No it doesn't. The harm still exists, even if the victims are unaware of it. The harm is in the breaking of the marriage vows which already happens as soon as adultery is committed, regardless of whether the victim knows this or not. Being unaware of the harm is not equivalent with there not being any harm in the first place.

That claim is uncontroversial by my argument. I concede that adultery ought to be illegal. The question is what legal liability does the website have in facilitating the actions of the users. — Soylent

The liability of encouraging and facilitating access to illegal activity. That in itself is culpable.

Any human makes sense without resorting to classification of "natural deviation," as there is no a priori standard for what makes one person a human and another not. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Also, I might add. Any human makes sense. But ALL humans don't, without this explanation. A fallacy of composition WoD, which assumes that if any individual human makes sense, nothing else is missing. Maybe "all humans" have properties which individual humans don't, just like how every single grain of sand is hard, while a pile of sand is soft. How much more embarassing do you want this to get?

A misrepresentation, which suggests you have not read the thread Soylent. I expected better from you. An argument is fleshed out through out the thread.

Furthermore, your post ignores that the people using AM must be punished as well. You just have failed to understand what the argument is about since you've read nothing but the first post.

You are making the mistake of thinking everything about a thing must be related in the intellect. It doesn't. People may know about something and, while they notice what is, not pick-up on the fact it is good or bad. Ethical significance IS a property (an ethical one) expressed by the things itself (it is things which are good or bad)f. Human intellect just doesn't always pick-up on it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No. Ethical significance is not expressed by a thing itself, but rather by its connections to everything else. A relation is not something one sees with their eyes - therefore it is something derived from what one sees with their eyes. It requires the powers of the intellect to extract. You are making a category error by assuming that one sees a relation the same way one sees a chair.

Nope. I know perfectly well what those are: acts of mistaking features expressed by a large group of individuals for the rule that (supposedly) what define a rule which governs the nature of existence. Their "purpose" is to ignore the nature of the world in favour of the comfort of an "origin" rule. It's God/PSR all over again. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nope. This is just your unfounded opinion. I suggest you pick up Aristotle's Physics and Metaphysics and start reading them. Perhaps you will realise that you're nowhere near Aristotle's definition nor use with regard to final causes. Therefore what you are talking about is a straw-man.

In which case "deriving" is irrelevant. Ethics doesn't require it. Understanding it doesn't require it, for the moment we pick-up on ethical expression in our intellect, we have it. We have no extra step to take. We just see the good or bad thing as it is. "Deriving" is useless, unnecessary and doing absolutely no work in accounting for ethics.

The problem here is not that we don't need our intellect to pick-up on ethical significance to understand it, but rather "deriving" has no place in this process. When we "reveal" ethical significance, we notice some state is good or bad. There is no "deriving." You are confusing coming to understand the ethical significance of a state, which we can't do without noticing a state of existence, for deriving an "ought" from an "is." — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes there is deriving. Because whether something is good or not is not a property of the thing itself, but rather of how it relates to everything else. It's in the relation. Thus it has to be derived by the intellect - it's not sufficient to just look because you cannot see a relation with your eyes. If you could - we would all be sages.

Since no existing human is "abstract" or "general," as there is no a prior standard for what makes an empirical state, such "general sense" abstractions are an incoherent category error. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is a non-sequitur. The problem only arises because you don't understand what the purpose of abstract and general final causes is - and so you misinterpret it.

Well, even in statistics, what is deviant, is being defined in relation to what is expected (a mean value for example). — Πετροκότσυφας

No. What is deviant is defined as what is unlikely to occur in a standard distribution (it's more than two standard deviations from the mean). Homosexuality is unlikely to occur in a randomly chosen human being. Both the deviant and the mean are defined in themselves.

All this has to do is with their probability of occurring, it has nothing to do with their identity (which isn't one in terms of the other as both you and WoD mistakenly think).

If you and WoD think that given a random individual, he is more likely to be homosexual than not - then you're just fooling yourselves. The fact that homosexuality is not as frequent as heterosexuality demands an explanation. Why is it that there are fewer homosexuals through history? The explanation available is the evolutionary one, which explains why heterosexuality is the natural tendency of the human being in the most general sense (this does not refer to any particular human being; that's why it is an abstraction), and why homosexuality must necessarily be a natural deviation of the human being in the most general sense. These are evolutionary and undeniable explanations.

Some Y being a natural tendency denotes merely that population X, on average, will tend to have more members having the characteristic Y than other incompatible characteristics. This natural tendency has a natural origin in this case. It is the result of evolution, combined with the biological constraints imposed on population X.

It's a fact that man in general has a natural tendency towards heterosexuality. That, in itself, is undeniable. The only question that there ever was, was what causes this tendency - or in other words, why doesn't he have an equal tendency towards an incompatible characteristic such as homosexuality? And the answer is the one I have given.

Given evolution and the biological constraints currently existing, it is logically impossible for homosexuality to ever be a natural tendency - to ever form the majority of the population.

