Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Wrong Side of Morality
Many of my friends are very happy about Friday’s US Supreme Court decision. While I have mixed feelings, I realize that many of them are driven by great love and respect for other people, their dignity, their equality, and their love. And perhaps they’re right to celebrate the Supreme Court’s expansion of the definition of marriage.
A small minority of them, however, undermine their claim to be driven by love and respect when they lash out in hatred, anger, and derisive mockery at Supreme Court justices, or at others who do not share their views. If you write or like a post that calls Justice Thomas a highly unpleasant expletive, for example, the emotion driving you does not seem to be love, and the values guiding you do not seem to be respect or tolerance.
The moral line dividing us does not run between those who think that marriage and dignity are Constitutionally-protected rights and those that think these are issues for Congress or state legislatures. It does not run between those who think the opposite-gender clause must remain in the definition of marriage and those who think it must be removed. The moral line runs within us, between those parts of us that are driven by anger, bigotry, intolerance, and hate, and those that are driven by love and respect for other people, their orientations, and their opinions.
Wherever one stands on the issue, the part of us that wants to mock or condemn the justices who disagreed with us on Friday is probably on the wrong side of that moral line. We should worry less about being on the wrong side of history than about being on the wrong side of morality and human decency.
Published in General
Have you read the OP and the comments here? Not much has been said about whether ‘gay marriage’ is right or wrong. If you would give it your attention, you would see the discussion is about the process of interpreting the Constitution. Be better if you would say something pertinent to the argument.
carcat
People who decide they love someone of the same sex are making achoice! Well, I choose to not respect the way they choose to express their sexuality.
We’ve been through this only 1000 times and neither side can convince the other. I’ll give this argument some credence just as soon as someone on the anti-SSM side tells us about the moment when he or she decided to make the choice to be hetero.
Here we go. It doesn’t matter choice or whatever. Let’s not go there.
The reality is we’ve just legislated (in the new sense) that all citizens must pretend unlike things are like. To be pro this is inherently wrong. As in simply incorrect about the nature of things.
Ah, but we were born this way.
How you doing Gary?
Ps, I mean nature of things. Things. As in up cannot be down no matter how many laws or assertions we make.
I’ve been out of the singles scene for decades, but I have to say, Misthi, that sounds like a helluva effective bar pick-up line in Oshawa or Windsor. What a conversation opener! If she responds, it’s because you’ve indicated some concern for childhood education, and might be looking to settle down, like the utterly decent, hardworking and attractive man you are. And from our point of view, if she responds, she’s willing to discuss sex in some form or another.
You maple-leafed Devil, you.
Doin’ okay, Ball. Mostly staying out of these threads, but internet debate is like being a cop; if you don’t go down to the range regularly and keep up proficiency, they take your weapon away.
Gosh, thanks for cheapening my point.
Gil, it seems to me that the gay community is starting to embody the very characteristics it claims Christians demonstrate: Self-righteousness, intolerance, hatefulness, hypocrisy, and a desire to force your beliefs on others. (interesting, no?)
Now, you strike me as an honorable person. Do you think the gay community will realize this and step back, and try to live in harmony and tolerance in victory, or will they charge ahead in an effort to make disagreement with their lifestyle a career-ending proposition? Will they charge on to destroy all churches who won’t change their views and practices in a manner satisfactory to gay activists?
Gil, if I were to meet any member of the Supreme Court or anybody else for that matter on either side of this issue, I would be polite to them. That, however, is a different matter than respecting the opinions they produced or the process. The majority opinion is awful and the judicial fiat process has been too. I have contempt for those. Were these justices part and parcel of all of that? Yup. So what can I say? They are feckless. Obama is feckless. I think they sincerely believe the nonsense they spout, however, and I do respect them as fellow humans, but not what they stand for.
When I lived in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, I was a member of the First Presbyterian Church. In the congregation, there were a few couples of the same-sex who had lived together for years and been totally faithful to each other. They were a good example to some of the other heterosexual couples who were not living up to their vows as well as they ought. I would say they loved each other, and love has a lot to do with it.
Those people who condemn same-sex marriage are certainly not showing love to those who want to marry. Nor are they showing love to those families who have gay members whom they love and want to support in their freedom to marry.
Thanks for disposing of that porn issue. Now, help with your last statement. Wrong how? I understand your opinion but would like to know how SoCons are wrong beyond the fact that they hold a view opposing yours:
The definition of marriage always has included gay marriage.
Marriage should be redefined to include gay marriage. By the Supreme Court?
Denial of marriage to gays is a Constitutional equal rights violation, so the ruling is valid.
