Here you have made the moral assumption that one particular group's beliefs or behaviors have not hurt anyone. I'm glad you are confident, but you are also narrow minded
Are you suggesting that by simply being gay, you're hurting someone, and if so please explain how.
I really have no idea what you're talking about. You support the idea of gay marriage (I think) but you think that it's a moral judgement and that's a weak argument (Once again, I think).
Honestly, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here finn, I've read and re-read your post several times. From where I am standing, It simply seems you're sniping at arguments from a moral merry-go-round with a flourish of pontification.
Playing devils advocate is an important role in any discussion, however you don't seem to be doing that.
I guess I am asking you to give a more concise argument, on whatever it is you're arguing.
My issue with ebrown's agenda is that it is replete with moral judgements, and yet , as part of his agenda, he denounces the imposition of the moral judgements of others upon public institutions. If this remains unclear to you, I'm afraid I can not be more clarifying.
Clearly he has arrived at the conclusion that homosexual behaviors do not threaten society in general. I may have missed something along the way, but this conclusion seems to be based on personal opinion rather than emprical evidence.
Not only am I not suggesting that simply being gay "hurts" anyone, I don't believe this to be the case. However, I'm not prepared to discount, entirely, the belief of those who do feel that homosexuality presents a fundamental threat to society. On this issue, at least, I do not presume to have a lock on moral correctness.
I am not a moral relativist. I do not believe that there is a possibility that within certain cultural frameworks or particular mindsets, rape is OK. However, on this issue I acknowledge moral ambiguity. Since I, generally, believe my opinion to be representative of essential truth, if I can not come to an absolute judgement on a given issue I readily accept opposing opinions.
Of course I don't, at all, accept your opinion of my arguments. I thank you for your efforts to understand my point, but am not all that concerned by the fact that you are unable to grasp it.
I have not attempted to assume the role of Devil's Advocate and so if you feel I have failed in that regard, it is not surprising.
If I have money on the line, I could care less how someone might arrive at a conclusion compatible with my own, however I have no financial stake in same sex marriages. Therefore, it is of interest to me as to how ebrown has arrived at a conclusion I have also reached.
Let me attempt to express my argument (and then some) in a manner which you will accept as digestible:
Sexual orientation, if a product of genetics, is not subject to moral analysis. Behaviors associated to such orientations are.
Personally, I believe that homosexual orientation does not preclude moral integrity. However, I can understand how someone who believes that homsosexuality is a choice would differ with me. Since, to my knowledge, there is no conclusive evidence as to whether sexual orientation is a matter of choice, I am unable to draw absolute conclusions regarding to those who disagree with my position.
There is a certain amount of irony involved in an admitted conservative (of the neo persuasion) scolding a Liberal for moral absolutism, but there you have it.
Thank you for you posting, notwithstanding your condescending tone.