Nikhil,1. If humans are not allowed to define the word superiority, then actual superiority does not exist.
2. Your argument can be used to suggest that anything or nothing is superior to anything else. In other words, humans are not superior according to your criterion but they are with mine. This impasse cannot be overcome unless we agree that consensus determines the outcome. We will than have to define superiority by those dictionary definitions which apply in an agreed upon source. If we do that, my opinion will prevail in this country. Maybe not in India. But I'm not arguing whether Hindus or Christians are superior. The superiority argument is a tangent from my original intellectual integrity argument. I think the reason that we are so far off on this point is because I've won the other one - even if no one concedes.
3. If men, for purposes of avoiding moral judgment of homosexual (or hetrosexual) promiscuity, are animals, why are they held to a higher moral standard with respect to eating meat? Is it because meat eating hurts animals and homosexual promiscuity doesn't?
Homosexual promiscuity deeply hurts people - mentally, emotionally, and physically. Don't argue otherwise. I have far more real world experience with this issue that establishes my opinion than you are apt to even scratch with your booklearned idealism.
Birds hurt worms. I was watching one this morning. The starling pulled a big worm out of the ground and had to rip him into smaller pieces in order to swallow him. Now that had to hurt. Let us all judge that starling as immoral or allow man his dietary preferrences without moral judgment - if man is only an animal.
If I am only an animal, I want my place in the food chain without anyone's whining. But, if we are more than just animals, maybe we should evaluate certain other human behaviors for the real impact they have on the lives of the participants and society as a whole instead of just going along with the common pathos to seem enlightened.
Stuart Gort
