Gods image.

[Emma two]

Yet another question for Emma. I'm still cautious on the gay adoption thing, but I've been interested in your comments about anti-gay attitudes being a result of western modernism, with more tolerant attitudes in Japan and elsewhere.

 

But that still raises the question of how you evaluate it morally. You clearly want to defend gay rights, partly on grounds (I think) of supporting the outsider. But in Rome relationships between a man and a boy were seen as an excellent thing, as I understand it. Would you support that also? You feel it is wrong to tell heterosexuals, as well as gays, that sex should be limited to marriage - but does that mean that there are no limits? Should all pornography be allowed? And what about sex with animals?

 

So how do you arrive at your viewpoint as to what is right? I know you have said that you see morality as something that evolves. Is it simply that we should accept the norms of our current society, in that that is where evolution of ethics has taken us, or do you have some underlying principles that guide you in your views?

 

I will try to answer these in a logical order. First of all, after looking back through this thread to see how we got onto the ‘gay stuff’ in the first place, you brought it up in response to by criticism of Christians labelling certain groups as ‘abominations’ and that doesn’t just include gays ands lesbians. People who are now labelled ‘transgender’ receive some pretty stern words too!

 

To say that ‘in Rome relationships between a man and a boy were seen as an excellent thing’, (and I’m presuming here that you mean in ‘ancient Rome’, not someone in contemporary time having a one night stand after a untied v ‘Roma away game). Is a rather flippant offhand way of summing up sexual relationships in a complex and now extinct culture. Scholarly analysis of non western or industrialised societies should only advance carrying the understanding of the problematic nature of transferring ‘our’ values onto a wholly different culture.

 

In ancient societies same sex relationships between adult men and adolescent boys, known as pederasty for example in ancient Greece, however its frequency and its nature are questioned by revisionist historians. Heterosexual marriages in these societies were also age structured, typically with men in their 30s and 40s commonly taking wives in their early teens, a situation which by our modern standards would be considered very wrong and of course illegal. Perhaps this is another example of how everything is affected by culture, even how we use our bodies, up until very recently childhood and ‘youth’ as we understand it, as a social status did not exist and young females were considered ready to be wives an mothers as soon as nature, indicated that their bodies were ready for that role. The idea of the ‘career woman’ waiting until her 30s or 40s before having children was a non starter as many would not even reach that age Life expectancies were lower than now and so things needed to begin earlier. I believe that it is equally problematic to impose the values of an ancient civilization on modern society, including and perhaps especially biblical ‘laws’.

 

I will contine replying later....

Edited October 23, 2008 by Emma two

[Alan Stubbs]

Working on that principle, that 'respect' should be the same for all, then displays of heterosexual affection should be viewed in the same light as those of gay people. Images of straight relationships invade our lives via the media constantly, and until very recently 'gay imagery' kissing etc caused outrage and compliaints. That to use your own words is not 'same respect'. In reality few LGBT people make much of seeing staights 'doing their thing' but some do say that they find it offensive. Then again some people (my mother! ) find anything showing sex as offensive.

 

 

It depends upon whether you think that behaviour of 'the default setting' is acceptable or not.

 

Since when did public displays of affection become 'inappropriate'? Who is to say it is? Was there majority concent? Many of our social conventions were of victorian origin and therefore likely to be inappropriate for our time. Why, for many years, was it OK to be female and homosexual but illegal to be a male homosexual? How many lives were ruined by such warped thinking?

 

I despise those who will inflict their own particular mores on people on the premise that it's 'OK because I said so' sadly, it seems to have more credence now as we become increasingly a nanny state.

[Emma two]

Would you support that also? You feel it is wrong to tell heterosexuals, as well as gays, that sex should be limited to marriage - but does that mean that there are no limits? Should all pornography be allowed? And what about sex with animals?

