: 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. "My" definition of "normal" (actually, Webster's, but for the sake of argument...) centers on statistical measurement, and once again, you cite statistical data to prove that this is not an appropriate definition. I don't get you, bro. Your comments make no sense at all. If 75% of the population thinks what you say they think, then this is a very "normal" thing for that specific population to think. If this preference exists in a measurable form, as you claim, then it is "natural" by my definition. However, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you by several discussants here, your sample is not necessarily representative of the whole population.
For example, if you asked a large percentage of the population of the U.S. their opinion of the greatest country in the world, your stats would overwhelmingly suggest that the U.S. was number one. That sample is not representative of the entire population of earth, however, so your statistics are meaningless.
If you asked a sample of one million gays and lesbians if they thought homosexuality was immoral, you'd also get a biased sample. That statistic would also be meaningless.
And even so, if 51% of the population agreed to kill the other 49%, would that make it acceptable? What if 90% agreed to kill the remaining 10%? You see, man, statistical phenomena DO NOT CARRY MORAL WEIGHT. Ever. Period. Statistics are simply measurements of observed phenomena, and can not logically be used as guides to behavior.
Here in the states, many people complain about Clinton basing all his politics on the polls of voters. This is an example of what you're doing here, and the people are right to complain. Moral questions can't be adressed through statistics.
Now, whether or not something is "natural" is a question of whether or not it can be observed to exist "in nature." once again, there is no moral component to this question, so your argument falls apart.
There are several species of wasp that lay their eggs in the bodies of caterpillers that they have paralyzed. The eggs hatch, and the larvae eat the caterpiller from the inside out. This exists in nature, but to human eyes, it is absolutely horrible. So what? The universe doesn't operate according to what we think is moral, ethical, pretty, or just.
What you're really doing in this debate is attempting to support your personal tastes. That's just fine, but as I said before, the only way to do so is to admit that they are personal aesthetics, and not absolutes that apply to all people in all times and places. You think homosexuality is immoral, so I'd strongly advise you not to participate in it. Other people have different opinions, and they have no less right to their opinions than you do to yours. You do not have the ultimate decision making authority for other people's aesthetics, beliefs, or feelings, and your attempts to impose your beliefs on others are therefore doomed to fail. Deal with it.
: You will not progress socially until you dissociate education and intelligence, Floyd.
May I ask what, precisely, you know about my social progress? You seem to be projecting again, and as your assumptions are based on absolutely no information whatsoever, your reliance on these assumptions seems misplaced.
: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
Except, of course, when it disagrees with your personal biases, as you have repeatedly demonstrated.
: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.
Alright, give me one example of this. One single example of me using science as a guide to morality, that's all I'm asking for. This is a straw man, bro, and you know it.
: Floyd, you come off as one who holds no moral absolutes. Am I correct?
No, Stuart, you are most decidedly not correct. This is a tactic that is frequently used by extremists (of all flavors). "I have a direct connection with God (or Marx, or patriotism, or Allah, or whatever) so to disagree with me is proof that you have no access to the revealed truth." That's Bunk, Stu. Your assumption, here, is that your morals are the only ones possible, and anyone who disagrees with you must be devoid of any ethical sense whatsoever. This is again abject B.S., and again, I suspect that you're aware of it.
There are some things that I believe are always right, and one of those things is a willingness to allow other people to behave in the ways that they see fit.
That includes tolerance of people who have different tastes than you, Stuart. It even includes gays and lesbians, and it also includes Darwinians, Hindus, "Pygmies," and Marxists. Intolerance of stuff that doesn't affect you is, in my opinion, always wrong. There, now you know that I have at least two moral absolutes.
Now kindly stop projecting your fears and prejudices onto people who disagree with you. Thank you.
None.