When someone tries to define an "ought" from an "is," they attempt to define ethics in terms of existence. Something is, supposedly, good or bad because it exists. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No - that argument is incoherent, and that is not the argument that I have made. The operation of derivation is an intellectual operation of extracting in propositional form something that represents a relation amongst existents. An "ought" isn't in the same class as "existents" ; the fact that I ought to be nice to people as opposed to kill them does not exist in the same sense as black swans exist. The former are derived from the latter (as it were) via the intellectual operation called derivation. But for the intellect to be able to derive it, a priori, it must be found in that from which the intellect derives it. Thus the "ought" necessarily is found in the "is". However - it is not the same as the "is", because the two of them exist in different meanings of the word exist. Thus - something cannot be good or bad because it exists. Existence is prior to those adjectives.

This is nonsensical. If the ought is "in" the "is" and, so to speak, already there, no-one is deriving anything. The ought is expressed on its own terms and doesn't need any justification from the "is" at all. When the "ought" is in the "is," there is no deriving work to do. We only need to derive when what we are looking for isn't present. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It's an intellectual operation. Without the intellect, no "ought" can be derived. It may be lurking among the "is", but it doesn't exist in the same way that the "is" does. That's why it requires the intellect to reveal it.

The point of "natural deviation" is to mark being gay as something unusual,something strange, for a human — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, this is what you think. I never said this, nor do any of my statements imply this.

My point with "immanence" was to point out how ethical significance is an expression of states of the world (i.e. an "is" which has (im)moral significance), rather than something determined by states of the world (i.e."ought" derived form "is" ). We might, indeed, say your natural theory has nothing to do with immanence. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is again a very complicated way of trying to get away with it. Ethical significance is an expression of states of the world = "ought" derived from "is", and it also necessarily follows that tis is something determined by the states of the world. What you wrote above is logically contradictory.

That's the problem. You treated ethical significance as if it was something defined form an outside itself (i.e. (Im)moral by "nature," by the "is"), rather than understanding it to be an immanent expression of some states of existence (i.e. some "nature" is moral or immoral ). — TheWillowOfDarkness

No. Ethical significance is in the relation of things. Your ontology of "states of existence" is nonsense as well, and cannot be used to derive anything from it. Existence is dynamic... there's no question of "states" here. It's a flow, a relation amongst states.

You literally said the opposite TWO POSTS ago (not to mention all the other ones before that which were expressing the same idea), when you insisted my arguments about (im)moral states of existence were a case of deriving an "ought" for an "is." — TheWillowOfDarkness

That's because they are.

We have description of ethical significance (ought) expressed by states of the world (is). It is the exact opposite of deriving an "ought" from an "is." — TheWillowOfDarkness

The exact opposite of deriving an "ought" from an "is", is deriving an "is" from an "ought". Is this what you mean? If you don't, then you're misusing language.

Ethical significance expressed by "states of the world", is exactly the same as deriving (an intellectual activity of abstraction) the "ought" out of the "is". Of course the "ought" is inside the "is", otherwise how the fuck can you derive it from it? Again this is nonsense. Why is it impossible to derive an "is" from an "ought"??? Precisely because the "ought" is in the "is" and not the other way around. But I don't need to make this statement, because to begin with you are going along the wrong lines, and your thinking lacks rigor and clarity.

Rather it is question of whether the understanding IS in conflict. And it is. It considers gay people don't make sense as humans. It holds them to be "Other," to be "deviant." — TheWillowOfDarkness

You are conflating "deviant" with "natural deviation". The meanings are different - the former has a moral meaning, the latter has a purely descriptive meaning.

It might not say gay people are in conflict with what makes sense for humans, but it understands them to be. — TheWillowOfDarkness

lol. No, it actually doesn't. I think I have repeated this to you a million times. You are misusing language, and are just trapped by this mis-use.

That's not deriving an "ought" for "is." It describing and ought expressed in an is. Morality is not coming out of existence, as your naturalistic nonsense proclaims. It is immanent within it. When we look at, for example, whether being gay is moral or immoral, we may examine states of the world for any relevant information, as we may do for any question about the morality of an action. — TheWillowOfDarkness

My natural theory has nothing to do with immanence or transcendence - therefore this is nonsense.

Anything we find though, as ethical important not because it is "natural" — TheWillowOfDarkness

Sure. So what? I never said the opposite.

It means understanding it amounts to knowing it makes sense, that it not in conflict with what is logical, what is appropriate, what is to be expected, of the world. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, it is not in conflict with what is expected of the world. I agree. Neither does my theory say that it is in conflict :)

There are plenty of ethical arguments made on the grounds of existing states. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yep -> deriving an "ought" (ethics) from a set of "is"'s (facts) :)

Rather, it is that it holds they don't make sense, for, supposedly, they do not fit what makes a human (and so are "deviants," as opposed to merely other humans with a different trait). — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nope, it doesn't hold this. Gay people make sense as they are an inevitable occurence. That's what something making sense means. It means that it fits in with the rest, and there is a necessary connection established.

