I apologize for my disrespectful post.

It is argued that eternal forms could not interact with temporal bodies. But as Aristotle showed, so long as the two distinct substances are represented as actual, therefore active, there is no problem with interaction between dual substances. The appearance of a problem is a result of representing one of the two substances as necessarily passive, by being eternal, outside of time. This indicates that the understand of time which is involved with the concept of "eternal forms" is faulty. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's quite a philosophy. Right there.

Could someone explain if the picture is accurate and explain what this problem of interaction is more thoroughly? — Dannation99

It's the mind/body problem. And also the level of movement problem. The second entails the fact that no amount of microphysics can explain biological movement, and no amount of chemistry can explain phsychological movement. ETC. They are all real, measured, measurable, predictable, scientific, yet there is no interactive predicative or explanatory features between levels of movement.

The mind/body problem is so simple to understand that I shan't insult anyone's intelligence by explaining it. Basically it says that the mind is real, the body is real, the mind is connected to the body, but how and where?

I totally agree with what you say. I just wish to add that some symbols that are means of communication and their understanding and or / transmission is inborn. A dog will wag its tail without learning, and another dog will understand it without learning. That's, for the lack of a better word, level 1 symbolism.

Level 2 symbolism is not inborn; it is learned, and culturally driven. In Indian they show "come here" with the same hand gestrue that they use in Hungary to mean "go farther away".

In Hungarian "yes" is said as "igen".

There is no rhyme or reason in level 2 symbols that can be reeingineered to reality, to impulses. It is not inborm, only the CAPACITY to use a level 2 symbolic language is inborn.

In my highschool years I figured that learning a new language is level 2/a symbolic communication, and math is level 3. Pure math, where number manipulation is divorced from quantities. (A quantity is a number combined with a unit of measure. 1 Km, 34.3 miles, 4 hours, 33 minutes, etc.)

I found that defining "morality" or "moral behaviour" is the hardest. Well, maybe the second hardest, after defining "beauty". There is no consensus, although all living people have a working definition of morality and almost all living people agree that morality exists. But what it is, escapes definition.

This gets more convoluted when people don't consider morality just passively, but actively, such as Immanuel Kant did. Most modern moralists dont' just ask, "was this or that act moral", but they try to establish how to behave in the future to make one's life and actions ethical.

Even animals who can communicate ideas, orally or gesturally, must translate their internal flow of non-verbal feelings into forms that can be expressed symbolically. When your dog or cat paws at you to get your attention, they are expressing a feeling common to mammals. — Gnomon

One language is symbolic, the other is an inborn (previously mutated) language.

Human lingual communication is fully (save for onomatopoeias) symbolic. Dogs pawing cats and deer nodging horses or lions with their nuzzles are pervasive across the mammallian branch of living things. So I would venture to say that mammal language excluding human verbal languages are all inborn, non-symbolic. They are the most basic form of translating impulses into non-symbolic language. A bird's cry over her nest form which her eggs have been tossed or stolen is heart-wrenching. This is not symbolic language, it is a language that is first level tranlation. If you step on the toes of a lion, he'll roar in pain.

A boy who has never learned to speak human language will nevertheless a lot fo human-only concepts developed all by himself. He'll have an idea for the difference between red and green. Heavy and light. Up and down. Pain and pleasure. Hunger and fulness, joy and sadness.

Once you introduce him to a language, he'll learn amazingly fast those concepts which live in his world, and he can overcome the threshold eventually that separates his world form the world of those ideas, which only society can instill in humans. These society-only induced ideas are not present ever in his pre-language state.

The problems of science: no science.

The biggest problem science faces is that it is not known by most people.

The second biggest problem is that people who don't know how scientific advances explain things, make their own explanations.

The third biggest porblem of science is philosophy forums on the Internet.

The fourth bigget problem of science is its amorph state; the frontiers of science are a swamp, in which theories sink and emerge, but nobody knows what's below the muddy surface of the quagmire.

The fifth biggest problem of science are humans.

So you when you are in the original position proposed by Rawls, — Jasmine

To me it is unclear, from your description, what the "origianal position:" is. It may be so totally because I am not smart enough to comprehend your description of it. I fully capitulate to that eventuality.

Who is a client? I am to create a just society. The client is a singular person. The problem is unsolvable because I deal with 1 client and I have to command everyone in an entire society. This is ill-designed as a thought experiment. I can't create a just society for one client, if I need to (arbitrarily or not) restrict the behaviour of all other persons in that society.

