::: Why must we practice the preferred morality of the left and disregard time honored morality?:: Answer is we shouldn't, or rather my answer is we shouldn't and I prefer the company etc. of people who think likewise but I respect the choice of people who disagree with me everyone should, that's where freedom begins and stultifying uniformity begins.
:: Lark:
:: 1 Eats meat.
Does it bother you when that practice is called immoral? That's a massive stretch of common sense and decency to me.
:: 2 Doesnt think equality between humans and animals exists.
And the basis for a moral judgement of meateating goes away with this truth.
:: 3 Doesnt think Homosexuality is natural.
We are strange bedfellows indeed (oops).
:: Yet Lark is left wing stalwart.
But would you admit that these positions are more common tenets of the left than the right? I fully agree that the terms left and right do not descibe a monolithic group. Yet I still feel perfectly justified in describing pro-homosexual and anti-meat arguments as leftist morality. They certainly aren't coming from the right in any significant quantity - although there are some. To be concise, the right generally bases its opinions with regards to these particular issues on an ecclesisastical standard while the left seems to lean toward moral relativism.
I don't want to alienate an ally, Lark. Neither do I wish to be stultifyingly uniform. I just don't see any way one can intellectually hold meat eating wrong or abnormal and homosexuality right and normal.
We have seen some people here trying to argue both positions. They seem unwilling to make a moral judgment against homosexuality but quite willing to morally judge meat eaters.
It's a selective application of morality and it's most offensive.
Stuart Gort
