i understand exactly. well stated. I went over what I wrote.. and wanted to add... that when I was commenting on practicing sodomy and said I believe in the right of privacy... that was meant with respect to living in America. I know I wouldn't want someone from the govt telling me what I can do with my wife. whether sodomy is moral or immoral in my view is something people may have to work out with their Maker.
Would you also be the last person to say if something is religious, it is moral? Would you say some things that are religious are not moral; and some things that are moral not religious? Do you think to do something is made more moral because a god is supposed to have said something is right or wrong, whether it is or not. Or more moral because based upon moral principles, the something is morally right.
Would you also be the last person to say if something is religious, it is moral? Would you say some things that are religious are not moral; and some things that are moral not religious? --> Yes If there was(is) a G(g)od and he went on public record enumerating his/her/its principles of morality, then we could accurately conclude that to listen to G(g)od is to be moral. This is just not the case. G(g)od has many spokespeople, each of whom have different interpretations of his/her/its will. Here are simple (but probably impractical) rules for "moral rightness": 1) Define what is "good", keeping in mind that being "good: will then be synonymous with "moral" 2) Assess an act based on obedience to the chosen definition I'm largely utilitarian in my definition of "good". So, if posed with an issue that creates a moral dilemma, I might ask, "What will do the most amount of good for the most amount of life (notice I don't necessary say human life) in the long term?" I'm in the that's-useful-but-not-entirely-true camp. This means that I think many before me and here today have excellent ideas that deserve recognition, contemplation, and inorporation (into my own life). For instance, I think Albert Schwitzer has a good understanding of morality and ethics. Yet, I don't entirely agree with everything he thought. And that's true with just about every idea and every person I've read about. There are common values that most of us (except for the most psychologically ill among us) could agree to. The "golden rule" is a good example for this. Stealing and killing is bad, is another. But, the ultimate "good" is just too vague of a concept for most people and thus is likely to get an infinite amount of answers.
I agree in principle that one should have the freedom to live as they want to, so long as one does not take away from the living of others around them.
You have correctly defined marriage as a conservative institution. I don't think Gays are fighting for inclusion in order to stop their promiscuity. The question raised; are there any moral constraints to gay promiscuity behavior other then turning to a conservative institution. Are they looking for moral constraints? To me , the whole issue on State sanctioned gay marriage is my tax dollars spent to support contrived relationships with no basis in nature.
15000 US citizens with hemophelia were in the first wave of people to die in the AIDS epidemic. I wonder what they would say about the morality of consensual but unhealthy activities?
What makes you think I want their diseases to slow down? The outrage is not so much their lifestyle, but the fact they want everyone to accept it as an ok way to live. I would be just as outraged as if there was a large group of pedophiles trying to make it legal to marry 10 year olds. Obviously people are going to do immoral things in their lives. I just don't want these people telling me or my children that certain destructive immoral behaviors are ok