No... it is necessary because of the distinction of "is" and "ought." No observation of an empirical state is a moral justification. Logically, the "natural" arguments you are so proud of examining do not form an ethical argument. — TheWillowOfDarkness

They could. If you grant and make explicit all the premises. I don't intend them to in my discourse. But you could read something like Philippa Foot's Natural Goodness :) The distinction of "is" and "ought" doesn't necessarily imply that an "ought" can never be derived from an "is" (while it does necessarily imply that an "is" cannot be derived from an "ought"). Just that this requires other premises to be justified.

The problem is not that that you are claiming a person ought to be some way, Agustino. Rather it is the very terms of the discourse you are using don't accept that gay people are a state which make sense for humans. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is wrong. The natural explanation accepts that gay people are inevitable and necessary, as I've argued in response to BC.

This is the naturalistic fallacy, Agustino. The idea there is a such thing as "deviation" in human nature, as that must a priori, suppose what humans are meant to be. Like any trait of human, being gay is not a "natural deviation," it is just something some humans are. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nope. This is not what a naturalistic fallacy is. Neither is my idea supposing that a particular human being ought to be in any way. That's your addition, which is indeed the naturalistic fallacy.

Where the naturalistic fallacy is defined IS NOT in making the explicit claim than some state of humanity is better than another, but rather in the basic understanding of something before we even begin to make any explicit comments on its worth. — TheWillowOfDarkness

G.E. Moore, David Hume, Philippa Foot et al. all disagree with this :)

The form of argument you are considering might show homosexuality to be wrong is impossible. Nothing about the existence of gay people would ever show being gay was moral or immoral. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Bingo. These are your blind spots. You assume these to be necessary. Why? Because you seek to justify your own personal sensibilities.

Since 1 is the naturalistic fallacy, this doesn't help you on bit. — TheWillowOfDarkness

One cannot be the naturalistic fallacy - you have to point to one of the three versions of the naturalistic fallacy and tell me which one is it. Don't make up your own definitions. These are the definitions that philosophers have used through history, so if you make a claim using their language, please defend it using commonly accepted definitions instead of special pleading.

What is at stake here is the possibility of gay people and how that relates to humanity. The "deviance" of being gay is a failure to understand that humans are sometimes gay. It's defined on the assumption all humans are, by default, not gay and that something "shifts" them into the improper, for humans, state of homosexuality. Understanding that some humans are, by their nature, gay is missing. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is most peculiarly false. There is no assumption that humans are 'by default" not gay. In fact a particular human is "by default" not anything - it cannot be said a priori, since it is an empirical matter.

You just shifted the goal-posts back in your previous post as well. Fine. Then I'll shift my argument to there is a natural tendency for the proliferation of non-gay genes. Happy? You don't realise perhaps. It is a priori impossible for you to show what you are seeking to show without committing a naturalistic fallacy. You can go on, but you'll just be making a fool out of yourself.

And it is the philosophical idea which grounds a whole host of prejudice because, supposedly, any humans is meant to fit the "explanation" by their nature. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, it's just that you're irrationally afraid of any idea which you perceive could possibly ground any "prejudice". I'm not. If there was an intellectually sound case for homosexuality being wrong, then I would have no choice but to believe it. This is intellectual integrity. It is looking with open eyes for the truth, instead of rejecting stuff a priori, as you do, because they insult your personal sensibilities. You probably would a priori refuse any idea which judged homosexuality to be wrong. I don't. I look with clear eyes to see what is there. So far I have not found an idea justifying homosexuality to be wrong, therefore I do not believe it is wrong. But I'm not afraid of looking.

Logically, we are given by nothing but ourselves. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, this is just laughable. We are given by our parents. Logically.

An unwillingness to look at the world any understand it for what it is, drawn out a desire to consider ourselves the logically necessary result of a governing origin forc — TheWillowOfDarkness

How quaint that you assume I consider myself logically necessary, while you are the one who implies each being is logically necessary. To wit: "Logically, we are given by nothing but ourselves".

So says every user of the naturalistic fallacy — TheWillowOfDarkness

Okay, we will analyse this together, and I will show you that you are absolutely wrong, beyond any possibility of doubt. What is a naturalistic fallacy?

Well it could be three things:

I. Deriving an "ought" out of an "is" -> "John is black, therefore he ought to be black"
II. Assuming that if a quality necessarily accompanies another, the two must be identical -> "Pleasure is equivalent with goodness, because the latter is always associated with the former in nature"
III. Appealing to nature -> "Heterosexuality is the correct sexuality (and homosexuality is wrong) because it is the natural tendency"

Now, notice that this only applies to syllogisms. For example, the following syllogism commits the naturalistic fallacy:

1. Homosexuality is a natural deviation.
2. Therefore homosexuality is wrong.

This commits the naturalistic fallacy (of type III). Why does it commit the naturalistic fallacy? Because it's a non-sequitur. It requires another premise to draw that conclusion.

