane purpose than this particular form of same-gender stimulation. I can hear you objecting, however, because this is, of course, only one (hopefully very rare!) expression of same-gender stimulation.
What emerges in my mind, then, is a broad spectrum of ‘harmful-ness’ for the very generalised category of ’same-gender stimulation’. As we’ve just seen, some forms of it can be utterly dehumanising (as can be ‘different-gender stimulation’), and at the ‘least-harmful’ level (assuming we’re only talking about actual same-gender stimulative acts here), I would say that there is always the harm (repressed/covered or not) of emotional trauma resulting from the conscious disregard for the ‘right’ use of one’s (or another’s) body. The specific harmfulness of emotional trauma could have either quite severe results (suicide) or minor ones (feelings of ‘not being right’, etc. - which are very common, if not ubiquitous), so it is hard to judge the severity of emotional trauma (but I trust you get the drift of how I see it)…
On the note of suicide, I can imagine that some would immediately point to ‘anti-gay’ or otherwise ‘judgmental’ attitudes as a huge part (or all?) of the cause for these tragic results. While I do acknowledge that hatred and exclusion can lead to suicide, I don’t, however, agree that it’s quite so simple a picture. My sense (and it would be interesting/valuable to see stats for this - although things like ’social pressure’ and ‘how people were feeling’ is a hard thing to be accurate about) is that suicide happens primarily because of the feeling of disconnection and worthlessness. This, by the way, is one of the many reasons I think it can be SO harmful to allow one’s sexual desires/actions to form one’s entire identity or self-worth… It’s just not good ground to stand on - in terms of one’s identity. I’m sure many a young girl engage in ‘cutting’ (self-harm, etc.) due to feeling ‘not worthy’ of being sexually desired by other boys - not being ‘hot enough’, etc.
But my point is that those who engage in (or identify with) same-gender stimulative desires/actions are more than aware that many people don’t agree with the behaviour/desires or just ‘don’t like it’ or ‘wouldn’t want their son to do it’, etc. (also, even your comments about your own personal feelings in comment #45 fit this category). The view itself is not what makes people commit suicide; it’s the way the view is (unfortunately) expressed sometimes.
Apologies for this massive comment…
I tried not to take too many tangents…
July 7th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Jack,
Thank you for your well-considered comments back at number 47.
Risk-taking also survives despite the fact that it often is detrimental to the animal who takes risks. The reason I use risk-taking as an analogy is that I don’t think that there is a gene that specifically encodes for “being attracted to the opposite sex” or “being attracted to the same sex”. If there were such a gene it would have long since been selected against and you would tend to have less and less members of the species who were homosexual.
Perhaps human sexuality is more of a cumulation of the hardware our genes provide us with (which strongly rewards us chemically for having sexual urges in general) as well as the way this hardware is assembled in early development (the increasing amount of testosterone produced by a mother who’s already had boys appears to affect sexual preference in boys) and experiences throughout life. I wouldn’t be surprised if our sex-drives are similar to our ability to take risks in that they generally confer an advantage over those who lack them but can sometimes lead to ‘malfunctions’ from the perspective of passing on one’s genes. If you exclusively mate with members of the same sex you will not pass on your particular set of genes just as taking fatal risks before you procreate. But all it takes is other members of your species to successfully reproduce using the same ‘hardware’ to continue the prevalence of these genes.
Does that make sense? That our urges might not be just some on/off switch when it comes to choosing gender but that it might be a cumulation of genetics, early development and culture that give us tendencies either way?
Yes, perhaps this is more of a cultural thing although I can remember reading somewhere something about infant’s reactions to various faces and how the greater the difference from the mother’s (and father’s?) face the more negative the reaction. I’ve been going through my books to try to find the reference to the study but have had no luck so far. I’ll search the internet and get back to you if I find it.
With regard to variety in the gene pool I agree absolutely. But please keep in mind that I’m not saying that racism is ‘right’. Just that there might be a natural explanation for why we form in-groups. Understanding why this occurs can help us deal with the ugly sides of in-group bias that often result in harm to others.
There’s a great example of a test that you can do to show how in-group bias works. You take a class of people - the more the merrier - and divide them into two, random groups. Then give them a simple task to do and get them to rate how they think their group will fare in performing this task compared to the other group. Apparently more often than not people will deem their group as the ‘better’ of the two. I’ve never seen this performed but if you ever get the chance to test this on a class let me know how it goes. I can think of many reasons why this trait would actually be useful for group cooperation and can also see where this sometimes-beneficial trait could easily turn into racism.
OK, I’m going to have to take your work on this. Personally, if I had a pre-pubescent daughter (which I don’t so perhaps this explains it) I would definitely rather not think about anyone having sex with her in the future. Perhaps you were saying that even with the foresight to imagine your child as an adult you’d still rather them to be heterosexual than homosexual. I would too but this can easily be explained by the fact that I’m heterosexual and so personal taste comes into it at that stage. These preferences for our children don’t actually indicate that homosexuality is wrong however.
And even with the clarification I’m with you being with me. Paedophilia is all about the ability to consent. We may have set an arbitrary age for this but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s about consent and so the work “consensual paedophilia” is an oxymoron.
Excellent point. And I think this might be at the root of the ‘wrong’ that Dale and I are talking around. Let’s take self-mutilation as an example. Actually, let’s make that self-modification just to extend the range a bit.
Here are some actions that might go on this scale of self-modification:
- Head shaving
- Hip surgery
- Prosthetic limbs
- Tattoos
- Piercings
- Cranial implants (you know, those ‘horn’ things people get under the skin on their heads)
- Arm cutting/self harm
- Voluntary amputation
- Suicide
I’ve arranged these in order of what I find least disturbing to what I find most disturbing. Subjective, I know.
I personally wouldn’t deem any of these actions as inherently ‘wrong’ with the exception of suicide because of the suffering it might cause friend and family. I believe in a person’s right to modify, hurt or even kill themselves. Just so long as in doing so you are not forcing harm on others in the process. I personally choose not to cut my arms and I believe that people who do so generally are ’suffering’ in other ways. My solution to this is to let people do whatever they like with their own bodies but to try to be able to offer support for any deeper issues that might have lead to behaviour that causes people to self-harm.
What do you think is a good way to approach the issue of self-harm or self-modificat