Responding to "Homosexuality is wrong, the same way incest is wrong"

[robvalue]

@Meandering:

The very first thing to decide about morality is what the goals are. If we don't agree here, everything else will just be talking past each other.

I find almost all atheists will readily agree to this goal as being virtually the only important consideration. But theists are different. I'd split them roughly into three categories, and it's possible we may be excluding at least one of them if we don't stop and discuss what the goals of morality are:

1) Those that agree morality should be about wellbeing. They feel their religion simply helps them achieve this goal.

2) Those that try and state that morality is about wellbeing and about pleasing/following God.

3) Those that state outright that morality is just about pleasing/following God.

I find that most people in category two are confused and suffering severe cognitive dissidence. Either these two goals produce no conflict, in which case the "God" part is redundant, or they do produce conflict, and so the "God" part is actually poisoning their actions towards humans. Whatever the case, proceeding with a discussion without sorting all this out tends to go nowhere because the theist will slide back and forth between the two goals depending on what the subject is.

Those in category three are the most problematic. At least in the West, I would still guess that most people who claim this don't act like they really believe it. They like to think this is what morality is about, but their common sense and empathy cause them to actually care about wellbeing more than they would like to admit. However, the more fundamental and extremely indoctrinated may well act under this goal, as will many people in heavily religiously dominated countries. And this is in total conflict with the wellbeing goal, so much so that you're not even discussing the same thing. Proceeding regardless is futile, and announcing morality is just about wellbeing is to exclude them entirely.

This is where a separate discussion needs to happen. I'm not saying it's easy, but two people with contradictory views about morality are never going to be able to properly coexist until they reach more of an understanding. It would be ideal if the theist could be persuaded to at least be in category two, as expecting them to go straight to one is asking too much I feel. If this is impossible, the next best thing is for the theist and atheist to better understand each other's positions, and to discuss what morality means to them and how they use it to make decisions. Simply announcing the theist to be "wrong" is not helpful. If the world is ever to be united, it must be through discussion and understanding, not judgement and exclusion, wherever possible.