I agree with most of Emily's position. Engaging in activities or indulging in substances should only be restricted by law to the extent that there is real potential for harm to be caused to others as a direct result of the choice of an individual to engage in activity or consume a substance.

For example, the law allows alcohol consumption but rightly proscibes driving when affected above a certain limit, and makes a crime of being drunk in public (especially if violence or nuisance is involved). That is the way it should be for other recreational drugs too, even though some of these such as ice/chrystal meth can cause abusers to become dangerous criminals.

Some may argue that the abuse of recreational drugs over the long term can cause health problems that place burdens on our health system. While that is so, it is not an argument for criminalising recreational drugs, in fact, a regulated decriminalisation of these drugs would be more likely to produce an environment of harm minimisation (now there is a term that prohibitionists hate).

The line does become blurry at times though. Assuming it is the right of individuals to undertake dangerous adventures such as solo ocean crossings, mountain climbing etc., to what extent is that fair on would-be rescuers who are sometimes placed at risk?

Don't you just love the way the Right is vociferous in its defense of freedom for the market, for capital, for trade, for individuals to negotiate their working conditions, for employers to decide who they will hire and fire, often calling themselves "liberals" and defenders of liberty as a result? Yet the same Right is equally vociferous about the need for state control over the right of a women to choose abortion, or an adult to ingest a drug, or an adult deciding who to sleep with, or marry, or when to end their life? So the right only believe in economic freedom, they are extremely authoritarian and controlling about private and social freedoms.
And the Left are just as contradictatory. They believe in centralised control of industry,the economy, markets, collective bargaining and are much more regulatory about business in general, yet they become positively libertarian over people's right to choose in their private and sexual lives, supporting a woman's right to choose, gay marriage, liberalisation of drugs, you name it.
It seems we only believe in freedom to choose when people make the choices we approve of.

Ena is right to highlight the inconsistencies in these disparate views. "Harm no-one" makes alot of assumptions on whether citizens are, firstly, able to determine what may cause harm or, secondly, if they have the discipline or control tonot do something that may cause them or someone else harm.

Those who would freely cry for the freedom to "marry" of the same sex will cry "hang him" when I claim the freedom to choose to drive my car at the speed I want.

So, Brougham, I can see how driving a car at a dangerous speed through a crowded area might harm someone. But how does one demonstrate any harm to others caused by your other example, same-sex marriage?

The lack of personal choice available in this country, of the kind this author discusses, often amazes me too. A loud minority take it on themselves to play missionary to the rest of the society - I'm well able to look after my own soul, thanks, and don't need anyone else to do it for me.

Of course the right to choose breaks down when harm is done to another. I don't see why I should have to pay, via taxes, huge medical bills racked up by life-long smokers, fatty food addicts and mountain-climbing adventurers. So everybody draws their own line on the sand when it comes to tolerating another's choices. But that line should be drawn to limit real harm, not outdated ideology.

So I can say, without feeling contradictory at all - yes I support same-sex marriage and yes, I want you to drive to the speed limit.

So you will not tolerate my choice / freedom to drive at the speed I think is safe? Am I not able to determine if I am going to harm anyone? Or, am I not trusted to make my own decision on what I think is "safe"? I think I am 'well able to look after my own' too!

The question was asked 'How is same sex marriage a "Harm"? Quite simply because 1) Homesexuality is not a healthy lifestyle by any measure (real harm) and 2) children raised within a family by both their mother and father in a monogamous marriage is shown time and again to be the best environment for them to be raised. Defining marriage as anything other than unique to one man one woman, exclusively, is to diminish the value of marriage at the cost of it's benefit to future children.

Talking about not wanting to pay for the health costs of those people who smoke, etc. . . . I could say the same about AIDS costs or STD's for a homosexual or non-monogamous hetro.