 

 

I don’t see that I or anyone else should ‘tell’ others who with or how conduct their sex lives. Provided it is within our laws. It’s not the business of anyone what consenting l adults do. Marriage, for those who want it is fine. It is however a social construct is, and in religious marriages is only likely to have significance if the parties have faith. I imagine that you will have stood before couples who come to church to marry because it’s the ‘done thing’ and gives the woman the opportunity to wear a big frock. Possibly the next time they step into church will be to have the offspring baptized. I create and conduct ceremonies for couples both gay and straight usually immediately after civil ceremonies, and tailor the nature of it to suit the people, if they want to vow monogamy then that’s fine for them. I have no problem with sex, straight or gay before or after marriage,

 

Pornography featuring adult humans is fine; it serves a useful purpose and gives some people a sex life which they might not otherwise have. . Service people on long tours of duty in often stressful situations get a bit of ‘relief’ from it, widows and widowers who for whatever reason don’t want to engage in new relationships. Those with partners who through age or illness can’t or don’t want sex. Disabled people confined to wheelchairs who can get out ‘on the pull’, long term inmates of institutions and hospitals. To deny these people their masturbatory stimulation would be astonishingly cruel especially if the motive for doing so was to please the god character.

[Emma two]

Yet another question for Emma. So how do you arrive at your viewpoint as to what is right? I know you have said that you see morality as something that evolves. Is it simply that we should accept the norms of our current society, in that that is where evolution of ethics has taken us, or do you have some underlying principles that guide you in your views?

 

I arrive at my viewpoint through my own observations and experiences, combined with not a little structured reading and learning.

 

You asked about my ‘principles’ the following scenario might help in understanding what inspired me professionally….

 

Image a boy, at the time around puberty when his fellows first begin to look at girls in a different way; he realizes that he is attracted to other males. This wasn’t a choice he made to shock or annoy anyone, nor to show off be ‘cool’ or deliberately different. He may imagine that he is the only person in the world who feels this way. Eventually he learns what the term gay or ‘homosexual’ means. At first this gives him some relief, as he knows he is not alone. Growing up becomes a nightmare, he feels the pressure of his peers to go out with girls, however the though to kissing and being intimate with on repulses him. He hears those around him using homophobic language, they talk of ‘poofs’, ‘Nancy boys, and ‘gay bashing’, everything ‘bad’ is referred to as ‘so gay’, he even joins in with this rhetoric, terrified of being ‘discovered’.

 

At home he hears his father grunt ‘bloody queer’ when a gay character comes on the television. He overhears his mother talking to a friend and they express sympathy for a women 2 streets away whose daughter lives with another woman. When his grandparents come to visit they always ask ‘got a girlfriend yet?’

 

He loves his family, he wants to be accepted, a very human trait. Alone in his room he masturbates while looking at the pictures of footballers, he really has no interest in the game itself, and worried when his father asked how come he had pictures of both ‘United’ and Chelsea players? He discovers self harming relives the pain in his head, broken CD covers to lacerate arms above the shirt sleeve line; he has stopped going swimming and dodges the showers after sports at school. Once a week he attends the church youth club. At 16 he is given a talk on the ‘facts of life’ christian style. The visiting vicar warns of sex before marriage and worst of all the great sin of ‘sodomy’. His face burns, he wants the earth to swallow him, his head swims consumed in confusion and guilt, and imagines everyone looking at him, ‘do they know?’

He learns that while god loves the sinner but hates the sin. Those who have these ‘un natural’ feelings must never act upon them. One can be a christian or an abomination, not both.

 

At 19 he starts to ‘go out’ with a girl, he had always been comfortable with females , when he kisses her he closes his eyes and imagines a male Hollywood star with boyish good looks. Everyone is surprised at the speed of the courtship, they marry at 20, at the wedding everyone is smiling, at last that acceptance. ‘Gay who me? don’t be silly, look at me a married man’

 

By 25 there are 2 children, he is kind and thoughtful, a good father and she loves him with all her heart.