1. Homosexuality is a natural deviation.
2. Natural deviations are unwanted or wrong.
3. Therefore homosexuality is unwanted or wrong.

Now, if the premises above are true, then there is NO NATURALISTIC FALLACY. Most moderns fail to realise this, and scream fallacy of composition, naturalistic fallacy, etc. without even realising what they're saying. Again - most moderns are not intellectuals. Most moderns have strong moral convictions which come before any intellectual investigation, and hence all their intellectual investigation is necessarily biased as it aims to defend their a priori convictions. They are not honest.

Now - there is no way for you to show that I commit a naturalistic fallacy. Absolutely no way. Why?

1. Homosexuality is a natural deviation.
2. Therefore homosexuality is wrong.

I accept 1 and deny 2. Therefore there is no possibility of a naturalistic fallacy whatsoever. It is you who is seeing a naturalistic fallacy there, because you are the one making it. Out of your irrational fear that there could be an argument showing homosexuality is wrong (and how dare there be, because a priori you have decided there's nothing wrong with homosexuality), you want to deny even this possibility. But you can't. Because to do it, you have to establish a necessary connection between 1 and 2. And if you manage to do that, then you yourself commit the naturalistic fallacy.

I know what I'm talking about here, Agustino. This form or prejudice goes unnoticed by it proponents and takes a long while to die, for they are under the illusion they are merely telling the truth about the world and so feel compelled to protect the task of accurate description. I can tell you now, you will not admit are wrong because you can't even see the mistake your making. So concerned about the "natural tendency," you aren't even stopping to think about people, who they are and what you are saying about them when you suggest they are deviants from the norm. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, and you are so concerned to make sure that homosexuality isn't wrong, that you will not even look at the truth, because the truth admits the possibility that it could be wrong.

but rather your knowledge and understanding of your thoughts and words in relation to society. I am saying you a missing something very important about the relationship of your thoughts and words to the world. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No I am not. I have stated that in men of inferior intellectual capabilities, the idea that homosexuality is a natural deviation will lead to the conclusion that homosexuality is therefore wrong. But this is just because most people, unquestioningly and unknowingly (just like you), hold the assumption that what is natural is good. A naturalistic fallacy, as you like to say :)

No doubt you don't, yet, have the understanding to talk in terms of this argument. But that's the whole point me making the comment: to point out something you missed, that you haven't understand. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Me too. I am pointing out the irony that you are the one committing a naturalistic fallacy and then projecting this unto me. Why are you committing it? Because you are afraid of what you may find.

Gay people aren't gay because their parents were gay (they almost certainly weren't) but something shifts the distribution of sexual preference from 100% straight to something less than 100%. I'm interested in what that something is. — Bitter Crank

Genetic variation? Genes don't copy exactly from parents to children, so I expect that homosexuality is always the effect of genetic variation, that's why it is ultimately unavoidable, and a necessary feature of the world. What I mean is that the existence of homosexuality as a natural deviation is logically necessary (or otherwise inevitable) given evolution and the biological constraints that exist on reproduction.

↪Agustino Indeed. It's brute fact the majority of people aren't gay. Just as it is brute fact the Earth is the third planet form the sun, the sun rose this morning and that object fall to the ground when dropped. Some people are gay. Other people are not. None of these have an explanation, causality included. They just are what they are. (and may change at any time. Everyone could, in fact, for example, wake-up gay tomorrow morning).

"Explanations" are neither accurate (as each states is denied in-itself) nor is it necessary, as merely pointing out, for example, that a greater number of non-gay people exist because of some cause be it (genetics, environment or anything else) gives a full account of the situation. There is no need to have an "explanation" of why some people aren't gay, for their existence accounts for that entirely. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Okay I understand that you personally don't see a need for having explanations. I'm saying, however, that there are explanations for some things in reality - even if you refuse to see them or acknowledge their existence.

Let me remind you Willow, that I am one of the first people to stand down on something if I am wrong. Very rarely have I seen people admit they are wrong on these forums. But I do it all the time when reason demands that I do it. I did it to you for example: (http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/5633#Post_5633)

I also did it in this very thread to discoii once. I did it to Thorongil in the other thread. If you were right on this, I would admit it. But you're just not. You're not even close. I think you should have the intellectual integrity to at least admit it. It would make these forums an even better place than they are :)

You might have not used the word per say, but that doesn't mean you aren;t thinking it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Well if you refuse to believe me, I think there is no point in having a conversation. If this is your premise, what point is there in me responding to you? You won't believe me anyway. You will keep on saying that I am thinking it, even if I am telling it to your face that I'm not.

Us having an intellectual conversation presupposes that we trust that each other thinks what he says he thinks. If you're not going to trust what I say I think, then the conversation must end here, as a fundamental underlying assumption of our conversation has been severed. I basically am put in a position where I can no longer communicate with you regardless of what I do.