Some years ago as a tourist in Ireland my wife and I climbed the tower of a ruined abbey. At the top there were no safety railings and the parapet wall was not much above knee height. While cursing the responsible authorities, I couldn't help feeling invigorated by the sense of danger. On the same trip we abandoned a climb of Croagh Patrick (Ireland's holy mountain) after I was literally blown off my feet. As we descended we were passed by a group of students and their teachers who were apparently oblivious to the dangers of the ferocious weather. I admired their perseverence and suspect an Australian school party would have retreated, partly because of the potential legal action in the event of an accident.

I believe people should be able to risk their lives if they want to. Someone else driving too fast- hey, that's putting MY life at risk.

Isn't this interesting. Johnj, I can only assume you are an incompetent driver, or you would not think any speed above our current speed limits was dangerous. Perhaps its an age thing, you may never have been allowed to drive faster than 100 Km, in which case you would probably be dangerous, at higher speeds.
Back in the 60s, I regularly drove my high powerd cars at 100 MPH, for hours, legally, & safely, on roads which would be considered goat tracks today.
Even more interesting is the fact that todays shopping trolleys have better suspension, steering, breaks, tires, & safty, than any of my "high powered" cars of the 60s. In fact, a very high percentage of them will have more power than my "high powered" 60s car did.
As there is no reason to believe that you young blokes should not be able to learn to drive at least as well as I did in my youth, there must be some reason, other than safty, for our currant very low speed limits.
Could it be our government's addiction to money?
As its easier to raise lots of money in fines, with very low speed limits, I think I may just have stumbled on the answer.

Brougham
I'm sorry but your assertions are simply wrong.

1) The homosexual lifestyle [whatever that is] is no more unhealthy than a heterosexual lifestyle.

2) Many children have been raised very well in loving homosexual families & raised badly in disfunctional heterosexual ones. The idea that simply having a mother & father on the scene equals a happy, healthy child is simplistic rubbish at best.

The theme of this forum seems to be that we should only restrict choices that measurably harm others.

Broughom has proposed that she/he can determine how safely she/he can drive, PK has said that recreational drug use does not directly harm others and nowvoyager has an aversion to paying for another's choice to smoke with her/his taxes.

I personally don't think the concept of “moral luck” poses much of a threat to measuring harm (or any other consequnces...). We can have relatively objective measures of how harmful different choices are.

Eg-I assume speed limits are somewhat determined by the damage a speeding car can inflict and by measures of safe driving at different speeds. Probably our tolerance of a certain number of road fatalities to maintain our desire to go very fast, politics, tradition, and a whole heap of other factors come into play and it is likely that broughom can drive at much higher speeds more safely than I can. However, a mostly objective measure of speed limits that are the safest policy for most drivers is surely possible.

To me, arguments against choices due to unfair resource use are more problematic; everyone with access to the internet is using resources that some in the world don't get access to. Cigarettes are heavily taxed already, ostensibly to deter smokers and to "pay for" health costs, though the taxes don't really do either job, but I agree that the measurable resource drain from smoking seems so overwhelming, even when understated, that smokers are taking an unfair share of resources compared to non smokers.

Taken to an extreme, this sort of argument can be scary; should we have resource balancing(taxes?) on choices to drive? drink? eat junk/meat? play contact sport? swim at the beach?

Nevertheless, I believe statistical measures of "unfair" choices could be made, and I'm open to ideas to address the balance. But if this is a basis for our legal punishments for choices to take recreational drugs, then I agree that compared to "legal" drug abuse, our "balancing" of resources from unfair choices is not consistent.
(continued below)

(from above)
None of which seems to me to address the issue of choosing same sex marriages (or the manner of one's own death).

If we accept measuring harm is difficult, but an ethical basis of any decision is based on egalitarian principles (that is, that the basis must apply equally for everyone), then I struggle to think of any arguments against choosing homosexuality (or same sex marriages, or suicide/assisted death).

I‘m open to counterarguments, but the sort of arguments posted by broughom confound me. Broughom says that “homosexuality is not… healthy”, and causes real harm (by any measure…).

I would appreciate guidance as to any sort of measure that could show harm caused by choosing a same sex marriage (is that harm exclusive to same sex marriage? what about any other form of same sex relationship? what about other relationships?).

