[FreedomFlynnie]

Elevate personal squeamishness to the level of a moral absolute? No thanks. If one can't adequately explain why a given act is wrong (which one can, for incest), either one is a poor debator or should consider whether that act is wrong in the first place.

[Vitamin A]

FreedomFlynnie, it's really no different than Jefferson elevating his "personal political opinions" to "absolute truths" in the Declaration of Independence.

Maybe you folks who disagree with the article can explain why the idea of self-evident truth is acceptable in the Declaration of Independence on mixed political/moral issues (e.g., all men are created equal), but not on matters such as whether homosexuality is wrong.

[hopespringseternal]

Elevate personal squeamishness to the level of a moral absolute?

Not at all what is being discussed, but you know that. I have a big personal squeamishness about eating live scorpions, but I know good and well there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it.

In most cases, conversion changes behavior with little prompting. People know pretty well what is really right and wrong, and at some point either decide to accept that or rationalize on some points. Anyone who treats morality as some great mystery or demands a logical deconstruction of every moral law is someone who has willfully rejected what they know to be right. They aren't confused, they are rebellious.