"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?

Walt wrote:

Martin Baxter wrote:
Dave wrote:


... 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?

Neither does celibacy, but I don't see anybody condemning it on moral
grounds.

True enough, although I believe that there are significantly greater
quantities of people practicing homosexuality than celibacy.

A great deal of "morality" has been defined out of what is good for the
survival of the species.

Cheers
Marty

"Joe" wrote in message
ps.com...

katy wrote:
Joe wrote:
Capt. Rob wrote:
in my view, but that's because I
regard homosexual acts even between consenting adults as immoral.



Truly sad.
Happy to report that Thomas has gay godparents.

Two girls I hope..could be fun for him when they baby sit.

Joe

RB
35s5
NY

You're sick, Joe....

What?

If it's two guys...now thats sick.

Joe


Could be a man and a woman. RB didn't say there are a couple.

"Gilligan" wrote in
message . ..

"Joe" wrote in message

ps.com...

katy wrote:
Joe wrote:
Capt. Rob wrote:
in my view, but that's because I
regard homosexual acts even between consenting
adults as immoral.



Truly sad.
Happy to report that Thomas has gay godparents.

Two girls I hope..could be fun for him when they baby
sit.

Joe

RB
35s5
NY

You're sick, Joe....

What?

If it's two guys...now thats sick.

Joe


Could be a man and a woman. RB didn't say there are a
couple.


could be 3 chicks and a donkey.....

Well, maybe we are being too hard on him. - After all, he apologized if
his actions had offended anyone, and he also promised to turn over a new
page.

Jim



Gilligan wrote:

Revealed on Drudge!

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Intern was 18 at time of email!

Democrat dirty tricks!!!!!

Foley vindicated!!!!!

Firstly; No one has "Flasely Accused" any one.
Secondly; If Foley has been Falsely Accused, then what other reason was
there that justified his Resignation?
Thirdly; It wasn't the Democrat that tried to hide Foley's " Dirty
Secret" it was the GOP's in power (Drudge be damned)
Fourthly; It is a rather good political move to force it out at this
time.!