By removing the attributes of that person -- and this is a thinking man's way of pointing out the ill design in the exercise -- Rawls wanted to make an impartial person. But society is not made of impartial people. A lot of people have the same goal and at the same time and in the same respect another lot of people may have an incompatible goal with the first lot. It is a fallacy to eradicate this difference by creating an imaginary society of "averaged" individuals, that is, individuals whose attributes are removed from them.

So much for the realistic approach. But it is a fallacy in my thinking to think that the approach ought to be relalistic.

So i ask you again to reword the problem. I don't ask you to make it realistic, but I ask you to say who this "client" is that, if satisfied, means that the society is just. It can't be so, unless all people in the socety are like the client, but that assumption is not mentioned, and it is of dire importance that it be. You see, a just society is just for all its members,not just for one. If it were true, he could be Nero, Caligula, or any number of present political leaders of countries.

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. — Echarmion

c.i. Is never claimed to be a universal law — Mww

We agreed that the CI is to be understood as quoted. I said I will only make arguments on an established description on it that everyone accepts. I accepted the quote's content, and I declared that I will only argue and accept argumengs while considering this meaning to be true as quoted. If you think this is not a good description, then I can't answer you, as I am not willing to go through the tedious process of agreeing on what we actually are arguming about.

The first quote is a universal law. It is expressed by the word "only". If "only" were not there, but the word "sometime", then your opinion would be compatible with this quote.

GR should never be claimed, logically, as a universal law; a rule is never a law nor universal. It isn’t, for good reason, called the golden law. — Mww

The wording of the GR was not agreed upon. So I won't even touch it. I think it goes like this: "You should only do things to others that you are willing to accept others to do to you." Again, ACCORDING TO THIS WORDING, it's a law; because, again, of the word "only".

In my understanding the difference between a rule and a law is that laws don't tolerate exceptions, whereas rules do. Accroding to THIS wording above,the GR is a law, not a rule. You may devise a different wording for it as you please; I go by the above. And the above wording indicates it's a law.

I am sorry, philosopher, I have to run with what @charles ferraro Proposed to you: respectfully tell you that we can't agree on several elements of what constitutes logical thinking. On this topic all future discourse would be futile.

(P.s. I agree that the existence of a "perfect thing" does not depend on whether or not anyone has thought of it. On the contrary, I never give up the notion that the most perfect thing imaginable necessarily exists; I reason with supporting my objection that it is IMAGINED, and imagination has nothing to do with reality, or at the most, very little.)

Let me see what this is. You are a practicing clinical psychologist. A client walks in, with any number of psychological problems on any depth of severety. Yo don't know his gender, age, financial status, sexual orientation, etc. You have to decide for him how he should choose things such as the government will not get involved but to protect private ownership. ETC.

????

Psychological counselling has changed TREMENDOUSLY since I last have been a consumer.

There are a tremendous number of terms and scenarios that are explained to you in class, that you have not conveyed here. We can't possibly guess, because of the apparent complexity, what the heck your scenario is. Client? World economy? Like ???? We are to decide how the world should be run? And the client is who? or why or when or what this quagmire of incrdibly convoluted nonsense is?

I think you have to explain this problem better to us, if you need to see some sort of sensible answers based on reason.

My philosoophy on philosophy: it's a lot of fun, until it is not. I do it whille I enjoy it, and I don't pursue things that I don't enjoy philosophising about.

I see questions repeated. Questions I already had explained earlier, and questions to which I had answered (or had wanted to) that I can't explain those.

Please feel free to filter my messages in this thread, and re-read them if you have any questions. You will find an answer to them, or not. If you don't find a question to your answer, I can't answer it, that's why.

I incredibly don't like to repeat myself. It is a my ineptitude, not yours. It's a joy to express myself, and an even greater joy to come to new insights. It's a chore to repeat myself, and slavery to explain my thougts on levels that I can't aspire myself to be on.

All you are saying is that we use images and sounds to refer to other sensory impressions which can include other visuals and sounds, or even other scribbles. — Harry Hindu

I am saying much more than that. If you did not read those parts, or refuse to comprehend what I wrote, that's not my fault in presenting my opinion.