Broughom has attempted such an argument with her/his second point that marriage other than between a man and woman, exclusively, harms children.
What about children that existed before the institution of marriage existed?
What evidence is there that children are harmed when not raised in an environment with this particular social institution having been enacted by a man and a woman guardian/parent?
Is this harm from the choice of same-sex marriage?
How does this harm impact on same sex marriages (or multiple partner marriages) between childless partners? Surely some other harm would need to be described to prohibit choosing same sex marriage, as this theoretical harm should only limit the choice to have children, when already in a same sex marriage (and should be fairly compared to other choices that create harmful environments for children)

I try to be generous in my interpretation of other arguments, but I can't help but feel that arguments against same sex marriages are not founded on egalitarian ethical principles, and even in an era of right wing religious zeal, I'm amazed and dismayed at how popular such arguments are (even if I disagree with the argument, I'd prefer to see a fair argument against the right to same-sex marriage).

How often have we heard this tired old, self-serving and unworkable rhetoric?
Choice in the absense of knowledge, commitment to the absolute truth and morals, wisdom, self-discipline and responsibility is disastrous. Have a look around, the evidence is everywhere.
But how do we establish the prerequisites for responsible choice making. We've been efficient for far too long at promoting individualism without balancing it with commitment to community, accountability, self-discipline and responsibility.
Emily is well meaning but "Oh-so-typical" of the anti-society-thought-robots produced by our education system. Emily, please use your obvious intelligence and develop some original thoughts.
I say let's Spring Clean ... get rid of the egocentric "intellectuals" who peddle illusions of relative-truth and the other flawed ideas so full of hope but empty. Flawed ideas will always be flawed ideas, regardless of who and how many people believe them. We need to develop citizens of character; people who can think out-side the box and beyond themselves. Too much potential seems forever, tragically locked into an anti-society mindset. Brought about, I speculate, by an inability of students to grow and mature beyond their university experience. For the job of developing intellect we need people of character, people with intelligence and real-life-experience and wisdom hard-won.
The “harm-no-one” edict is nonsense. We are all connected and one’s actions always impact others. Please think a little deeper on this dear people ... it is another mindless argument use to justify selfishness over the hard stuff: relationship with and caring for others.
If you're finding this difficult to follow than it's probably because you are brainwashed into the standard contemporary beliefs ... I encourage you to pray for a revelation. Try it, you have nothing to lose but your blindness.
You are well off the mark Emily; limitless choice would produce a worse nightmare than we have presently created for ourselves.
Aren't we lucky you Emily aren't making decisions for us and that there are some left who take responsibility for making the hard decisions that protect us from ourselves and each other?

Subversive stuff, Emily.

I returned to live in Australia in 1994, and was shocked to find that my country had become obsessed with safety. Our tolerance for risk is now approaching zero, and our wowserism extends way beyond the issues you mention.

We’re turning ourselves into a nation of bland automatons, where acceptable risk-taking is corralled in business or sport. Adventurers who get into trouble are sent a bill for their rescue, and public spaces are a visual mess of warnings and disclaimer signs.

Is this better than how things were in the sixties, with drunks tearing up and down the streets and people blowing cigarette smoke in your face everywhere you went? Possibly. But as you observe Emily, the costs are very high.

Abednego
Quote "The “harm-no-one” edict is nonsense. We are all connected and one’s actions always impact others." Emily ISN'T talking about emotional harm but physical harm. Very few of our actions involve physical harm to others. Since the the life we are risking is our own then we are the ONLY ones who get a say. It's that simple.

The alternative you seem to be suggesting is a society where if anyone objects to what someone is doing then they shouldn't be allowed to do that activity. Let's apply that Abednego. Let's start with you. I object to your posts so according to your logic you shouldn't be allowed to post here anymore. I object to christian fundamentalist church so it shouldn't be allowed to operate & so on. After all I am emotionally affected by all that so I MUST get a say...at least according to your argument.

But according to Emily I only get a say if I am physically harmed. So which version do you prefer?

