tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post9151023980545438912..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Moderately conservative sexual ethicsVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48300260569642918612013-08-12T22:03:30.282-07:002013-08-12T22:03:30.282-07:00A lot of traditional religious people want to go f...<i>A lot of traditional religious people want to go further than the moderately conservative position to a full-blown conservatism that limits sex strictly to marriage and forbids gay relationships</i><br /><br />Limits how? Legally? Or in terms of the moral outlook they have?<br /><br />By the way: if it's overwhelmingly the religious people who think this way and live this way, and if they are correct about morality, would that be evidence that irreligion leads to immorality?<br /><br /><i>Intuitively, I think moderate conservatism can be defended without religious premises, but the conservative position needs them. </i><br /><br />I disagree. I think the conservative religious position does not require religious premises - or, if it does (Say 'To be persuasive'), it does so in a way that any position would require religious premises.<br /><br />As always, I point out that 'gay relationships' aren't forbidden even under the strictest orthodox religious views. You can have as many relationships as you please, often as committed as you like. It's the sexual acts which are problematic.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.com