Homosexuality: Morals and Ethics Catch-All Thread

NormanTheIntern wrote:
NSMike wrote:

As for secular reasoning, animal cruelty has a pretty relateable side effect: pain and suffering. The moral judgment is in whether or not pain and suffering should be inflicted upon other creatures. There is no reason to bring a religious argument into that reasoning (if one even exists).

A non-religious judgement, but a moral one nonetheless. If, as DanB posited, the law shouldn't enforce group 1's morals over group 2's, then you can't pass a law against testing consumer products on fluffy bunnies, and actually perhaps animal cruelty laws in general would be in question - right?

(Obviously things like quality control for animals raised as food would be in scope)

Pain and suffering are a harm caused to the animal. The decision is whether we consider animals lives sufficiently worthwhile that the law should protect them form harms. The argument amounts to; What level of "personhood" should be protected by law and having decided that which animals then fall within the scope of that definition of "personhood".

Also allowing cruel treatment of animals may cause other social harm to people too. It's likely not psychologically health to be allowed to go around torturing animals for fun.

While I applaud the seemingly positive impetus for this thread, I'm going to second what someone upthread said — there is no point to this argument. Homosexuality is not something one can have a rational discussion about. One side's argument is that their infallible deity has said that being homosexual is wrong. The conversation ends there.

DanB wrote:

Pain and suffering are a harm caused to the animal. The decision is whether we consider animals lives sufficiently worthwhile that the law should protect them form harms. The argument amounts to; What level of "personhood" should be protected by law and having decided that which animals then fall within the scope of that definition of "personhood".

Which is a subjective, moral judgement call. Animals are objectively not people, they are (legally speaking) property. The thought of an animal in pain is repugnant, so we as a society have decided to restrict property rights in this area.

All I'm pointing out is that, according to the definitions thrown out earlier in the thread, enforcing that morality is a really bad thing - I guess I'm arguing that when society lets it's moral compass shape what's permissible, it's not always a bad result.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
DanB wrote:

Pain and suffering are a harm caused to the animal. The decision is whether we consider animals lives sufficiently worthwhile that the law should protect them form harms. The argument amounts to; What level of "personhood" should be protected by law and having decided that which animals then fall within the scope of that definition of "personhood".

Which is a subjective, moral judgement call. Animals are objectively not people, they are (legally speaking) property. The thought of an animal in pain is repugnant, so we as a society have decided to restrict property rights in this area.

All I'm pointing out is that, according to the definitions thrown out earlier in the thread, enforcing that morality is a really bad thing - I guess I'm arguing that when society lets it's moral compass shape what's permissible, it's not always a bad result.

One definitional statement that needs to be made - Norman, you keep using the word morals; this implies a ruling from a higher power as to what is right or wrong; ethics are just as (if not more) valid a basis for behavioral norms - based on a consensus agreed on from the ground up.

Tanglebones wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
DanB wrote:

Pain and suffering are a harm caused to the animal. The decision is whether we consider animals lives sufficiently worthwhile that the law should protect them form harms. The argument amounts to; What level of "personhood" should be protected by law and having decided that which animals then fall within the scope of that definition of "personhood".

Which is a subjective, moral judgement call. Animals are objectively not people, they are (legally speaking) property. The thought of an animal in pain is repugnant, so we as a society have decided to restrict property rights in this area.

All I'm pointing out is that, according to the definitions thrown out earlier in the thread, enforcing that morality is a really bad thing - I guess I'm arguing that when society lets it's moral compass shape what's permissible, it's not always a bad result.

One definitional statement that needs to be made - Norman, you keep using the word morals; this implies a ruling from a higher power as to what is right or wrong; ethics are just as (if not more) valid a basis for behavioral norms - based on a consensus agreed on from the ground up.

How is this definition of ethics different from majority rule, or might makes right? What if the consensus agreed upon is that a certain people group is subhuman and deserving of death?

Nomad wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
DanB wrote:

Pain and suffering are a harm caused to the animal. The decision is whether we consider animals lives sufficiently worthwhile that the law should protect them form harms. The argument amounts to; What level of "personhood" should be protected by law and having decided that which animals then fall within the scope of that definition of "personhood".

Which is a subjective, moral judgement call. Animals are objectively not people, they are (legally speaking) property. The thought of an animal in pain is repugnant, so we as a society have decided to restrict property rights in this area.

