Homosexuality: Morals and Ethics Catch-All Thread

I didn't get a chance to respond earlier, so I wanted to clarify that I'm not saying I believe homosexuality is evil or that gay men in particular have a greater responsibility towards safe sex than anyone else. As much as we go round-and-round, OG did make some good points about STDs being much higher in the past (which I didn't know).

That being said, I think there are certain actions involving sex that are highly unethical. If take every precaution but catch something, then that's not on you. If you have multiple partners and are grossly negligent in protecting yourself and others, I see your actions as equivalent to a drunk deciding to drive. If you have HIV and lie about your status, then personally I see you as morally the equivalent of Mr Dape Rapist in the rape culture thread or Jerry Sandusky. By that I mean you're willing to destoy someone else's life for your own sexual thrills.

I'm thinking of starting a "what does ethics/morality mean to you" thread so as not to derail this one.

jdzappa:

Here is something I've been thinking about for a while.

It is without doubt that engaging in multiple sexual partners at once within a short period, and certainly within screenings, is considered risky behavior on the part of the person doing it. But s/he is not only endangering himself/herself, but every person s/he gets in contact. That could be considered negligent bahvaior in and of itself.

To what extent is promiscuity considered unethical in the sense that it poses a public health risk in general?

LarryC wrote:

jdzappa:

Here is something I've been thinking about for a while.

It is without doubt that engaging in multiple sexual partners at once within a short period, and certainly within screenings, is considered risky behavior on the part of the person doing it. But s/he is not only endangering himself/herself, but every person s/he gets in contact. That could be considered negligent bahvaior in and of itself.

To what extent is promiscuity considered unethical in the sense that it poses a public health risk in general?

Without the clarifier of "without protection" I absolutely do doubt this.

SixteenBlue wrote:
LarryC wrote:

jdzappa:

Here is something I've been thinking about for a while.

It is without doubt that engaging in multiple sexual partners at once within a short period, and certainly within screenings, is considered risky behavior on the part of the person doing it. But s/he is not only endangering himself/herself, but every person s/he gets in contact. That could be considered negligent bahvaior in and of itself.

To what extent is promiscuity considered unethical in the sense that it poses a public health risk in general?

Without the clarifier of "without protection" I absolutely do doubt this.

Eeeehh... Protection is not a 100% proposition. It's still pretty damn good, but there are ways, even when protected, to catch something. By the strictest definition of "risky," even protected sex qualifies.

That said, so is getting out of bed in the morning.

LarryC wrote:

jdzappa:

Here is something I've been thinking about for a while.

It is without doubt that engaging in multiple sexual partners at once within a short period, and certainly within screenings, is considered risky behavior on the part of the person doing it. But s/he is not only endangering himself/herself, but every person s/he gets in contact. That could be considered negligent bahvaior in and of itself.

To what extent is promiscuity considered unethical in the sense that it poses a public health risk in general?

That's a hard question. Lets compare sex with multiple partners to fun but inherently dangerous activities like scuba diving or parachuting. But there are more extreme versions of those sports such as cave diving or base jumping where the danger to yourself becomes exponentially greater. Having sex with multiple people in a short time is IMHO base jumping, and an ethical person should take that much more precaution.

NSMike wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
LarryC wrote:

jdzappa:

Here is something I've been thinking about for a while.

It is without doubt that engaging in multiple sexual partners at once within a short period, and certainly within screenings, is considered risky behavior on the part of the person doing it. But s/he is not only endangering himself/herself, but every person s/he gets in contact. That could be considered negligent bahvaior in and of itself.

To what extent is promiscuity considered unethical in the sense that it poses a public health risk in general?

Without the clarifier of "without protection" I absolutely do doubt this.

Eeeehh... Protection is not a 100% proposition. It's still pretty damn good, but there are ways, even when protected, to catch something. By the strictest definition of "risky," even protected sex qualifies.

Fair enough, the original sentence did say risky and not negligent which came later.

