Given that Proxy claims not be religious, I wonder what is the basis for his extreme homophobia - and indeed, for his extreme antipathy to Islam but not to Christianity?

Am I the only one getting a bit disturbed by runner's ongoing obsession with animal sex?

PROXY, While I (hope I) don’t share what CJ Morgan calls your extreme homophobia, I too experience an unpleasant sensation at the thought of what you call, “men shoving their organs where they don't belong.” I feel a similar sensation at the thought of amputations, organ transplants, rectal examinations and even knee replacements and cataract removals which, barring unpleasant surprises, are the next cabs off my rank. But I don’t think that my squeamishness constitutes an argument that these procedures are immoral; hence my comment that I can live with homosexual practices being made legal/moral as long as they’re not made compulsory. You sound as if you can’t which suggests that CJ Morgan’s question is deserving of your answer.

If, in your answer, you were able to show that homosexual acts per se decreased the net well being of all human beings (seemingly unlikely but not logically impossible), those who share my views would have to reassess them.

Perhaps, too, it’s time to recall that my paper was not directly, or even mainly, about sexual ethics but about the broader question of why religions should be granted any right to interfere in the teaching of ethics, let alone be allowed to own the game.

RUNNER, are you real?

Dear Glen

thanx for responding.

Proxy... in good form :)

CJ.. I see it in you every day..and am also guilty of it. I speak for you and I and all.

Back to Glen

I'm most interested in the 'vicious and dishonest attack' you refer to.. care to elaborate with some links please?

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=21467

Pell says the ethics classes show a hostility to religion ... not exactly vicious :) but by all means read some of Pericles and CJ Morgans anti Christian posts and you will certainly find 'vicious' :)
Though Pericles tends to be more articulate.

Glen..I'd be interested in a serious answer to a serious question.

"Basis for Ethics" is it your contention that the "maximum good for the maximum number" be the foundation ?

If so.. how would you define 'good' ?

Thanx.. you are in the Lions den now mate :)

OH MY.. just saw this wooopeee...
"not all Christians are fundamentalists and not all rationalists are rational."(Gordo Pollo)

Pericles... meet Gordo :)

and last but not least.. here comes....*FIRESNAKE*..... welcome :)

with.... LUKE 14:26 "if a man does not HATE mum and dad....etc"

Firey..I'm sending you off to 6 months of Hard Hermeneutic labor at our (Gulag) Bible College of Victoria.

I think it might take that long to fix you :)

"" .... about the broader question of why religions should be granted any right to interfere in the teaching of ethics, let alone be allowed to own the game."" (GlenC, Sunday, 4 July 2010 12:32:53 PM

The issues you address before that key point addresses that point - they can't get past the issues of sexuality, and can't even address sexuality ethically, let alone address the wider issues of ethics in total. The narrowness of the arguments around homosexuality in the comments in this blog, an example being the narrow focus on MRSA, is typical of the obsessiveness and closed-mindedness of the religious.

Richie10 - so-called "Free Will" is not portrayed as you portray it.

The notion of God is long-standing in human history, yet it is not fact, hence is disputed and disputable.

GlenC,
You say that male-to-male anal sex makes you squeamish,
but then again, so do:
amputations,
organ transplants,
rectal examinations,
knee replacements,
cataract removal.
They’re not illegal or immoral, so you can see no reason why
homosexuality shouldn’t be legal or moral.
What sort of analogy is this?
What is the basis of your argument?
The only connection I can see is your squeamishness.
I personally don’t care what homosexuals do to each other.
Furthermore, homosexuality is not illegal.
What I object to is kids being indoctrinated that homosexuality is
normal and natural, when it is manifestly, obviously not.
The only argument supporting the notion that homosexuality is normal
and natural, is that people engage in it.
Well, people engage in lots of behviours,
But not many of them result in the diseases that accompany homosex.
To teach children that homosexuality is normal and natural, without
the countervailing warning that it also manifoldly increases the
practitioners exposure to HIV/AIDs, gonorrhoea, syphilis, CA-MRSA,
anal cancer, etc, etc, etc, IS immoral.
But of course, if we did this we would be "discriminating on the basis of their sexuality".
Better to pretend it's not happening and let a few kids die while
they're young and experimenting sexually.
To pretend that homosexual "marriage" is just the same as normal
marriage and to condemn as bigots those who disagree, is just a sick
strategy used by people who have no argument.
You think about GlenC.
No-one will even engage the disease-based arguments against
homosexual behaviour but then they pretend that theirs is a
scientific, ethical and rational stance.
Prove it by engaging in actual debate.