Sorry, Pat, but you’ll have to actually demonstrate that I was lying in order to accuse me of it, like I demonstrated with JR.

Then again, your point here is to try to explain why you’re making excuses for JR,. so I suppose accusing me of lying is the only way you have of doing it.

what is the “objective” source of it?

The facts of reality. Morality is only needed by, and moral choices are only possible to, beings that face real choices in life, i.e., that meet the following conditions:

1) They have free will.
2) Their choices seriously do affect their chances of surviving, flourishing, and reproducing (whether their genetics, or their abstract values) into the next generation.
3) They know it. (i.e., they have minds capable of reflecting on (1) and (2))

Human beings are the beings on this planet that meet the above conditions. If reality is objective – and it is, post-modern and other subjective teachings to the contrary – then so is morality. Morality is the set of principles (not rules) that will guide a person to the best choices to be made in life. Humans lack omniscience and have a lot of opinions and confusion, making those principles arguable or difficult to discern – but just because something is difficult and arguable, does not make it subjective (or non-objective). God may be the ultimate author of morality, as He is the ultimate author of all reality; but, as morality arises naturally from reality, God is not logically necessary as a direct author or “revealer” of morality; morality does *not* collapse if you argue the principles from logic and reality, ignoring the God of the local religion.

However, morality depends upon adherence by the majority.

No. It only takes one person to be moral (or not).

But it morality is not a universal truth or constant.

Yes it is, in the sense that it remains true (or its principles remain what they are), whether or not anyone is following them.

NDT, whoever this “screaming gay left” is, they’re wrong. I know of no one here that supports pedophilia, so I can’t figure out why that is an issue here.

Ah, yes, the classic gay liberal response; it’s not their fault for lying through their teeth, it’s your fault for “provoking” them.

Ugh! Okay, but here’s the thing. I avoided casting blame to both you and JR, so fault me for not laying into both of you guys. You, for either lying through your teeth or being extremely careless in the first place, and for the unnecessary “gay sex liberal” stuff. And JR for playing in kind. Okay, better?

you’re one of the few level-headed ppl on this blog…

Bob, I’m level-headed? jThanks, but I don’t know if I can agree with that.

If you mean that as a practical political matter, OK. If, instead, you mean it literally, then you are quite mistaken. Morality (what is right and wrong) is objective, not determined by majority opinion.

ILC, I have never heard the argument that morality is objective. Strangely, you can find a nearly uniform core throughout the societies of the world, but if you leave intelligent design out of the equation, what is the “objective” source of it?

Human lusts and vanities seem to be fairly constant across societies. Anthropologists have worn themselves out trying to find vast exceptions to the rule.

The ethos is rather easily manipulated in turbulent times, but morality tends to remain fairly constant. However, morality depends upon adherence by the majority. When you add a strong religious belief system or the tacit understandings of such a system, morality is even more immutable. But it morality is not a universal truth or constant.

Ah, yes, the classic gay liberal response; it’s not their fault for lying through their teeth, it’s your fault for “provoking” them.

Which is an illegal infringement on their happiness and a violation of “equal protection”, according to the screaming gay left.

and pat: i know we’re in agreement. i just wanted to make sure one thing i said wasn’t being misinterpreted, which i think it was. you’re one of the few level-headed ppl on this blog…

Ahh…then such hormonal events could be ‘righted’.

No, because they result in developmental differences, which show up in the studies as significant adult brain differences. Not sure you really read/understood my whole comment.

I think the problem here is the idea of marriage as a *civil* right. The term civil basically distinguishes the issue as it relating to the state – a definition of the word specifically distinguishes it as separate from military and ecclesiastical life and affairs.

Many (I would dare say most) religions don’t treat marriage as a secular or *civil* issue. In my religion, marriage is viewed as a sacred covenant between a man, a woman and God. The constitution specifically forbids Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion. If referring to a ceremony marking a sacred covenant as a *civil* right is all that it takes for the government to be able to mandate that the same ceremony be available to all people, government could start mandating that bar mitzvahs are a civil right and rabbis would have to do them for all people regardless of whether they meet the religious qualifications for that ceremony. This could be used to extend to any ceremony that has religiously imposed qualifications that must be met in order to receive it.

I would agree, and presume that most reasonable people would agree that homosexuals should be given the same civil rights that are provided married people, but the government really has no place making legislation that allows persons or government officials to tear down the separation of church and state. That would mean that civil unions providing the same rights but specifically distinguishing those rights as secular and not religious, would be a reasonable means of making sure that homosexuals were given the same civil rights as married people, while allowing religions to continue to practice their respective doctrines, and preserve the civil and religious rights of people who don’t endorse homosexuality.

A lot more sex than you would get with a woman? And without having to worry about getting anyone pregnant?

It’s very unlikely to be caused by one or a few clear-cut genes, like eye color or skin color. It may be caused by some very complex / hard-to-predict genetics, plus hormonal events in the womb

Ahh…then such hormonal events could be ‘righted’. Just as sexual identity confusion could be if caught early?

Morality is a determination of the majority.

If you mean that as a practical political matter, OK. If, instead, you mean it literally, then you are quite mistaken. Morality (what is right and wrong) is objective, not determined by majority opinion.

For whatever reason, many gays have decided that marriage should be divorced from morality

Speaking as a gay marriage supporter: No, I haven’t decided that. Not at all. With reference to another recent post of GPW’s: Please take the time to understand my arguments and represent them fairly, if you want to go on to refute them.

Gay men trolling by the restrooms in the public park will always be on the outs with general society.

…And are not the gay relationships we’re talking about here, if indeed they – or heterosexual trolling for that matter – can be called “relationships”.