For W and Bosky

You observe the natural outcome of a depraved society engaging in 'damage control'. We have found new gods of sensuality and open sexual permisiveness, and we worship them with our Canaanite like actions. Unnnnnnfortunately, this impacts others increasingly and so.. knee jerk laws are beefed up to cope with the social damage caused by attributing to our gods, the behavior many seem to desire.

In short, we want to have our social/moral cake and to eat it too. We want to be permissive and liberated, but ooops..when that liberation goes just a tad too far..aah..better crunch a few people.

Sadly, the point at which we 'crunch' people legally is always being challenged. Some call the conservative mob 'wowsers' as u did.

-Lower the age of sexual consent.
-Don't censor 'non-violent' erotica
-Same sex marraiges.

Aaah yes..but as we travel down the path of the Canaanites, lets also add the other things they did.

-Throw our babies into fires to make Baal or Dagon happy.
-Indulge in cult prostitution of both males and females
-lets all have sex with animals
-Lets all have sex within our families, parents with offspring, brothers with sisters etc.
-lets all be bi-sexual.
-Lets all have Group sex, Orgies.

Interestingly, when these things were condemned by the founding document of Wowserism "Leviticus" it mentions "as the peoples in the land do" (referring to the Canaanites.)

All this occurred when MAN ascribes his own base desires to his gods.

I often hear "God is made in the image of man.. invented by man" but in such cases where this is true, such as with the Canaanites, the characteristics attributed tend to be the most vulgar kind. Give the 'progressives' like Emily time and we will all be able to 'choose' to hump our dogs and sisters and 'barely legal' chidren with a clear concience.

The standard from the Biblical God is 'CONTRARY' to vulgar human inclinations.
Hence, God is not 'invented' by man.

Choice without boundaries is moral anarchy and we can expect no less than the Canaanites got. "Destroy them utterly".

I agree with much of Emily's centiment, particularly her views regarding recreational drug use. The current laws/social controls over relatively safe (compared to alcohol and tobacco)drugs such as ecstacy and cocaine are totally hypocritical, oppressive, un-inforcable, puritanical and not based on factual evidence at all. Prohibition is the ultimate in 'Nanny State' censorship of free thinking adults.

I do however find it amazing how people can say that women have a supposed "right" to kill unborn children. HELLO PEOPLE! I think sucking an unborn human child through a bladed vacume cleaner constitutes harming another person. We're not living in the 60's anymore - there is so much scientific evidence now days proving the life of unborn children that only the truely ignorant can decide to ignor it.

I think that the state has become so controlling of personal freedom to the point of rediculousness, however the protecting of human life really should be the first and foremost of the states role

Hasbeen, I prefer evidence rather than anecdotes on road safety. So you might look here http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/speed/index.html or here http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2001/Rural_Speed_1.aspx . Risk of accidents in a 60kph zone doubles with each 5kph over the speed limit according to the first report and the second found that "small reductions in travelling speed in rural areas have the potential to greatly reduce casualty crashes in those areas".

I'm perfectly happy for other people to risk their lives, via recreational substance abuse, mountaineering or whatever. But excessive speed, drug taking or drinking, talking on mobiles etc etc are proven factors in road accidents. Driving's hazardous enough without idiots who believe they're invulnerable.

So, Boazo, should we slaughter the Canaanites (as the Bible urged) or their modern equivalents for breaching biblical morals? Is being immoral as the Canaanites supposedly were worthy of being 'destroyed'? In your moral outlook, are there worse things than murder? If we are just 'vulgar' creatures, who 'created' us with these imperfections? Especially in cases where people are born in poor circumstances in countries where christianity is not widespread, how can these unfortunate immoral people ever achieve salvation?

Abednego, you seem like follower of the Australian Family Association planted yesterday with others on OLO to stack the blog with support for Bill's views in the Big Brother article, and you have strayed to this, admittedly related, topic. I look forward to seeing your 'enlightened' views on a broad range of OLO topics in future.

