Raggytash, you say: My wife is my friend, my companion, my lover and my rock.

That's admirable, and I congratulate you. But it seems to me that you're saying that your relationship with your wife, including your sexual relationship is sacred to you. Isn't that correct?

My point is that moral codes, whether or not you agree with them, are based in reality, (usually) not in arbitrary religious legislation. They are based on "natural law," which applies to everyone and not just to people of one religious denomination or another. Most moral codes have reasons behind them, and are not purely arbitrary. Therefore, it is of value to explore widely-held moral codes and understand the thinking behind them, whether or not one agrees with the codes.

Too often, those here who consider themselves to be "enlightened" take the same approach as those who consider themselves "conservative" - defend the ideology you already hold and attack all other trains of thought. I submit that a more productive method of discussion is to be slower to attack and quicker to listen - look for the truth in what the other person is trying to express, even if you don't think you're likely to agree. Don't be so quick to find fault with the method of presentation.

Pete holds to some premises that the rest of us aren't likely to accept: that the Bible is literally true in every sense, a scientifically valid explanation of all aspects of life and the functions and history of the universe. And also, that God can do anything, even if it doesn't make sense - so the Bible describes how God did things. According to those premises, what Pete says is true, and we're not likely to shake his thinking. So, rather than trying to fight with him or disprove him, why not just take what he says as how Pete sees the world? Then we can deal with him within the context in which he lives. Then the goal becomes to figure out how to coexist in society with someone whose thinking is so radically different from ours. I live in an area where the majority of people think Pete's way, so I can either learn how to coexist, or I can heed their instructions to move elsewhere - as has been stated directly to me more than once in the Letters to the Editor of the local newspaper.

Most of us here seem to accept a more permissive moral code, and to hold to a cosmology that is more-or-less in accord with the writings of Darwin. I hold to a belief in a God who is the essence of the cosmos, and the essence of every individual being in the cosmos. As such, I view myself as surrounded by sacredness, but living in a world that is completely in accord with the tested discoveries of science. Two songs that do a pretty good job of expressing my thinking are Peter Mayer's (Everything Is) Holy Now and Iris DeMent's Let the Mystery Be. To my mind, most everything has a divine aspect that is a holy, sacred mystery....or not. But whether that holy mystery exists as a separate entity or not, that's how I see it. That perspective works for me, and I see no need to defend it as long as people understand what it is and don't try to redefine me as something else. I think I should feel free to speak from my perspective without having my perspective attacked - but I also feel obliged not to attempt to impose my perspective on anybody else.

I do not seek to condemn or attack anyone whose thinking is different from mine, but I also expect to be able to live in this world without having my guiding principles condemned or attacked. I hope to learn from the thinking of others, and I try to avoid doing battle.

Still, it really pisses me off when people try to redefine and destroy my thinking instead of trying to understand what I'm saying. When that happens, I find myself forced into battle mode - and that's a place where I don't like to be. I like constructive discussion and exchange of ideas, not destructive battles.

-Joe-