Edit: That said, there are not STD related risks involved with sex as well. Even planned pregnancy is risky. I need concrete numbers on these things before I'm ready to consider promiscuity a public health risk.

Edit 2: You beat me to it!

LarryC wrote:

It's base-jumping, but you're taking a bunch of other people with you without telling them about it.

SixteenBlue:

What's a number you'd consider, and what would be the basis for it? A planned pregnancy has something like a 1% overall risk of mortality in modern industrialized health care environments. Since that's risky, would we be considering increased risk along that order of magnitude?

In addition, planned pregnancy has the rather obvious public benefit of creating the next generation. Are we weighing risk/benefit as well?

There are health benefits of sexual activity, are there not? Also what's the % chance of disease transmission if you use proper protection? I legitimately don't know the answer, that's why I said I need to see numbers before I can consider it a public health risk.

It's base-jumping, but you're taking a bunch of other people with you without telling them about it.

SixteenBlue:

What's a number you'd consider, and what would be the basis for it? A planned pregnancy has something like a 1% overall risk of mortality in modern industrialized health care environments. Since that's risky, would we be considering increased risk along that order of magnitude?

In addition, planned pregnancy has the rather obvious public benefit of creating the next generation. Are we weighing risk/benefit as well?

NSMike:

Getting out of bed in the morning doesn't signify because the order of magnitude of risk is significantly lower. We can estimate the odds ratio by estimating that everyone alive, for every morning of their adult lives, does this activity with no measurable harm. Offhand, I'd say risk of death from getting out of bed alone would be something between one in one million and one in ten million, or so.

SixteenBlue:

I'll try to get numbers on transmission with condoms, but transmission with just the Pill I would estimate to be about the same as unprotected. Also, you can have sex without being promiscuous (having more than one partner within a short time span).

LarryC wrote:

SixteenBlue:

I'll try to get numbers on transmission with condoms, but transmission with just the Pill I would estimate to be about the same as unprotected. Also, you can have sex without being promiscuous (having more than one partner within a short time span).

Of course, I have never considered the pill to be protection from STDs.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Also what's the % chance of disease transmission if you use proper protection? I legitimately don't know the answer, that's why I said I need to see numbers before I can consider it a public health risk.

IMAGE(http://www.scielosp.org/img/revistas/bwho/v82n6/fig_1_8813.gif)

From the WHO Public Health Review article "Effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted infections." (PDF)

Not responding to anything specifically with this, and I haven't watched it entirely, but this was posted recently:

As regards promiscuity, I believe it all depends on the level of communication.

If everyone is aware and informed of activity you are engaging in, I see it as less of a problem. The risk is still there, but the people then have the information to do with as they please (in this case, have sex, safer or not depending on their decision, with said person or not).

I would agree. The unethical act is not promiscuous sex. The unethical act is promiscuous sex without telling anyone and without taking appropriate precautions. It's much easier to say to someone "it's wrong to sleep around", but it's less true. And it doesn't cover cases where you don't sleep around but end up spreading disease anyway--being in longer term relationships and still picking up a diseases from a partner along the way but then either not finding out or not sharing the information with future partners.

Like a lot of things in the world, there are dangers, and those dangers can be mitigated by acting responsibly. If you're not willing to do so, you probably shouldn't engage in that activity. But that doesn't extend to saying "nobody should engage in that activity".

Right. That said, we regulate drunk drivers as irreponsible actors for an activity that is deemed essential to daily living. Sex isn't. How can you regulate unethical actors in this essential public health sphere?

What's the minimum information necessary for a date to disclose about his or her sexual past before we rate consensual sex to then be ethical?

Put another way: I'm sure full disclosure sex, even of the most promiscuous variety, can be ethical by dint of informed consent. What fraction of the population actually engages in that?