You say 'I say let's Spring Clean ... get rid of the egocentric "intellectuals" who peddle illusions of relative-truth and the other flawed ideas so full of hope but empty.'. How do you propose that the 'spring cleaning' be undertaken? More destruction of the 'Canaanites' perhaps?

Yo ! PK......

The most important aspect of the judgement of the Canaanites was its divine origin.

Equally important, the Israelites were instructed to offer peace to Cities of their enemies which were not part of surrounding nations. But not those of the Canaanites who were to be an inheritance to Israel under the covenant promise to Abraham ....

Deuteronomy 20

16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy [a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you.

Clearly, the command to destroy and anihilate was specific to the Canaanites of that particular geographical region and time. We cannot generalize it to turn it into a modern justification to eliminate "In Gods name" those who disagree with us on morality.

Rather, the solution to our moral and spiritual waywardness is nothing other than national and individual repentance.

A turning back to our Creator in humility and reliance as per our constitution preamble "Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God"

Yes, and when we do turn, we will also turn from those debilitating values which are currently destroying and wrecking our social fabric and personal standing.

Boaz, you sink to new depths of depravity when you claim that the god you worship commanded his so-called chosen people to massacre every man, woman, child and baby of those races which allegedly didn't come up to his expectations.

As for your apparent fascination for bestiality and incest, well the mind boggles!

Do you still expect us to take you seriously on anything?

Boazo, not only did you fall well short of answering my questions, but you also exposed some of the large holes in your whole position. You who are always preaching about how Islam is a religion that embraces violence and intolerance, in this thread you bring to light a passage of the Bible that demonstrates that Christianity is open to the same charge.

If the lesson of how the destruction of the 'immoral' Canaanites is exhorted is irrelevant to how modern examples of perceived immorality are to be treated, why did you raise it at all in this thread? Probably because in your eagerness to litter OLO with biblical quotes, you became careless. I think this carelessness was also exposed by Narcissist in a response to you in today's other article about choice.

You seem to think choice should be limited to following Christianity and attempting to achieve salvation from that path. Yet, you did not answer my earlier question about the fate of those who do not realistically have that choice. Yours is a religion for the world's lucky, the world's elite.

I feel, in a way, I owe broughom an apology- although broughom's arguments seemed incomplete, at least they were arguments...

Perhaps the true face of the religious right's crusade against our rights to make so called "immoral" choices has surfaced…

I don't expect any of those posters to alter their stance one iota, given that no shred of reasonable argument can be found in their posts, but hopefully those who read these posts starting from a somewhat neutral perspective, can now see the sorts of things that religious and sexual minorities are up against in Australia (especially now with religious fundamentalism having so much influence in parliament at the moment).

Abednego tells us "choice is the absence of knowledge", and Emily an "anti-society-thought-robot..."-good to see Abednego avoids the egocentric, intellectual peddling she/he so despises by avoiding any intellectual rigor in her/his "arguments"...at least in Abednego's defence, by not actually making any points (other than attacking Emily and choice) her/his post can not be construed as supporting the sort of nonsense that follows in Boaz_David's posts...

Trying to extract some sort of argument from Boaz_David's posts (quoting scripture does not, of itself, make any point), I believe that Boaz_David believes-
-"Choice without boundaries is moral anarchy "
-we "worship" sensuality and open sexual permisiveness
- this "worship" goes beyond the boundaries (hence "social damage"?)
-this post is in response to Emily's article, and Boaz_David lists the point "-Same sex marraiges." shortly after confusingly talking about "crunch"ing people; I interpret this as an attempt to show choosing same sex marriage partners, is harmful, or "crunch"ing.

I also think Boaz_David is trying to construct a "slippery slope" argument, whereby the choices from either Emily's article or from the points about "crunch"ed people lead to group orgies, cult prostitution, baby sacrifice et al.

Boaz_David -can you enlighten me if I have completely misinterpreted your points? Otherwise, can you string them together with some premises (what determines boundaries of behaviour? How do the choices from this article cross the boundaries? What is the harm from this?) and construct an argument for us to disagree on?

