Ucci,
I can understand that. I tried to make is as straight and simple as possible. May be even that would not be enough.
My guess is that you are talking about 1and 2 and perhaps you switched from 1 to 2. That is fine to me.
with love,
sanjay
I agree with that morality/immorality has different levels and every body has different definition of it. And, that is precisely i am asking members. Take a call so we can know where we stand collectively.
with love,
sanjay
You are right. I had mixed it incorrectly with 'Full Moon' which is the story of a gay father having a a brief affair with his only child son? The mother is an opera singer, and her divorce causes the boy tohave animolous feelings toward the gay/bisex father, who may or may not be put into the reprehensible position of taking advantage of the naive boy's sensitivity. I believe based alos on a French script.
Yes, I chose option 4.
But I suppose I will never understand how folks can 1] have a particular moral/political narrative regarding something like homosexuality and incest and 2] profess to believe in God — but then not share how they connect the two “in their heads”.
As though that is somehow not really relevant at all.
It just doesn’t make any sense to me. Especially given that most religious denominations that I am familiar with, do make that crucial correlation between Sin and Judgment Day. And between that and one of another rendition of Heaven and Hell.
If someone believes that homosexually is wrong or immoral or irrational and, at the same time, professes a belief in a particular God, how could they not be intertwined in the argument they give?
FYI…
In some nations [like Denmark and Norway] even bestiality is legal. In Denmark they have animal brothels. Again, it is simply rationalized by making certain assumptions about what is rational/moral and what is not.
Yes phyllo,
You objection is valid. But, that is bound to happen if you do not have firm basics and follow that.
Actually, people do not realize it but every conscious decision should be an ontology based conclusion. If that happens, once basic premises are decided, there will be no further confusion whatsoever. But, when this process is reversed, by first looking at the situation, then thinking of a instant decision, and finally trying to deduct the ontology from that decision, the confusion/uncertainty is bound to arise everytime.
Actually, that is the only philosophical massage of Gita. Get the basics right once and then follow derived ontology that manifests thereafter. Let the ontology decide the decision, not the situation.
with love,
sanjay
Okay, i got your point.
But, you have to keep in the mind that you cannot make different set of rules for everyone. At the end of day, you have decide one. So, it is quite natural that whatever that decision may be, would not be unanimously agreeable in any case.
How do you suggest to address that issue?
with love,
sanjay
Atheris,
You made a valid point.
But, it is not the issue of minority or majority.
The only important issue is how it will be decided which rights are essential and which can be compromised, and what should be the benchmark of making that distinction?
How that issue should be tackled?
with love,
sanjay
All man-made limits are set by the setting of all of the others.
It is a simultaneous equation situation in which there might or might not be absolutes.
Good question.
That is precisely i asked to Atheris.
with love,
sanjay
I do not get that. You seem to be confused. You need not to be politically correct here.
You are realizing that something is wrong yet allowing it. What porpose an ad campaign would serve if people see that happening freely all around them?
withlove,
sanjay
imb,
You are free to choose any option that you want but why are you inserting god into this? It is purely a social issue and should be seen in the light which line of thinking would serve a better purpose for the society, as a whole. That is all.
Again, how people derive their conclusion is not much of my concern. My only concern is whether it is good for the society or not.
By the way, you are not updated about the animal sex in european countries. Denmark is going to ban it very shortly.
It was allowed in the past in the most of the countries, but not now. it is also illegal in England, France, Germeny and Holland, though it is still allowed in some European countries including some states of US.
with love,
sanjay
Anything between legally consenting adults and inanimate objects, including unclaimed dead animals, fruits and vegetables, and household utensils and appliances.
I did not get what you are trying to say.
with love,
sanjay
By that same reasoning it should also be a right to conduct an orgy in a public square.
I would not say that it should be banned by law, but I would not take a kid there.
Since most people I know would also not take a kid there, or their mothers, or their girlfriends for a romantic walk, and old ladies would probably not sit there to feed the pigeons, I imagine that public square would devolve into being visited mostly by… the kind of people who is into public orgies I suppose.
That’s the thing with laws of decency. They really really don’t need to exist at all, as long as you can rely on people to be decent. Except you can’t.
K: I had a mental image of Wizard with his apples and what he is doing you don’t want
to put into an apple pie.
Kropotkin
K: so what reasoning do you use to ban such things as public orgies. What is the moral thing to do?
and how do we decide what is the moral thing is?
Kropotkin
Xt. bible has a good one on this:
1Co 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient.
Since public areas should aim to provide an environment that is pleasant for all, it should focus on the highest limit of expedience that a society can bare, which is an environment that is pleasant and safe for little kids.
By considering all aspects of the dynamic underlying such variables as: basic orientation toward objects (relational, human, interrelational), compensations and hidden motives: such as fetishes, reality/pleasure principle differentiations, etc. The finding a matrix most applicable toward a unified field, based on the approximate vector through which these movements are most likely to have significant effect.
Doesn’t that just raise other questions : Is an orgy unpleasant? Why is an orgy unpleasant? 
I explained that above. In terms of what we either should or should not be at liberty to do, any particular individual’s reaction to human sexual interactions is going to be predicated on their own value judgments.
Now, we can derive our value judgements here from 1] God and religion 2] what we construe to be rational sans God or 3] from a narcissistic frame of mind that revolves solely around whatever brings you satisfaction and fulfillment.
I mean, how does someone who embraces the moral commandments of a particular God not include within this framework what she deems as behaviors that would, “serve a better purpose for the society, as a whole”?
I truly don’t get it. The point you are making may be a good one but I am genuinely perplexed by how you make this distinction.
And this becomes all the more crucial because, again, for the religionists, human “social behaviors” [behaviors “down here”] will one day be judged by God. In other words, immoratality and salvation itself may very well depend on whether you either do or don’t engage in homosexual or incestuous behaviors.
And it would just seem obvious that if you subscribe to a particular Biblical scripture, this would be your source regarding behaviors you believe society ought to allow its citizens the liberty to engage in.
Are your own moral values here divorced from your religious beliefs? Is there a distinction to be made between “what is good for society” and “what would Jesus do?”