All I'm pointing out is that, according to the definitions thrown out earlier in the thread, enforcing that morality is a really bad thing - I guess I'm arguing that when society lets it's moral compass shape what's permissible, it's not always a bad result.

One definitional statement that needs to be made - Norman, you keep using the word morals; this implies a ruling from a higher power as to what is right or wrong; ethics are just as (if not more) valid a basis for behavioral norms - based on a consensus agreed on from the ground up.

How is this definition of ethics different from majority rule, or might makes right? What if the consensus agreed upon is that a certain people group is subhuman and deserving of death?

If a moral judgment does the same (sodomites, Midianites, terrorists of all stripes, the wars in Kashmir and Sri Lanka), are they better?

IMAGE(http://calitreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/dogs-and-cats-mass-hysteria.jpg)

Dr. Peter Venkman wrote:

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Tanglebones wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
DanB wrote:

Pain and suffering are a harm caused to the animal. The decision is whether we consider animals lives sufficiently worthwhile that the law should protect them form harms. The argument amounts to; What level of "personhood" should be protected by law and having decided that which animals then fall within the scope of that definition of "personhood".

Which is a subjective, moral judgement call. Animals are objectively not people, they are (legally speaking) property. The thought of an animal in pain is repugnant, so we as a society have decided to restrict property rights in this area.

All I'm pointing out is that, according to the definitions thrown out earlier in the thread, enforcing that morality is a really bad thing - I guess I'm arguing that when society lets it's moral compass shape what's permissible, it's not always a bad result.

One definitional statement that needs to be made - Norman, you keep using the word morals; this implies a ruling from a higher power as to what is right or wrong; ethics are just as (if not more) valid a basis for behavioral norms - based on a consensus agreed on from the ground up.

How is this definition of ethics different from majority rule, or might makes right? What if the consensus agreed upon is that a certain people group is subhuman and deserving of death?

If a moral judgment does the same (sodomites, Midianites, terrorists of all stripes, the wars in Kashmir and Sri Lanka), are they better?

I was trying to follow your logic that morality only exists if there is a higher power. The situations you give seem like clear examples that ethics with no higher power is just another form of might makes right or majority rule. If there is a higher power/supreme being or absolute right and wrong, that changes things significantly...

Nomad wrote:

I was trying to follow your logic that morality only exists if there is a higher power.

Pretty sure he was saying "morality is just ethics but with an entity you point to who made up the rules." A semantic difference, not one of the substance of the rules themselves.

To put it another way: As an atheist, I already believe that our society came to these rules on our own; they got codified into religious texts (as morality) just as they got codified into society as a whole. Through trial and error, humanity has developed a system of ethics that it feels is the best way for healthy societies to operate.

Ranger Rick wrote:
Nomad wrote:

I was trying to follow your logic that morality only exists if there is a higher power.

Pretty sure he was saying "morality is just ethics but with an entity you point to who made up the rules." A semantic difference, not one of the substance of the rules themselves.

To put it another way: As an atheist, I already believe that our society came to these rules on our own; they got codified into religious texts (as morality) just as they got codified into society as a whole. Through trial and error, humanity has developed a system of ethics that it feels is the best way for healthy societies to operate.

Thanks, Rick - yes, this. Additionally, I think that removing the crutch of, "because that's how we've always done it" or, "because XXX told us to do so" allows rules to be reevaluated on their merits in light of current situations - i.e., taking out "because the bible says it's ok" allows slavery to be reevaluated, and society now considers it unethical.

Ranger Rick wrote:
Nomad wrote:

I was trying to follow your logic that morality only exists if there is a higher power.

Pretty sure he was saying "morality is just ethics but with an entity you point to who made up the rules." A semantic difference, not one of the substance of the rules themselves.

To put it another way: As an atheist, I already believe that our society came to these rules on our own; they got codified into religious texts (as morality) just as they got codified into society as a whole. Through trial and error, humanity has developed a system of ethics that it feels is the best way for healthy societies to operate.

Which brings us back to my initial question, how is society based ethics/codified morality different than majority rule or might makes right? What if the consensus agreed upon is that a certain people group is subhuman and deserving of death?

Nomad wrote:
Ranger Rick wrote:
Nomad wrote:

I was trying to follow your logic that morality only exists if there is a higher power.

Pretty sure he was saying "morality is just ethics but with an entity you point to who made up the rules." A semantic difference, not one of the substance of the rules themselves.

