...washed away if people keep this sort of thought:
"Fidelity in America is overrated and under-practiced.
We all like sex, why do we think it has to be limited to just one person? It goes against our nature as humans. "
So I think this quote would be a good starting point for a discussion in terms of science being used as a means of moral relativism. Or things that are "seemingly natural".
Where do people get this kind of garbage?
Its not garbage. If your not religious then you can still have morals. And what they probably mean is sex IS natural because of reproduction and all the other reasons. It's up to the one person what they do with there own body and whoever they want to do that with and how often and how many. Religion should realise that you can't have just one set of morals to govern all the people in the land!!! Like how can that ever work and not be tyranny to all the people who are not religious??
So certain things are moral for you but not for me? Perhaps, then, I find it moral to murder anyone who irritates me. Don't you dare try to tell me that isn't moral though, after all, that would be tyranny...
Ok har har rli funny NOT. But there is certain things which are better decided plitically and not religiously so, if the majority decide (by voting) that murder is bad for society as a whole (which is what we have got right now) then that law should govern. Not religion because law can be for everyone and decided by vote in a democratic country and but religion can't be because everyone has different religions and some none. So one religious group shouldnt moralise for another group of people. It should be decided by politics and votes!!!
I wasn't really trying to be funny. I was making a point. If you say that you can't tell someone that what they are doing is immoral without being a tyrant, then you cannot tell me not to murder you without you being a tyrant. As well, have the majority voted that something is only immoral if the majority agree through a vote? No. They have not. Therefore, you have violated your own principles by declaring that someone can't believe something immoral and say so unless the majority agree.
As well, you are mixing a few words up. You seem to be under the impression that "religion" and "morality" are equivalent. As well, you seem to think that saying "That is immoral, you shouldn't do that" is equivalent to saying "If you do not stop doing that now, I will use force to cause you to stop." On the first point, 'religion' is a system of beliefs usually involving some sort of rituals. 'Morality' is a system of ethical beliefs, that is, of what is and is not acceptable behavior (in a more broad sense than manners and offense). One the second point, telling someone that they are acting immorally is not forcing your religion on them, it is expressing your personal conviction that people shouldn't do whatever it is that that person did - which is precisely what you've done by telling me that I shouldn't say Arnold has acted immorally. This is different that using force to stop someone from having extra-to include pre-marital sex, because it is merely telling someone something. I have not advocated physically separating men and women, nor arresting people who engage in such behaviors.
As well, what would you do if 60% (or 80%, or 90%) of an area was of the same religion and voted in lock-step to illegalize extra-to include pre-marital sex, despite the fact that the other 40% (or 20% or 10%) of people in the area believe that such activity is moral - or even required? Is such political action not forcing your religion on someone else, even though you've voted it? What you apparently support is the tyranny of the simple majority.