There is no reason some people are gay and other are not. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Did I say there was? Read carefully please. I said there is a reason why the majority of people are not, and will never be gay. If you say there is no reason, you're welcome to believe so. Then it's just a brute fact that the majority is not gay, and there is no explanation. But it doesn't change the fact that you refuse an explanation for it... because in truth, there is an explanation. I just gave it to you.

In science there is also a reason why given a box full of gas molecules, you can expect those molecules to be randomly distributed instead of concentrated at one point in the box. There is a reason for such things. And it has to do with natural tendencies. Gas has a natural tendency to distribute to fill its container. Why? Because of so and so law. Of course you have the right to tell me that every gas molecule is an individual, and it's just a brute fact that individuals are positioned as they are. But that is just refusing to see a necessary pattern, where a necessary pattern exists :)

You're even making basic errors of biology here. Gay people can reproduce. They don't even need any sort to modern reproductive technology to do so. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they are limited to sleeping with people of the opposite sex. Gay people can and have, whether it be by choice or by the social obligations of the time, reproduced throughout history. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Then they are bisexual?

you are unwilling to accept they are just human like anyone else. Rather, you insist, there must be some reason these deviant mistakes of a human have appeared, why these people are different to the "proper" humans who follow the "natural tendency." — TheWillowOfDarkness

I do accept they are human like everyone else. I also don't consider them "mistakes", nor have I ever used that word, which implies a moral judgement of the condition. Nor do I identify everyone else as "proper". Those are all your designations which you input on me.

Where did I deny they were? I just said that a discussion about whether they are right-wing or left-wing doesn't belong here, and I suggested the other thread :)

You do consider gay people to be a lesser part of the community. Your basic understanding of them is that they are deviant. They aren't what a (larger) mass of human is, so you consider them to fall outside the truth of what makes are human. In your understanding they fly against what "makes" a human, that "universal" generality which (supposedly) represents the nature of all humans. It's not purely descriptive. It's normative all the way down. You think being gay ought to fall outside the representation of what makes a human just because their aren't so many gay people. You aren't willing to accept that some humans have a "tendency" to by gay merely because there are less of them. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nonsense - facilitated by your misunderstanding of Aristotelian philosophy.

No. It's not. For there is no "nature of man." Humans are always individuals. the nature of one cannot be "universalised" to act as a descriptor of them all. There is no "general human nature," for there is no "general" human." Being gay is no less a "natural tendency" than being heterosexual or bisexual : both are what, by there nature, humans are. Gay humans certainly don't have a tendency to heterosexual and bisexual. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You think there is no nature of man. But I DO need a nature of man to explain why most people aren't homosexuals. They aren't homosexuals because there is a natural tendency towards heterosexuality. Why is there such a natural tendency? Because of evolution which encourages reproduction overall. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, therefore, evolutionary speaking, there will be less of them, because evolution ensures that over time the majority of the species can contribute to the reproduction effort.

If you deny there is a nature to man you CANNOT explain the above. It's a shortcoming of your worldview. And yes - it's a DESCRIPTIVE short-coming of your worldview.

You are still making the same error, Agustino. Numbers have no relevance here. The nature of anyone is their nature. Higher numbers doesn't make any being because each one of us is an individual. All a higher number signifies is that, in the given situation, there are more people with a given trait. It doesn't define the presence of any sort of trait as "natural" or "proper" over any other. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The nature of an individual is their unique nature yes. The nature of man in general, is the natural tendency.

This, a version of the"naturalistic fallacy," is one of the more deep-seated ideas of prejudice. It is the understanding someone is a lesser part of the community just because their aren't as many people with some trait and they happen to be different to a larger group of people in some way. People fail all too easily for this bullshit because thyme mistake it for describing the world. It is not description of the world. "The Truth" of human existence it is not. It is an absolute failure to take states of the world on their own merits and describe them. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But I do not consider homosexuals, etc. to be a "lesser part of the community". That is a moral judgement on them. I am not making a moral judgement on them. I am just saying that they represent a natural deviation. The human race will NEVER produce the majority of its members as homosexuals. Why? Because there is a tendency towards heterosexuality and bisexuality. It doesn't mean everyone will be heterosexual or bisexual. So the tendency towards heterosexuality+bisexuality is the CAUSE of the fact that the majority of the human race isn't homosexual. It's purely descriptive. It serves to explain why the human race isn't formed primarily of homosexuals.

It passes no judgement, either that this is good, or that this is bad. You could in fact perhaps find arguments that we should all be homosexuals, that it would be more moral for the human race to be formed in majority of homosexuals, and NEVERTHELESS grant that there is a natural tendency towards heterosexuality. Obviously in this case the natural tendency will be evil. Schopenhauer thought our natural tendencies were evil for example. So do not mistake natural tendency with morality. The two don't have anything to do with each other - there is no necessary connection between them. A natural tendency can be either good or bad, or in fact neither, depending on how you judge it.

The fact that you consider a deviation bad is just that - a moral judgement. I don't make that moral judgement. For me, a deviation can be either good, or bad, or neither. In many regards, I too represent a deviation of mankind. Most people are not like me in many regards. Is this good? Is this bad? These are all secondary questions, which are moral in nature. I do not make that moral judgement - I am doing descriptive philosophy now.

