This is what happens when you accept immorality as a "lifestyle" choice

[jem]

i understand exactly. well stated.

I went over what I wrote.. and wanted to add... that when I was commenting on practicing sodomy and said I believe in the right of privacy... that was meant with respect to living in America. I know I wouldn't want someone from the govt telling me what I can do with my wife.

whether sodomy is moral or immoral in my view is something people may have to work out with their Maker.

Quote from kidPWRtrader:

Hi Jem. Before we discuss morality, we need to define "good". Has "good" been formed by law, culture, or religion or has it always just been? Whose definition of "good" will we use? Nature's? According to Plato and others, man's natural state has often been "bad".

I am the last person to say that if something is legal, it is moral. Some things which are legal are not moral; and some things that are moral are not legal.

To be clear, I don't actually think I can write anything new on this topic. Furthermore, the likelihood of me persuading anyone on elitetrader to change their minds on an emotional issue like this is also probably fairly low.

It's like this: Every now and then I read something on the internet that I don't agree with and for the next 30 minutes, I am pulled into arguing until my passion runs out. I think the passion is running dry already and we have yet to begin lol.

 

[nutmeg]

Quote from Ricter:

That's all morality is, it's made up by people.

Muslim don't accept homo's, billions of moral people out there n'est ce pas?

 

[stu]

Quote from kidPWRtrader:

I am the last person to say that if something is legal, it is moral. Some things which are legal are not moral; and some things that are moral are not legal.

Would you also be the last person to say if something is religious, it is moral? Would you say some things that are religious are not moral; and some things that are moral not religious?

Do you think to do something is made more moral because a god is supposed to have said something is right or wrong, whether it is or not.
Or more moral because based upon moral principles, the something is morally right.

 

[kidPWRtrader]

Would you also be the last person to say if something is religious, it is moral? Would you say some things that are religious are not moral; and some things that are moral not religious? --> Yes

If there was(is) a G(g)od and he went on public record enumerating his/her/its principles of morality, then we could accurately conclude that to listen to G(g)od is to be moral. This is just not the case. G(g)od has many spokespeople, each of whom have different interpretations of his/her/its will.

Here are simple (but probably impractical) rules for "moral rightness":

1) Define what is "good", keeping in mind that being "good: will then be synonymous with "moral"
2) Assess an act based on obedience to the chosen definition

I'm largely utilitarian in my definition of "good". So, if posed with an issue that creates a moral dilemma, I might ask, "What will do the most amount of good for the most amount of life (notice I don't necessary say human life) in the long term?"

I'm in the that's-useful-but-not-entirely-true camp. This means that I think many before me and here today have excellent ideas that deserve recognition, contemplation, and inorporation (into my own life). For instance, I think Albert Schwitzer has a good understanding of morality and ethics. Yet, I don't entirely agree with everything he thought. And that's true with just about every idea and every person I've read about.

There are common values that most of us (except for the most psychologically ill among us) could agree to. The "golden rule" is a good example for this. Stealing and killing is bad, is another. But, the ultimate "good" is just too vague of a concept for most people and thus is likely to get an infinite amount of answers.

 

[kidPWRtrader]

Quote from jem:

i understand exactly. well stated.

I went over what I wrote.. and wanted to add... that when I was commenting on practicing sodomy and said I believe in the right of privacy... that was meant with respect to living in America. I know I wouldn't want someone from the govt telling me what I can do with my wife.

whether sodomy is moral or immoral in my view is something people may have to work out with their Maker.

I agree in principle that one should have the freedom to live as they want to, so long as one does not take away from the living of others around them.

 

[Mercor]

Quote from Maverick74:

Peil, something for you to consider. If one really is outraged over the gay lifestyle, then you should absolutely support gay marriage. Studies have shown that gays not in relationships can have 100's and 1000's of sex partners. But when married settle down to one. The best thing we can do to stop the spread of STD's and reduce the amount of unsafe sex in the gay community is actually to support marriage and responsibility. By being against marriage, you are actually supporting the gay lifestyle more and the rapid spread of disease. Just something to think about.

You have correctly defined marriage as a conservative institution.

I don't think Gays are fighting for inclusion in order to stop their promiscuity.
The question raised; are there any moral constraints to gay promiscuity behavior other then turning to a conservative institution.
Are they looking for moral constraints?

To me , the whole issue on State sanctioned gay marriage is my tax dollars spent to support contrived relationships with no basis in nature.

 

[pspr]

Quote from Mercor:

You have correctly defined marriage as a conservative institution.

I don't think Gays are fighting for inclusion in order to stop their promiscuity.
The question raised; are there any moral constraints to gay promiscuity behavior other then turning to a conservative institution.
Are they looking for moral constraints?

To me , the whole issue on State sanctioned gay marriage is my tax dollars spent to support contrived relationships with no basis in nature.

You nailed it, bud. +1000

 

[maxpi]

Quote from kidPWRtrader:

You are not comparing apples to apples, but apples to spaceships.

Gay human relations are the result of two consenting individuals.
Animals cannot consent. Even if they can, we can't accurately measure that consent. So, it cannot possibly be moral for humans to have sex with animals. Theoretically speaking, for a person of perverse psychology, sex with animals could be "good" and thus "moral" but only if that animal consented, which I think we can both agree is not possible.

I would encourage you to define morality. Furthermore, think about how your emotional patterns and superficial reasoning about the issue are contributing to your anger.

As a straight male, I would gladly debate whether or not gay marriage is "moral" with you (if you would like), but only if you are willing to use integrity, tact, and logic in your arguments.

15000 US citizens with hemophelia were in the first wave of people to die in the AIDS epidemic. I wonder what they would say about the morality of consensual but unhealthy activities?

 

[peilthetraveler]

Quote from Maverick74:

Peil, something for you to consider. If one really is outraged over the gay lifestyle, then you should absolutely support gay marriage. Studies have shown that gays not in relationships can have 100's and 1000's of sex partners. But when married settle down to one. The best thing we can do to stop the spread of STD's and reduce the amount of unsafe sex in the gay community is actually to support marriage and responsibility. By being against marriage, you are actually supporting the gay lifestyle more and the rapid spread of disease. Just something to think about.

What makes you think I want their diseases to slow down?

The outrage is not so much their lifestyle, but the fact they want everyone to accept it as an ok way to live. I would be just as outraged as if there was a large group of pedophiles trying to make it legal to marry 10 year olds.

Obviously people are going to do immoral things in their lives. I just don't want these people telling me or my children that certain destructive immoral behaviors are ok

 

[stu]

Quote from Mercor:
You have correctly defined marriage as a conservative institution.

I don't think Gays are fighting for inclusion in order to stop their promiscuity.
The question raised; are there any moral constraints to gay promiscuity behavior other then turning to a conservative institution.
Are they looking for moral constraints?

To me , the whole issue on State sanctioned gay marriage is my tax dollars spent to support contrived relationships with no basis in nature.

Very similar reasoning used for apartheid.