NSMike wrote:

Not responding to anything specifically with this, and I haven't watched it entirely, but this was posted recently:

A friend of mine sent this to me last night and I watched it all the way through. I commented to her that after doing so, I have a much better understanding of the kind of mindset necessary to vigorously defend institutions like slavery, "separate but equal", and anti-miscegenation laws.

Spoiler alert: at the end when Brian Brown was asked several times to give a single concrete example of the damage marriage equality would have on heterosexual marriage, he simply hemmed, hawed, and used ridiculous slippery slope arguments about polyamory and bruising delicate religious sensitivities.

Dan Savage may not be the most diplomatic of speakers and often says and does stuff that I think are too far, but I have to admit that he came prepared and left Brown's argument looking like Truk Lagoon.

After watching it, I think Dan's only error was not coming entirely prepared to answer the polygamy questions.

Brian Brown effectively demonstrated that his side really doesn't have an empirical leg to stand on, and that his argument boils down to, "people won't like us for not liking gay marriage."

I'm fairly certain it's a little too late for that inevitability to be avoided.

LarryC wrote:

Broadly speaking, I don't agree with his assertion that the Bible was "wrong" in morally tolerating slavery; so his entire point falls flat right off.

Can't say a great deal about Hebrew notions of slavery but Greco-Roman slavery of the same period ran the whole gamut from chattel slavery (rare) to indentured service (very common). Close to the entire world has come around the notion that indentured service is morally wrong, which is a large component of why we no longer live under the feudal system today.

My own impression is that Mr. Savage gets his point off on the wrong foot straight off. South American-style slavery is unusual in that it's a form of slavery that is unusually cruel and harsh, that being chattel slavery. It is not clear that the Bible is talking specifically about chattel slavery, and it's unlikely that it is since it's a highly unusual form of slavery, historically speaking.

Broadly speaking, I don't agree with his assertion that the Bible was "wrong" in morally tolerating slavery; so his entire point falls flat right off.

That said, he rallies around the stronger point that Christians do not need to sacrifice their faith in any measure to tolerate secular contracts of any kind, regardless of how those contracts are named.

DanB wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Broadly speaking, I don't agree with his assertion that the Bible was "wrong" in morally tolerating slavery; so his entire point falls flat right off.

Can't say a great deal about Hebrew notions of slavery but Greco-Roman slavery of the same period ran the whole gamut from chattel slavery (rare) to indentured service (very common). Close to the entire world has come around the notion that indentured service is morally wrong, which is a large component of why we no longer live under the feudal system today.

That must explain why Apple products have drastically fallen off in popularity ever since it came to light that they work with companies that use indentured servants; very few of which are involved in manufacturing goods in any major centers of production.

Wouldn't write off chattel slavery, either. Dubai's dark underbelly reveals just how close we still are to tolerating that sort of hideousness as humans. Western expats have been quoted as saying that they like that sort of system.

To be brutally frank, I'd say Westerners who don't think it will affect them personally in any measure are quick to condemn anything related to "slavery" as evil. Once it comes down to brass tacks, however, (widespread boycott of Apple goods), they'll turn a blind eye just like everybody else. This deserves its own topic, so this is my last reply on this tangent on this thread.

LarryC wrote:
DanB wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Broadly speaking, I don't agree with his assertion that the Bible was "wrong" in morally tolerating slavery; so his entire point falls flat right off.

Can't say a great deal about Hebrew notions of slavery but Greco-Roman slavery of the same period ran the whole gamut from chattel slavery (rare) to indentured service (very common). Close to the entire world has come around the notion that indentured service is morally wrong, which is a large component of why we no longer live under the feudal system today.

That must explain why Apple products have drastically fallen off in popularity ever since it came to light that they work with companies that use indentured servants; very few of which are involved in manufacturing goods in any major centers of production.