To put it another way: As an atheist, I already believe that our society came to these rules on our own; they got codified into religious texts (as morality) just as they got codified into society as a whole. Through trial and error, humanity has developed a system of ethics that it feels is the best way for healthy societies to operate.

Which brings us back to my initial question, how is society based ethics/codified morality different than majority rule or might makes right? What if the consensus agreed upon is that a certain people group is subhuman and deserving of death?

Thankfully we've evolved in a society past that point and we don't really need to answer it. You could say the same thing about religious based morals. What if the bible said a certain group is subhuman and deserving of death? Would you follow it? Does it matter?

Majority rule and might makes right are two very different things and actually can contradict each other when the minority has the might.

Nomad wrote:

Which brings us back to my initial question, how is society based ethics/codified morality different than majority rule or might makes right? What if the consensus agreed upon is that a certain people group is subhuman and deserving of death?

Well, that's kind of what happened, isn't it? The pagan Vikings made a consensus decision to pillage non Vikings. The Jews came to the consensus that all of Canaan's previous inhabitants needed to be destroyed. There's lots of examples of historic codes of ethics - up to and including certain sects of 21st century Islam and Christianity - that continue to believe so.

This goes back to what I was saying earlier - some cultures are superior to - more evolved than - others. This has nothing to do with God (or it can, if you believe in progressive revelation, like I do, but that's almost the perfect antithesis of fundamentalism), but it says that we as a species are better today than we were frightened tribesmen afraid of thunder, and it's our responsibility to make sure cultures that come after us are better than stoning women in the streets or tying gays to fenceposts.

edit. Tannhausered!

SixteenBlue wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Ranger Rick wrote:
Nomad wrote:

I was trying to follow your logic that morality only exists if there is a higher power.

Pretty sure he was saying "morality is just ethics but with an entity you point to who made up the rules." A semantic difference, not one of the substance of the rules themselves.

To put it another way: As an atheist, I already believe that our society came to these rules on our own; they got codified into religious texts (as morality) just as they got codified into society as a whole. Through trial and error, humanity has developed a system of ethics that it feels is the best way for healthy societies to operate.

Which brings us back to my initial question, how is society based ethics/codified morality different than majority rule or might makes right? What if the consensus agreed upon is that a certain people group is subhuman and deserving of death?

Thankfully we've evolved in a society past that point and we don't really need to answer it. You could say the same thing about religious based morals. What if the bible said a certain group is subhuman and deserving of death? Would you follow it? Does it matter?

Majority rule and might makes right are two very different things and actually can contradict each other when the minority has the might.

Ethnic cleansing is still going on no matter how far one believes society has evolved. Isn't majority rule just a subset of might makes right? The majority rules when their numbers give them the might. This is secular ethics. The one/ones with the most power/influence makes the rules.

If a divine supreme being existed, by secular ethics logic, he/she/it would have the most power/influence/intelligence, so it would follow that this being would set the ethical code right?

Nomad wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Ranger Rick wrote:
Nomad wrote:

I was trying to follow your logic that morality only exists if there is a higher power.

Pretty sure he was saying "morality is just ethics but with an entity you point to who made up the rules." A semantic difference, not one of the substance of the rules themselves.

To put it another way: As an atheist, I already believe that our society came to these rules on our own; they got codified into religious texts (as morality) just as they got codified into society as a whole. Through trial and error, humanity has developed a system of ethics that it feels is the best way for healthy societies to operate.

Which brings us back to my initial question, how is society based ethics/codified morality different than majority rule or might makes right? What if the consensus agreed upon is that a certain people group is subhuman and deserving of death?

Thankfully we've evolved in a society past that point and we don't really need to answer it. You could say the same thing about religious based morals. What if the bible said a certain group is subhuman and deserving of death? Would you follow it? Does it matter?

Majority rule and might makes right are two very different things and actually can contradict each other when the minority has the might.

Ethnic cleansing is still going on no matter how far one believes society has evolved. Isn't majority rule just a subset of might makes right? The majority rules when their numbers give them the might. This is secular ethics. The one/ones with the most power/influence makes the rules.

If a divine supreme being existed, by secular ethics logic, he/she/it would have the most power/influence/intelligence, so it would follow that that being would set the ethical code right?

I meant "our" society (meaning 2012 western society) which I guess is kind of arrogant given that this is an international forum. I didn't mean all societies in 2012.

