A New Stance on Morality

[liberalogic]

I've taken a lot of flack for my "heinous" opposition to the "Traditional Values" that most people here respect. I just wanted to submit my definition (all be it a broad one) of morality and how we should look at it as a community (as a country), not as individuals.

1) Compassion
We all live in a world plagued by animosity, greed, disease, warfare, poverty, and genuine hatred. The only way that we can truly coexist is by treating each other kindly; by helping each other when we are in need and by putting others ahead of ourselves.

2) Respect/Fairness/Tolerance
We may all have different opinions as to what is "right" and what is "wrong," but the least that we can do is respect others as long as they do not hurt us or hurt and take advantage of others. If someone is living life in accordance with the rights of others, we have no reason to condemn them or deny them, even if we disagree with them internally. To disagree with someone is one thing, but to tell them how they must live (if they are not violating the rights of others) is another.

3) Judgment
We should not judge people as "sinners" or "saints" based on religious principles. For instance, just because someone may be an atheist does not make him/her a bad person; it makes him/her different than the person of faith. While the person of faith may believe that the atheist is wrong (and perhaps even going to hell), he/she should still base judgment on the character of the person: how he/she treats you and others; not his/her beliefs. The same goes for the Atheist: he/she should not judge based on faith, but rather character.

While these concepts are very broad, this is the basis of how I believe that we should live. It is not to insult the morality of any religion, but rather to seek a path that leads to harmony.

 

[Powerman]

2) Respect/Fairness/Tolerance
We may all have different opinions as to what is "right" and what is "wrong," but the least that we can do is respect others as long as they do not hurt us or hurt and take advantage of others. If someone is living life in accordance with the rights of others, we have no reason to condemn them or deny them, even if we disagree with them internally. To disagree with someone is one thing, but to tell them how they must live (if they are not violating the rights of others) is another.

Yeah try getting that point through to all the bigoted homophobic Christians on this board.

 

[Gem]

Actually, I think that most people here would agree with that definition wholeheartedly, Powerman. If people want to live their lives without harming others...then I have no issue with whatever they want to do.

Where the disagreement will come in, of course, is when you begin to discuss what "hurting others," could mean.

And considering that most of the people on this board have probably never hurt a homosexual in their lives...your obvious disgust and rudeness goes completely against Liberalogic's notion of tolerance - when someone isn't hurting you...even if you disagree with their views.

You can't even show that kind of tolerance on an anonymous message board...yet you insult and demean others for doing the very same thing?

 

[Powerman]

Actually I was thinking of things in the reverse order. The homophobic Christians of this board would be irrate if gay marriage were legalized accross the country. And this wouldn't be anything that is harming them. So they are in fact not tolerant of other people.

 

[musicman]

Actually I was thinking of things in the reverse order. The homophobic Christians of this board would be irrate if gay marriage were legalized accross the country. And this wouldn't be anything that is harming them. So they are in fact not tolerant of other people.

I'll go as far as to presume that what the majority of this board objects to is the creation of national policy by judicial fiat. What form would your "legalized gay marriage across the country" take? If - like our founding fathers - you believe that representative government is a lesser evil than elitist tyranny, you'll agree that this is a matter for the voters. It is, therefore, incumbent upon you to provide an intelligent and convincing argument that gay marriage will bring no harm to society.

Maybe you could start by not referring to us as "homophobic Christians".

 

[Powerman]

I'll go as far as to presume that what the majority of this board objects to is the creation of national policy by judicial fiat. What form would your "legalized gay marriage across the country" take? If - like our founding fathers - you believe that representative government is a lesser evil than elitist tyranny, you'll agree that this is a matter for the voters. It is, therefore, incumbent upon you to provide an intelligent and convincing argument that gay marriage will bring no harm to society.

Maybe you could start by not referring to us as "homophobic Christians".

How could gay marriage possibly bring harm to society? If anything marriage might promote more monogamy among the gay community.

 

[musicman]

How could gay marriage possibly bring harm to society? If anything marriage might promote more monogamy among the gay community.

You'll agree, then, that this is for the voters?

 

[Powerman]

You'll agree, then, that this is for the voters?

Of course not. We should be in the business of granting as many rights as possible. Sometimes the minority needs to be protected from the majority. This is one of those cases. It's not like we're granting them anything extra that no one else has. We're just making things equal. Do you have a problem with granting equal rights to other human beings?

 

[William Joyce]

I've taken a lot of flack for my "heinous" opposition to the "Traditional Values" that most people here respect. I just wanted to submit my definition (all be it a broad one) of morality and how we should look at it as a community (as a country), not as individuals.

1) Compassion
We all live in a world plagued by animosity, greed, disease, warfare, poverty, and genuine hatred. The only way that we can truly coexist is by treating each other kindly; by helping each other when we are in need and by putting others ahead of ourselves.

