DavidJS,

You said: "On the other hand, I find James Dobson's warped ideology disgusting, perverted and fundamentally immoral (and not representative of Christians). Say what you like but I am not a moral relativist."

If you are not a moral relativist then you must have a moral standard by which you can judge whether Dobson's ideology is "disgusting, perverted and fundamentally immoral".

What is this standard that you use?

AK

Frankly, Timkins I am surprised that someone who states they are concerned about “homosexual lifestyles” is labelled ‘homophobic’ when they should be labelled as being in breach of the anti-discrimination act.

As it is not illegal to be a homosexual in this country, your concerns about ‘homosexual lifestyles’ are prejudicial. ‘Homosexual lifestyles’ are by definition, no different to heterosexual lifestyles’ other than that the participants are homosexual.

So what are you concerned about, if not by the sexual differences between yourself and others in our community? If you concerned about general promiscuity or flamboyant decorating tastes, then discuss.

If you concerned about predatory homosexual paedophiles lurking in parklands, then discuss, remembering to state that there are ten times more heterosexual predatory paedophiles lurking beside them. All of whom should be of concern to the community.

If you want to start a campaign to make homosexuality illegal – come right out and say so. But until you get the law changed, a TV producer has every right to put a law-abiding homosexual family on ‘Playschool'.

Rather than muddy the debate by feigning ignorance of commonly understood definitions of hot-topic words, you might instead ponder the laws of this country and consider abiding by them.

As for the furphy that ‘moral relativism’ is indoctrinated into every Kindergarten student, this ‘big lie’ is being peddled by those who wish to usurp secular humanist principles, western democratic traditions and western scientific advances and return to the primacy of the Old Testament. (Exactly how many cubits is that Tabernacle table supposed to be, and do we stone our slaves on Monday or Tuesday?) That our law, traditions and philosophy have evolved from the Judeo-Christian and Greek-Roman philosophical traditions is something the ignoramuses of the USA led right wing born-agains just can’t quite get. Like the separation of church and state. And carbon-dating. And geology and palaeontology. They do ‘get’ aeronautical engineering, and digital telecommunications unfortunately.

Family First – whose family first? My “tolerance” for born-again bigots is in short supply, and running out fast.

Aslan asks what standard I use with regard to moral values. A standard which respects innate characteristics such as race, sexuality, gender and so on. I also respect differences which are freely chosen such as religion or career choices - so long as they don't harm others.

I don't respect choices that harm others - such as unsafe sexual practices or religious bigotry. In regard to the last point, what I mean is that if a person wishes to hold religious beliefs I have no problem with that. I do have a problem when religion is converted into politics with the intention of oppressing other people - such as the actions of politicians like James Dobson.

"the sexual orientation of his host family of two lesbian mums and their respective kids, nonetheless Spellings’ spelled out her objections to Buster’s covert de-sensitising of US kids about same sex families."

EXACTLY !
social change by stealth and brain washing our kids to accept devient life styles and sexual orientations. grrr....

Josie, I want to put your comment and DAvidJS's in juxtaposition.

Yours. "Until the law is changed, don't complain about TV producers portraying law abiding Gay couples"


David's "I don't respect choices that harm others - such as unsafe sexual practices or religious bigotry."

Now David, in this rather difficult world, things will never be completely to the liking of all sides of the social spectrum. When one group can change the law to 'liberalize' the legal position about homosexual behavior, another group has JUST as much right to change it gain to outlaw such practices. Currently we have laws against sex with children. (Did any of you see the SouthPark episode about Nambla ? its was awesome). But Nambla is trying to change those, would u be happy if they succeeded ? would u work to re-change it ? of course. So, dont be too unhappy when groups who think differently from yourself about sexual issues work and struggle to change it to 'their' way :)

NAMBLA have no right to alter the law in order to allow their sexual practices free rein. In my opinion they are child abusers and therefore are interferring with children's rights.

I quite realise that various groups want to change things "their way". However, "their way" may be morally wrong. As I said, I am not a moral relativist. I don't believe "anything goes" Change has to be examined on its own merits - not an easy thing to do and obviously fraught with debate. And I don't pretend to have all the answers - just some of them :-)

Jossie,
You seem to show zero tolerance if someone uses the term “homosexual lifestyle”, but then you call a political party “born-again bigots”, which shows complete tolerance for the use of that term.

There are 88,000 references to the term “Homosexual lifestyle” in Google, and I thought it was acceptable. So what words do you feel more comfortable with, or are more tolerant of (eg. “gay”, “queer” etc). Please let me know what can be used, and what can’t, and if fashions change, please supply updates.

Also what terms can / cannot be used with regards to heterosexuals or bisexuals. And what terms can / cannot be used for each political party. And what social, political, scientific, religious or cultural issues can be discussed, and what can’t. Or what statistics or studies I can refer to, and what I can’t. And what should I eat, wear, drink, read, listen to, and what I can’t.

It does appear that terms such as “tolerance” can mean different things to different people. In terms of homosexuality, I am concerned when there are programs such as “Queer as Folk” being shown on TV, that definitely appear to promote promiscuity (and can I mention the drug taking).

I am also concerned with other programs on TV or other media forms, that promote promiscuity, drug taking, use sex and violence to sell, stereotype people etc. And I am particularly concerned with feminism, which essentially seeks to destroy marriage and the nuclear family.

Why? Because history shows that when there is too much promiscuity, drug taking, and destruction of family within a society, then that society eventually collapses. I have found no examples of societies in history that show the opposite, but if you do learn of a society that flourished in these circumstances, then please let me know also.

NB. I do not belong to any church or political party