Foxconn do most of Apple's manufacturing in China no? Citation needed that Foxconn workers are indentured. Chinese workers rights and working conditions are clearly deplorable. I wasn't aware that they were using actual slaves. That would be morally wrong and while I'm at it I think it's morally wrong the western nations and companies continue to exploit chinese workers working conditions and rights

LarryC wrote:

Wouldn't write off chattel slavery, either. Dubai's dark underbelly reveals just how close we still are to tolerating that sort of hideousness as humans. Western expats have been quoted as saying that they like that sort of system.

No writing it off and I'm sure it goes on doesn't make it right.

Anyway coming back to my assertion that the world has largely (and I never said completely) come round to the notion that actual slavery* is morally wrong I'd point you towards article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which asserts the Slavery, Servitude and slave trading should all be prohibited.

*(as opposed to sh*tty working conditions/rights)

DanB:

PM or fresh thread?

DanB wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Broadly speaking, I don't agree with his assertion that the Bible was "wrong" in morally tolerating slavery; so his entire point falls flat right off.

Can't say a great deal about Hebrew notions of slavery but Greco-Roman slavery of the same period ran the whole gamut from chattel slavery (rare) to indentured service (very common). Close to the entire world has come around the notion that indentured service is morally wrong, which is a large component of why we no longer live under the feudal system today.

The Hebrew notion of slavery was odd. It was a lot more like an unbreakable work contract. Slave men and women were free to join the tribe/religion if they came from conquest. Slaves who were of the religion had to be freed after 6 years of service. Slaves were allowed to choose their own spouses, have their own children.

Such privileges were not afforded to foreign slaves who did not adopt the religion, they and their children could be in servitude forever.

If you read Exodus, slavery speaks much more about female slaves, about men selling daughters into slavery. It implies that fathers with too many daughters would sell 'surplus' girls to be servants, and then they would go about their own lives. But a female slave could be required to marry the owner's son-then the woman is treated as any other daughter in law. That sounds much more like an arranged marriage to me.

Some fun tidbits on the subject
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sl...

But again, it is very much true that these verses were used and abused to justify the use of slaves as livestock. The Vatican briefly put a hold on that as it decreed that no Christian person, baptized could be a slave. That sent many Jesuits, Dominicans, etc to the new world to baptize native peoples. Even that ended. And we have a fantastic illustration of using modern prejudices with biblical support.

LarryC wrote:

DanB:

PM or fresh thread?

Feel free to spin it to another thread, if you think others might have some additional interesting input. But if we're just going to clarify our last 2 posts to one another I can see already that it'll likely just be another semantic argument on the internet but this time about about what "slavery" actually means which doesn't strike me as esp. productive.

KingGorilla wrote:

The Hebrew notion of slavery was odd. It was a lot more like an unbreakable work contract. Slave men and women were free to join the tribe/religion if they came from conquest. Slaves who were of the religion had to be freed after 6 years of service. Slaves were allowed to choose their own spouses, have their own children.

What baffled me in debates with people who bring this up is that the only relevance this could make to the debate about slavery being condoned in the Bible is that they would be ok if this particular form of Slavery was allowed.

It's basically "Yeah, SLAVERY slavery is bad, but the Hebrews had this OTHER kind of slavery that wasn't as bad, see? So everything is ok in the Bible again!"

To which the proper response should be "huh?"

Jewish slavery rules changed over time, and ran the gamut from lifetime slavery, to slavery for crimes (7 year limit), to selling one's self into slavery (indentured service). Most apologetics seek to imply that Hebrew slaves were "more like indentured servants", and so Biblical slavery was not really *slavery* like we had in the US. But that misses the fact that for centuries, non-Jewish slaves were treated much more harshly. It also misses many of the subtleties - for example, you could not sell a woman into slavery in order to pimp her out, and a master could not marry a slave without manumitting her, but the slave owner was entitled to the services of his slaves nonetheless.

Biblical slavery was not a gentle upward helping hand, nor was it howling overseers whipping slaves to death in 110 degree heat. It was actual, own-other-people slavery, with a reasonable set of legal protections for both masters and slaves, evidence of bias involving the ethnic background of the slaves, and laws that changed and evolved over time, often contradicting each other. Just comparing Talmud to Torah on that shows the changes.