The process to get there is of no consequence.
Bob, since Indaba and I agree about a number of things I was simply emphasizing a minor point of disagreement; just because we disagree about SSM doesn’t make you a porn-lover. Hell, if anything I thought I was doing you guys a favor. I’m sure that in fact there probably are a few porn-loving SoCons, just statistically, but they’re probably rare enough to be guests on Maury Povich.
You didn’t define any position close to mine so I can’t respond to what an anonymous SSM fan says or said. No, of course gay marriage hasn’t always existed. Why would I say that? It was never a popular idea before either.
It is now.
But I’ll defer most of the arguments for next week, when it’s clearer what the political shake-down of this will be. On the GOP side, on the Dem side.
For the record, SSM still doesn’t exist.
The Skipsul Rule is coming to pass. A thread that wants civility goes toward incivility.
This makes it look as if you support the outcome as a matter of policy but are unwilling to be up front regarding the process getting there until you see which way the wind is blowing. I don’t know how popular SSM is since I haven’t seen any popular votes on this issue (except California), but I’m sad to see Constitutional decisions of the Supreme Court made on perceptions of public popularity.
What gay couples want is the legal rights that other heterosexual couples have, such as to be seen as the first person involved when the other is in hospital. To be recognized as the most important person in each other’s lives. Somehow that legal recognition makes a difference.
Mine here in Canada are happy about the decision. In fact, to quote one, “About time!”.
Good for you, eh.
A delightful black man on Fareed Zakaria’s program this morning, linked the two together. He mentioned that he is in a mixed-race marriage, and understands how the gays must feel. He was in favour of everyone being treated as equal, including gays who wanted to marry each other.
Why are you lecturing us? We know what the arguments are. This is tedious.
You lecture as though we are children. Dull, wondering, blinking in the sunlight, still not getting it. Hey, thanks for your opinion. No chance that we have an argument — no chance that we have made the argument before. Why are you lecturing us?
Thanks, eh! :)
True, this subject has been thrashed out for so long it really is boring. On the other hand, those of us who believe in the human rights of gays to marry really can’t keep too quiet to let those who so definitely don’t believe get the last word. Sorry if I sounded as if I were lecturing. I do give into that temptation sometimes. I’m really trying to change my ways. :)
Well, no wonder can’t get anyone to reflect on the Constitutional issues. They are from Israel, Canada, and California and all that should count is what the gays’ want.
You said it, Ball, I didn’t. :)
Having listened to the same old arguments for so long, it really does seem as if some people just don’t get it. It seems as if there are lots of rationalizations of viewpoints that don’t agree with international Human Rights. The Constitution says that all are equal, and that is taken to include gays. Are you saying that they are not as equal as everyone else when it comes to wanting to marry the person they love, and create a partnership with them, like everyone else?
Is it really a question of what anyone wants, Bob?
From my understanding of what happened in Canada, it is a question of international Human Rights: the Human Right enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of the Constitution of Canada. It would appear that it is thought that the judges of the Supreme Court are the professional lawyers who are best qualified to rule on whether any legislation proposed by politicians is constitutional. This is what they were asked to do. Why do people who aren’t lawyers, especially constitutional lawyers, want to query their judgment? Do the amateurs really think they know better?
Isn’t this what is happening in the States. The Supreme Court judges are being asked to give their professional, reasoned opinion as to whether Same-sex Marriage is constitutional or not. They have ruled that it is constitutional. They are the professional lawyers who understand constitutional law. Shouldn’t we abide by their decision? Do we think we know more than they do?
I think Pandora left a Box at your front door. I’m sorry some don’t like it, but SSM (along with infinite other things) were left on the other side of the Constitutional line. The 14th Amendment doesn’t address it and this was supposed to be a state concern. Read the dissent from Clarence Thomas. Best thing I’ve ever seen on Due Process.
I am not saying any such thing. I had rather hoped to have one thread where the same damned argument doesn’t hound conservatism to its grave. You said it yourself, you just cannot stand to let conservatives alone. Lucky for you, you know where to find some. See, it is not enough for your allies in this country to have “won” at the Supreme Court. No, it actually bothers you that conservatives would like to talk without genuflecting before all of that. You just can’t resist coming to poke us with a stick. And since poking with a stick is not against the CoC, well, we get to either play your game or leave.
Well, there’s always the option to just let people be, but you’ve already found that unacceptable.
Wait, what? Did someone do a poll? I agree that porn has been mainstreamed (even as long ago as the TV show “Friends” on which porn was a regular topic) . . . but what would make you think that “most men on Ricochet think pornography is fine”?