Great article, Emily!

I also have serious problems with laws requiring us to where bicycle helmets and seat belts (although I would still choose, myself, to wear seatbelts most of the time, regardless).

A few years ago I recall a cover on the ironically named "Choice" magazine advocating making it compulsory for skateboarders to wear helmets. Glad that one never got off the ground.

PK
I do not believe that the judgement on the Canaanites (a time specific historical event, commanded by God) can be used to justify us destroying immoral or unbelieving people today "in Gods name". Clear ?

Rex, I hope you take me seriously on all things that are mean't seriously.

WIBBLES.. you understand me correctly. "Slippery Slope" is probably a very good description of how I view 'un-anchored' society.

It may be that you or others regard child sacrifice, fertility rituals with cult prostitutes as an 'ok' thing, but while 'we' don't engage in child sacrifice today...OOOPS..wait.... don't we ? hmmmmm *thinks*... how about the unborn and in some cases NEARLY born children we sacrifice on the alter of 'convenience' to our deity of 'me'.?
How about Peter Singer and his 'lets cull them' approach to the handicapped.

Not only is it a slippery slope, it's also 'frog in a beaker of gradually warmed water' (u know that one)

Perhaps the reason u don't notice it is that ur that frog ?

Cast your eyes 'back'....look at the social conditions prior to the major evangelical awakenings.

http://dylee.keel.econ.ship.edu/UBF/leaders/whitfild.htm

[The effect, (of the GIN craze) according to the Bishop of London, was that gin made the English people what they never were before, cruel and inhuman. In those days, the rich got richer, and the poor got poorer. Street children and the insane were cruelly treated, the London Mafia thrived, gambling was everywhere, and stage productions were obscene even by today's standards. ]

Do you note those last words.. ? "by todays standards"

THEN.....National Repentance.

The voice of John Whitefield was soon joined by John and Charles Wesley, and many others. Starting with Whitefield, a tremendous chorus of praise and preaching rang throughout the land, and was sustained for at least fifty years. The revival changed the entire temper of English society. The church was restored to life and activity. The people had a fresh zeal which purified their literature and their manners. A new social philosophy was born, whereby prisons were reformed and education became available to all people.

HALELUJAH.

Whoa, Boaz, thems is some mighty bold claims.

Though if you want to have some kind of fair debate, you can't keep using the old 'this information is divine, so it's right' logic.

Everywhere I look I see quotations from the bible, from psalms and from religious leaders being used to back up an argument.

The problem is, you are using religious statements in non-religious arguments.

I, and many others, and last time I checked the Australian government (though the separation of church and state has seen better days) do not suscribe to any single institutional religion.

So for you to say that an argument is divine is hogwash to me. I may as well say my argument is right because my dog told me so.

I apologise for comparing your god to a canine and I don't mean it in an insulting sense, rather I would just like to illustrate that it is not my belief, and for you to tell me your arguments are correct simply because they're in the bible is effectively the same insult.

BOAZ_David, the thing about a slippery slope argument is that you have to define the slope, and what makes it slippery i.e. what things are related to each other, and how are they related?

Am I to understand that the slipperiness is due to society being 'un-anchored' because we are no longer in a period of "evangelical awakening"?

That's going to be a tough claim to back up- can you show us the mechanism whereby an "un-anchored" society leads to cult prostitution, and how that is related to choice? Keeping it on topic, how is this reflected in people wanting the choice to marry same sex partners?

Imagine the slippery slope to Peter Singer's ideal world. You'd have plenty of choices that I gather BOAZ_David isn't too keen on. Yes, there would be abortions (and infanticide), and that would include aborting the handicapped (though certainly not once they are more than a few days old). Euthanasia would be in- you could actually choose to die if you wanted. You could choose to have sex with as many or as few consenting adults of any gender you wish. Or not, the choice would be yours. You could marry them, divorce them, and marry them again- or several at once. Under any religious code you accept and that accepts you, or under a civil code that treats us all with equal consideration. You could choose to pretty much do anything that makes you happy, as long as you don't bring others down doing it. Of course, that might rule out violence and oppression. So we'd be stuck with peace and democracy throughout the world. And if you wanted to have a sports car valued at the low price of 1 million dinners and churn through thousands of litres of petrol and help drown some island nation, you'd probably have those choices ruled out as well. Doesn't sound so bad to me...

