Comments on: Morality and science: are they incompatible? http://www.wisdomofwhores.com/2008/03/15/morality-and-science-are-they-incompatible/ Of sex and science. Elizabeth Pisani's blog about HIV and other sundry things. Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:56:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Willie http://www.wisdomofwhores.com/2008/03/15/morality-and-science-are-they-incompatible/comment-page-1/#comment-451 Willie Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:08:16 +0000 http://www.wisdomofwhores.com/2008/03/15/morality-and-science-are-they-incompatible/#comment-451 I don't entirely see your point, unless it's the linking of homosexuality with HIV. But all sexual promiscuity carries the risk of STDs and measures have to be taken to reduce that risk, irrespective of sexuality. You say that all males are hardwired for promiscuity but the fact is that many males make a moral choice to restrain their sexual behaviour and many opt for monogamous relationships. Contrary to stereotypes, that applies to many gay men too! I don’t entirely see your point, unless it’s the linking of homosexuality with HIV.
But all sexual promiscuity carries the risk of STDs and measures have to be taken to reduce that risk, irrespective of sexuality.

You say that all males are hardwired for promiscuity but the fact is that many males make a moral choice to restrain their sexual behaviour and many opt for monogamous relationships. Contrary to stereotypes, that applies to many gay men too!

]]> By: tom merle http://www.wisdomofwhores.com/2008/03/15/morality-and-science-are-they-incompatible/comment-page-1/#comment-448 tom merle Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:51:33 +0000 http://www.wisdomofwhores.com/2008/03/15/morality-and-science-are-they-incompatible/#comment-448 This statement by Willie (great name in this context!) is valid as far as it goes, but it fails to deal with the distinction between the reality of behavior and the moral implications of this behavior. Few educated people would challenge that homosexuality is part of nature, that some percentage of various species is gay. Fine. But then we have to determine when a natural drive should be channeled as it were. Engaging in gay sex is morally neutral until we consider if there are repercusions that adversely affect the participants, and more importantly, the larger society. And here honorable people can disagree. Males, gay or straight, are hardwired, as it were, to stick it wherever they can whenever they can. Sometimes this leads to pleasure with no negative implications, sometimes it doesn't. We know that gay bathhouses are hothouses for the spreading of HIV. So the city of San Francisco moved to close them. They stopped well short of what they do in Texas. Gov. Spitzer should have a way to indulge his (natural) desire for some sexual variety, particularly if his wife is in agreement, safe sex notwithstanding. Ditto for Gov. McGreevey. Barney Frank, supported by a liberal constituency, enjoyed fooling around without having to resign. His trangression was putting his boyfriend on the government payroll, a definite no-no. Well you see my point This statement by Willie (great name in this context!) is valid as far as it goes, but it fails to deal with the distinction between the reality of behavior and the moral implications of this behavior.

Few educated people would challenge that homosexuality is part of nature, that some percentage of various species is gay. Fine. But then we have to determine when a natural drive should be channeled as it were.

Engaging in gay sex is morally neutral until we consider if there are repercusions that adversely affect the participants, and more importantly, the larger society. And here honorable people can disagree.

Males, gay or straight, are hardwired, as it were, to stick it wherever they can whenever they can. Sometimes this leads to pleasure with no negative implications, sometimes it doesn’t. We know that gay bathhouses are hothouses for the spreading of HIV. So the city of San Francisco moved to close them. They stopped well short of what they do in Texas.

Gov. Spitzer should have a way to indulge his (natural) desire for some sexual variety, particularly if his wife is in agreement, safe sex notwithstanding. Ditto for Gov. McGreevey. Barney Frank, supported by a liberal constituency, enjoyed fooling around without having to resign. His trangression was putting his boyfriend on the government payroll, a definite no-no.

Well you see my point

]]> By: Willie http://www.wisdomofwhores.com/2008/03/15/morality-and-science-are-they-incompatible/comment-page-1/#comment-412 Willie Sat, 15 Mar 2008 20:51:13 +0000 http://www.wisdomofwhores.com/2008/03/15/morality-and-science-are-they-incompatible/#comment-412 ".....we are exactly like them.......we want to impose our policies on other people based on our worldview whether we call it religion or “science.” " says your emailer Steve. This is a common assertion made by the religious against secularists. It has an element of truth but I don't believe it has much validity in the area of personal morality. To take the example of homosexuality, the position of many religions is that it is proscribed in their holy book and therefore they wish to proscribe it not just for members of their religion but for the entire society through state laws. The position of the liberal secularist is that science shows homosexuality to be a naturallly occurring phenomenon, that it causes no harm either to homosexuals themselves nor to the wider society and so, whatever one's personal feelings about it, there is no reason to proscribe it by law. Moreover, to do so would cause unneccessary suffering to homosexuals. I believe that asserting that those two positions are equally dogmatic or fundamentalist or imposing their world view on other people to an equal extent is absurd. So I'd say to Steve: no, we are not exactly like them. “…..we are exactly like them…….we want to impose our policies on other people based on our worldview whether we call it religion or “science.” ” says your emailer Steve.

This is a common assertion made by the religious against secularists. It has an element of truth but I don’t believe it has much validity in the area of personal morality.

To take the example of homosexuality, the position of many religions is that it is proscribed in their holy book and therefore they wish to proscribe it not just for members of their religion but for the entire society through state laws.
The position of the liberal secularist is that science shows homosexuality to be a naturallly occurring phenomenon, that it causes no harm either to homosexuals themselves nor to the wider society and so, whatever one’s personal feelings about it, there is no reason to proscribe it by law. Moreover, to do so would cause unneccessary suffering to homosexuals.

I believe that asserting that those two positions are equally dogmatic or fundamentalist or imposing their world view on other people to an equal extent is absurd. So I’d say to Steve: no, we are not exactly like them.

]]>