Isn't peaceful voting also a form of majority rule? Everyone together can agree, ahead of time, to give the power to the outcome of the vote. That's not might makes right.

Edit: Missed the last part. Given that I've already said that inherent power isn't required, I personally don't really care how intelligent someone/something outside of the society is. If they're not going to actually be here and participate then they don't have a say, in my opinion.

Allow me to clarify, then: an example of a restriction that is regularly enforced that does not have a secular basis.

Many Jewish and Muslim groups to this day don't eat pork. While this is purportedly for reasons of food safety in the desert, recent archaeological work has shown clearly that the Philistines and related tribes ate pork, and while they were close to the Canaanites and the Israelites, they were a rival society. So obviously, there was no problem with keeping pork safe at the time; the difference is cultural and religious, not secular, and seems to be based on competition with other tribes. Muslims then took the Jewish prohibition as their own.

Still, I don't think NSMike would agree with the necessity of not eating pork; I'm curious what non-secular (or, we might say, non-pragmatic) rules make sense to Norman, and why.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Nomad wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Ranger Rick wrote:
Nomad wrote:

I was trying to follow your logic that morality only exists if there is a higher power.

Pretty sure he was saying "morality is just ethics but with an entity you point to who made up the rules." A semantic difference, not one of the substance of the rules themselves.

To put it another way: As an atheist, I already believe that our society came to these rules on our own; they got codified into religious texts (as morality) just as they got codified into society as a whole. Through trial and error, humanity has developed a system of ethics that it feels is the best way for healthy societies to operate.

Which brings us back to my initial question, how is society based ethics/codified morality different than majority rule or might makes right? What if the consensus agreed upon is that a certain people group is subhuman and deserving of death?

Thankfully we've evolved in a society past that point and we don't really need to answer it. You could say the same thing about religious based morals. What if the bible said a certain group is subhuman and deserving of death? Would you follow it? Does it matter?

Majority rule and might makes right are two very different things and actually can contradict each other when the minority has the might.

Ethnic cleansing is still going on no matter how far one believes society has evolved. Isn't majority rule just a subset of might makes right? The majority rules when their numbers give them the might. This is secular ethics. The one/ones with the most power/influence makes the rules.

If a divine supreme being existed, by secular ethics logic, he/she/it would have the most power/influence/intelligence, so it would follow that that being would set the ethical code right?

I meant "our" society (meaning 2012 western society) which I guess is kind of arrogant given that this is an international forum. I didn't mean all societies in 2012.

Isn't peaceful voting also a form of majority rule? Everyone together can agree, ahead of time, to give the power to the outcome of the vote. That's not might makes right.

Edit: Missed the last part. Given that I've already said that inherent power isn't required, I personally don't really care how intelligent someone/something outside of the society is. If they're not going to actually be here and participate then they don't have a say, in my opinion.

It is might makes right. It's a little more civil that whacking your opponent over the head and taking his banana, but whatever side has the might to win the election can change the rules. From a brief survey of human history (recent and/or ancient) power eventually corrupts, but if you hold the power, that corruption can be rewritten as ethical.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Which brings us back to my initial question, how is society based ethics/codified morality different than majority rule or might makes right? What if the consensus agreed upon is that a certain people group is subhuman and deserving of death?

Thankfully we've evolved in a society past that point and we don't really need to answer it.

Woah, guys, let's not derail this into an abortion debate!

(could...not...resist )

Might makes right ignores empathy and altruism, just as part of the human condition as whacking people on the head. As for ethnic cleansing, related to tribalism and superstition, how common would that be in a society that is well-educated, not superstitious at all and that values critical thinking?

Nomad wrote:

It is might makes right. It's a little more civil that whacking your opponent over the head and taking his banana, but whatever side has the might to win the election can change the rules. From a brief survey of human history (recent and/or ancient) power eventually corrupts, but if you hold the power, that corruption can be rewritten as ethical.

No. We collectively ALL change the rules. Which rule is determined by a vote but the actual power, the rule change, happens together.

1Dgaf wrote:

Might makes right ignores empathy and altruism, just as part of the human condition as whacking people on the head. As for ethnic cleansing, related to tribalism and superstition, how common would that be in a society that is well-educated, not superstitious at all and that values critical thinking?

This.

Morality is not the exclusive purview of the religious, or religions.