But Biblical slavery should not be treated as something especially mild, because it was not, in general. Just like house slaves were said to live better lives than field slaves in the US South, slaves under the Hebrew system were dependent on their master for the quality of their treatment, and had little recourse for bad treatment, and none for things we'd consider crimes outside of slavery, like rape, breakup of families and such.

They were a desert tribe who based much of their legal code on Hammurabi's system. This was about 2800 years ago. What else do we expect? We can't wedge that into a modern morality without either making ourselves resemble them, or ignoring/rationalizing away many of the God-sanctified laws on topics we no longer favor. Obviously, we've mostly done the latter.

Aeazel wrote:

As regards promiscuity, I believe it all depends on the level of communication.

If everyone is aware and informed of activity you are engaging in, I see it as less of a problem. The risk is still there, but the people then have the information to do with as they please (in this case, have sex, safer or not depending on their decision, with said person or not).

Bingo.

It's only unethical if someone's being kept in the dark. If everyone is open and honest about who else they're sleeping with, get tested regularly, has safe sex and/or limit who they're fluid-bonded with, then it's down to each individual to make an informed choice whether they want to take the increased risks involved with multiple partners situations.

And of course, a situation like that is the least risky way to have mutliple partners.

Valmorian wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

The Hebrew notion of slavery was odd. It was a lot more like an unbreakable work contract. Slave men and women were free to join the tribe/religion if they came from conquest. Slaves who were of the religion had to be freed after 6 years of service. Slaves were allowed to choose their own spouses, have their own children.

What baffled me in debates with people who bring this up is that the only relevance this could make to the debate about slavery being condoned in the Bible is that they would be ok if this particular form of Slavery was allowed.

It's basically "Yeah, SLAVERY slavery is bad, but the Hebrews had this OTHER kind of slavery that wasn't as bad, see? So everything is ok in the Bible again!"

To which the proper response should be "huh?"

Selective thinking. Notions of slavery, kosher eating, sabbath breaking can go by the wayside, but homosexuals and female sexual servitude are just as relevant today. That is the 'true' word of god, the rest was just chuffa. So we get back to the conservative right picking and choosing where fundamental biblical truth lies, O'Connor would be proud of this last sentence.

The Hebrew notion of slavery was odd. It was a lot more like an unbreakable work contract. Slave men and women were free to join the tribe/religion if they came from conquest. Slaves who were of the religion had to be freed after 6 years of service. Slaves were allowed to choose their own spouses, have their own children.

Actually, at various times all of these were false. Most slaves by conquest were not able to join the tribe and were treated more harshly by law. Hebrew slaves who were not enslaved for criminal acts were supposed to be freed in the seventh year of service, but those who were criminals were not subject to this, and also, it appears that in many cases, the owners simply freed them and brought them back into slavery on the spot. And slaves were part of the master's household, meaning he picked their spouses.

Under Jewish law, slaves *were* property - the argument was whether they were property like land, in that they could be sold or inherited, or whether they were like moveable property, which could be stolen, transferred, etc. The idea that Jewish law treated them not as chattel but as something so gentle as to be not worthy of the name "slave" is just wrong.

Like I said, it's not as nice as it's often portrayed, nor is it Simon Legreeovitch in the Sinai. It's slavery, better than some systems and worse than others, but ownership of other humans with rights to their work and their bodies and their social lives held to the master.

If you are saying the Hebrews selectively followed and ignored their own divine laws. My only answer is yep. All the more reason why Jewish scholars are perplexed at how conservative Christians treat those laws.

It is a system of laws, and the Hebrew society changed interpretations, phased out many of it, etc. Because even they realized laws in place at the birth of a country are not those needed 100, 200, 1000 years later. Even those who supposedly took all of their laws from god himself through his prophet changed interpretations.