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.