[Vision2020] Re: Homosexuality

[josephc at mail.wsu.edu]

Boy, Michael! It is hard to keep up with you! I'll give it one last try.

My comments follow your comments.

> [A] The Christian view does not leave a vague reference to a generic
Creator
> somehow 'endowing' people with undefined rights. [B] Rather, the Christian
> View proclaims the fact that God has been kind to us and specially revealed
> his holy nature and how we can partake in that nature.  Further, we know we
> have 'rights' because we are made in God's image; we partake in God's own
> dignity by creation.  God's holiness and the way in which he is
redemptively
> re-creating the world provide the 'standards,' patterns by which we are to
> treat one another along with the proper use of the government's 'sword.'

It is funny how, just after saying that you weren't denying that I am a
Christian, you then go on to contrast my view in [A] with "the Christian
View" in [B]. Which is it, Michael? Am I a Christian or not? Is it "the"
Christian View or your Christian View? Is there room for other Christian
Views besides the one that you accept?

One problem with the above is that I am an agnostic about God's
attributes. I'm not hurt when you characterize my view as a "vague
reference to a generic Creator somehow 'endowing' people with undefined
rights." I would argue that the difference between us is that I know that
I have a vague view about the relationship between God and morality but
you don't.

Of course, I might be wrong. Is your explanation in [B]? Unfortunately,
there is nothing in part [B] with which I disagree. It all seems lovely
and moves my soul greatly. (I am not kidding here.) But it doesn't seem to
be any more revealing than what we have in [A]. How is it that God endows
us with rights by making us in His image? What is the process, exactly?
I'm not denying that you have some Planting-knowledge to provide here. Of
course, I am already a believer. What kind of story do you have to tell
someone who does not already believe?

> This seems like a very insufficient account of what we find intuitively
> wrong with bestiality.  For one, donkeys can consent to have sex since they
> apparently do it all the time with one another.  It would seem that at the
> very least we could learn to discern donkey acceptance of sexual favors,
and
> therefore not be sinning against the donkey.   And consent doesn't seem to
> get at sexual perversion in the first place.  Not only might I be able to
> get a donkey to consent to have sex with me, I might be able to get a 6
year
> old girl to do so too. Molestation does is not analogous to rape.  Further,
> your standard for sexual wrong does not account for the aesthetic
> connections between perverse behavior and morality.

Donkey's lack the cognitive skills necessary for consent to sex. Likewise
with regard to 6 year-olds. Perhaps I can give you drugs and get you to
have sex with a donkey. But afterwards you wouldn't say, "Last night I
consented to have sex with a donkey!" Not all actions are acts of consent.

Also, see Thomas Nagel's "Sexual Perversion" if you want an explanation of
how my view can be made to line up with your aesthetic requirements.
According to Nagel, all incomplete sexual activities are perverse. A
sexual activity is incomplete if it lacks reciprocal desire
(“psychological interchange constitutes the natural development of sexual
attraction” (Nagel, 272)) or embodiment (“The precondition of complete sex
acts is the ‘embodiment’ of the participants” (Ruddick, 284)). Thus,
masturbation, sex with donkeys, and other naughty things you and I mention
are all perversions but not "homosexuality." This fits in well with my
rights-view of morality.

I think that you are confusing two things here anyway. The thought of two
men being together makes you sick. So does the thought of donkey sex. You
mistakenly generalize to the conclusion that they have something in
common: immorality. But here is the fallacy in your reasoning: Two women
having sex does not make you sick. Yet it is, on your view, just as evil
as male-on-male sex. Thus, your feelings are not a good judge of moral
truth, even if your own view of sexual morality is correct.

My advice to you is to stop thinking about male-on-male sex (which might
necessitate not communicating with Doug Wilson) and everything will be
fine.

> More importantly, just because we might be able to draw an analogy between
> rape and bestiality does not mean we have given any explanation or
grounding
> for morality in general.  I could just go on and say well, what's wrong
with
> rape?  If you said because morality requires consent, then I would just go
> on and say well, what's wrong with throwing people in jail?  We will still
> be left with needing a general ethical theory.  So what would you propose?
> Utilitarianism?  What would it be?  What kind of proposed moral 'system'
> makes sense out of sin/evil/good/right/wrong/beauty/judgement/praise the
way
> a Christian world does?  What moral system provides true morality, true
> moral and political authority?

Someone else made this point in another post. There are more than two
views: utilitarianism and Doug's view. I abhor both views. I tried to tell
you my view but you claimed it was vague and unsatisfying, which is fine
with me. I won't tell you if you're not interested in hearing it.

> As for not having children, it is true that children are a blessing and
that
> God has designed the world to have man/woman marriages that produce many
> children.  However, this does not mean that not having children is
> inherently wrong.  It can be wrong, such as in the case of a couple
refusing
> to have children because they don't think children are a blessing from God
> or because they are too caught up in a worldly life-style to be
> inconvenienced.  Also, a sexual relationship between a man and woman is
> self-justifying.  It is led on by holy and natural urges and not the result
> of obedience to some moral requirement; the act itself is good and holy as
> stated in Hebrews.  This happened to be the subject of the sermon this last
> Sunday by the way.  And so, the goodness of a sexual relationship does not
> have to be attached to a certain 'end' such as getting pregnant; it is an
> end in itself; it stands alone.
>
> I don't have a clue as to what would be wrong with "oral sex" Joe.  You
have
> a problem with it?  It seems to be implied in the Song of Solomon I
believe.
> And if that doesn't convince you, Wilson is all for it (!); what more
> justification could one need : -)

I don't see how you can say all of this, given your previous condemnations
of "homosexuality." If my wife and I can have sex with no thought of
having kids, and this is no disruption of God's plan, then what is the
problem with Adam and Steve having sex? Similarly with oral sex: if it is
OK for my wife and I, it is OK for Adam and Steve, as far as I can tell. I
just don't get what the argument was in the first place given your
comments above. You start with one argument, which has clear consequences
as far as my wife and I are concerned, and end up backing away from it in
the end. But you still insist "homosexuality" is wrong.

Based on this analysis, I conclude that there is no real argument here.
There is just some sick feeling that you and Doug have when you think of
Adam and Steve. Stop thinking of them! Think, instead, about how to get
more love and compassion in the world! Criticizing Doug and Steve -- I
mean, Adam and Steve -- won't do it. Or perhaps there is a political
agenda behind all this! That would explain a lot!

Well that is it for now. I have to go back to work, so I doubt that I'll
contribute more on Vision 2020 for awhile. I'll be glad to talk about this
all in more detail in person and at some later date, though.

All the best, Joe