"Without any moral basis you really have no basis to say either is wrong or right."

Runner in reality thiests are not in a better place on that. They've picked one concept of god amongst many that people have believed in at various times then run with some variation of interpretation of that that god's rules (generally mixed in with some cultural practices).

You don't really have the absolutes nailed down either. We work with the mix of values/ethic's morals that seem to make the most sense in the context of the other things we know or believe.

Whilst a lot of thiest's may never want to accept that they are now trying to follow the absolute decree's of their god it's rarely that clear cut in practice.

Thiests may get obsessed about the concept of a moral basis but it's really a figment of their own imaginings and not the foundation you like to tell yourselves it is.

R0bert

Robert you write

'Runner in reality thiests are not in a better place on that.'

While many things are not cut and dried many are. We would both agree that child abuse is abhorent which shows that agnostics/athiest generally do believe in absolutes. When it comes to pornography, sodomy or fornication a follower of Christ knows these things are not only wrong but destructive towards a society. Generally on the topic of lesbians I find that the homosexual lobby is self obsessed in gaining approval and acceptance for their actions no matter how much harm is done to society.

You write

'Thiests may get obsessed about the concept of a moral basis but it's really a figment of their own imaginings and not the foundation you like to tell yourselves it is.

I think it more a case that people who hold to decent family values are thoroughly sick of the homosexual lobby obsession in throwing their lack of morals down people's throats at every opportunity. Just look at how hard the ABC has been promoting the 'gay'lifestyle for a number of decades.

runner, I agree with parts of that post although I have very different views on homosexuals than you do and consider your attitudes to them (and that of many of your fellow believers) to be abhorent and damaging to society. In particular the pain you cause to homosexuals struggling with discrimination is horrific.

I'm not all that keen on the in your face nature of the gay and lesbian mardi-gras either BTW, I get that it's mostly a reaction to the oppression that they have faced but in my view it perpetuates much of what it seeks to counter. It put's the focus on the extremes rather than the very ordinary nature of the lives of many homosexuals.

The point is though that we all end up applying our own judgment to most moral/ethical issues, even if it's at the point of deciding to accept a particular concept of god over another. Often those views are strongly influenced by what we've grown up with than a clearly thought out moral stance.

I don't like either extreme, the Mr and Mr's Grundy peering in other peoples bedroom windows and trying to control what other consenting adults choose to do nor those who insist on making a big deal their own choices in public.

R0bert

R0bert,
On runners last post I would support him one hundred percent. Next we will have pedophiles complaining they are discriminated against, and their human rights denied merely because a section of society wants to castrate or kill them.

Regarding the article being used to justify same sex marriage is an attempt to justify an immoral position. These women if once married now demonstrate their vows to their husbands and loyalty to their family which is the crux of marriage meant little, so are unsuitable candidates for a long term monogamous commitment.

This is a different situation to having multiple wives living in the same house as Islam allows. In those households women have lesser rights than a man, but can have close relationships with each other; and are ideally for the whole of life.

The religious nut cases are in full swing with their higher level self-righteousness.

This comment is a bit rich, don't you think?

"Next we will have pedophiles complaining they are discriminated against"

Well when it comes to child-molesters, the religious fraternity seems to have its own leadership there, doesn't it:)

I don't think its wrong when women find love with-in themselves....I think its quite beautiful how nature gave females that choice. Now there's another feeling nature can give, and that's the " world is full feeling " and you don't have to use too much brain juice to figure out the growing trends, that more and more people going in that direction and giving child-birth the big NO.

Like one of my many favorite UN-ANSWERED QUESTIONS..." When your child leaves school, where is it going to go?"

Dont worry, Iam not expecting an answer anytime soon:)

You religious people just amaze me with your lack of commonsense.

CACTUS

runner
While I respect your right to make moral judgements for yourself as we all do, I don't accept that your morality is any more right than others when applying the 'no harm' principle. The key is surely freedom of the individual and minimal interference by the State where there is no harm or great inconvenience to others.

Having sex with animals is clearly abhorrent because an animal cannot give consent in any meaningful way and is not an equal participant, being party to some person's fetish or whim. It is also crossing species which is a whole other issue.

Same sex relationships are not causing harm to any other person nor threatening heterosexual relationships.

How is homosexuality causing harm where there are two consenting adults.

The key is consent and obvioulsy child abuse is different. Child abuse involves manipulation, grooming and force by an adult without consent from a child. The nature of child abuse is the presence of an unequal and intimidating power dynamic.