Reclaiming the Moral High Ground

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by GSHAMBROOKE, Aug 25, 2013.

  1. Dean Winchester

    Dean Winchester Valued Member

    Oh I daint confuse nuffin, it was on purpose fort it saunded betta.

    Anyway my good man I'm frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused you such pericombobulation.

    Please accept my a-po'-lo'-gies.
     
  2. LemonSloth

    LemonSloth Laugh and grow fat!

    [​IMG]
     
  3. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    Gives detail on my post #28.^^VV

    However, how can anyone really state what is morally correct?

    Strange to think, if killing is inherent in most animal species, humans could not differentiate if it is morally incorrect without a set of morals already set.

    Such morals about killing, stealing, etc., are not instilled by parents, but social orders that always had religious influences/foundations

    Without these foundations over centuries since evolved human intelligence, how can humans, who had not the belief in a god/deity, ever come to understand which morals were correct let alone abide by?

    If there wasn't any such religious beliefs to create such morals in most civilized societies, we would be creatures easily killing off others for any reason

    The works of David C Lahti, ref:The Correlated History of Social Organization,
    Morality, and Religion / Department of Biology, Morrill Science Center, University of Massachusetts, adds interesting information;
    http://qcpages.qc.edu/Biology/Lahti/Publications/LahtiEvolRelig09.pdf

    Another interesting link:

    http://www.credong.org/why-society-needs-religion.php
     
  4. mattt

    mattt Valued Member

    Without using either a time machine or google I'm gonna guess that social control came first, and religion followed as a good tool to exercise said control. It certainly is necessary to attempt to curb natural tenancies in society for the greater good, and whilst you are at it slip in a few tricks to specifically help those orchestrating things. Not unlike we see in modern day politics.
     
  5. philosoraptor

    philosoraptor carnivore in a top hat Supporter

    I think that the moral foundation of society is just as fundamental to our species as our capacity for violence. We see a lot of what some folks have called 'pre-moral sentiment' in intelligent social animals, notions of value and disgust. We have the most complicated social relationships of any animal, it makes sense that we would develop complicated social codes that, at their heart, reflect behaviors that were developed in response to group living and evolutionary pressures.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk"]Frans de Waal: Moral behavior in animals - YouTube[/ame]
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2013
  6. philosoraptor

    philosoraptor carnivore in a top hat Supporter

    I was trying to use cultural minorities as minorities relative to a culture. In the United States, Indians are a relative minority, for example, whereas in India they are not.

    What about laws regarding interracial marriages? I might be misunderstanding what you mean by 'definition' of marriage.

    How would these change by addition of more married couples?
     
  7. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    Ah, okay. Your original question was, "Would you be ok with businesses discriminating against other cultural minorities?" You're messing with me, now, you know. ;) My pure Libertarian answer is, "If it is your property, then you make the rules." That means discrimination is okay -- not morally okay, but legally okay. If I don't like how you do things, I'll take my money elsewhere.

    However, we don't live under Libertarian rule, do we? And businesses can hardly do anything without government permits and licenses -- that is, permission and aide. Protection, really. In light of all the government protection that businesses enjoy, maybe they have an obligation to serve every last person in society, no?


    I married outside my race (for real). As far as I know, and as the U.S. Supreme Court even said in that polygamy case, the definition of "marriage" for our culture has always been man+woman.


    I think the point for the other side is that (a) it's always been one way, and (b) there are measurable and meaningful sociological benefits of the "norm" being both male and female parents. Arguing that any change under a new definition would be negligible in both of those areas would be a good approach, I expect.
     
  8. aaradia

    aaradia Choy Li Fut and Yang Tai Chi Chuan Student Moderator Supporter

    Nonsense! My sister and her partner have an awesome daughter (my niece). She is raised by two very awesome parents. Every bit as good of an upbringing as many other parents. Frankly, better than a lot I see in my workplace and out in society.

    Your saying it is better is merely a matter of opinion- far from a fact. Other educated valid opinions disagree.

    Here is one.
    http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/



    Just because institutionalized homophobia against Gay and Lesbian couples has always been the norm, does not mean it should stay that way. When it is argued that way, it just sounds like being upset that the Church does not get to dominate the law in ways it unfairly has in the past. I guess this would be the reclaiming of the high moral ground that the OP was talking about. Although I admit, I didn't read his article either, so I am basing it off what he said himself.

    Guess what? Interracial couples was something outlawed in the past as well. And a lot of the same arguments against interracial couples then are being used against GL couples now. One of those being that we should mess with the way things were set up and had been like.