Deleted since it would take things off topic.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
DanB wrote:

Pain and suffering are a harm caused to the animal. The decision is whether we consider animals lives sufficiently worthwhile that the law should protect them form harms. The argument amounts to; What level of "personhood" should be protected by law and having decided that which animals then fall within the scope of that definition of "personhood".

Which is a subjective, moral judgement call. Animals are objectively not people, they are (legally speaking) property. The thought of an animal in pain is repugnant, so we as a society have decided to restrict property rights in this area.

All I'm pointing out is that, according to the definitions thrown out earlier in the thread, enforcing that morality is a really bad thing - I guess I'm arguing that when society lets it's moral compass shape what's permissible, it's not always a bad result.

Pain is ultimately repugnant because an individual who does not wish to be harmed is being harmed. I want it to be stopped not because I am squicked by it but because that person doesn't want it happening to them.

But lets wind this back a bit. A legal system always embodies the codification of some moral system. It can't be any other way because a legal system literally sets out what things are "good" and what things are "bad". We can not exclude morality from a legal system, the question is what kind of morality should a legal system embody?

My point earlier is that a legal system should be fair to all stakeholders, and not favour any given group. That it should not protect or enforce the rights and beliefs of one group at the expense of some other group. That is in itself a moral claim because I'm saying that a fair legal system is good and other vested-interest systems are bad. You may not agree, plenty of people don't. Ultimately it's a claim that is somewhat axiomatic, I personally think it would lead to a system with fewer harms to everyone, perhaps it would not; I don't have a way to directly prove that either way and I doubt anyone else does. But to some degree it is the direction that most western legal systems have been trending for quite some time now.

Should you agree with kind of axiomatic statement that "legal systems should be equally fair to all stakeholders" then the next thing that follows is to define who or what the stakeholders might be. People are the obvious first example; I think people should be included because by and large we know that people want to be treated fairly and not come to harms (they tell us as much). And humans are part of our society and the direct subject of our legal and social systems. Between those things it's hard to imagine how people wouldn't be stakeholders.

But I additionally think animals are a type of stakeholder in the system although I'm not making any claim that they should get equivalent rights to humans. Most of the animals humans regularly interact with are sapient to various degrees and their behaviours to indicates that they do not want to come to harm. Most such animals are also domesticated so they arepart of our social system. Between all those things we probably shouldn't needlessly harm the other higher animals we interact with who don't want to suffer. That said, I don't think animals are full moral agents so I do think that non-trivial human concerns (i.e. food, medicines) can override such a consideration. And we could probably stop there were it not for the fact that some people do needlessly harm animals. At this point, because the system should be fair to all stakeholders we should probably have additional laws that protect these "partial stakeholders".

Importantly I'm defining everything in terms or what given stakeholders desire for themselves (i.e. not wanting to be personally harmed). I'm not saying "pain is repugnant to me therefore ban pain". Of course when it comes to animals we can't literally know what it is they want but show me a dog or cat that chooses to drown itself and I'll concede the point that animals don't willingly stay away from harms.

Demyx wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

I'm not sure you can construct a defense of preventing someone from getting naked or having sex in public without straying into non-secular territory.

That's very easy. If you're naked or having sex in public, children could see it, and there are scientific studies about the potentially harmful effects of children being exposed to sexual material.

You could go simpler for this argument and not open it up to a counter-claim that you produce this scientific evidence. Violation of consent is certainly unethical, and if you expose your sexual acts to others who have not consented to see them, you've violated their consent and thus acted unethically.

Jayhawker wrote:

It's amazing the rationalizations people will come up with to support, not a law, but an atitude that has lead to thousands of teen suicides because they can't even count on their parents for support because the church has screwed everything up so bad.

Parents think they are helping their kids by teaching them that homosexuality is immoral, but it leads to many, many kids growing up with terrible self-esteem issues. They are then set loose into a society in which a vocal segment despises their very nature, and they cannot even count on their parents for support. That is so screwed up.

And the best some can come up with is that it is a hard, but worthy, goal to honor an interpretation of the bible that makes so many people's lives worse. It is disgraceful that anyone would rely on the bible to trat others with such a lack of respect when it is clear than many, many Christians don't have that problem. Treating gays as immoral is a personal issue, not religious.

As important as LBGT groups are, I think the Gay/Straight alliance groups may be the most important right now. More straight people need to "out" their friends and relatives who fail to see how destructive their shallow worldview is. It may take more "what you did" talks than "what you are," but the larger the supportive straight community is, the easier it will be for gays to be able to no longer have to think about if they will be accepted.

