Recently, an American general was criticized for airing his personal belief that homosexuality is immoral. If we hold certain sincere beliefs but know that said beliefs may offend other people, are we obliged to simply be quiet about them? Is there a difference between hate speech against gays and simply stating that one happens to believe that homosexuality is objectionable? I can undestand how many may have found the general's attitude reprehensible; at the same time, however, criticizing him for that attitude makes about as much sense to me as getting upset over his liking vanilla ice cream. CCan we rightly blame people for what happen to be their preferences?

What would you need to find (what sort of evidence) in order to disprove the theory of evolution (or at least detract from it)?

Wittgenstein said that anything that can be said can be said clearly; how should we view this contention in light of the fact that Wittgenstein's own writing is famously enigmatic (or at least aphoristic)?

When discussing whether Homosexuality is morally right or morally wrong, I've always argued that if we allow homosexuality then we would have to allow incest as well. Before arriving to this conclusion I first looked at the various arguments defending homosexuality which mainly consisted of the following: 1) It's consensual (with the exception of rape); 2) It doesn't harm anyone; and 3) It's a matter of love (i.e., we should have the right to be with whomever we love). Now my reasoning is this: All three of those arguments could be used to defend incest! Imagine a father who becomes sexually involved with his 20-year old daughter. Both would be consenting, they are not harming anyone, and they presumably have some type of attraction towards each other. My question is if my argument is a good one or am I missing something?

I studied languages, not philosophy, the reason being that I was afraid I would have to study intensely old philosophers and this would influence my own thinking. This was very wise, I think, and now, thirty years on, I think I have developed my own view. Now I would like to see if there are others who think along the same lines. What I try to do is view myself and the rest of us the way humans look at other animals and see the similarities. I consider evolution to be the only driving force in life and therefore our self-consciousness and intelligence to be evolutionary assets like the claws of the tiger or the trunk of an elephant. Could you direct me to others who think along the same lines? Yours truly, Martin C.

Hegel wrote: "The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk." What did he mean? What is the owl of Minerva? And what might David Brooks be trying to convey when he writes in a recent column: "But that’s the perpetual tragedy of life: the owl of Minerva flies at dusk."

When I was doing maths at university, I very often found that I couldn't quite prove something I had to. Being very sneaky, I would then do a bit of proof, write a little bit of incomprehensible gibberish, and then write the last couple of lines assuredly saying that the problem was solved. I get a little bit worried that proper philosophers might do a similar thing. In particular, the approach on this site very often seems to be to check that an argument about, say, morality matches our preconceived ideas. So I guess my question is how much can I believe what a philosopher says when I don't understand part of their argument? PS - my sneaky exam technique didn't work very well :(

Who were some philosophers who wrote on love?

Why is it that prostitution (paying someone for a consensual sexual act) is illegal in most states while the production of pornographic movies (paying someone to perform a consentual sexual act on film/photography) legal?

I've always been kind of puzzled by religious people who claim both that (1) their faith is devout and that (2) they are uninterested in converting people to their beliefs. I feel as though persons of this sort are trying to have their cake and eat it too; they want to affirm their faith, on the one hand, and be tolerant on the other. In an age where multiculturalism is lauded, this sort of pluralistic worldview can seem ideal. And yet, if you really believe that a person who does not acknowledge God will go to Hell, or that contraception is immoral, how can you NOT urge your convictions on other people? When it comes to religious belief -- especially beliefs which pertain to morality -- can "tolerance" be reconciled with true conviction?