Proxy said:

//What sort of biological imperative drives homosexuals to plant their seeds in a man's rectum?//

COMMENT.
and that probably sums up the whole issue better than anything else.

MY OPINION
Moral values are from God or they don't exist. Moral 'opinions' can exist aside from divine revelation.

Moral 'opinions' have only the weight of PUBLIC OPINION on their side.

So....if one is not able to declare faith in the Almighty,(and the values derived from his revealed will) one is left with..PUBLIC OPINION.

So, people, ...don't whine about it when it goes against you or your lusts.

For Christians.. if public opinion happens to be swayed against things we don't like, by deceptive and scurrellous misinformation campaigns, it is up to us to get out there and DO something about that. Whining is not as valuable as voting and changing the law.

And for those who don't LIKE how 'we' might make the law.. just think how WE feel when YOU change the law. It works both ways.

George thanks for your tempered and well thought out response.

Agree, that these 'good' vs 'bad' (Christian/Atheist) debates go nowhere and all they do is set up a defensive dialogue (for the most part) instead of looking at positive ways to live together harmoniously. For the most part, we in the West do that well, one worldview not conflicting with the other too often in hostile ways. This is not the case in non-secular nations where those who do not ascribe to the dominant faith are persecuted and sometimes killed.

JP
"Conclusion: in the absence of God, human morals are completely subjective and relative. That is all I have been arguing."

I completely understand where you are coming from JP but my argument is similar only in reverse. That is, human morals are completely subjective and relative with God given all the different interpretations, and given that God is a human construct. Religion does not of itself appear to uphold morality, although it professes a strong morality. Most rational thinking people believe in the similar principles espoused by many religious faiths (as discussed previously)because they are in reality, very human principles.

If God is a human construct then all that which led to God is also subjective. I don't think that viewpoint is 'silly' as you imply. God and religion has provided a shaky framework for human morality as AJ Phillips has described.

You and I and others on this thread voice our opinions and in a democracy (for example) our collective opinions give voice to an ethical framework. We, all of us, may not always agree with what is decided in terms of legalising same-sex marrige.

That issue comes down to one's views of homosexuality and whether we believe a minority of people should continue to be discriminated due solely on the basis of their sexual preference. The 'harm' principle is an important one I believe in human wellbeing and helps to offset some of the failures in attending to the needs of minorities.

Proxy
Your use of the phrase 'homosexual acitivist' is emotive. There have been many religious activists over time - activism isn't always a negative no matter which way you spin it. There has been no violence.

As far as I am aware there no homosexual groups seeking to discriminate against heterosexuals they merely seek equality under the law in regard to marriage.

If you are only against same-sex marriage because you equate that with pedophilia then may I suggest you are the one acting as a strongly anti-homosexual activist.

You said: "81% of Catholic Church child sex abuse victims were boys". Then you said "Homosexuals form 1-2% of the population yet homosexual priests are responsible for 81% of child sex abuse cases."

These figures show that the majority of child sexual abuse cases were boys but your figures relate only to the Catholic Church. In the greater community the majority of child sexual abuse cases are girls, and they are most often committed by heterosexual men (occasionally women are know to sexually abuse a child). In most of these cases the perpetrator is known to the victim.

Workplaces like the Churches, schools and leisure activities involving children are unfortunatley going to attract pedophiles. They tend to congregate where they have greatest contact with children.

There is a biological imperative for men to impregnate women in the context of evolution and human survival. However, we also know that within the human genome are differences. Human beings are genetically different or may display differences due to environmental influences.

Why are some people homosexual? I don't know the answer to that. Perhaps there should be further studies so that we can put the issue to bed once and for all.

Either way, a 'no harm' imperative is important and in the interests of fairness it is important that stuff is not just 'made up' to suit one's worldview on this issue including accusations of a highly discriminatory nature. Current research reveals that pedophilia is about power it is not just a sexual act.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gays-anatomy/200809/homosexuality-and-pedophilia-the-false-link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Proxy said:

<<What sort of biological imperative drives homosexuals to plant their seeds in a man's rectum?>>

A god given one.

George,

Good point. In the context of this discussion (and, hopefully, what you were saying), I should have said that the higher moral authority of such a person doesn’t stop them from doing something bad.

JP,

I suspect you're trying to argue this from an angle of pure logic because (I’m guessing) you realise that there is no way you can mention “Divine Revelation” without appearing totally batsheet crazy. But your argument only works if there is such a thing as “Divine Revelation” AND you can demonstrate it; because without it (according to your logic), you have no way of knowing who, out of God and Satan, is the good one - hence my point there.

You CAN tell the difference between these symbols of good and evil and you either use Divine Revelation to do this, or an external (secular) morality.

And which of these two are demonstrable, verifiable and even measurable to an extent..?

Thank you.

<<Conclusion: in the absence of God, human morals are completely subjective and relative.>>

Well, you’ve implied a lot more than that with your use of the term “meaningless” and scientifically ignorant remarks about pond scum. But okay, I’m willing to run with this because your argument can be brought down regardless.

<<My argument does imply that someone greater than humanity ... is necessary in order for moral values to be objective and absolute...>>

But that doesn’t make them objective at all.

Why, I could simply combine Deuteronomy 21:18-21 and Matthew 5:17 to justify stoning children and it would simply be a case of your interpretation versus mine.

Either way, until you can demonstrate the existence of this higher being, your argument is meaningless and has no real value.

<<It is only if morals are objective and absolute that we can meaningfully say that murder is wrong regardless of what the murderer may say.>>

I can’t add anything more to what I’ve already said other than to say that if this is what you think, then you have traded your humanity in deference to your god.

And that’s very sad.

>> 4. All moral beliefs are nothing more than constructs by humans.

At best, this is a massive over-simplification. In fact, the evidence is mounting that morals are welded onto our DNA.

Moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt argues that "Morality is a social construction, but it is constructed out of evolved raw materials provided by five (or more) innate "psychological" foundations": the Harm, Fairness, Ingroup, Authority, and Purity foundations. Or to put it another way, "the five most important taste receptors of the moral mind are the following . . . care/harm, fairness/cheating, group loyalty and betrayal, authority and subversion, sanctity and degradation."

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/morality10/morality.haidt.html

How Haidt’s foundations are expressed varies from culture to culture, but essentially the evolutionary purpose of morality is to make a group of humans more successful than others. Consequently, the moral structures of a hunter-gatherer tribe will necessarily be different to those of a large urban society. Haidt recognises our natural inclination to assume that our moral positions are the best, and warns about the dangers:

"We've got to be very, very cautious about bias. I believe that morality has to be understood as a largely tribal phenomenon, at least in its origins. By its very nature, morality binds us into groups, in order to compete with other groups."

In the article I cited above, Steven Pinker argues that variations in moral reasoning arise from how different societies emphasise Haidt’s psychological foundations. Notably, none of the researchers in this field find a role for god. Humans are wired to develop the moral code best suited to their environment.

---

Anyone in Sydney next Wednesday evening could do worse than attending the annual Templeton Lecture at the University of Sydney:

http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newscategoryid=2&newsstoryid=6160

"Is man a wolf to man? Morality and the social behaviour of our fellow primates"

It's open to the public, it's free, and it will be delivered someone who knows a lot more about the topic than we do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal