Is our moral compass f***ed up?

How diverse is the group with whom you surround yourself? I’m really not trying to be an asshole, here. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if I remember right you’ve mentioned the homogeneity of the people in your area

Now? Not very, outside of hispanics. Mostly white, but quite a range in terms of class. In college, One college I played ball at was like a pro team with the diversity there … Cuban, DR, black (Cali + Louisiana), white (Cali + Texas, Ill and Iowa). In Kansas City, I met quite a fee different folks.

Like I said we hired many folks form temp agencies, so people were in and out all the time … white, black, hispanic, young, old, married, divoreced, etc. All we did was data entry and talk all day. Quite a few days we’d (20 pepole) would go to lunch together. I’ve also worked in the not so great part of KC when I first moved out there. I was quite amazed by how friendly almost everyone was.

Honestly, the only people I meet that I have a problem with are those that assume since I’m white I want to hear “certain jokes”. That was a problem in KC. KC is a very divided town, and both groups (blacks and whites) seems to prefer it that way.

But, I’m an hour from Chicago … not to hard to find diversity if you want it (I do).

“We treat all religion-based societal artifacts as distainful these days, and we are accepting of everything. I do not suggest that we reinstitute church rule, but strong moral values do make for tight-knit communitites.”
“Dangerous. I get really uncomfortable when I hear someone start talking about strong moral values because that generally means their moral values which probably don’t jibe with mine.”

Without getting TOO deep into it, I see the real “danger” being this culture of Relativism. “What’s right for you may not be right for me” or “Who are you to say what’s right or wrong?”
If you don’t look too deep, these statements may make sense. Carried to their logical end, they’re not so pleasant.
Just because I might think it’s okay, is it really alright to kill an innocent person? Rob old people? Kick young children in the head? Bugger your stepson?
Does it all just boil down to “Says Who?”

For instance, Hitler thought it was a perfectly moral thing to slaughter 6 million Jews and set Europe on fire. Who are we to look back and judge that as right or wrong?
“But everyone knows that Hitler was evil.” By what/whos standard?
I hate to bring it up, but there are things in this life called absolutes, and no matter how we may dance around them, and order our lives to carefully avoid bumping into them, they’re still there.

A Humanistic morality is sorta like Monoploy money (or even like our current monetary system, since we went off the Gold Standard): There’s really nothing behind it to give it real meaning, and given enough time it will always be proven a sham.
People who can’t stand to have their morality questioned lose the right to question anyone elses, even Hitler’s. “Judge not lest thou be judged” works both ways.

Since this is a tri forum, I’ll add this opinion, totally unrelated to any discussion currently taking place:
When an athlete is good enough to deserve DuraAce, Record, or a $500 wetsuit, these things will be given unto you.
Piss anybody off?
Regards,
-bobo

Okay. Your responses got me to thinking. If I am to be true to my personal ideology, I honestly don’t care what other people do, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights or freedom of others. However, when I think upon it, I guess that due to my Catholic upbringing, I still view marriage as a largely religious/social contract that serves the sole purpose of legitimizing the offspring of a union between a man and a woman. So while I am in favor of providing domestic partnership benefits, the concept of gay marriage seems somewhat counterintuitive(or at best moot) to me, given the interpretation of marriage that I provided. When you start adding the recent complications of gay couples adopting, survivor benefits, and so forth, this does become a topic too complicated to intelligently argue in the space of a few hundred words.(At least, for one as verbose as me.)

“Correct me if I’m wrong, but if I remember right you’ve mentioned the homogeneity of the people in your area.”

This is not entirely accurate. I work in a very diverse workplace, with Whites, Blacks, Asians, Indians, Arabs, Latinos, and gays. However, it is not very class diverse. I am a financial software developer, so basically everyone I work with has a college degree and is a trained professional. My neighborhood is pretty white, however. I lived in much more diverse environments in the past(Las Vegas, when I was in the Air Force, for example.) Further, since I am an adult, I can choose the people with whom I socialize, which isn’t a whole lot of people.

