Is being gay morally wrong?

[warpus]

Immoral actions must inherently harm a person or people.

Since being gay doesn't harm anyone, I don't see how it could be immoral.

 

[VX250]

Option #6.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

You all keep saying "it doesn't harm anyone", because there is no obvious physical or emotional harm.

But I keep saying that it causes spiritual harm on the grounds that it is a misuse of the ultimate purpose of human sexuality. Yes, I know that believing this requires accepting a number of assumptions that you don't share. Thus you don't believe it to be immoral. But my view in this case isn't "homosexuality is immoral because God said so" but "God said homosexual acts are immoral because they are". So yes, I believe there is harm, not harm that manifests in an individual's lifetime (so if you don't believe there to be a life after this one, then as far as you are concerned it doesn't exist) but it nonetheless makes it harder to become like God.

 

[Bill3000]

You all keep saying "it doesn't harm anyone", because there is no obvious physical or emotional harm.

But I keep saying that it causes spiritual harm on the grounds that it is a misuse of the ultimate purpose of human sexuality. Yes, I know that believing this requires accepting a number of assumptions that you don't share. Thus you don't believe it to be immoral. But my view in this case isn't "homosexuality is immoral because God said so" but "God said homosexual acts are immoral because they are". So yes, I believe there is harm, not harm that manifests in an individual's lifetime (so if you don't believe there to be a life after this one, then as far as you are concerned it doesn't exist) but it nonetheless makes it harder to become like God.

But the problem is that it isn't an accepable premise if you are actually going to argue whether or not it is immoral. Yes, it will be acceptable for people who hold your views, but that's not going to work where it isn't acceptable, e.g. society as a whole. Western civilization is a secular one, one that is not based on religious law. And while religion is certinatly a part of western civilization, it isn't fundamental anymore. So if you are going to argue, in general, that it is immoral, as opposed to a matter of taste, you have to have premises that eveyone will agree on.

And that's ultimately the jist of the matter - there's a difference between a moral (something which one ought to do) and a preference. As it is asssumed that a particular religion is a preference, rather than a fact, it is not acceptable to assume that something that is derived from your religion is acceptable as premises for your rational argument to determine whether or not it is immoral, because it's not a given in western society.

It's the same type of thing, for example, for religious arguments against abortion or stem cell research - they may be your beliefs, and you're perfectly entitled to believe them and they certinatly can be coherant with your belief system, but it's ultimately irrelevant as we live in a secular society with a secular culture.

A moral judgment needs to be justified in order to be semantically contentful. And you can't justify a moral judgment when we are talking in a secular context with premises that are based on particular religious beliefs that are not necessary for a secular morality.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Bear in mind I am defining "moral" differently. I have never argued that society as a whole should condemn homosexual acts; just that God does so, and for a reason. When I say "ethics" it is probably similar to you saying "morals" - I don't think that the law should comment on sexual orientation.

 

[Bill3000]

Bear in mind I am defining "moral" differently. I have never argued that society as a whole should condemn homosexual acts; just that God does so, and for a reason. When I say "ethics" it is probably similar to you saying "morals" - I don't think that the law should comment on sexual orientation.

I'm not actually talking about law either, just the fact that the audience of an argument matters. Assuming evolution to be false is not an acceptable premise if one is making an argument toward evolutonary biologists, for example. The same type of thing happens with arguments for the justification of a moral.

And it is the consensus of philosophy that morals must be justified.

 

[Sidhe]

Bear in mind I am defining "moral" differently. I have never argued that society as a whole should condemn homosexual acts; just that God does so, and for a reason. When I say "ethics" it is probably similar to you saying "morals" - I don't think that the law should comment on sexual orientation.

In that case speculate as to his reasons, or at least try and understand his reasoning?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I'm not actually talking about law either, just the fact that the audience of an argument matters. Assuming evolution to be false is not an acceptable premise if one is making an argument toward evolutonary biologists, for example. The same type of thing happens with arguments for the justification of a moral.

And it is the consensus of philosophy that morals must be justified.

Well, I explained my justification - like I said, it depends on assumptions many don't accept. In point of fact, I am making no argument about homosexual acts except what I (and those who share my faith) believe to be the case. I certainly am not claiming that anyone has any obligation to avoid them placed on them by society - rather, that as they will end up with the spiritual consequences, it is between them and God. I merely state my opinion.

In that case speculate as to his reasons, or at least try and understand his reasoning?

To whom is that directed?

 

[Bill3000]

Well, I explained my justification - like I said, it depends on assumptions many don't accept. In point of fact, I am making no argument about homosexual acts except what I (and those who share my faith) believe to be the case. I certainly am not claiming that anyone has any obligation to avoid them placed on them by society - rather, that as they will end up with the spiritual consequences, it is between them and God. I merely state my opinion.

The thing is that a moral is defined by what one ought to do. And that is quite different from an opinion. In the case of morality, an opinion is merely a judgment of taste, no different than saying "I prefer X over Y" - like disliking chocolate ice cream. You're only offering a view in which empathy is used to find a way for a person with different premises to find it acceptable for you to believe, and that's not what morality is supposed to be.


For a similar analogy, let's say this: It is right that 2 + 2 = 4. A child believes that 2 + 2 = 3. Is he entitled to his opinion? He is, but it's not what 2 + 2 should be equal to. 2 + 2 = 4 must be justified in a way other than "common sense" (Though what 2 + 2 = 4 actually means is an actual field of research in philosophy, IIRC ) and while morals have the huge problem of how-the-heck-do-you-justify-it, it doesn't change the fact that it still needs to be justified.

