All those (and you know who you are) who cannot meet these criteria (civility and serious philosophical thought) please remain in your seats until the ride comes to a complete stop.
Coggins7 wrote:
Quote:
(By Guy Sajer) I think that they feel morally and intellectually superior because, well, they are compared to narrow-minded religious dogmatists who are obsessed with other people's sex lives and who attribute a grossly disproportionate importance to one's sexual orientation in the moral hierarchy.
Just what, in your opinion, is the underlying moral principle (without referencing scripture or appeal to authority) that makes homosexuality immoral?
Followed by Coggins (Bold added by RM)
Well guy, you make many of the more general points I've been making about the liberal mind and attitude here and on another post quite clear for me, for which I should thank you.
What you have written above is just standard early seventies leftist can't of the kind I grew up hearing throughout the pop culture and media of the day. Conservatives as a whole, have never been obsessed with other people's sex lives. It is the Left and secular social liberals, beginning in the late sixties, that became obsessed and has remained obsessed with sex per se during that period up to the present. Loran, you weren't asked to analyze his thinking. You were asked to answer the Guy's question.
Now, the underlying moral principle that makes homosexuality immoral is simply the general gospel principle that marraige as a concept is only intelligable when uderstood as occuring between a man and a woman and that such a marriage has as one of its primary purposes the creation, nurturing, and raising of children. It is further a general principle that any sexual activity whatever, outside of that covenant is illegitimate, including heterosexual premarital activity, extramarital activity, and, therefore, by definition, homosexual activity which is not even compatable with natural human physiology and anatomy. He asked you to forego the the traditional tie-in to church-stuff, and here you are referring to it right after your diversionary tactic of avoidance...
Homosexuality is also, however, a perversion of appropriate sexual relations as well as immoral, or outside the boundries of human integrity that form the moral and spiritual core of such relations.
Roger
OK, so maybe You/Loran think your above sentence is a direct response... However, IMSCO, it in no-way supports "immorality" as understood in a "moral" society. In such a society, as the one sketched in the sand by Jesus when he asked the one without sin to cast the first stone... A moral society is concerned with abuses; with inflicting pain to another; with taking away 'free-will' from others simply because they don't follow-the-leader. Yes "human integrity" is a most important aspect of an accoutable society. It must not be sacrificed to accomodate an edict.
Loran:
I think your understanding of what a moral society rather lacks both philosophical depth and a substantive understanding of the the New Testament texts actually say about specific instances of immorality such as fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. If a moral society is concerned with abuse, then a moral society is most certainly going to be quite concerned with both cohabitation and adultery, two features of the 'sexual revolution" that have generated vast social pathologies that have victimized not only the the intimate others involved but indirectly, all other members of society as they must bear the burdens, cultural, financial, and political, of cleaning up the societal messes left be the critical mass of those engaging in such behavior. All must endure the socio-cultural effects of the breakdown of the family, marriage, parental authority, and Judeo/Christian sexual boundaries and the violence, alienation, crime, lost future economic prosperity, and the vast sums of money spent on alcohol and drug rehab, the processing and warehousing of people in the criminal justice system, and psychologist's and psychiatrist's couches that would have better been spent in productive economic activity or in taking intact, successful families to Disneyland and putting psychologically and spiritually healthy children into quality private schools.
"Morality" is integrity of relationship, and that integrity does not end with only those closest too us (and it cannot so end, as the quality of our relationships with them will determine the quality of our relationships with the greater community and with the nation as a whole, as the effects of those most intimate relationships are manifested in effects through wider and wider concentric circles of societal structure). In other words, in a gospel context, acute abuse of others is only one manifestation of "immorality". Our private behavior, as with our private thoughts, attitudes, motivations, and core characterological attributes, have effects outside of those uniquely private spheres. "Abuse" then, involves a definitional problem when the secularist attempts to deal with gospel contexts and concepts. Your definition seems to include exclusively the imposition of the will of one on another such that a given behavior occurs at the expense of the free will or rights of another; or in other words, when another's consent has been violated.
This is one valid definitional perspective, but far too limited in the context of LDS doctrine and philosophy. In this context, anything we do to one another that hinders, retards, or in severe cases, cripples or destroys our ability to move closer to our Father in Heaven, become more like him, and eventually return to his presence as outlined in LDS theology, is immoral, since it is a relationship of disintegrity in that the consequences of such actions, even when full consent is present, is, being destructive to the happiness and ultimately, spiritual and personal fulfillment of the individual as a child of God, destructive to all involved in that consensual relationship.
In other words, in the gospel, there is nonconsensual immorality and consensual immorality. The one is based on a violation of others rights and free will. The other is based on not a denial of another's will but a consensual misuse of will between individuals. That is a matter of essential principle, not a pragmatist or utilitarian morality in which only overt trespasses against the consent of lack of such of another person carries moral weight.
Roger:
Quote:
The core of an individual, or the collective, should be formed by a spiritual appreciation of individual differences that do not bring pain and/or injustice to others.
Loran:
I agree with this (although I have no idea what 'the collective" means), but from an LDS standpoint, this is a fragment of a larger whole.
Roger:
Quote:
It appears that Your moral-high-ground might simply be so in the minds of those who lack the 'charity' to live the higher laws introduced by Jesus???
Loran:
Sexual immorality of all kinds were condemned as the grossest and most serous of sins by Jesus' Apostles, and they are the only recourse we have when deciding what Jesus actually taught in the New Testament texts. We have no book written by Jesus, nor any teachings of his that have not come down to use from his disciples. You either believe what they said Jesus taught, or you reject both them and Jesus. You can't have it both ways here.
