: 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.Ah, well, you're basing your evaluation upon different criterion- you valorise naturalness, some sort of implicit design in the universe (Bob's), to be in contradiction to which is per se wrong. 'The Natural Order'. The Leftists are arguing, I would hazzrd, according to hedonistic utiltiarianism, on the basis that homosexuality does not per se cause misery and sffering to ethically viable beings, whereas teh emat industry does (if one defines ethically viable in peter Singer's method as 'that which can feel pain' (iirc)).
Thus for them, naturality isn't, per se, teh point, they simply fall into arguing with you over naturalness, for them, its more a point about suffering- and is thus logically consitstant (Go talk to a quaker about homosexuality, they'll explain, they're groovy chirstians...;) ).
: It's a selective application of morality and it's most offensive.
No, its a different morality from your own, and mine for that matter, but it is logically consistant- once one accepts the moral imperative to 'maximise pleasure' in the universe (and thus coversely minimise pain), then you have to accept their argument.
There, see, you can learn things from me...no need to be sarcastic and resort to petty ad numerums....
None.
