Moral Judgments

I think that you jumped to Tal's side a bit prematurely. I agree with you far more than I do with Tal because I've seen your argument before, but in this context it really doesn't apply. Sex is sex, no doubt (man, woman, child, beast!). However, when one begins to draw lines, make laws, define what is taboo supposedly based on morals then the similarities fall apart because there are different agendas. Would you use ape interchangeably with human in regular conversation just because they both belong to the animal kingdom? I doubt it. So, I think it's just as silly to equate a homosexual sex act with a pedophilic sex act and claim equivalence because they are both sex acts.IMNSHO, this is the difference in the context of the OP as I see it:Child Point: The typical intent behind law making is usually to protect someone. In this case, we have laws that protect the less equivalent of the two partners participating in a sex act. Whether that be a child/mental retard/animal/subordinate. This law applies to heterosexual couplings, homosexual couplings, bestial couplings without, for the most part, bias one over the other. These, as far as I know, are not specifically addressed in the Bible. So, the present day laws that protect these groups of people are not based on a biblical morality system as much as an attempt to speak for/protect/stand up for someone who might not be able to.Synonymous(according to you and Tal)Homosexual Point: In contrast, laws, and I will stretch it to encompass opinions, that curtail homosexual sex acts (which for all intents and purposes are heterosexual acts unless you are orthodox christian/jew) are intended to specifically target same-sex couplings. I've never heard of or seen a guy arrested and charged for sodomizing a woman (not to say I've seen everything mind you). These laws get their basis and support from the christian bible in this country. This law is not an attempt to protect ANYONE. It is an attempt to stygmatize a certain group of people based on their preference.Tal, and by you jumping to his side, you as well are confusing morals with preferences. So, Tal's attempt to equate a sexual advance on a child (as I took the statement to indicate) with a homosexual act hiding behind "my morals" = "your morals" is in fact approaching the issue from two different directions yet claiming the same path....cookies and soccer belong where they are and seems nonsensical to me.....mmmm candy.You've probably been jumped on 50 times since I began replying, so for the repetitive crap just disregard it, or if I misunderstood the reason behind you linking pinkies with Tal then a link where you might have elaborated since would be great. Thanx.

There are alot of posts, so I didn't read all of them. However, I am curious how one separates personal preference from morals? It seems on this thread they are used interchangeably.

Rrhain:
I stand corrected. Must say I'm not surprised as law is not my specialty....just didn't remember hearing anything in major news.

Holmes, However, I think most consider law to be morally based...hence the thin line of relevance bewteen the OP and the introduction of law. I think morals=law or vice versa is a misguided assumption, but I think that was clear from my first example. In addition, I've seen multiple posts on how the U.S. system is based on Christian morals, principles, ideals, etc.The was my last kick to the already dead horse

First of all:1. Within the same person? Which I thought I had clearly? pointed out in the preceding post. This supports my idea in the point below.2. "In principle" this might be the case, but I challenge that in setting up an individual moral system the theologic starting point at some point will have to access or incorporate the philosophical starting point.Secondly:Hmmm, are you suggesting that a theologic starting point dictates that your moral system is already set up and you follow it? Or that by default the moral system you establish is god-derived due to a theologic starting point?#1 Implies the moral system is not "yours". It's like a hand-me-down. This challenges the idea of an "individual's" choice in establishing a moral system, it becomes more a membership requirement.#2 Implies a theoretical moral system super position. Whereby there is no reproach because one can always claim a higher power...which by each organization's definition usually trumps state power as I've seen it presented here on this forum.Regardless I agree with what both holmes and you arrived at in posts #228 and #229.