↪god must be atheist All sensory impressions have meaning to them. Red of an apple means the apple ripe. Hearing you speak English means you know how to speak English. The smell of coffee means coffee is being brewed, etc. — Harry Hindu

Here you demonstrated perfectly what you need ot deny: that words (scribbled or uttered) have meaning.

You, yourself, explained what the red of the apple is, without presenting an apple. You presented to me no sensory idea of "red", only verbal idea of "red". Therefore words have meanings, and we think in words.

We all think in images, or sensory impressions.

Words are scribbles and sounds. To say that you think in words is to say that you think in scribbles and sounds. — Harry Hindu

Let's say you are correct.

If strings of scribbles or sounds can't represent thughts, then uttering or writing them also would not represent thoughts; therefore they would be useless as communicative devices. Yet they perfectly well are capable to communicate thoughts. Therefore the initial proposition is false.

We all think in images, or sensory impressions.

Words are scribbles and sounds. To say that you think in words is to say that you think in scribbles and sounds. — Harry Hindu

It is actually correct: humans (most of them) think in scribbles and sounds. The part that you glide over is that the scribbles and sounds have meanings attached to them. Some people, such as I, drop the extra load of scribbles and sounds, and we think purely in meaning.

We all think in images, or sensory impressions. — Harry Hindu

This does not give credit to humans' ability to conceptualize things. I believe that when someone says he thinks in words, he thinks in words. Early thoughts may have formed as images or imprints of sensory perceptions. But constant use of them and constant associating them to concepts and words made the associtations automatic, and eventually the associations squeezed out, so to speak, the purely sensory impressions.

If indeed humans could only think in terms of images and sensory impressions, there would be no higher math, there would be no philosophy, there would not be even words in the language such as patriotism, infinity, conjugation, promotion, sales analysis.

That is step one.

Step two is that images can't convey verbs. Images are strictly nouns, or adjectivized nouns. You can't imagine to think (what image is that?), to conceptualize, to proselytize, to abandon, to retrofit. You can imagine these things being performed; yes, very easily, or not so easily. But the language uses verbs, not the descriptions of verbs. "George DIGS a whole", not "George is depicted digging a hole". Visuals do not do verbs, but the language does. "Adorian thinks he is a fool" is not the same as "Adorian is depicted as thining he is a fool." Yet a picture can only be visualized in the second sense.

No one, then, is going anywhere under present understandings of physics. — tim wood

this is true. The question begs itself, however unanswerable it may be, to be: is there understanding of physics that make space travel possible?

It's the same conundrum as time travel. We believe in a straight-line time line, only in one direction. The problem is, if it can be cheated, and the history altered, it is impossible to notice that we are not the universe that is developing the old way, but the same universe develping (unfolding, not as much as developing) a new way.

Space travel is a bit easier to visualize as for its impossibility, because once the impossibility is demonstrated to be false, the proof will be in our face, it will be the easiest thing to see.

I don't think in words or language
— god must be atheist

How do you ever decide what to say or write? — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not a matter of decision... it's a matter of translation. From conceptual thougths into language. So far, so good. Although in spoken language I am not as fluent and eloquent as in writing. I use the same words, all right, but I make TONS, literally tons of grammar mistakes. You see, I can't edit my spoken words; in writing, I edit as I write, which does not mean at all going back and correcting the mistakes, but what it means is that the speed of translation is much faster than my speed of writing, so I have plenty of extra time to figure out how to comply to the rules and flow of the language. Not to say that I constantly refer to a set of rules; rules are automatic, but when I speak, the automation lags behind the speech, and when I write, the automation precedes the typing.

Do you think in images, then? Or is there just no internal conversation? Do you have to always use an external medium? I tend to work with people who need visuals to understand. It drives me a little bit insane, as I'm not a very visual person. — Marchesk

I dream in images, but don't think in images. In my dreams, the characters do communicate: it is UNDERSTOOD that someone said something, and it is UNDERSTOOD that another character replied in merit, and so on.

When my mind is at rest, so to speak, I don't have images. No images, no language, only meaning, and concepts. One concept bears another. I often try to pin myself down on catching myself what I am thinking of at the moment -- impossible. There is no dialogue in my head, in my mind... just one concept morphing into another. A linear monologue, with tons of lateral jumps, of course.