Your post really got me thinking, though. The point I was trying to make by stating that “Almost every single person that I meet is a good, decent person.” was that in general, I think that the people I interact with regularly are good, and try to do the right thing. But this was, perhaps naive. Beyond the facade that they put up in public, I really don’t know what a lot of people are like. Many of the people that I think I know could actually be rotten, but I never see it because I only see them at work, or at the pool, or in other social settings where their warts would not show. Let me say then that the people I choose to associate with at this point in my life have the seeming of decency and goodness.

I thank both you and Joe M for your responses. I largely agree with what you’re saying about progress and not having anyone dictate to you what is right or wrong. I guess my frustration comes from the fact that I really don’t approve of the apparent agendas of either major political party or the various media outlets, all of whom seem to be pimping ideologies that I do not share.

Triiowa,
Hate the sin, love the sinner. It all goes to the first stone.

1 final thought on this issue.
Read the weekly standard article titled The End of Mariage in Scandinavia
02/02/04 Volume 009 Issue 20
There are some interesting fact regarding all which is being discussed

My favorite (seen on a bumper sticker):

Jesus loves you. Everyone else thinks you’re an asshole.

Ken Lehner

Hate the sin, love the sinner. It all goes to the first stone.

I completely agree. I guess I take issue with the way some people define sin (not trying to start a philosophical argument). I have a problem with anyone who take a ‘strict constructionist’ view of a few parts of the bible (usually those that support their prejudices), while ignoring most everything else. Do you get to have it both ways?

I guess I a little too dumb to understand it all, I just try to stick to the golden rule.

BTW, don’t get me wrong about what I consider sin/not sin…I was raised/am Lutheran, Eagle Scout, 7+ years in the Army…I’m a pretty conservative guy, (with more than enough of my own sins to spend any time worrying about everyone elses). My take on this issue is that we as a society have more pressing ‘moral’ issues than two individuals who love each other wanting to have that relationship formally recognized (oh and I don’t want big brother in MY bed roomJ).

Chris

Your arguments are specious. One fundamental underpinning of laws is (or should be) the regulation of behavior that impacts other people; all the silly examples you provide are outlawed because of this, independent of your or anyone else’s religious beliefs. This is one of the “absolutes” you mention, and it doesn’t have anything to do with religion.

What makes the values of your (or anyone’s) religion the right ones, or better than the values of someone like myself, who is an avowed atheist? For instance, Judaism says that abortion to save the life of the mother is not only permitted, it is required. What does the Pope say about that? (I’ll quote from the Vatican’s Web site: “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable”.) Who shall be believe?Ken Lehner

“Jesus loves you… everyone else thinks you’re an asshole”

Classic!! I’ve seen the following bumper sticker:

“Jesus saves… but Gretzky scores on the rebound”

[reply

I am not a marriage historian either. If marriage is not a religious ceremony (I don’t even know if it was “invented” by Christians), could someone point out where it was originated.

The root function of marriage is to join clans, families, even nations together. A man from one family marries a woman from another family and they produce children which belong to both families. This creates a new family that is secured by the wealth and power of parents. Many cultures practice this strictly hence marriages are arranged upon birth of the child or even prior to any children being born. This is very important to aristocrats but it’s been traced back to primitive cultures. Totem poles are family records and the symbols represent the way in which the tribes are joined together.

In the above sense, marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. When you cut out all of the religious and emotional influences, marriage is about tracing lineage and building and distributing wealth and power through children.

Marriage today is a confusing topic as this thread illustrates. Where once there was a fairly consistent definition there are now many. It’s a religious ceremony, it’s a civil ceremony, it’s a declaration of love, it’s a financial arrangement, it’s whatever you want to make it.

The proposed amendment to the Constitution would define marriage as a contract between a man and a woman. That would restore the traditional meaning but there would still be a lot of conflict from practices of the modern age. Liberal divorce laws and adoption laws redefine the meaniing family as do artificial reproduction methods. The arguments for and against are boundless.

Larry

Good point…and Martha Stewart and her broker are looking at serious jail time for their insider trading. I could see a fine, make them pay back their profits, but putting them in jail with criminals that have committed viscious crimes against society doesn’t make sense.

I’d say our judicial system definitely needs some work.

Marriage is not a Christian concept. It is quite a bit more than that. It is a gift from God and and a contract if you will.

Read Genesis 2-22-24
Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said,
This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man. For this reason a man willl leave his father and mother and be UNITED with his wife and they will be one flesh.
I know I will probably catch some flack for this, but just like the birth of a child, marriage is a gift from God to be fought for and cherished for all days. Ask someone who has been married for more than 25 years.
My 2 cents

Been reading about marriage and looking for some background …

seems, most think that marriage was started (or given) as a way to provide a stable framework for a child entering this world (being the original intent). They enter into a devoted family. I tend to see most of the evidence as being it is a religious practice that non-religious people have seemed to adopt. That still doesn’t make it a non-religious practice.

Granted times have changed and we are dealing with issues, etc … but that doesn’t mean terms and ideas form the past HAVE to change with them. Come up with new terms, etc.

IMO, if gays want to be “married” then call it something else … call it “union” (as some have suggested), etc. What I understand the issue is that they want to be legally bound so they can be on insurance, wills, beneficiaries, etc together and enjoy all of the “legal” benefits married couples enjoy.

I guess the term “union” could also be given as an option to non-religious people that want to marry also. People get all the legal benefits of “marriage”, and those that view marriage as sacred get to keep their term. A person could check the “union/married” box on any form and both would receive the same legal benefits, but still be able to hold onto the “sanctity” of the thing. It’s not “marriage”, it’s a “union”. If that’s what it would take to please both sides, then we’ll have to do something like that, no matter how silly it sounds.

When you are trying to ensure a free country that allows for religious differences, topics like this will always be present, and solutions will always have to be reached.


Marriage is not a Christian concept. It is quite a bit more than that. It is a gift from God and and a contract if you will.


There are other people in the world besides Christians and for the most part they practice marriage as well. Your reply only refers to the Christian definition from the Old Testament.

I could ask myself; I’ve been married over 30 years. That doesn’t make me an expert on everyone else. I respect your feelings on the matter and am loathe to attack your beliefs. But please realize that they’re your beliefs and aren’t shared by the majority of the world’s population.

Larry

note that the American Family Institute, a right-wing-nut organization, ran an online poll on this. IIRC, 60% favored allowing gay marriage, another 15% favored civil unions, only 25% opposed - and this was from a right-wing organization, not the usual suspects.

Marriage is a religious institution, and should be left up to the churches. Civil unions should be permitted by the state.

That ‘sanctity of marriage’ thing - I wonder if he means like Britney’s marriage ? like Newt Gingrich’s multiple unions ? It would make a horse laugh…

grumpyguy: “Marriage is not a Christian concept. It is quite a bit more than that. It is a gift from God and and a contract if you will.”

Sure, if you ascribe to a Judeo-Christian philosophy. Not everyone does. If you’re religious, it makes sense that you would think of marriage as a religious ceremony. But plenty of atheists get married… (not “partnered” or “civil unioned”… married) Probably a lot of them cherish their marriages too.

TripleThreat: "Granted times have changed and we are dealing with issues, etc … but that doesn’t mean terms and ideas form the past HAVE to change with them. Come up with new terms, etc. "

Too late dude. The term “marriage” is used all the time for civil unions between men and women, some of which are certainly atheist. So the idea that marriage these days is exclusively a religious, let alone Christian, concept is pretty outdated. Don’t you think the line “Marriage, like praying, doesn’t seem to be something that “non-religious” people would do anyway.” is a little silly? Non-religious people don’t get married??!!

But I think it’s pretty safe to say that whether gay marriage will be accepted in the Christian church is pretty irrelevant for most. The issue is whether gay marriage will be legally recognized. (You say you think it should, and I agree with you). The issue of religion will come up all the time during the debate though, since the opponents of gay marriage will bring up the “abomination” argument in one form or another. But as 3sport has already posted, many Christians like to “pick and choose” which laws of the Bible to follow. And don’t give me the Old vs. New Testament argument… try and find one instance where Jesus even mentions homosexuality. you won’t find it.

