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
After we get finished redefining ‘marriage’. Lots of talk about ‘social constructs’ and how they can be formed, undone, redefined, made meaningless, etc. But by my way of thinking, the conjugal act of reproduction involving the union of a man and a woman is not a social construct, but the social construct of marriage between a man and a woman evolved from that act. Love had little to do with that. Whatever it is that gays do together, I’m sure this essence is absent.
So go ahead with redefining your terms.
In Canada, the SSM issue has faded into the background, ten years after the Supreme Court ruled on it. The gay area of Toronto is no longer so “out there”. It is still full of nice restaurants and shops, and is a pleasant place to visit. Many gay couples have moved out into the suburbs where they are very welcome as neighbours. Generally speaking, they are great neighbours, keeping their property in excellent condition. They also can be very kind.
I didn’t notice that, Gill! An oxymoron, perhaps?
Och, I really was serious. I have no doubt BDB is someone I would like. I like people who speak their truth, and make me laugh! :)
I do not use pornography. It does appeal to me, however I realize it is harmful to my mental, spiritual, moral, and social health. May not turn me into a rapist or sex maniac, but damaging none the less. So I do not use pornography. I think the term Gay Marriage is ludicrous, and Gay Marriage is a legal fiction, much like Unicorns or Liberal Tolerance.
I could be wrong, but I suspect only a small minority of men on Ricochet use pornography.
Marriage has been defined as many things throughout history. Often it was a political action to unite two families. Or an economic action to unite two fortunes.
We’ve had lots of discussions on Ricochet as to what marriage actually is. Some think it is solely for reproduction. Some point out that is not the case when two people marry when they are beyond their reproductive years. Society is presently redefining marriage to fit in with the present social construct that people live in.
The word “bigot” has been tossed around a bit on this thread. To my mind, and regardless of what the dictionary might say, a bigot is someone who has an unreasonable hatred or negative feeling toward someone because of the latter’s membership in a group, especially a group based on ethnicity or religion.
I really hate the people who belong to ISIS. I hate every last one of them. I don’t believe that hatred is unreasonable. I have negative feelings toward illegal aliens, although I know some immigrants who are very nice people. I have a high degree of animosity toward the performers on MSNBC, but as individuals, not just because they are on MSNBC.
I don’t feel any animosity, hatred, or negative feelings toward homosexuals because of their sexuality. I do feel negative feelings toward those who attack innocent people who just want to go about their business without having to celebrate or participate in homosexual marriages.
I have a lot of animosity right now toward the five (or six) Supreme Court justices who don’t seem to understand what the Constitution is for.
Or ‘most Ricochet men have not turned into rapists or sex maniacs’? Come on, Indaba. You can do better than that. Or maybe I should hold my tongue wait for the poll results to come out.
No you don’t:
The Mother Hive by Rudyard Kipling
Well-written and a joy to read. Well done and thanks, Gil.
You think Red is a Communist or Anarchist saboteur?
I don’t want to speak for BDB, but I’ve yet to see her say anything that couldn’t come out of a [Victim] Studies class.
Working on a post about it. Struggling for “obviously in reference to a person” without “personal”. Much of what she writes is excellent examples of a particular type of writing, so I’m using some quotes of hers, and the conversation it’s embedded in, to make a point.
However, I certainly do not want to be simply unpleasant toward a particular person, especially one known to be so darned nice. Working…
Then you can’t have read much of what she writes. Here’s an archive of her postings. You’ll see discussions of the importance of maintaining First Amendment rights in the face of Islamic attacks and general concerns about the GWoT, both from a staunchly conservative perspective, concerns about Obama being insufficiently concerned about Iran, a general complaint about Obama noting specifically his lack of positive engagement with Canada (I don’t know if the TPP impacts her views there), film reviews, questions about tourism in Philadelphia, anger about Obama’s address to Iran, a positive piece about American Sniper, outrage over the reconciliation with Cuba, excitement about Scott Walker’s labor reforms and Voter ID, support for the Second Amendment and gun ownership, and some gay issues.
On the gay issues, I’m not going to defend her. Also, her review of Selma suggested an excessive degree of trust in the filmmakers. Other than that, though, it’s not just in the mainstream for the right, its in the mainstream for Breitbart.
Yes. My two sons went through it. As a parent, I made sure I was ahead of teaching my sons. It also makes sense when you see what they can look up on the Internet. Sex has changed. My son loves to remind me that I had on the TV at dinner time and Clinton’s sex act was discussed. My son asked for an explaiation. When the President of the US is role modelling marriage and sexual practices that are then discussed on the CBC during family hours, fix that first…
Drew in Wisconsin – a few years ago in Ricochet, there was a post on pornography. It was one of those lengthy weekend rambling ones. I had my eyes opened to the male brain and many of the men said it was fine and changed my views on it. Put up a post or do a poll. They said it saved their marriages. Top use of the internet is porn. This post upset many of the women who talked through pm but not on the post. Why did the women not post their real views but discuss it off stage?
I use the image of porn as immoral to many women who are in a relationship, but for men, it is far less immoral because they view it and know how it impacts on their marriage. Some would be fine with saying publically they do and some are ashamed. But they use it.
So, I am trying to make the point that what has gone from being immoral and shameful twenty years ago, is now quite acceptable to many.
Because of such broadcasts I found myself explaining oral sex to my 90 year-old mother-in-law. Thanks, Bubba.
That’s right, and thanks for defending Ricochet men and agreeing that most of them will not turn into rapists and sex maniacs. I appreciate the thought.
(is this where I post the smiley face?)
Thank you, Ray! My sons are quite happy to watch Game of Thrones nude scenes with me but I have to leave the room still. My ideas on morality of nudity in movies is very different to theirs. It does seem to have dulled the younger generation’s sexuality though – sort of what fast food has done to fine dining. :>)
I mean….really! I was in a business meeting just last week where his sex acts with Monica were discussed and how anyone doing that in a normal office would be fired and that he should have stepped down. How did the feminists like Glorai Steinam accept that role model for the work place? There is the example of a man making sure he is in control of a young girl’s body and other parts. Did he see Monica as a person or an object. Anywa…getting off topic.
Thank you, James, and you have got Red exactly – it would be laughable to think of her as a Communist or even close to Leftie as she has run her own business and paid payroll which makes one really understand Government interference. She has also lived around the world but not in the USA. She is fascinated by the American constitution and it is Ricochet that has educated her and myself.
Umbra and BDB, she loves to discuss and you do make an impact. You are in fact teaching and isn’t that what Ricochet is about? You assume that most people think like you or are communists but there are huge variations and give Red a good thrashing – she will come back with a battle ax. She may not speak with your eloquence but she is truly interested in your opinions.
That’s my girl.
I didn’t say she was a communist, but whatever she is I’ve seen little evidence that it’s “conservative.”
Have you read her posts on guns, Islam, Harper, unions, American Sniper, Walker, and such?
Aside from the exclusions I noted (Selma and gay issues), what has she written that leads you to say this?
So at this point, not publishing my unpleasant write-up is failing to answer a well-asked question. I cannot make it *not* be about somebody, and I wish to call out an unpleasant line of attack.
Speeding ticket for sure.
Well. You can often talk a traffic cop out of giving you a ticket if you use some discretion(-:
Mike R, you wield the scepter of authority with a light touch, and you’ve got a fine droll sense of humor.
I mean, for a SoCon and all…