I can visualize three-D objects easily, but no longer as easily as in my teens. In my highschool years I amazed my math teacher with my ability to visualize all kinds of complex three-d structures... but we did not get marked on those, we got marked on two-d descriptive geometry, which I aced, and often challenged the teacher that there is an easier solution to a particular problem or another, than what she taught. I was in a school of exceptionally gifted chilren, and my talents were richly rewarded. Unfortunately it was hard for me to read text, and to memorize rote facts, trivial. I was just this tiny layer away from always failing foreign languages, histroy and geography. I was super in physics, as long as it was intuitive. To the mind of a person under 18 years of age.

Do I always have to use and external medium? I don't quite understand the question. You mean a vehicle for my thoughts, such as language or pictures? If that's what you meant, then never HAVE to, but can. Obviously I can speak and write in language.

Is there no internal conversation? There is no internal conversation. I think in a straight line monologue, in which concepts morph from one into another, very quickly.

I am not the only one I know who is like this. I met others, who also claimed surprise in their past, when they discovered that most people think in language.

This is what D's actual argument looks like:

Th e argument has three premises:
p1. God is the supremely perfect being. No more perfect being can be conceived.
p2. We can conceive of a supremely perfect being existing in reality.
p3. What exists in reality is more perfect than what exists only in conception.
From these three premises, the reductio proceeds as follows:
1. Suppose: God does not exist.
2. We can then conceive of a being that is more perfect than God. (p2 and p3)
3. This is a contradiction, since no being more perfect than God can be conceived. (p1)
4. Therefore, God exists.

From 1 it is clear that 3 is wrong. If god does not exist, then everything is greater than god, not just the greatest. So the greatest is not the theoretical greatest, it is only the greatest in ranking. Therefore the greatest is not god (since it does not necessarily be the theoretically greatest. Anything is greater than nothng.)

Descartes’ argument that we cannot have an idea of a supremely perfect being without there actually being a supremely perfect being — Philosopher19

This I contest.

A thinks of B. Therefore B exists.

This is clearly false. I can think of a unicorn; and it clearly does not manifest its existence.

B may exist, or may not. Its independence is completely removed from being a function of my thoughts or imagination.

=============================

If B existed BECAUSE A thought of it, there would be no god before creation. God exists in human thought; no human existed before the sixth day of the creation. (Take it as a metaphor of god creating man; and that it happened in one point in time.) (I don't believe in creation, but the Christian religious do.) So there is an inherent contradiciton, a reducitio ad absurdum: somebody who created the world did not exist when the world was created.

Thefore to accept Decartes ontological arument, one must accpet that there is a self-contradiction contained within its argument, that denies the possiblility that god created the world.

-----------------------

Either way, Descartes ruined it here for Christianity. If you accept the existence because you can think of it, then creation did not happen; if you deny the existence because of thought, there is no proof god exists.

I don't think in words or language, and I don't dream in words or language.

Of course I can't prove it to you. I can only appeal to you that I have nothing to gain by lying about it.

I think in concepts. No thouhts come to me in language.

If I want to, I can verbalize my thoughts, even just to myself, unuttered.

When I was 22, a man told me why meditation would relax me: because, he said, it would stop the constant conversation in my brain.

I was surprised, because there was no conversation in my head.

In fact I thouht he spake metaphorically.

It took me a goodly amount of time (I don't know how long, precisly or approximately) to realize others think in language.

And no, i was not raised in an environment of no language.

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. — Echarmion

Okay, let's work with this. It's great.

Please note: I use the F word. It is not to be rude or obnoxious. It is not to incite offence. It is for the purpose of simplicity of communication. It is also to the point and excludes the need of careful circumdescriptions. Please don't be offended. I'll use the abbreviation "F" for the F-word, to avoid stress and undue shock or offence to good taste.

1. Categorical Imperative (CI) is the golden rule (GR). Not the complete equivalent, but it has the same application in the example below. I will show how both break down in an instance of application, thereby making them fail the claim that they are both universal laws.

1.1. if the person acts agains the golden rule, it acts in ways that he does not want to be acted upon himself.
1.2. CI: If it is an act he does not want to be done to himself, then he is not advocating that everyone should do this. Therefore it breaches the part "It should become universal law".
1.3. Because of 1.1. and 1.2., I maintain that both CI and the GR say the same: only do things that you want others to do.