Fact is, if someone wants to claim the Bible as a higher source for their moral values, they had better be consistent. If you believe homosexuality is an abomination but love your ribs and lobster that may be your opinion, but don’t try to claim that the Bible backs you up.

Sure, if you ascribe to a Judeo-Christian philosophy. Not everyone does. If you’re religious, it makes sense that you would think of marriage as a religious ceremony. But plenty of atheists get married… (not “partnered” or “civil unioned”… married) Probably a lot of them cherish their marriages too.

That’s what I mean … the ceremony of joining man and woman to each other “till death do you part” (no divorce), etc, etc with God as a witness is something that seems to be very Christian.

Athiest get married. Why? Because everyone else does? Why does everyone else get married? An athiest could take communion and really like the wine, that doesn’t make communion “non-Christian”.

I guess I’m trying to see how non-Christians started “getting married”, because it seems to be something that “Christians” due because adultery, etc are sins to Christians, but there’s nothing preventing non-Christians from having more than one wife, extramarital affairs, etc. In other words, there is no “God Law” that tells you not to do this.

That’s what I am trying to deduce … if “marriage” was something ALL people did, or if it something that Christians did and everyone else follwoed suit, whether they were Christian or not … like Christmas.

but there’s nothing preventing non-Christians from having more than one wife, extramarital affairs, etc. In other words, there is no “God Law” that tells you not to do this.

Will you drop the sanctimonious belief that non-Christians have no moral compass? I, as a non-Christian, will not have an extramarital affair (yes, I am married) because would be a hurtful thing to do, among many other reasons. I do not need a “God Law” (whatever the hell that is) to tell me what is right and what is wrong; if you need such guidance, then there was something missing in your upbringing. “Don’t do things that hurt other people”; what divine inspiration is needed here?

One of the Quaker philosophies that I find very compelling is that everyone has the right to follow their own inner voice (meaning, “it’s none of your damned business what I do as long as it doesn’t bother you”). How dare “you” to judge “me”, based on your religious beliefs?

As far as why atheists get married, I can only speak for myself. Marriage was a means of publicly expressing my commitment to the love of my life, in front of friends and family.

Oh, no atheist “could take communion”, unless they were hypocritical. Sort of like that “Jews for Jesus” nonsense.

Ken Lehner

TT, do you REALLY think that marriage didn’t exist before Christianity? Come on now…

That’s what I am trying to deduce … if “marriage” was something ALL people did, or if it something that Christians did
and everyone else follwoed suit, whether they were Christian or not … like Christmas.

Let me ask you a question: Were Adam and Eve “Christian”?

Some history:

Herodotus “History of the Persian Wars” , c. 430 BCE (referrinf to Assyria)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/1650nesilim.html
I.196: Of their customs, whereof I shall now proceed to give an account, the following (which I understand belongs to them in common with the Illyrian tribe of the Eneti) is the wisest in my judgment. Once a year in each village the maidens of age to marry were collected all together into one place; while the men stood round them in a circle. Then a herald called up the damsels one by one, and offered them for sale. He began with the most beautiful. When she was sold for no small sum of money, he offered for sale the one who came next to her in beauty. All of them were sold to be wives. The richest of the Babylonians who wished to wed bid against each other for the loveliest maidens, while the humbler wife-seekers, who were indifferent about beauty, took the more homely damsels with marriage-portions.

Code of the Hittites 1650-1500 BCE
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/1650nesilim.html
195. If a man sleep with the wife of his brother, while his brother is living, it is a capital crime, he shall die.

A Collection of Mesopotamian Laws, c. 2250 - 550 BCE
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/2550mesolaws.html
If a wife be unfaithful to her husband and then says, “You are not my husband,” let her be thrown into the river. If a husband say to his wife, “You are not my wife,” he shall as a fine pay one half mana of silver.

also check out http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pogodesigns.com%2FJP%2Fweddings%2Fgreekwed.html

It’s interesting that in my (5 minute, very non-systematic) web search, most of the references to marriage in ancient times focused on legal aspects, not religious. FWIW of course.