If someone can spout their rhetoric about how morals are interchangeable then you have no justification, whatever, to come against someone else's moral code.
I think Larni was quite clear though. Consent being the important factor. I am sure that one could debate over isolated issues of consent(certain cases in court for example), but I don't believe there is much debate over what it means. Unlike 'morals' would it not be safe to say 'consent' is not so flexible?
Are you not now just used to the idea of homosexuality, whereas 20 years ago you were appalled by it?
I would not say people are 'used to the idea', somewhat I suppose. I would say, in my case, that I moved my sliding scale from religious to consenting. I don't advocate bestiality, rape and pedophilia because one party cannot consent, homosexuality however is not the same. From a religious outlook I do understand why you don't agree, I just don't think your at the right place on that moral sliding scale.
You've just been fed the propaganda for so long now that you've conformed to whatever mode of thinking the dominant culture wants you to think. They're telling you how to think, and you've fallen right in line like a good boy! Look who is the sheep now-- dutifully following the herd!"
Thats completely possible, but there is also a valid justification for the propoganda. That being consent.
Couldn't I reasonably say that by the same premise as yours?
Outside of you saying "its
wrong because I say so" and I say "its
right because I say so" the only thing to add to the debate is consent.
™ Version 4.2