2. How the GR and CI both break down in one application, therefore they can't be universal.
2.1. Heterosexual males like to F others.
2.2. Heterosexual males don't want to be Fd.
2.3. A heterosexual male will be welcome by a heterosexual female to F her, once the circumstances are favourable.
2.4. A heterosexual male will reject to be Fd by anyone.
2.5.1 Therefore a heterosexual male will act in a way that he does not want to become universal law (both not F and not get Fd)
2.5.2. A heterosexual male will not want to be done to as he does to others.
3. Therefore both the CI and the GR fail in one instance of application
4. Therefore they both (The CI and the GR) fail as universally applicable moral codes.

Complexity clouds the obvious. — MondoR

Very true. Sometimes the obvious is the truth, and it's not complex also sometimes. Some other times the truth is complex, and not obvious. In those times simplicity clouds the well-thought out.

I say potato, you say potato. We say what we say without any effect of disproving the other, just mentioning extreme cases that are fully compatible. With each other, if you seek truth and examine it case-by-case.

In simplicity one gains clarity. Complexity clouds the obvious. A idea needs only one sentence. The Internet is a manifestation of junk debris. Better to look at a pond. — MondoR

Maybe. I was saying something completely different, though. You are saying something completely different from what I was saying. The exchange of ideas. This is what it's all about.

Rafaela, coincidence does not mean causation. In fact, it can not. Religion and morality, as you say, came into existence together. Well, maybe you did not say that, but let's assume you did, otherwise my argument falls down like a drunken tree. Therefore neither has created the other, since for creation a chronological preceding of existence is necessary.

IN essence, I agree with you. But I also would say that religious morality was created for the needs of society; religious morality was just one more coercing force to keep the peeps behaving as they should. Come secular sociaties, the law took on an enormously big role in keeping peace and order. In fact, religion and morality and sin were fully exchanged to justice, law and crime. Secular societies need not have an operational ethical code, with complete buy-in, as the law takes care of that.

This is not to say that we have no operational ethical code in secular societies. Yes, we do, and they are precisely what you said: remnants of the old school moralistic religious teachings.

Birthdays are celebrated for one particularly good logical reason: it keeps the consumer society healthy, because we feed the backbone of our economy, the capitalist industrial-military complex, with every penny we spend.

It's a little bit like why we like a smart post on the philosophy forum. It feeds the backbone of any forum, the dynamic of the meeting of the minds, by keeping alive the trolls that descend upon any reasonable post and tear them apart with irrelevent arguments.

Sorry about joining so late.

What happens to the conscious after death? That I'd like to know too. Theories and fantasies may abound; evidence is non existent.

It is the great unknown.

The ancients observed life more clearly. — MondoR

They had less intellectual debris to face. So their minds made up the missing stuff in the cracks of knowledge, and since the majority of creation thus became the product of their imagination, they saw the world more clearly. Everyone is very clear about the product of their imagination.

when somebody finds out that I’m a linguist, the first question they ask me is how many languages I speak. — Olivier5

I would have asked instead, what is your favourite object or ice cream to lick. But I am me.

You spake well, this what you wrote is very good. Your freedoms have been deemed necessary to be curtailed because we try collectively to combat a nasty disease.

My topic, with a misleading title, which I now find unfortunate to have written, was meant to be about not only political freedom. Yes, political freedom is part of it, but I sort of thought of ABSOLUTE FREEDOM that applies to all situations and all movement types, not just political, not just moral, not just human-activity oriented and human-values oriented. Freedom from any restriction. The question or dilemma proposed thus, is not a practical dilemma to be solved on one or a few select areas of what freedom means. I meant to propose the dilemma and paradox, on a level of complete conceptualization; a level which may use practical examples, but nevertheless is a conceptual dilemma, not a practical one. (Although conceptuality may affect the practicality.)

Kant doesn't talk about benefits or disbenefits when establishing the groundwork for the CI. And it's also important to consider that the CI is not a tool to judge outward actions.

There are several layers to analysis within the CI. The question of whether a maxim includes an implicit or explicit contradiction, i.e. whether it can theoretically be universalised, and the question of whether you would want it to be universalised.

Only the second part is directly reminiscent of the golden rule, and the conceptual basis is different. — Echarmion

This somehow expresses a disagreement of how I worded CI.

But... but, you refrained from actually giving your wording of it.

This is not acceptable. As long as we can't agree what CI says, we can't agree whether it differs from, or agrees to, the golden rule.