Degrading it to "stating your opinion" makes it by definition, a preference of taste, not a moral, that is, "I prefer that people believe that X is moral". The proper response would be to use it an argument where it is acceptable; in the case of your argument, to the religious whose beliefs cohere with yours. Yes, what is actually moral is ultimately highly restrictive - but it's the only way morality can be rationally analyzed; the quantitive measure of what is actually moral.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Let me rephrase - it is my opinion that one ought not do homosexual acts. So I can call it a moral in that sense - I am firmly of the view that it does eventual harm (that is not observable, so telling me it doesn't exist accomplishes nothing) but I base this view on, like I said, assumptions that are not shared. Now, if you are claiming that morality is both objective and self-evident, we are in disagreement; otherwise, our point of departure is further back so to speak.

 

[Sidhe]

To whom is that directed?

You, can you see why God would think it immoral or evil or whatever? Why would it be? For one thing it seems to have benefits on birth figures, you could thus argue that God is against increase in birth rates. Which is contrary to The Bible.

 

[Bill3000]

Let me rephrase - it is my opinion that one ought not do homosexual acts. So I can call it a moral in that sense - I am firmly of the view that it does eventual harm (that is not observable, so telling me it doesn't exist accomplishes nothing) but I base this view on, like I said, assumptions that are not shared. Now, if you are claiming that morality is both objective and self-evident, we are in disagreement; otherwise, our point of departure is further back so to speak.

Well, I'm not aruging that morality is self-evident. Objective, perhaps, but that's the consensus of the academic field of philosophy, much in the same way that evolution being true is the consensus of the academic field of biology. But not self-evident - as my post is talking about justification of moraltiy, and self-evidence is by definition something that is true by understanding its meaning without proof. If anything, I'm arguing against assuming morality is self-evident, with the example of 2 + 2 = 4 being an active problem in Philosophy. However, I guess the 2 + 2 = 4 example mislead you, it was akin to an argumentum ad absurdum, and was the same example that my philosophy professor gave me. Meh.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

You, can you see why God would think it immoral or evil or whatever? Why would it be? For one thing it seems to have benefits on birth figures, you could thus argue that God is against increase in birth rates. Which is contrary to The Bible.

Like I said, because the ultimate purpose of human sexuality in the LDS view is to reinforce the bonds between man and woman that are necessary for them to obtain goodhood, and any deviation from this makes that harder. I didn't make the rules - in fact, I don't believe God made them up, either. That is the reason - it may in the event not be true, but at least I can back it up with more than "God said so" . . .

Well, I'm not aruging that morality is self-evident. Objective, perhaps, but that's the consensus of the academic field of philosophy, much in the same way that evolution being true is the consensus of the academic field of biology. But not self-evident - as my post is talking about justification of moraltiy, and self-evidence is by definition something that is true by understanding its meaning without proof. If anything, I'm arguing against assuming morality is self-evident, with the example of 2 + 2 = 4 being an active problem in Philosophy. However, I guess the 2 + 2 = 4 example mislead you, it was akin to an argumentum ad absurdum, and was the same example that my philosophy professor gave me. Meh.

Okay, now I am really lost. I suspect you and I are defining morality differently. So to clarify: I define "ethics" as dealing with that which causes temporal (ie in this lifetime) harm to other individuals, whereas "morals" deals with that which may cause spiritual harm (ie taking us away from God) for anyone. I should point out that by my definition I do not claim that homosexual acts are ethically wrong - far from it, they are just some of the many forms that human sexuality takes.

 

[Sidhe]

Like I said, because the ultimate purpose of human sexuality in the LDS view is to reinforce the bonds between man and woman that are necessary for them to obtain goodhood, and any deviation from this makes that harder. I didn't make the rules - in fact, I don't believe God made them up, either. That is the reason - it may in the event not be true, but at least I can back it up with more than "God said so" . . .

Indeed even if you did avoid an answer for five pages

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I wasn't avoiding an answer, just being hard to understand . . .

 

[Bill3000]

Okay, now I am really lost. I suspect you and I are defining morality differently. So to clarify: I define "ethics" as dealing with that which causes temporal (ie in this lifetime) harm to other individuals, whereas "morals" deals with that which may cause spiritual harm (ie taking us away from God) for anyone. I should point out that by my definition I do not claim that homosexual acts are ethically wrong - far from it, they are just some of the many forms that human sexuality takes.

Yeah, I think that's the problem - we're defining it differently. By Ethics, I literally mean the academic field of ethics, one of the applied fields of philosophy. And by morals, I mean the subject that ethics is concerned about - what one should do, given human society. As I said before, it's similar to how physicists discourage, for example, the use of the terms "relativistic mass", or "centrifugal force" and stick to stipulative definitions for the sake of both avoiding confusion and enhance thge rigorous analysis of the topic.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I don't know that I want to come up with a whole new set of terminology, but on the other hand I know how much confusion ambiguous semantics may cause. One of these days I will just link it in my sig or soemthing.

 

[Sidhe]

I don't know that I want to come up with a whole new set of terminology, but on the other hand I know how much confusion ambiguous semantics may cause. One of these days I will just link it in my sig or soemthing.

You could just chose the definition of morality and of ethics in a dictionary? But definitions aren't au fait ATM.

 

[angeleyes]

You could just chose the definition of morality and of ethics in a dictionary? But definitions aren't au fait ATM.

If we would stick with the definitions given in dictionary's, there would be nothing more to talk about. You could say when people discuss, they discuss definitions.

 

[slip79]

I do not think that being gay is morally wrong.
But like others have said this issue keeps getting brought up, over and over again. The majority of the time neither side will convince the other of their argument.