 

By the time he is 35 she knows there is something deeply wrong, he never seems really happy anymore, their sex life has dwindled down to almost nothing. He is never aggressive toward her or the children but his moods swing wildly. She feels totally shut out of his long silences. Than one fateful day it happens, for the first time in his life he tells another person how he feels. She tearfully goes through a list of possible reasons for his sadness,

 

Debt

No

 

Is there someone else?

No!

 

Losing your job?

No

 

Trouble with the police

No

 

Are you gay? (Nervous laugh)

YES! OH YES! And it’s tearing me apart!

 

He beats his fist down on the kitchen table with such force that he dislocates a joint in his little finger. She beats his chest, ‘why, why, why? Why did you marry me you must have known? She throws a coffee cup across the room and it shatters almost symbolically against the door.

 

They stay together for the sake of face, and for the children.

 

At 50 he is found hanged in the garden shed, a week after the local newspapers published his name along with 3 other married men who after being arrested, appeared before the magistrates charged ‘committing an act of gross indecency in a public place’. A relatively minor offense punishable by a nominal fine. His wife left him to stay with her sister the day after the paper was published, his now married children had both only spoke to say that they were leaving the area.

Four lives shattered. Perhaps the invisible man in the sky smiled down?

 

The above has been repeated so many times; sometimes it’s a lesbian, sometimes a transgender person. I have had so many distraught men at the end of their tether calling me up, very often late at night, and their stories are so similar to the one above. Everything that I have written has happened, every detail, admittedly it’s a piecing together of different peoples stories, and fortunately they don’t always end so tragically. However the reality of the suicide was only to0 true and in fact all 3 men killed themselves.

 

I had the opportunity to prevent this type of tragedy, the project supported young people between 13 and 20, and they were given space to socialize with each other, a one to one counseling service, and were helped to figure out who they are. ‘Gay’ wasn’t pushed as a superior way of being, in fact some of them were even helped towards the realization that they were not gay, or transgender at all. You might see why I have nothing but contempt for homophobia, be that from mindless thugs or from christian bishops both are equally dangerous.

Edited October 23, 2008 by Emma two

[Ken Davison South Wales]

A general question Emma.

 

Maybe it is time to revalue the way we look at life, since the decrease in religious activities which has occurred over the last five decades values and outlooks have changed for the worse.

 

Gone is the respect for the elderly, the weak and for family values, life is regarded as cheap, kids frequently stab and shoot each other, other murders are carried out almost routinely.

 

You cannot blame religion because it is definitely in decline so whats your answer, how do we restore a reasonable society?

[Newt]

I'm still cautious on the gay adoption thing,

I'm certainly not Emma and I haven't read all the way to the end of this so it may already have been answered but your caution is usually based on a false assumption that pedophilia is more common among homosexuals than among homosexuals and that does not seem to be the case.

 

From what I can gather, about 10% of the population prefers same sex partners - it is probably a genetic thing. The Jewish aversion to it that we read in the Bible was likely based more on their need for children to keep the tribes strong than anything else but we've morphed it into religious and moral qualms. I suspect the meaning of the original histories has been altered a bit during the various translations of the books that make up the Christain bible.

 

I don't see adopted children of a gay couple being more at risk than with any other couple and all things considered, probably less.

 

Certainly the Romans of biblical times had some practices that are not acceptable today but then, the tribe in Mexico that played a variation of football using a human head as their ball are probably not doing that today either.

[Emma two]

I'm certainly not Emma and I haven't read all the way to the end of this so it may already have been answered but your caution is usually based on a false assumption that pedophilia is more common among homosexuals than among homosexuals and that does not seem to be the case.

 

Hiya Newt. you quoted 'tench' then addressed your reply to me, am I mixed up or you?

[The Flying Tench]

I'm certainly not Emma and I haven't read all the way to the end of this so it may already have been answered but your caution is usually based on a false assumption that pedophilia is more common among homosexuals than among homosexuals and that does not seem to be the case.

