:: Thank you for perfectly demonstrating my point. By arguing that "a crowd" has access to the true definition while an individual does not, you demonstrate quite clearly that the definition I provided is indeed accurate.Did I suggest that your precise definitions have no place? No. But in the context of this argument, the commonly understood definitions are quite germain. The commonly understood definitions are the ones I generally use when attempting to communicate. Again, do a poll; Gallup did and found that 75% of those polled thought "gay sex" was morally wrong. Now if you go out and ask people, "Is gay sex normal?" and "Is gay sex natural" forcing their poor, common minds to contemplate the act of homosexual sex, I know you're going to be disappointed with the results.
:: This is the same "common sense" that tells us that the sun revolves around the earth, right?
You will not progress socially until you dissociate education and intelligence, Floyd. I hold only a high school degree but I've actually accomplished quite a bit in this world with only my wits and my trifling education. I won't usually denigrate and attempt to marginalize education so you shouldn't disparage common sense. If you wish to characterize a moral opinion as unscientific you have a point. If you wish to have science as the arbiture of morality I can only suggest once again that the limitations of science are obvious in this area.
I'll pass on the rest of your post because it is just more of the same. Floyd, you come off as one who holds no moral absolutes. Am I correct?
Stuart Gort
