Lets get rid of all the tittling over insignificant points(Which I do rather a lot =( ) You are talking about something being defacto right and defacto wrong. I don't believe in this concepts because something that was considered defacto right at the time, Eugenics, is now considered defacto wrong. Similarly Women voting was considered defacto wrong, now is considered defacto right. Opinions change over time and, even though we may have had ideas at the time, if we didn't act on them until later then it doesn't detract from the actions that we did do. And to specifical address your argument:
(Which I haven't watched all the way though because I am very intolerant of people who profess to have 'come to terms' with homosexuality.) How someone was gay, but 'thankfully' converted back to a life of worship and stopped being gay. Thus "he KNEW what he did was wrong even before committing it, he also had thoughts of it right before he started (sorry for the very cold description, I'd rather no burst in tears), throughout the occurance, and since then, for the rest of his life." [hide=Addressing your example specifically"] I am having qualms about including this, since it sort of goes against my 'No Tittling' policy but still: Ok. He(and I am assuming here) thought it would be a good idea to rape someone. Naturally he had fears and doubts about them, that is a logical and reasonable reaction to anything which can potentially damage him. Thus he may have though 'Actually this is wrong, maybe I shouldn't be doing it' but he did not act on it. If you don't act on something then it doesn't really matter what you think now does it? After all I have already said about my wish to stick my tounge down someones throat, on its own it is not a bad thing, only when and if I did it would it become a bad thing. (Though personally I hold myself in much stricter regard, but that is me being who I am.) If you don't act on something then you do not feel as strongly about something as you do by your inaction. Example, I feel more strongly for his rights than for my own pleasure. In your example he felt more strongly that he should rape someone than he shouldn't rape someone. Which fundamentally means 'I think that it is MORE RIGHT to rape someone than it is RIGHT not to rape someone.' Or, in simple terms, I think it is right to rape someone because I think it is wrong not to rape someone. We can hold two seperate idea but we cannot act in two seperate ways...at least not when interacting with a state of being. Ie 'Raped' and 'Unraped'[/hide] Let me give you another example... 'Its just one small rock in a river of lava' Its something that is wrong. The writer acknowldages that 'Yes it is wrong but it is a small evil which much greater good can come out of.' Or more basically is right because there is more good that comes out of it than bad. (I fully believe that you believe you are right. Whereas I see any thing that is wrong, leading, innexorably, to something else wrong.) See where I am coming from? We can hold two seperate ideas, something being both right and wrong and at any given time we can be more on one side or the other. I would agree with you...I even started typing that I did agree with you...but actually I don't agree with you...None of my actions have supported or created injustice and thus by not enforcing gay marriage I have not created or supported injustice. So your logic is flawed. I have been actively working to undermine the injustice, to dispel the falsalities that people hold and to convey the 'truth' to them. Your actions would cause injustice as well as justice to be done. I am not going to deny that there would be someone people who would achieve greater justice. I am not going to deny that gay people should have the right to marry if they so choose. I am merely pointing out that you are also creating injustice and, like a man who is using a hammer to fix a toaster, you may fix the problem in the short term but in the long term someone else will need to fix it with another hammer. (Which is a considerable cut back to the normal quibbling I do =) Oh, and apologies for not responding your point last time. If I am honest I did it at the end of a 36 hour day when then went on for another 4 hours, so there is a (minor) excuse for that. Agreed! And yet If the people who campaign for homosexual rights are also the people who believe that by doing so they will force people into accepting their beliefs then its not really FUD...more FACT. (Fact, Accurate, Certain, True. Originally I left the A out but then its 1 letter away so)