Now, if Michael had contended that banal sex is both harmful and demeaning, he'd have my enthusiastic endorsement... ;/

And I don't blame them. I don't think many people think anal sex is a beautiful thing. In addition to being harmful, I find it demeaning to men and women.

Then don't practice it.

We're done here, right?

And if you argue this is untrue, then I would like to point out that it is indeed possible to have a secular government with religiously motivated laws. Let us look at the meta-ethics of it all. Laws are built around morality. Short of an absolute, such as God, there is nothing that can tell us what is truly moral (with justification). Therefore, there is no secular grounds to persecute or accept gays short of opinion. If the opinion turns out to want to persecute gay people, then by all means, persecute them. If you've ever read Hobbes, this is the point where gay people can break their social contracts and flee to other countries, as it is no longer in their favor to stay. (I will admit this sounds harsh, but note Hobbes preferred a monarch, so having the people decide would be no different than if a monarch decided to persecute gays; also, this creates a homogeneous population, which is usually more stable than equally divided populations [see Shiites and Sunnis, Catholics and Protestants, Hutus and Tutsis, etc.])

I know all these words and I still can't parse this argument.

Also, moral relativism has been nicely refuted on this site and its parent site ("The Roots of Morality" essay series and "The Ineffable Carrot and Infinite Stick" on EbonMusings).

I don't think many people think anal sex is a beautiful thing. In addition to being harmful, I find it demeaning to men and women.

You'd be happier if gay men confined themselves to blowjobs?

Short of an absolute, such as God, there is nothing that can tell us what is truly moral (with justification). Therefore, there is no secular grounds to persecute or accept gays short of opinion.

Hmm. While I accept that morality only exists in the human mind, I find it binding and important nevertheless. And I'd say that the proper standards for morality lie somewhere in the realm of utilitarianism -- we should do that which creates the greatest happiness. Or possibly fulfilment in there with happiness. And perhaps with a caveat that a lot of unhappiness spread over many people is usually preferable to slightly less unhappiness, but all dumped on one person. But, roughly speaking, utilitarianism.

Ebonmuse's opinion of morality is similar but more definite and can be found here. He argues directly against your relativistic position in Part 3.

So, with that as our general ballpark of moral standards, let me say this about the question of whether anal sex is demeaning:

(1) What if neither of the people doing it find it demeaning? In that case, insofar as it affects the relationship between those two people, nobody is being demeaned. The fact that you find it demeaning doesn't change that. And if nobody is being demeaned, I see no downside.

(2) Some people get off on things they find demeaning. It's quite absurdly common. And if they believe it's wrong to get off on it, they will be much more unhappy than they would be otherwise. So, setting aside the question of whether getting off on something you find demeaning is damaging to a person (and I'm pretty sure it isn't always), getting off on something you find demeaning and thinking it's wrong to do so is undoubtedly more damaging. Since the latter situation is much more damaging, it follows from utilitarian principles that it would be wrong to encourage such a situation.

And yes I can see that the argument can be used as a means to justify discrimination, but understand that this is why 18th and 19th century philosophers were afraid of Democracy… or Mobocracy.

And avoiding the 'tyranny of the majority' is the idea behind republican democracy. Right?

And I don't blame them. I don't think many people think anal sex is a beautiful thing. In addition to being harmful, I find it demeaning to men and women.

And if you argue this is untrue, then I would like to point out that it is indeed possible to have a secular government with religiously motivated laws. Let us look at the meta-ethics of it all. Laws are built around morality. Short of an absolute, such as God, there is nothing that can tell us what is truly moral (with justification). Therefore, there is no secular grounds to persecute or accept gays short of opinion. If the opinion turns out to want to persecute gay people, then by all means, persecute them. If you've ever read Hobbes, this is the point where gay people can break their social contracts and flee to other countries, as it is no longer in their favor to stay. (I will admit this sounds harsh, but note Hobbes preferred a monarch, so having the people decide would be no different than if a monarch decided to persecute gays; also, this creates a homogeneous population, which is usually more stable than equally divided populations [see Shiites and Sunnis, Catholics and Protestants, Hutus and Tutsis, etc.])

And yes I can see that the argument can be used as a means to justify discrimination, but understand that this is why 18th and 19th century philosophers were afraid of Democracy... or Mobocracy.

I daresay most young people I know (I live in Portland OR and between mentoring and HIV support groups, I deal with a lot of kids) have absolutely no aversion to homosexuality. There are a lot of very "out" GLTs around here, with some anti-discrimination laws to protect them. I just don't buy the inherently "icky" argument. Certainly a lot of kids don't understand the attraction, but they could care less whether a person likes members of the same sex or the opposite. Even adults who spend any amount of time around gays generaly lose much of the bigotry they might have had. Homophobic bigotry is about ignorance, it is certainly not a natural human trait.

And for cultures that were more open, at least historicly, the Greeks are a good place to start, even periods of the Roman empire were quite open. In more recent history, virtualy all of Western Europe allows either gay marriage or civil unions. Look at the cultural reaction in Europe, the more rights that a country gives GLTs, the less evidence of homoseual bigotry is to be found.

Of course, there's a confounding factor here, namely that one would expect the people with fairly strong biases agaisnt homosexuals to avoid places where they are common and open.

I often wonder how much of this "repulsion" is due to a fear that they will be treated the way they think about treating women? (In some cases, the way they actually do treat women?)

You know, I think in large part that's it. The association between having sex with a man and being "unmanly" ("womanly"), and the view of sex as a form of domination of someone else by a male.

Incidentally, I have never ceased to be amused by men who feel the need to loudly and publicly proclaim their heterosexuality, whether or not it's challenged (especially when it goes so far as involving tattoos or the like). Methinks they doth protest too much.

Ted Haggard, of course, being the *ahem* seminal example...