Will the village idiot disconsider homosexuality if he is told they are a deviation? Probably - but that just represents his distortion and misuse of language, and the unquestioned assumption that what is natural is good, and deviations are always bad. So perhaps the village idiot shouldn't be explained homosexuality in these terms. He doesn't have the capacity to understand it in these terms. Perhaps your terms are better, and are more likely to produce the desired effect. But these are questions of rhetoric, not truth. My description is superior to yours, strictly from an intellectual point of view because it accounts for why the majority of mankind is not and will never be made up of a majority of homosexuals.

Pretending your views aren't rightwing won't help you here, boy. — Landru Guide Us

What makes you think that I care if they are "right-wing" or "left-wing"? As far as I'm aware, and as far as I made clear all through out the thread, I do not wish to impose a way of life on others that they do not accept (I want to give everyone the possibility to live as they wish), and I do not want others to impose on people ways of life that they don't accept (I want different ways of life to be respected). To my mind, it is you, who like ISIS, like the Taliban, like the Handmaiden's Tale, etc. seek to impose ways of life and force everyone to conform to one standard. I don't. There are people who are different than I, and who deserve to live as they like it so long as they do not harm other people. I've shown in this thread that I am pro polygamism, pro open marriages, etc. if you think these views are similar to those of ISIS, Taliban, or Handmaiden's Tail, what can I say? However, I do think that your ATTITUDE (not your views) is fascist and extremist, and I think other people would agree with me.

Maybe in The Handmaiden's Tale, which I suspect you would consider utopia. It must be some solace to you that ISIS and the Taliban are on your side.

In any case, the delusions of the Right become more elaborate the closer it gets to demographic extinction. — Landru Guide Us

I didn't know we were talking about "the Right" in this thread man... I think you made a mistake, you should move the conversation to the other thread :p

True enough, we all do have a string of things we can't tolerate.

So be it then. Sign a prenuptial agreement when or if you get married, specifying that the marriage will suffer sudden death if your partner can be proven to have strayed from the strait and narrow. She may wish to impose conditions too. For instance, "One notice of late payment on the light, water, gas, telephone, mortgage, or credit card bill and you are OUT." That way you'll both know in advance what you (plural) are getting in to. She might also meter your time on philosophy forums, as well. "Oops, 5 minutes too long. Sorry. Pack your bag and get out." — Bitter Crank

I know that. It's only fair that she does. I've learned after my first girlfriend (who was the one who cheated on me) the same strategies you suggest, and so I've used them with my other girlfriends (and yes, they also imposed their conditions lol - I tend to be quite good at following orders though, and I like it. I was raised in a quite military-like environment though). I'm also quite careful with whom I choose to date, so a priori I'm unlikely to date someone who will cheat on me (I was also careful even with my first gf, she was a good person at heart - shouldn't have left her esp. since she only cheated once and I found out about it a long time after - I think she wouldn't have cheated again, but was too embarassed to tell me herself - had she told me first, I probably wouldn't have left - but - history plays out as it does :) ), because loyalty is one of the character traits I value most. I also value loyalty like no other quality in friends. If they are loyal - they are allowed a lot of other defects. So I've always built both friendship and love on a foundation of loyalty.

Anyway, it's less about me. I'm smart enough (I hope at least) to manage this. But I've seen so many people, family members, as well as aquintances suffer because of these issues. It's a pity that society doesn't do anything to prevent them. Not everyone realises what they want until tragedy hits them. Many don't know they want a loyal husband until they find a disloyal one - often it is already too late to change... Not everyone is smart or can otherwise commit the mistakes that I did at an early age to learn. I'm just lucky in this regard.

Yes, I think this would simplify a lot of things. (lol)

Polygamy, penalties for adultery etc. are just forms of exploitation of women. — photographer

How are penalties for adultery an exploitation of women considering that men are prone to cheating more often than women? :)

What's for dinner? Beef, you say? In that case, we're going to beat you to death right now.

Anti-beef-eating Hindu zealots killed a Moslem man for allegedly eating beef, and there have been similar incidents. — Bitter Crank

As far as the article says "Villagers in northern India beat a Muslim man to death and injured four others who were accused of smuggling cows to be slaughtered for beef". Slaughtering beef is illegal in India, so those mentally retarded peasants beat up the poor man thinking they are doing justice. However - you have to remember slaughtering beef is illegal in India - so if someone does plan to slaughter beef, they are planning an illegal activity and nevertheless deserve punishment (even if this punishment is not getting beaten up, or killed).

It seems that killing for eating the wrong type of meat also exists, and I was wrong there. In fact, anything exists, even 50 year old virgins. Why would I be surprised...

Nevertheless, I believe that getting killed for adultery was, historically, much more common than getting killed for eating meat.