This is a wonderful post.

Jayhawker wrote:

And the best some can come up with is that it is a hard, but worthy, goal to honor an interpretation of the bible that makes so many people's lives worse. It is disgraceful that anyone would rely on the bible to trat others with such a lack of respect when it is clear than many, many Christians don't have that problem. Treating gays as immoral is a personal issue, not religious.

And then many (no, not all) of those very same people turn around and show their disdain for the "barbaric" religion of Islam citing it's poor treatment of women and violent nature.

It's amazing the rationalizations people will come up with to support, not a law, but an atitude that has lead to thousands of teen suicides because they can't even count on their parents for support because the church has screwed everything up so bad.

Parents think they are helping their kids by teaching them that homosexuality is immoral, but it leads to many, many kids growing up with terrible self-esteem issues. They are then set loose into a society in which a vocal segment despises their very nature, and they cannot even count on their parents for support. That is so screwed up.

And the best some can come up with is that it is a hard, but worthy, goal to honor an interpretation of the Bible that makes so many people's lives worse. It is disgraceful that anyone would rely on the Bible to treat others with such a lack of respect when it is clear than many, many Christians don't have that problem. Treating gays as immoral is a personal issue, not religious.

As important as LBGT groups are, I think the Gay/Straight alliance groups may be the most important right now. More straight people need to "out" their friends and relatives who fail to see how destructive their shallow worldview is. It may take more "what you did" talks than "what you are," but the larger the supportive straight community is, the easier it will be for gays to be able to no longer have to think about if they will be accepted.

I have been reading through these responses and trying to formulate how I wanted to address the questions raised by my husband, but a piece of dialogue I heard this evening while watching "The West Wing" on Amazon Prime triggered a train of thought and took me in a direction that I hadn't considered.

In essence, I think the morality or ethics of homosexuality rests on one simple question: what qualities am I lacking as a gay man that would justify a law prohibiting me from getting married to my soul mate or sleeping in the same hotel bed with my husband or keeping a job despite my sexual orientation?

Nomad has discussed the sin of homosexuality, and yet, we don't, as a matter of course, fire sinners as a lot from their jobs. We certainly don't prohibit sinners from sharing hotel beds together. And we even allowed a drunken Brittney Spears her 54-hour sham marriage with little more than a few rolled eyes and a "tsk tsk" here and there. That indicates to me that I am lacking some quality that these other people have and that homosexuality is such a horrific sin that it must be punished by not only God but the civil authority as well.

It's almost as though I am supposed to be ashamed of me loving my husband. I'm not.

But my government and many of my fellow citizens seem to be.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

It's almost as though I am supposed to be ashamed of me loving my husband. I'm not.

But my government and many of my fellow citizens seem to be.

I can tell you have not played World of Warcraft with him. You would be ashamed then.

Problem I see is we have a lot of sects touting their morality as God's will. And mostly they agree on what their god's will is, loving, do good works, etc. Some point down the line a southern preacher with his I heart Jesus tattoo was eating a cheeseburger and a plate of shrimp and grits with pork rinds and was leafing through leviticus. Now there were all sorts of abominations he read that he was engaged in at that very moment. But he had not lain with another man since that time at the 4H club, and that was with the sacred middle pillow of heterosexuality.

Now I ponder if 4000 years ago eating a prawn and man love were equivalent sins or abominations. And the bible does not change, nor does the will of god. Then why are we spending so much time stymieing two men or two women from loving eachother, and we are not in arms about McDonald's billions of burgers sold? As a scale of magnitude, it seems McDonalds has done way more sin.

KingGorilla wrote:

Now I ponder if 4000 years ago eating a prawn and man love were equivalent sins or abominations. And the bible does not change, nor does the will of god. Then why are we spending so much time stymieing two men or two women from loving eachother, and we are not in arms about McDonald's billions of burgers sold? As a scale of magnitude, it seems McDonalds has done way more sin.

Likely because most Christians find cheeseburgers tasty and gay sex icky.

I'm sure many of the Chick-fil-A crowd had the Deluxe Chicken Sandwich which completely violates the biblical ban on eating meat and dairy in the same meal. It just shows they are completely selective in their application of "god's laws" and that means there's something much deeper behind their over the top reaction to homosexuality. My money's on them personally finding gay sex icky and then using a handful of quotes from the bible to validate or justify their position.