[Note: Quotations culled from Rob's postings.]
I'm not sure why you seem to be referring to homosexuality as a lifestyle. It's a sexual orientation, and has very little to do with the style in which one conducts one's life. Furthermore sexual orientation is not a behavior (although it can motivate a behavior); sexual orientation is a feature of the mind. Additionally, it is not known whether sexual orientation is due to nature or nurture, but it is certainly not chosen (i.e. in a conscious way), say in the way someone chooses a college or an employer. And finally, *even if* if was a matter of choice, the distinction you make between no control and choice is irrelevant: religious and political belief and marital status are things we *do* have control over, and yet as a society we believe no one should be discriminated against on those grounds.
The goodness of morals depends upon what the morals say, not just the fact that they are morals.
Evil doesn't exist outside of people's desires to do bad things. It's simply a label for a person's characteristics.
The Kinsey scale less its sexual orientation content is simply an empty scale, a set of consecutive numbers. Scales can be used for lots of things. Scales are used in music. And fish have scales. There are also the scales of justice.
Saying that the just overturned systems of eastern Europe are proof the socialism isn't good or doesn't work, is sort of like saying that a particular Christian church that failed in producing ethical behavior in its adherents is proof that we need to abandon the Golden Rule and start being nasty to each other.
Certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse. For those who don't know Latin: Breath mints, Toto, send to the nose of Kansas no dog food from Odessa. "Nose of" is the Latin equivalent of our expression "armpit of"; the Romans didn't think highly of that part of the face.
I thought someone was promiscuous if they slept with as many people as I only wish to. I thought someone was a slut if they slept with more people than I'd wish to.
Having a purpose that conflicts with some moral responsibility does not *in itself* excuse one from that moral responsibility. We're a street gang. We're here to reclaim our manhood. We're allowed to beat up fags when they interfere with our manhood. We're Fundamentalists. We're here to show you Jesus. We're allowed to work against people's civil liberties when they conflict with our religion. We're a corporation. We're here to make a profit. We're allowed to do something that makes the world a worse place.
Using the term "family values" is like using the term "morals". Ya know, everyone's got morals unless of course they don't follow mine.
To some extent any use of language (and conceptual categories) distorts reality by coercing instances into types.
What does promiscuous mean today -- more sex than you are getting or more sex than I am getting?
I can understand the desire we have to label ourselves, to find some
pre-existing category into which we can stuff ourselves for a
feeling of identification. But most anytime you try to reduce
something to a category you run into problems, because almost all
the time the world just doesn't fit into categories.