Your very hard line on adultery is the kind of thinking that can lead to this sort of enraged violence. — Bitter Crank

No, it is what is required to prevent such enraged violence. Otherwise, people who are done injustices will take matters into their own hands and will commit exactly this type of injustice that neither of us likes.

Was your wife unfaithful to you? — Bitter Crank

I am not married BC. If I had been married, and my wife cheated on me with the intent to cheat on me (this excludes possibilities that she was too drunk to know what was happening, or she got raped, etc.), then I would have kicked her out of the house (if she lived in my house) and divorced her the next day (even if I had kids with her). We all have things we can't tolerate, here's what I can't tolerate. From the girlfriends I had in the past, only one cheated on me, and I left her as soon as I found out.

Finally, if we're going to criminalise this, we should jail every hooker and mistress for tempting married men from having sex outside of marriage as well. — Benkei

No, because they are not specifically aimed at closed marriage men. Prostitution should go on exactly as it does. So should other dating websites. It's just those which are aimed specifically at people in closed marriages that should be taken off because they are promoting what would be an illegal kind of adultery.

That does not follow at all Agustino. Geniuses, or those so considered, are only so considered after their demise. You cannot possibly estimate a persons worth until after they are gone... That is why it is almost impossible to point out the geniuses of today or the very recent past. Moreover, the dark ages suffer very much to the lack of scholarship and lack or records that attend such a period, though the Muslim world did do a damn sight well... — Phil

Tell that to Albert Einstein :) or Wittgenstein. Or many others.

In that case, after 3 pages it isn't clear to me what the problem is with people breaking a promise? What's so horrible about breaking a marriage vow as opposed to, say, hiding your mounting debts from gambling from your spouse? — Benkei

It depends what the consequences of breaking that promise are. Hiding your mounting debts from your spouse is a serious problem yes. But if you told her, is she likely to have a psychological trauma from it? No. She will just get angry, not speak to you for a week, and then she'll try to sort it out together with you, or seek to divorce you. On the other hand if you break your marriage vow, she could end up having serious psychological trauma because of it, assuming that the marriage vow was important to her (and to many people it is). Afterall, you hear that someone shot their husband because they cheated. You don't hear that they shot their husband because he lied about his debt.

These sexual issues are important to human beings. There is no denying that. That is why all through history we see people fighting over sex: to let it free, not to let it free. All religions speak about sex, none skips it. Why? Because this problem is terribly important in the consciousness of man. Even in the modern liberal consciousness which wants sex to be just like eating, it is terribly important. But fact of the matter is that sex isn't just like eating. We never killed someone because he ate the wrong meat. But we certainly killed them because they had sex with the wrong person. Why? Because to many human beings, sex is terribly important. How sex is practiced is terribly important. So important that the whole psychological well-being of many depends on it.

And yes, I agree with you, it is completely irrational that sex is so important. But it still doesn't change it. Man is an irrational being. In man's consciousness, sex will always remain terribly important. Why? Because we have been biologically programmed to be so. There is nothing more important to Nature, who is our master, than sex (reproduction). Hence Nature uses the most powerful of all instincts to govern someone's sex life - more powerful than those which govern even one's own survival sometimes. Reason cannot oppose these instincts. That is why all it can do is build a society which minimises conflicts arising due to sexuality. A completely free society when it comes to sexuality, as most neo-liberals want, doesn't do this. It makes segments of the population terribly angry, it puts social pressure on them, disregards their cultures and values, and promotes oppression. So the only option is to have different rules for different people, depending on which type of sexual life they want to live. That is what Reason can do.

There's a large difference between open marriages and allowing polygamy. Why shouldn't the latter be legally recognised? Both polygyny and polyandry and any mix thereof, of course.

Your assumption is still very much there but you don't seem to be aware of it. — Benkei

Where do I indicate that they shouldn't be allowed? They should also be allowed. But this OP wasn't about that.

Okay, agreed. I never said ALL adultery should be illegal. In an open marriage adultery should be perfectly legal since both partners agree and no one is harmed. BUT!! In the case of closed marriages, people are greatly harmed by their partner's adultery. Hence laws need to be implemented to prevent, and if not, to punish those who decide to become harmful elements of society. — Agustino

No - I clearly outlined that adultery (extra-martial sex) is not a crime if both partners of the relationship agree with this - in other words if it is an OPEN MARRIAGE. Do you understand these words? — Agustino

@Benkei - See? These are everywhere. Please read the thread completely next time instead of addressing some imaginary straw-man of yours. So your statement:

The OP seems to assume monogamy is the only moral relationship between partners but there's no proof for this. — Benkei

Is most certainly false.

Governments that promote monogamy should be sued to repeal those laws because it directly impacts my right to family life (however I should wish to form that), my sexual freedoms and privacy.

The OP seems to assume monogamy is the only moral relationship between partners but there's no proof for this. — Benkei

And I repeatedly state that people who want to live in open marriages, or other non-monogamous ways should be allowed to live so. Proof that you haven't read the thread properly. How could you understand?

