"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 13:20:29 -0400, Martin Baxter said:

a page, Foley's conduct was wrong, because I viewed homosexual conduct
even
between consenting adults as morally wrong.

Certainly doesn't make any sense from an evolutionary viewpoint does it?

I suppose that's the politically correct justification for the
position--that is, measure the morality of conduct based solely on its
effect on others. But I'm of an older school of thought that says some
conduct is right, and some conduct is wrong, without regard to whether
that
conduct injures anyone else.

Oh my God!

Someone who believes in absolute right or wrong!

Is your standard of conduct then based on injury to the self?

Or it based upon man as a rational animal with his life as the standard?

Please take a big dump into the shopping cart of moral relativism!!

Should morality be legislated? Or should the legislation be limited to
protection of the most essential elements of morality?