Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The reason why I objected so strongly is that I thought you guys were saying I was doing something that you WEREN'T doing yourselves. But that's not the case, as I can see from your answers. (unless I'm misunderstanding you - am I?)

OK.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think it is, too. But from what I hear from you on this thread and others is that there is no absolute right, and there is no authority over humans. So I think if you're going to choose that bed, that you need to sleep in it, and I'm pointing out that you are NOT.

No, I don't. But from what I can tell, you do - see above.

I guess that's one way that misunderstandings can arise. On the one hand, I might perceive this as dishonesty on your part (using a relativist argument when I thought that you didn't believe in it). On the other, if it was recognised as an attempt to use a representation of my own beliefs to make a point, I might perceive it as putting words in my mouth and get a bit narked.

Now, I must confess that I've probably used similar tactics myself, but I do try not to. Honest.

Now, that whole relativism/absolutism thing is a whole other can of worms. However, I will point out that I believe that relativism gets a lot of unwarranted abuse these days.

To me, it is self-evident that all experience is subjective. Similarly, our experience of things like morals is subjective and, of course, influenced by our experiences. If I type "cat", you may get an image in your head, but it will be different from mine, and from everyone else who has not switched off their computer in disgust by this stage. Even more so if I type "evil" or "bad" or "wrong".

That does not mean that they are not real, and that, particularly, their consequences are not real. Nor does it mean that someone else's ideas of "wrong" are just as good as mine. They might be wrong. (I'll save you the bother: .)

To my mind, moral relativism is just a moral extension of being considerate (and not taking the "easy way out" by co-opting an arbitrary authority on the basis of superstition), and it means that I recognise the limits of my own experience in framing what I think about things.

One of the cheapest tactics in any argument is to construct a false representation of an idea and then ridicule it. The idea that relativism means a moral free-for-all is, IMO, a good example of that. I don't think that you, Rian, would knowingly do that, but I see it A LOT and I think it filters through to many of the anti-relativist arguments.

So anyway, in my judgment the consequences of multply manifest inequality towards homosexuals are so harmful that they nullify any censorious arguments based on, for example, health. Indeed, a truly moral being, IMO, has a responsibility to oppose such inequalities wherever they find them.

Back to me taters....

dx

PS - It was Spock who seemed to take umbrage, not you.