Originally Posted by
OreoCookie
No gay couple is (nor should they) counsel with me whether their relationship is “ok”. I am not counseling or encouraging anybody. So no, I am not.
This exact point was touched on before, along with the observation I’m seeing things my way, and am having difficulty understanding others may see it differently.
Mea culpa. I have no defense for this, and can only offer sincere apologies for how difficult it’s made the discussion for you, and equally sincere thanks for tolerating me.
I can’t defend being insufferably rigid, but my rigidity speaks to how
valid I consider my proposition. The reasoning behind it is a core component of how I analyze morality. it’s deeply ingrained enough in me I consider it fact, and challenges to it counterfactual.
Since it
is such an important component of how I analyze morality, I want it to receive a fair hearing, which I hope is still possible in the face of jamming it down your throat like a shithead.
Of course, since it’s so deeply ingrained, I spend most of my time thinking about it abstractly, and am not finding it simple to defend in concrete concrete terms. The following can no doubt use refinements.
If I were to put a gun to your head and give you the choice between counseling our hypothetical homosexual couple or a fatal case of lead poisoning, am I
less responsible for being a murderous psychopath because you wisely answer the question and I live up to my side of the bargain?
Well, at my trial I’ll argue I am, but it’s kind of a technicality. From a moral standpoint, I’m not inclined to cut myself much if any slack for it. I
would have blown your ****ing brains out.
A less bloody example lies in the Electoral College system. I voted for Johnson. If Hillary won and then started a nuclear war (I lied about the bloody part), I can with 100% accuracy say I did not vote for her, and no one who listened to me rant here during the election would say I gave her support, or “encouragement”.
Buuuuuut... if I had lived in a battleground/swing state I
would have voted for her. Again. Kind of a technicality I didn’t
actually vote for her. From a moral standpoint it seems to me I’m just as on the hook for the nuclear war as the people who did vote for her.
As the tiniest of examples, let’s say I’m puttering along at the speed limit because there’s a cop in front of me, but were they not there I
would be speeding like a bat out of hell. There’s no question I shouldn’t get a ticket, but am I
morally on the hook for speeding? I’m trying to explore if there are holes in my argument by seeing if a weak example holds up. I admit this “feels” different than the other examples, but I can’t pick out precisely why yet, or whether the difference is enough to free oneself from the responsibility of what they
would do.
Which brings us back to our homosexual couple, and the gun I have to your head.
If in this situation you
would counsel them to be in the relationship, are you less morally responsible for it simply because the question isn’t being asked outside of fantastical scenarios?
I’d say, like the others, only technically, and my “feel” is it hews closer to my earlier examples.
The thing which nags at me most, and makes me seek to outright refuse thinking about it another way, is the homosexual couple doesn’t
get to escape the question. To be in a relationship they
have to sacrifice rule of law.
I feel adopting a “best of both worlds” position isn’t fair to this couple, or the swing state voter, or the person who goes the speed limit even when they won’t get caught, or the moderator who narrowly escapes death.
I feel this in my bones.
P.S. terribly sorry about trying to kill you and all. Bright side is death row means more time for posting.