Thank you for you polite question. I will try to give you a polite answer. First, your question appears to presuppose that morality is nothing more than personal preference, i.e. whatever I think is right is right, etc., as opposed to the existence of universal moral absolutes. Is this your position?
But what, precisely, is immoral about men wanting to have sexual relations with other men, instead of women?
Let me ask you--what is immoral about a woman wanting to have sex with a horse, or what is immoral about a father wanting to have sex with his daughter if both are willing participants?
To me, something cannot be immoral unless it deliberately harms another person. For instance, murder is immoral. Theft is immoral.
I Is it wrong to murder because someone is harmed or is it wrong because murder is simply absolutely wrong as a universal moral rule? The bigger question is: Why is it wrong to harm someone under your moral system? Who says? You see, absolute morals come from God - that is the only logical source. All other sources are manmade, and if they are manmade, then one man's morals cannot be superior to another man's. Or, more specifically, non-cruelty and cruelty are ABSOLUTELY EQUAL! Marquis de Sade clearly saw this - he knew if God doesn't exist that cruelty and non-cruelty are equal in the final analysis. This may take some thought to really grasp, but there is no escaping this conclusion.
Therefore, the only logical conclusion that makes sense with human experience and the real world is that absolute morals exist and they are from God.
But who is harmed by homosexuality? As far as I can tell, nobody. (AIDS is not deliberate harm, and I don't think you'd be any less resentful of homosexuals who use condoms, so it really doesn't count in the context of this discussion).
But AIDS is harm, isn't it? And those who practice homosexuality know the risk of such harm, don't they? Also, statistics indicate that the life expectancy of homosexuals is much less than heterosexuals. Besides, sometimes harm is not readily apparent right away. sometimes, harm can occur in the "long run" and on that basis your utilitarian moral system collapses becuase you cannot predict if harm will come from your action until significant time has passed to assess the situation. I am not resentful of homosexuals and I don't hate them. I merely say that their behavior is against universal moral laws.
If you consider the number of murders and thefts that occur in this world, it seems to me that going after homosexuality has to be about bottom on the world's agenda.
Again, why is it wrong to harm someone? Who says so?
What about those who don't believe in God?
Centralized planning has created shortages; decentralized planning creates plenty. To assume that there is a central leader who's all wise and powerful seems like a concept from the olden days, when Kings ruled and claimed they got their power from God.
I don't want to go back to the good old days, do you?
If we accept that our ethics come from God, then if God does not exist, ethics do not exist either - and I think we would both agree that is a dangerous idea indeed.
So my ethics come from the Golden Rule which is as valid with God as without His presence. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Since I don't want someone to kill me, I don't kill. Since I don't want someone to steal, I don't steal. And since I wouldn't want someone to taunt me for being different, I'm not going to taunt them for being different, either.
Thus, respect for individual choices unless they directly, tangibly harm others. This is the philosophy that creates the highest level of freedom to all. Since freedom is one of my core values, that's what I support.
Do you see how close this comes to an absolute? I don't know anyone who wants to be killed or have his property stolen. But it's a firmer foundation than God, because many people believe in different Gods with different rules. Does that give them a right to behave according to those rules in our country? No, because we have laws based on the Golden Rule, and it's very much a part of our culture.
Enough about my personal philosophy. How is this relevent to the clash between Davis and Simon?
Well, understand that Simon is on a mission. He wants to try and right the economic wrongs that this state has suffered from. He wants to help education. I'm sure I'm forgetting some things, but that's the basic agenda.
Simon is imitating George W Bush and Ronald Reagan. They had a small, manageable set agenda they wanted to pursue. WHy? Because they could actually accomplish something that way. Clinton tried to do everything, and you may have noticed that in 8 years, he accomplished next to nothing.
You may not like his agenda because the social issues you support are largely absent. But that's like taking a ship that's on the rocks and having long discussions about the morality of the passengers, instead of getting them all off. That's our situation today.
The sad fact, from your point of view, is that neither candidate is supporting a religious agenda. Both of them have things that are far more important to deal with, such as whether the state can survive without going bust. You should judge them accordingly - which candidate is more likely to solve the state's problems?
I'll tell you one thing: That ain't Gray Davis. He has a proven record of being unable to solve any problem. Instead, he just pushes their consequences into the future, with disasterous results for all.
So vote for Simon, even if you don't like his social positions. After all, Davis' social positions aren't any better.
D