Gabriella,
Who was it who said, “I’m sorry I’ve written such a long letter, but I didn’t have time to write a shorter one”? You have a rambling, discursive style so it’s hard to know what points you think you’re making sometimes but I’ll respond to what I think they are at least.
No. I am not missing the point though I can tolerate you thinking I am.
As it was my point I think I’m entitled to decide whether you’ve missed it, especially when I explain it to you again. Don’t you?
Humans have evolved in a way whereby as a society they ascribe abstract concepts such as values to sexual activities, unlike other primates. One reason for this could be the increase in STIs in society where there is increased sexual activity but I do not think that’s the only reason for society developing abstract values and restrictions related to sexual activity.
We’ve also evolved to have morality about all sorts of non sex-related activities too. As other species don’t have morality at all (except perhaps in some cases in proto forms) what point do you think you are making?
Some societies have developed in a way whereby they place more value on individuality than others - this was evident in the way different people reacted to lock down with some governments taking a more prescriptive and systematic approach and their citizens being more compliant. Societies that prioritise personal freedom, autonomy and diversity will assign a different moral value to certain behaviours compared to societies that prioritise compliance with social norms or the zeitgeist.
Zeitgeists vary across societies, yes. How does this relate to anything you think you’re replying to?
Regarding the “on par” comment - I have been thinking about that and it depends on the criteria that’s being judged. If the criteria is love and companionship then same sex marriages are on par. If the criterion is the chances of procreation to pass on the genes of the couple with some variation for continuity of the species, society, it’s traits, traditions and values, then logically same sex marriages are not on par for that purpose. It’s up to individuals what criteria they judge behaviour on regardless of zeitgeist as much as it is your prerogative to judge/ tolerate/ swear at others for their judgements.
Except so far as I’m aware homophobes don’t apply the same moral judgment to those who wish to marry but not to have children. It’s a stupid rationale for determining moral status in any case (not least because childless couples also play an important role in genomic success), but if someone did want to use it nonetheless then they should use it consistently – gay people, infertile people, pensioners, people who wish to have only non-procreational sex etc. should all be “not on a par” in their opinion.
That’s not what homophobes say though is it. Why do you think that is do you suppose?
If a person sees individual freedom as the most important priority they will hold a different moral view from someone who does not prioritise individual freedom. The different views can be tolerated - or not - again it depends on what the individuals who make up society decide to do.
I have no idea what point you think you’re making here but clearly it doesn’t work. Should my “individual freedom” to kill my neighbours be “tolerated” for example? What you’re edging toward here so far as I can tell is a
spectrum – total individual freedom at one end and total control at the other. Different societies at different times and places have put the cursor at different places along that spectrum. Again, so what though?
Individual posters on this forum getting hysterical about a moral view they don’t like doesn’t change anything, though they are of course free to swear and rage as much as they like if it makes them feel better in some way.
Can you identify anyone who’s been “hysterical” or are you just poisoning the well with pejorative language?
My sub-conscious preference appears to be that I am more tolerant of Steve’s views on same sex marriage than I am of hysterical emotional reactions to his views, whereas I actively like Trent’s response. But that’s just my sub-consciously driven preferences. If that gets me labelled a homophobe, I prefer that outcome compared to not having the freedom to discuss the possible implications of Steve’s comment
That’s called a
non sequitur. No-one has denied you that freedom, and nor is your “sub-conscious preference” to be homophobic been denied to you. You are though to some degree a thinking being, and you should conceptually at least be able to understand why it is homophobic when the reasons are explained to you.
The Searching for God thread had lots of arguments supporting the idea that our likes and dislikes are determined by nature/nurture or are random, and our conscious brain becomes aware of these sub-conscious preferences. Reasoning by your conscious brain cannot apparently change what you sub-consciously like or dislike but it can allow you to tolerate what you dislike because there is perceived benefit to tolerating it.
You’ve misunderstood. A highly complex system like consciousness is essentially a feedback arrangement. I might have a firm moral view about something, but when my reasons for justifying it are shown to be wrong then I have the opportunity to think, “actually I was wrong about that” and so my opinion changes. That’s what happens in an open system that acquires data from its environment.
For example, tolerating behaviour such as people exhibiting their religious values and acts that they find meaning in or posters posting emotional rants on here.
Who has had an “emotional rant” here, or is this more poisoning of the well? What’s actually happened is that the homophobes have been told why they’re homophobes, but also they’ve been dealt with in very firm terms. Shall I tell you why? It’s because they (and now you) are trying to sanitise some very nasty opinions that have even nastier real world consequences. I’m not suggesting for one moment that Spud or Steve or you will wander the streets at night looking for young men to beat up, but other people do. It happens. And where do you think these people find succour and support for their actions? Yes, from authority figures like clerics who assert flooding to be caused by the legalisation of equal marriage, from sweaty men in pubs who make anti-gay jokes, from mealy-mouthed ever-so-‘umble contributors to message boards who try to justify their contemptible views – in other words, from all the people who contribute in their various ways to the
Zeitgeist. You may want be part of that but I don’t, and I see nothing wrong with saying so in no uncertain terms.
Your bagpipe example misses the point. Marriage and other publicly displayed social constructs, values and rituals are not like playing bagpipes in your home where someone else does not know you are doing it. People are not getting married at home with no one knowing about it.
No it doesn’t, and the point remains that people of the same sex are having hanky panky in bedrooms all the time – what possible business is that of yours, let alone to think it’s something to be “tolerated”? If the sound is coming through your wall on the other hand (whether the sex is gay, straight or anything else) then the thing to be tolerated is the disturbance to your right to peace and quiet,
not the fact of which bits are going where on the other side of the wall.
