It's the same reasoning used by conservatives who oppose the widespread distribution of the HPV vaccine, apparently on the assumption that cervical cancer is a just punishment for teenagers who have extramarital sex.

Actually, Ebon, in my experience of these kinds of arguments (and we have lots of them in Ireland - see below*), the point about potential "just punishment" is less potent and attractive to your Christian "protect the Family" type, than EC's parody above, to the effect that "sin" should feel like "sin" - it should be dangerous, and make you feel dirty while you're doing it.

*In Ireland we are well behind - no abortion, whatsoever, and the first notable protest when the feminist movement took off here in the early 70's was a bunch of people buying thousands of condoms north of the border and declaring them "for personal use" in order to make a point about no contraception = enforced pregnancies. :)

If people were capable of thinking like this way back when, then that leaves less reason to excuse the quite irrational bigotry and superstition of everyone else of the period.

Excellent point, Polly. While I think it's just a little unreasonable to expect everyone to rise above the prejudices of their own era, extraordinary individuals like Kneeland show that it is possible. If morality is indeed objective and accessible to reason, one would expect that there would be at least some people in every era who would recognize it, and I think his life is strong supporting evidence for that argument.

Also, I particularly dig that prostitution being made safe is cited as a negative. I like my prostitution difficult and unsafe; I believe in God.

Evidently so, EC. One would think that, if these people really believed in divine judgment, they wouldn't care how risky or dangerous "sinful" acts are, because sinners will get their just desserts in the afterlife anyway. Instead, they seem hell-bent on making sure that those who deviate from their standard of morality suffer for it. It's the same reasoning used by conservatives who oppose the widespread distribution of the HPV vaccine, apparently on the assumption that cervical cancer is a just punishment for teenagers who have extramarital sex.

I recently heard an argument against gay marriage that basically said if same-sex marriage is legalised then "we" will be on a slippery slope that will eventually lead to the breakdown of sexual morality and to legalised paedophilia and beastiality. WHAT!?

What amuses me about this argument is that the people who make it are basically saying they don't see anything intrinsically wrong with those things. After all, if there are good reasons to be against pedophilia, then those will remain good reasons regardless of whether same-sex marriage is legalized. But the religious right seems to be saying that laws against gay marriage and pedophilia alike are arbitrary and reasonless traditions, and if any one is changed, they can't think of any reason not to change all the others as well.

"marriages [will be] dissolved, prostitution made easy and safe, moral and religious restraints removed, property invaded, and the foundations of society broken up".

That old chestnut. That line is used to argue against almost every advance in civil liberties. "If - insert issue of the day- is allowed then the world will descend into chaos and civilisation as we know it will end and we will all be damned to hell". I recently heard an argument against gay marriage that basically said if same-sex marriage is legalised then "we" will be on a slippery slope that will eventually lead to the breakdown of sexual morality and to legalised paedophilia and beastiality. WHAT!?

It's kind of awful that this line of thinking still influences to the extent that it does in conversations of morality. Also, I particularly dig that prostitution being made safe is cited as a negative. I like my prostitution difficult and unsafe; I believe in God.

Yeah, you could add to that, "I think abortions should remain backstreet, dangerous and dirty, just like prostitution...just so long as sinners are reminded that they are sinning!"

It's kind of awful that this line of thinking still influences to the extent that it does in conversations of morality. Also, I particularly dig that prostitution being made safe is cited as a negative. I like my prostitution difficult and unsafe; I believe in God.

Can you explain, please the difference between "nothing can be known" and "beyond our epistemological purview?" It seems to me that you are rejecting the phrase in "gutsy" Anglo Saxon, and accepting the one stated in "intestinal" Latinate phrasing.

improving the condition of the human species and doing things for the benefit of our fellow living beings is what true religion is all about....

What is the basis of this proposition?