One of our problems with marriage these days is that a lot of people are entertaining VERY STUPID IDEAS about it. Like... — Bitter Crank

All this post is a red-herring and straw-manning BC. You know it. Adultery is not a requirement for a failed marriage. Hence it does not follow that punishing adultery punishes failure in marriage. Failure in marriage is divorce. There's nothing wrong if someone who wants to commit adultery first divorces and then does it. In fact, that's the right way to do it, and shouldn't be punished.

It doesn't matter why. — Bitter Crank

Yes it does. "We don't get along, we should divorce" is different than "Why the fuck did you cheat on me??". Understood? One of them involves much stronger emotional reactions than the other.

Just to repeat: Punishing people for failed marriages is not going to help, Agustino. It just won't. — Bitter Crank

You can repeat as much as you want. All through this thread you've attempted to change the topic in subtle ways. The topic is clear, and you have failed to counter any of the arguments. This is a straw-man and a red-herring. Adultery is not "failed marriage". Divorce is failed marriage, and does not require adultery in order to happen.

Were you on drugs when you dreamed this up? — photographer

Ah Mr. Photographer, why the need to insult? I suppose your question was not asked in bad faith was it? Asking a question just to shoot down the answerer regardless of the answer is most definitely the most rank nonsense, and betrays an intellectual dishonesty in openly investigating the issues at hand. Not right for a philosopher. If you didn't ask the question in bad faith, then you implicitly agree that there is an answer to your question, otherwise why ask the question? If you implicitly agree there is an answer, the please enlighten me what this answer is, as clearly you think you know better than I :)

Asking a question like that, and expecting me to give you a fully detailed answer that is ready to be passed by Parliament is nonsense. I am merely sketching an answer. Of course my answer will have HUNDREADS of holes and potential difficulties. Laws like these require hours upon hours of work by groups of people to get them in shape before they can be passed. However, I am sure the difficulties you raised can be resolved. I am sure that with a bit of effort you can resolve them as well.

Are you saying that a marriage is registered as closed or open? — photographer

Yes

If so, is that election closed for all time? — photographer

Until divorce. In theory they could divorce and then re-marry under an open marriage if both of them want to change. But remember, it has to be both. If only one wants to change, then they will just divorce, end of story.

Does the election require mutual agreement? — photographer

No - it is one partner enslaving and forcing the other to agree... What do you think? Of course, as it involves both partners it does require mutual agreement.

I suppose you are blissfully unaware of the impact of a criminal record on employment opportunities, something that would impair the adulterer's ability to pay settlements which already exist in most marriage breakups. — photographer

Tough luck, it's a percentage of income he needs to pay. Even if his income is lower, he can still pay it. Of course the punishment is supposed to be sufficiently harsh to prevent the adulterer from harming their partner. If they no longer want to live together, they should divorce. Then he can go around having sex as much as he wants to without having a criminal record. Did anyone force them to make their partner go through intense emotional turmoil? No. Therefore they have done it knowingly, and deserve the punishment.

If the woman is guilty and the kids stay with her does that diminish her settlement, impacting on the children's welfare? — photographer

If the woman is guilty, then this will count as a strong reason NOT to have the kids stay with her :) .

See Mr. Photographer... was that difficult? I'm sure you could've done it as well, if only you were a little bit more constructive, as opposed to destructive.

It is an error formed out of supposing that higher numbers are what creates the "nature" of a being. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, your statement is an error of inversion, supposing that higher numbers create the nature of a being, instead of realising that the nature of the being creates the higher numbers :)

That's why we have divorce laws - so adults can end relationships and go forward in life.

Criminalizing personal relationships is about as dumb an idea there is -- which is why it failed and we decriminalized it. In short, we already tried this nonsense. It didn't work. — Landru Guide Us

All through history it worked. Adultery was, in most societies, illegal under most conditions, for most of history. You cannot justify it not working simply because there's a gap in historical time when it's not happening. It will come back, fear not.

Real, bona fide geniuses are always rare (at least, that's a characteristic I like to apply to "genius". But even when they are born, they may not flower. Einstein also built on the foundations of previous thinking, previous discoveries, the essential pieces of which were available to him by way of his own education. Had Einstein been born 100 years earlier, he would almost certainly have not been able to come up with relativity and everything preceding it in one fell swoop. — Bitter Crank

Yes. But this does not change the fact that the Renaissance and Enlightenment period had more geniuses than the Dark Ages or nowadays. Why? Because society was organised in a way that was more conducive to the production of genius.

So your whole write-up is a red-herring.

because the millions of recipients know what is happening — Bitter Crank

This does not change the fact that it was done behind closed doors, and was, in words, repudiated. A society which repudiates such things in words, but nevertheless engages in them is better than one which doesn't repudiate them in words and engages in them. Why? Because at least one remains aware of the effects of not repudiating these things and doesn't seek to justify its actions.

It's a million times better if I steal your money saying "what I'm doing is wrong, I know it, but I'm forced by whatever reasons to do it" than if I steal you money saying "fuckin scum, this is my money, you don't deserve it!"