Roger:
Quote:
Your camp, so-to-speak, seems to dwell on "...appropriate sexual relations..." as the crux of the matter. Really, where do we find that idealism to be preached from pulpits--to a GREAT degree? Seems we've moved from lust to love, to relationships as the base for family security. Both D.O. Mackay and H.B. Lee made that the purpose of home and family in their famous quotes. Yet a long way from the norm in LDS and other sectarian religions...
Loran:
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I'll just say that, as far as the church goes, it is not the church that dwells on appropriate sexual relations. This is a fundamental late 20th century, post sixties misunderstanding. It is the secular world that has become preoccupied with and dwells upon sex and sexuality per se that necessitates a continuous response from those who, according to New Testament mandates and LDS theology, are obligated to warn the world and individuals within it of the ultimate consequences of these behaviors and cultural patterns.
Roger
Could it be possible that neither you nor i (among others) know so little about "God's" ways, and fall so short of measuring-up by the "NEW" moral-code he left us with, that the world could improve IF we just gave a chance to setting aside violence and dogmatism to practice 'charity in all things'. And that ain't no Leftist Bull-S*** Bro!! Warm regards, Roger
Loran
Your conernts here are valid, but I'm not sure how they are relevant to the crux of the matter here, which is human sexuality. Non-consensual immorality such as violence and other violations of the free agency and rights of others are a concern of the church, as is the consensual immorality that occurs when we do things to,or with each other, than cripple or truncate our relationship with our Father in Heaven.
Loran
Hi Loran, thanks for your response--especially its civility, much appreciated! Pasted from your post, into which i'll interject in italics:
I think your understanding of what a moral society rather lacks both philosophical depth and a substantive understanding of the the New Testament texts actually say about specific instances of immorality such as fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. Possibly. However, in Jesus' words--as we have them--he seems to spend more time presenting what some call, "the social gospel" than speaking about, "fornication, adultery, and homosexuality". In the incident of the adultress brought to him, he did not endorse stoning her. He barely rebuked her. He simply said "...sin no more." He also took occassion to chide the self-righteous Pharasees, "...you think you're so pure...when you lust...you've committed adultery in your heart..."
If a moral society is concerned with abuse, then a moral society is most certainly going to be quite concerned with both cohabitation and adultery, two features of the 'sexual revolution" that have generated vast social pathologies that have victimized not only the the intimate others involved but indirectly, all other members of society as they must bear the burdens, cultural, financial, and political, of cleaning up the societal messes left be the critical mass of those engaging in such behavior. "...societal messes..." are obvious, and a challenge! However, to ascribe them all to the 'sexual revolution' i think is to ignore other social factors, old and new, that are causal of what is symptomatic as seen in infidelity and its sad, and serious, consequences.
All must endure the socio-cultural effects of the breakdown of the family, marriage, parental authority, and Judeo/Christian sexual boundaries and the violence, alienation, crime, lost future economic prosperity, and the vast sums of money spent on alcohol and drug rehab, the processing and warehousing of people in the criminal justice system, and psychologist's and psychiatrist's couches that would have better been spent in productive economic activity or in taking intact, successful families to Disneyland and putting psychologically and spiritually healthy children into quality private schools. This social morass, you well describe, unfortunately is not new. It was the focus 2,000 years ago of Jesus as he wept over the conditions of his people. His prescriptions of remedy however, have not been taken regularly; if indeed they have really been glanced at... "Two New Commandments..." have as yet not come into their own, generally speaking. Yet, we do see, and experience, "...spiritually healthy children" and adults, who are about-good-works... Loran, there is no doubt in my mind that "Family Matters". However, IMSCO, the 'family' to this point in time, has not filled its mandate well; with exceptions of course. Otherwise the social dysfunctions laid out above would not exist to the extent they do...
"Morality" is integrity of relationship, and that integrity does not end with only those closest too us (and it cannot so end, as the quality of our relationships with them will determine the quality of our relationships with the greater community and with the nation as a whole, as the effects of those most intimate relationships are manifested in effects through wider and wider concentric circles of societal structure) In total agreement! .
In other words, in a gospel context, acute abuse of others is only one manifestation of "immorality". Our private behavior, as with our private thoughts, attitudes, motivations, and core characterological attributes, have effects outside of those uniquely private spheres. Total agreement--in every social context!
"Abuse" then, involves a definitional problem when the secularist attempts to deal with gospel contexts and concepts. Your definition seems to include exclusively the imposition of the will of one on another such that a given behavior occurs at the expense of the free will or rights of another; or in other words, when another's consent has been violated. A bit garbled here, but i would say, "not necessarily so"???
This is one valid definitional perspective, but far too limited in the context of LDS doctrine and philosophy. In this context, anything we do to one another that hinders, retards, or in severe cases, cripples or destroys our ability to move closer to our Father in Heaven, become more like him, and eventually return to his presence as outlined in LDS theology, is immoral, since it is a relationship of disintegrity in that the consequences of such actions, even when full consent is present, is, being destructive to the happiness and ultimately, spiritual and personal fulfillment of the individual as a child of God, destructive to all involved in that consensual relationship. A very long sentence. To which i generally agree. I will extend it beyond LDS theology, as i think that is too limiting. "Children of God" are not confined to LDSism but are privy to their divine heritage wherever they abide...
In other words, in the gospel, there is nonconsensual immorality and consensual immorality. The one is based on a violation of others rights and free will. The other is based on not a denial of another's will but a consensual misuse of will between individuals. That is a matter of essential principle, not a pragmatist or utilitarian morality in which only overt trespasses against the consent of lack of such of another person carries moral weight.
,
The last paragraph demands more serious consideration than i can give it at the moment. However, i do not think anyone can escape the consequence of their actions. That is more than a priciple. It is an unavoidable reality. I'd like to pick this up later... Warm regards, Roger