2) Respect/Fairness/Tolerance
We may all have different opinions as to what is "right" and what is "wrong," but the least that we can do is respect others as long as they do not hurt us or hurt and take advantage of others. If someone is living life in accordance with the rights of others, we have no reason to condemn them or deny them, even if we disagree with them internally. To disagree with someone is one thing, but to tell them how they must live (if they are not violating the rights of others) is another.

3) Judgment
We should not judge people as "sinners" or "saints" based on religious principles. For instance, just because someone may be an atheist does not make him/her a bad person; it makes him/her different than the person of faith. While the person of faith may believe that the atheist is wrong (and perhaps even going to hell), he/she should still base judgment on the character of the person: how he/she treats you and others; not his/her beliefs. The same goes for the Atheist: he/she should not judge based on faith, but rather character.

While these concepts are very broad, this is the basis of how I believe that we should live. It is not to insult the morality of any religion, but rather to seek a path that leads to harmony.

OK. You go first.

1) Show me compassion by giving me your wallet. Don't stop to go through it first, just give it to me NOW.

2) Show me respect, fairness and tolerance by letting me live with who I want to live, spending my money the way I want to spend my money, and keeping criminals out of my neighborhood.

3) Show me no judgment by shutting up about my opionions on religion, race or any other topic.

But see, you won't. Liberals play this game where they preen as the "tolerant" and "fair" and "reasonable" ones, but the truth is that they're just as dictatorial and controlling as anyone, and probably more so. They see government was a tool to force their agenda down all our throats. They're willing to kill us all for their utopian vision. They aren't going to allow "live and let live" any sooner than Bill or Hillary will pass up the cute new girl in Westchester.

 

[musicman]

Of course not.

I thought not. I applaud your candor, if nothing else.

We should be in the business of granting as many rights as possible.

"Granting", or "creating"?

Sometimes the minority needs to be protected from the majority.

But the majority have rights, too.

It's not like we're granting them anything extra that no one else has.

The Constitution is absolutely mum on the subject of marriage. It is, however, crystal clear on the devolution of power. Read Amendment X. I say again - this is for the voters.

We're just making things equal. Do you have a problem with granting equal rights to other human beings?

I don't make "things" equal. I don't grant rights. Your rights are yours; you were born with them. I don't imagine I can create rights, either. That's the difference between me and a tyrant.

This is for the voters.

 

[Powerman]

You still can't give me a reason why gays shouldn't have the right to be married can you? Just because most people are bigoted assholes it doesn't mean we should not give people equal rights.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Where the disagreement will come in, of course, is when you begin to discuss what "hurting others," could mean.

Exactly. All his principles are glittering generalities.

 

[Annie]

You still can't give me a reason why gays shouldn't have the right to be married can you? Just because most people are bigoted assholes it doesn't mean we should not give people equal rights.

Well I for one am not crazy about the idea that social security would go to a 'partner' whether gay or straight. I'm not homophobic, I've had gay relatives and friends. I just don't think that it's marriage, a committed relationship is possible, marriage, no. Now like MM said, if a state wishes to put that in, they'll deal with the voters, if most like it, it will become state law. I don't see it being 'transferable' to other non-marriage states, nor binding on the feds.

 

[musicman]

You still can't give me a reason why gays shouldn't have the right to be married can you?

Actually, I don't need to defend my position one way or the other. Your rights are clearly defined in the Constitution; the Constituion does not involve itself in the matter of marriage AT ALL. Your only recourse is the ballot, and - I have to say - you're not exactly charming THIS voter out of his socks with posts like:

Just because most people are bigoted assholes it doesn't mean we should not give people equal rights.

 

[deaddude]

Actually, I don't need to defend my position one way or the other. Your rights are clearly defined in the Constitution; the Constituion does not involve itself in the matter of marriage AT ALL. Your only recourse is the ballot, and - I have to say - you're not exactly charming THIS voter out of his socks with posts like:

Emphasis mine.

Not exactly true the 9th Amendment was added to the Constitution expressly to protect the rights that are not in the Bill of Rights.

 

[musicman]

Emphasis mine.

Not exactly true the 9th Amendment was added to the Constitution expressly to protect the rights that are not in the Bill of Rights.

Thanks, DD - good call.

I'll add, however, that IX only serves to underscore my original point about Constitutionally-designed devolution of power. IX is a further safeguard of this design.

 

[Gem]

Powerman Wrote:

You still can't give me a reason why gays shouldn't have the right to be married can you?

Why should he have to defend his reasons to you...you really have not expressed any interest in hearing them...in fact, I would wager that most people here are quite sure that the moment they would explain their feelings to you, you would insult and belittle them, rather than trying to engage in rational conversation about your differing opinions? Why should he bother? He already knows you think he is a bigoted Christian asshole. Very tolerant of you, by the way.