TURNRIGHT...
yep.. bold claims indeed. Glad u take it seriously enough to question it.
One would need to do some reading to see the connection between the social values prior to, during and after the 3 major evangelical awakenings, which is more than a 350 word thing. I just refer you to professor Google on that one.

Wibbs, the "slipery slope" ..and connecting it to events and trends.. not an easy thing, because the changes tend to take place rather slowly, just like the temperature of the water in which the hapless frog is unknowingly cooking.

This is why I draw a contrast to the Awakenings and today. Choice is always there, and this is our fundamental problem. Paul says "You are free in Christ, but don't use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh"

You mentioned Singers world, and one point you raised in that is this:

"We are free to choose to have sex with as many consenting adults as we like"..... I'll use that to shed light on how this area of life, is vulnerable to the 'flesh' as mentioned above.

Singer can only 'postulate' that it is not 'good' to have sex with children, I've often pointed out that Nambla claim Man/Boy sexual experiences can be positive. So, the values Singer presents are simply his own opinion, as is that of Nambla. Each side will use argument to support their view.

Turnright.... I used Biblical references and historical events of spiritual awakenings to show the difference in social values and their connection to prevailing ideas of the day. Repentance and Faith is a strong social force, even if you today regard such as hogwash.

Part of 'choice' is the choice to regard such things as hogwash :)

"You could choose to have sex with as many or as few consenting adults of any gender you wish. Or not, the choice would be yours. You could marry them, divorce them, and marry them again- or several at once."

I don't know if Wibble wrote this in a serious vein, or merely to provoke. But I'll take the bait.

Wibble, if this is the where the ideology of choice is ultimately leading us, then of course it would be ruinous to follow such a path.

No society could survive such a casual attitude to sex and marriage. It is a recipe for permanent gender war, for a large, burdensome welfare state, and for angry children.

Nor could any society survive such a "self-concept". To commit to a society, and to work for its betterment, requires a belief that the society represents something good. All that Wibble is giving us is a low concept of men and women as "players".

This thread is pretty much done, but here goes-
BOAZ_David-"...the values Singer presents are simply his own opinion..."

Clearly you're no believer in moral subjectivism; you believe Christian moral values are objectively the correct ones and therefore others belief's that contradict them are "simply opinions".

But surely you recognise your own views are also opinions (even if they coincide with objective morality), and that Singer (and others) believe their views are (or may be) consistent with objective morality.

Rather than saying Singer's views are "simply opinions", it would seem fairer to show your understanding of objective reality, then show how Singer's view is different, and then to the extent that Singer's views are not founded in the objective reality of morality, show how they are wrong.

Mark Richardson-"I don't know if Wibble wrote this in a serious vein..."-I was perfectly serious.

My problem with the attacks against choice in this forum are highlighted by your response. What mechanism ensures "No society could survive such a casual attitude to sex and marriage."?

How is this attitude casual?
That we can actually choose what we want in terms of marriage or sex, doesn't mean we won't value them.
That'd be like arguing the choice to kill ourselves means we don't value our lives.

Do you think those that marry same sex partners don't love them?
or someone stuck in marriage with an abusive partner is holding society together via heroic martyrdom to the concept of marriage?
And if there are those who don't value marriage or sex with one partner for life, for themselves, why would you want to force them to that- does this add value to these concepts?

What would cause the horrors of "permanent gender war...burdensome welfare state...and..angry children."?

I can only guess at some ideological "slippery slope" that BOAZ_David is fond of, based on some generalisations about the collapse of society if it doesn't follow the peculiar conventions of "traditional family" that our moral conservatives believe, despite all historical and anthropological evidence to the contrary, must apply to humanity at all times or else it is doomed.