[geeks] Re: [rescue] It's official, the U.S. is screwed for4 more years
Michael.Horton at acntv.com
Tue Nov 9 11:42:55 CST 2004
the position to permit marriage between gay people is based as much on
morals as the position to only permit marriage between heterosexuals is
based on morals.
the question is not whether we should use "morals" to make decisions but
*which* set of morals to use.
an example of this was an interview with norman lear that appeared in
the run-up to the election on one of the major networks.
norman said every person has a "compact with the deity" (his phrase
norman said this "compact with the deity" is personal and different for
norman said further that no individual has the right to voice that
"compact with the deity" in the political debate.
(he went on to say even to other people.)
the question begged to be asked is "norman, how can you push your
religious/moral/philosophical views on me/us/tv
norman showed that all decisions, even political ones, come out of our
moral/religious views, that is, out of our worldview (whatever it is).
it was funny that norman couldn't even follow his own rules and
From: geeks-bounces at sunhelp.org [mailto:geeks-bounces at sunhelp.org] On
Behalf Of velociraptor
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 11:43 AM
To: The Geeks List
Subject: Re: [geeks] Re: [rescue] It's official, the U.S. is screwed
for4 more years
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:27:31 -0600, Brian Dunbar
<brian.dunbar at plexus.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2004, at 8:21 PM, Francisco Javier Mesa-Martinez wrote:
> > I do, however, find alarming
> > the rise in the whole "moral based" voting as "morals" are relative
> > and hard to point as real policies or issues.
> Morals are not, in my opinion, relative. There things that are right
> and wrong, good and bad.
I think what Francisco was pointing to were things like gay marriage and
There are certain things which are "less" relative, given a normal
societal context, i.e. killing, stealing, etc.
But other things, like, whether people should have the right to marry
based on their gender preference being addressed as a "moral" issue, for
the majority of people, is based on their religious preferences.
> Morals and values do count, and they count for a great deal - absent
> those and you have a society with no checks, no borders, no place
> where you can chalk a line and say "this is wrong".
> It's possible that is a simplistic point of view - but I don't think
Morals seem clear cut and black and white, but when you put it in
context, I think it's never simplistic. For instance, I doubt that
anyone would argue that killing is "morally" acceptable. But when you
frame the discussion in the context of say, chasing down terrorists in
another sovereign nation, the ground becomes a little less clear-cut.
Not trying to argue for one side of the morality fence or the other,
just noting that a discussion of morals is pointless without a
contextual framework--i.e. what's the situation--to my way of thinking.
This message originates from Jewelry Television (TM) . The message and any
file transmitted with it is intended to be privileged and confidential. It is
intended only for the addressee named above. Any disclosure, distribution,
copying or use of the information by anyone other than the intended recipient,
regardless of address or routing, is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this message in error, please advise the sender by immediate reply and delete
the original message. Personal messages express views solely of the sender and
are not attributable to Jewelry Television (TM).
More information about the geeks