    I think of it as evolving.

    And just like the Supreme court ruled for interracial couples in the past, they are now ruling more and more in favor of GL couples marriage rights.

    One more thing. It is now allowed in about 13 or so states and several other countries. The world hasn't fallen apart. So far, it hasn't caused disruption in straight marriages. But, if you know of a straight marriage that has been destroyed by GL people getting married, please let us know.
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2013
  9. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    I didn't say it was my opinion. Don't put words in my mouth. :rolleyes:
     
  10. aaradia

    aaradia Choy Li Fut and Yang Tai Chi Chuan Student Moderator Supporter

    Ok, that was not my intention.

    Let me rephrase that then. Your stating the opinion held by those on the other side is ..................(insert rest of my post here.)

    Better? (I mean that seriously, not sarcastically. Tone is easy to misread on the Internet.)
     
  11. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    Yes, better. I happen to know that one of the amicus briefs for the Prop 8 case, on the "straight" side, argued quite a lot about the sociological benefits of the "norm" being both male and female parents. Whenever the issue comes up around me, that particular argument is very significant to them. I would pick that field to fight on. (And no, I had no involvement with that Prop 8 brief.)
     
  12. aaradia

    aaradia Choy Li Fut and Yang Tai Chi Chuan Student Moderator Supporter


    Well, the evidence apparently wasn't good enough as the (as I call it) anti-gay side lost!:D

    I am sure studiies on both sides of the issue can be torn apart by opponents. My point was that there ARE studies that argue against the point you brought up. Also that nothing is proven as fact with that argument. You can''t hold back a right from a group when you can't prove your reason for doing so as a fact.
     
  13. Grass hopper

    Grass hopper Valued Member

    what people often forget is that even if you believe straight parents can raise a child better, gay parents arent taking them from straight ones. the choice isnt gay or straight parents.

    its foster care, or gay parents in many cases. i dint know about you, but i'm inclinded to pick two loving parents over being an orphan.
     
  14. Giovanni

    Giovanni Well-Known Member Supporter

    i find this talk of the definition of marriage puzzling, especially when used as an argument to deny same-sex couples a right that heterosexual couples have. seems to me the definition has changed quite a bit over time, even in the abrahamic religions. didn't abraham have several wives? and hooked up with his slave? divorce was also not in the cards for quite a long time. used to be a wife was the property of the husband--thankfully, that's changed also. i think this line of thinking also neglects that marriage is a modern invention; and by modern i mean that since humans and human ancestry is millions of years into the past, then this concept of two humans entering a contract with each other is but a blip. can anyone even demonstrate that "marriage" is even older than 10,000 years old?

    so yeah, like anything, we should define social constructs as we see fit. it's bigoted to deny something to some people when everyone else gets to do it, and reap societal benefits from it.
     
  15. philosoraptor

    philosoraptor carnivore in a top hat Supporter

    I think this idea is sound in theory, but in practice creates patchworks of incredibly hostile and inaccessible areas of the country. I don't think it's so simple for many people to simply relocate and move. But this might be a digression.

    Fully agree with you, which is why I think that the baker and photographer had an obligation to serve the weddings that they were hired for.

    For a time it was "Man of your race + woman of your race." For many cultures that also meant marrying into your religion or your geographical group or your ethnic group. That's changed obviously.

    What are the measurable and meaningful sociological benefits you're thinking of here? I don't think that the norm will be altered by homosexuals marrying as well as heterosexuals.
     
  16. CanuckMA

    CanuckMA Valued Member


    Yes, polygamy was the norm. Divorce has been around a long time. One of the 613 Commandments in Torah is to give your wife a Get, Bill of Divorce. The no divorce thing is a Catholic invention.
     
  17. LemonSloth

    LemonSloth Laugh and grow fat!

    Thank goodness for Henry VIII, huh?
     
  18. Southpaw535

    Southpaw535 Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    I still struggle to grasp the magnitude of how much Henry VIII changed the face of England, and Europe to some extent, and all the things that happened as a result, all because he wanted to bang some other girl.
     
  19. LemonSloth

    LemonSloth Laugh and grow fat!

    Well, who wouldn't want to bang a "six-fingered incestuous witch" when she was what, 20+ years younger than his previous wife? :Angel:

    But yeah, it's funny how the little things so often add up to be big things, isn't it? Still he was a creep by modern day standards, relatively mild for the times...
     
  20. Moi

    Moi Warriors live forever x

    Where do I sign?
     

Share This Page