TheMadFool came up with a definition or wording of CI, and he quotes Jack Cummings as agreed to the following:

I'm in agreement with you regarding the categorical imperative - it basically says that if the answer to "what if everybody did x (an act)?" is something odd/strange/absurd in some sense then x is wrong and if the answer is not like that then it's right. — TheMadFool

I am not willing to answer the charge that the golden rule is different from the CI, unless we have complete buy in to some wording of CI. I have seen so far two: mine and this, by TheMadFool.

If I take either one as THE commonly accpeted version, and build an argument, then others may say "oh, I did not agree to that definition; your argument, God must be atheist, is invalid, because it assumes I took the quote as accepted, which I did actually not."

This non-agreement of what CI ACTUALLY is, makes the comparison impossible to validate.

Therefore anyone's validation and invalidation is warranted, and we are at the same spot as before the demand to agree on a consensus of what CI means ws made.

But I see that the participants already found the crux why Kant's Categorical Imperative is lame in today's world and in any world, in which the sentient units are diploid creatures.

This is encouraging.

So far you all had good points... very good points. Somehow I tied the freedom to political freedom with introducing the problem by presenting the title. That was not my intention. I meant any total freedom excludes itself as a function of itself, therefore it is not total freedom.

I meant the entire mental exercise as an exercise to see the paradoxical set-up in the single notion "absolute freedom".

If a thing can't contain itself, then it's not a thing... or something.

Wow. Heavy...

You're arguing against The Golden Rule, not the CI. They are not one in the same. — creativesoul

My understanding of the CI is "do any action if and only if you think everyone in the world would not disbenefit from it, even if all and everyone did the same action."
Please agree with me if you find my quote acceptable, or true. If this is not acceptable, and not true, please respond with your working definition of CI written in your response here.

A slave without a master is a slave nonetheless. — Tzeentch

No. There is no slave without a master. How in the world did you come up with that? A slave is only a slave because he or she is owned. Once not owned, he or she is a free man or woman.

I am getting really stupid answers these days on this forum.

And then they tell me not to be condescending and not to get angry.

??? A slave is a slave even when not owned. Who told you that?

I don't think that Kant made any reference to viewing the categorical imperative from a male or female point of view, — Jack Cummins

You're right. But the implication applies in special case of sex. I'll spell it out for you:

Gay men like being fucked.

Straight men don't.

Straight women get fucked.

Gay women get fucked only with devices.

I am sorry to have been forced to be so vulgar. I sincerely apologize to the readership for my vulgarity, but anything more subtle, and the readership here won't get it.

This arrangement is particularly important in "do unto others as you wish to be done to yourself."

Steraignt men do fuck. Gay men do fuck. But straight men "Do NOT NOT NOT like to be done to them as they do unto others."

Please note: vulgarity here I used to make it absolutely clear what I mean. I do respect and I support the right and privilege and beauty of gay sex, gay relationships, and heterosexual ones too. My posts in the past have proven that. But I had to spell out this thing in the level of the lowest common denominator so everyone understands what I mean.

5.3k
LET God = the most important thing, person, idea, or principle in your life.

IF you exist the most important thing, person, idea, or principle in your life exists.

You exist.

THEREFORE God exists. — unenlightened

You destroy my arguments like I was making them for real, rather than parodying your arguments. — unenlightened

You seem not to have noticed in your urgency to win, that we do not even disagree. — unenlightened

I am sorry. So the first quote in this post, where I quoted you, was made in jest, as a parody? How would I know that? Because I certainly disagree with the conlcusion of the first quote. I assert that that argument is not valid. So... you wrote it as a parody? — god must be atheist

Good grief! That is a really terrible way to do philosophy. I will not engage with you further. — unenlightened

Hehe. Do you even bother to read, remember, or consider anything you, yourself write?

The categorical imperative, in its simplest expression, says a bible quote, "Do unto others as you wish to be done unto you".

In this sense, the gay marriage thing is divided. Gay people do wish to do others as is done to them (arsenokoitus.) Straight people (males) do not wish this. So the act, from a devout Christian viewpoint, is at best bilaterally periambiguous as to its moral value.

Coming from a female point of view, we need to ask Athena or other female contributors, as I would be only winging it and making random stabs at the dark hole, because god only knows that I don't know about femal philosophers who figured it out from a female point of view.