 

No, Newt, my caution on gay adoption is not influenced by fear of paedophilia - simply a belief that children benefit from having a mum and a dad. I take Emma's point that some of the differences between male and female are socially induced, but I still feel the issue of role models is important; also someone of the same sex to have one to one chats at critical times; and I am not convinced a man can ever by 'mum' in quite the way a woman can. I recently came across a website by a woman who was brought up by 2 gay men, and found it a very bad experience. Perhaps that is an exception?

 

That said, I recognise and salute some of the wonderful single parents, and I can see the argument that an extra partner could be a help - although maybe an embarrassment as well to many teenagers. I am cautious, not categorically against. I simply feel we have comparatively little experience of the effects of being brought up by a gay couple, and perhaps we should wait longer before allowing gay adoption.

[Emma two]

A general question Emma.

 

Maybe it is time to revalue the way we look at life, since the decrease in religious activities which has occurred over the last five decades values and outlooks have changed for the worse.

 

Gone is the respect for the elderly, the weak and for family values, life is regarded as cheap, kids frequently stab and shoot each other, other murders are carried out almost routinely.

 

You cannot blame religion because it is definitely in decline so whats your answer, how do we restore a reasonable society?

 

To give an answer to that I would have to post the full political manifesto of the 'Emma 2 party', and I havn't written it yet, and I'm not going to tonight. But we are in a truly sorry state if we think that sacrificing people to the invisibe genicidal psychopath in the sky is the solution.

[The Flying Tench]

I arrive at my viewpoint through my own observations and experiences, combined with not a little structured reading and learning.

 

Thank you for this moving and persuasive explanation of what has influenced your thinking on the need for fully recognising gay couples. This is what I meant when I said that I assumed part of your reason was 'support for the outsider', though those words are inadequate set beside what you have written.

 

But I don't think you have answered my question about what your underlying principles are for deciding on sexual morality. In your proceeding post you say that no-one should 'tell others' how to conduct their sex lives (ie there are no relevant moral principles) provided it is within the law. It is no-one else's business what consenting adults do in private.

 

But re being within the law, surely, the law should be based on moral principles, not the other way round?

 

Re the consenting adults, perhaps you are implying you accept the J.S.Mill dictum that everyone should be free to do whatever they like as long as it does no interfere with someone else's freedom?

 

I am sure there is also an implied principle of loving one's neighbour, in other words wanting the best for people as a whole, and I completely agree about that - though I realise you think some of my views are not consistent in that respect. And I have already said I am not totally sure of my position for exactly those kind of reasons.

 

But I am very wary of the JS Mill principle, because it seems to me it is something our society has accepted wholesale and uncritically. Part of the problem is that it is often an illusion - what I do in private determines the person I am, which will inevitably affect other people. Pornography is considered morally neutral as long as it does not involve children - and most of the people who use pornography are not in the categories you describe. Adultery and sexual promiscuity are virtually promoted in films. If a principle is right it will lead to right outcomes. But as far as I can see one of the logical outcomes of the (JS Mill) approach would be to justify sex with animals, would it not?

 

Earlier on you spoke of the difficulty of applying moral judgments to other cultures, but I didn't understand you to be saying there were any clear overarching principles that apply across cultures. Regarding pederasty, you made the point that some historians think it wasn't as frequent as others have suggested, but you did not express a view as to whether it was right or wrong. If pederasty was right in ancient Greece and Rome, but wrong today, might not gay sex be right today but wrong in ancient Israel, and animal sex wrong in 2008 but right in 2018?

 

Christian moral principles may seem restrictive, and some of them may need adapting to a new culture. But in Britain today we have whole estates where the majority of children do not have a father, which was not the case 50 years ago, and it is clear to me that the 'freeing up' of sexual mores is a significant factor in the change. If you are saying that the traditional guidelines need to go completely, I feel you need to be clearer on what you are putting in their place and what the implications are for the future.