I have several reasons why I am unsure as to whether or not we should recognize gay marriage...but if we are supposed to be tolerant and accepting of others opinions and lifestyles...then you, Powerman, should be just as accepting of the fact that the "bigoted assholes" dislike homosexuality as they should be about the fact that a small percentage of this country is attracted to the same sex.

But you haven't shown even a hint, not even a whisper of that acceptance. You have not stated anything even remotely close to - "I understand that you disapprove of homosexuality for religious reasons, or moral reasons, or political reasons or whatever....but I disagree with you and here is why..."

Instead...you've chosen to, again and again, slam people here for having an opinion you disagree with...all while claiming to be a supporter of tolerance and co-existance.

 

[Annie]

Thanks, DD - good call.

I'll add, however, that IX only serves to underscore my original point about Constitutionally-designed devolution of power. IX is a further safeguard of this design.

I agree. I think when considering 'intentions' we should note that there were few of the founders that were not suspicious of 'federal power', (Hamilton the notable exception), and were determined to 'limit' the power of the fed. They were likewise troubled with executive, knowing that the 'Congress' could NOT deal with the immediate issues of war, (they had first hand knowledge of how close to disaster that had come), nevertheless, they feared the executive.

So we have a Constitution that is slanted towards STRONG legislative/weak executive; STRONG states rights/weaker federal. Yet, both get upturned and the Federalist/Anti-federalist paper prove that they KNEW that it would happen.

BTW, they also dreaded and expected parties, knowing George Washington was a fluke of his time.

 

[liberalogic]

OK. You go first.

1) Show me compassion by giving me your wallet. Don't stop to go through it first, just give it to me NOW.

2) Show me respect, fairness and tolerance by letting me live with who I want to live, spending my money the way I want to spend my money, and keeping criminals out of my neighborhood.

3) Show me no judgment by shutting up about my opionions on religion, race or any other topic.

But see, you won't. Liberals play this game where they preen as the "tolerant" and "fair" and "reasonable" ones, but the truth is that they're just as dictatorial and controlling as anyone, and probably more so. They see government was a tool to force their agenda down all our throats. They're willing to kill us all for their utopian vision. They aren't going to allow "live and let live" any sooner than Bill or Hillary will pass up the cute new girl in Westchester.

I find that to be incorrect in most cases. The reason why I spoke of fairness and respect is because I don't think it's your right or anyone else's right to tell people how to live if they are not impeding upon the rights of others.

The issue of Christian values that I've so strongly opposed as a national standard is not because I don't respect them, it's because there are values that dictate how an individual should live when they are respecting the rights of others. If you are a Christian, go for it, but don't tell me that I should live that way if I'm not breaking the law. If anything, it's these "traditional values" that are being pushed down the throat of America.

And part of my argument was that there is room to disagree; there is room to state your opinion, but that doesn't mean it should be forced upon another if they are acting in accordance with the law.

And that brings me to gay marriage. This issue troubles me because I have gay family members and I have some gay friends (if you're a bigot, don't go to NYC). I see no problem, whatsoever, with granting them the right to marriage. If they are consensual partners, why should it even be an issue? Their marriage does you no harm. It doesn't seek to make anyone gay. It seeks legitimacy and it's no one else's right to tell them they can't have it.

Does that mean that you have to accept it?

NO! That's my point. Being respectful and tolerant are the key to this problem. You don't have to embrace it; you don't have to like it; but it's not about you, so why must you try to stop it?

And then of course we have to hear: let everyone vote on it! It's a democracy! Well, perhaps the best line I've heard in a while is what Powerman said:
"Sometimes the minority needs to be protected from the majority."

And while a lot of this is general (as was shrewdly pointed out), I don't think it needs to be that specific. If people aren't hurting you or hurting others, then leave them alone.

 

[musicman]

I agree. I think when considering 'intentions' we should note that there were few of the founders that were not suspicious of 'federal power', (Hamilton the notable exception), and were determined to 'limit' the power of the fed. They were likewise troubled with executive, knowing that the 'Congress' could NOT deal with the immediate issues of war, (they had first hand knowledge of how close to disaster that had come), nevertheless, they feared the executive.

So we have a Constitution that is slanted towards STRONG legislative/weak executive; STRONG states rights/weaker federal. Yet, both get upturned and the Federalist/Anti-federalist paper prove that they KNEW that it would happen.

BTW, they also dreaded and expected parties, knowing George Washington was a fluke of his time.

It's a flawed system, without a doubt - susceptible to every form of trickery that tyranny can throw at it. The only worse thing I can think of is...anything else that's been tried - before or since.

But we dare not become complacent; that's the catch.