I often find that conversations involving morality (and monogamy but thats another rant ) always seem to end up in a bitch fight. Neither side is willing to listen or relent and both end up vehemently attacking the other.
I’m trying to collect my thoughts to make this rant sound coherent but ideas keep colliding w/each other so I’ll ask you to bear w/me. . . I guess what I’m trying to say is I’m tired of the factions within the gay community constantly at war w/each other. One side uses their morality as a shield w/their self-righteous speeches proclaiming they’re superiority because they have morality on their side. The other side uses their sexual freedom as an ax to chop away at the traditions society has built up for years and years. Yet, neither side really tries to listen to the other. No one tries to find a middle ground. It’s always “my way or the highway!” Ya know what folks, that same attitude is what has this country in the political quandry its in today!
I still feel like I’m still missing my point. Maybe I can focus on the term itself.
Morality is defined as
- 1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
- 1. some other group, such as a religion, or
2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or - 2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
At first read, both definitions sound the same. If you read it that way, re-read it until you see the difference. It is pointless to read further until you understand the above definitions differences.
*ok I stopped here out of frustration. I couldn’t find the right words so after several hours of reading, I found what I was trying to say, albeit not so elegantly.*
…. it is not useful to adopt a definition of morality as meaning the code of conduct accepted by the members of a society because in many large societies, not all members of the society accept the same code of conduct. Nor is it useful to adopt a somewhat more general definition of morality as the code of conduct accepted by the members of a group because it is not only always possible, it is often the case, that not all members of any group accept the same code. A natural outcome of these problems is to switch attention from groups to individuals. If what is important is what code of conduct people accept, and members of a group do not always accept the same code of conduct, then why be concerned with groups at all?
This consideration leads to a new descriptive sense of morality. morality is taken to mean that guide to behavior that is regarded by an individual as overriding and that he wants to be universally adopted. [See R. M. Hare, Moral Thinking] In this sense of morality, it refers to a guide to behavior accepted by an individual rather than that put forward by a society or any other group. But morality does not refer to just any guide to behavior accepted by an individual, it is that guide to behavior that the individual adopts as his overriding guide, and wants everyone else to adopt as their overriding guide as well. This sense of morality is a descriptive sense, because a person can refer to an individual’s morality without endorsing it. In this sense, like the original descriptive sense, morality has no limitations on content. Whatever guide to behavior an individual regards as overriding and wants to be universally adopted is that individual’s morality.
This quote was taken direclty from Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Now we are getting somewhere! The picture once fuzzy becomes clear. (well at least for me.) We begin to see that morality is an ambiguous term at best. How can we expect to come together as a group if we are all focusing on our morality instead of our equality. It should be quite clear that we’ll never have the same morality as those who oppose and hate us.
If we don’t learn to move beyond our multi-cultural/racial views on morality, frankly folks, I think we are doomed as a species.
Well, I’ve beat this horse to death so I’m moving on now. Discuss, comment, or bitch as you will.
Are you kidding? Of course we’re doomed as a species! Sheesh. You’ve not been paying attention.
😉
GI
While I think I understand what you’re getting at, Moby, you have to understand the boundaries of your own behavior. I’m not asking you to conform to my morality or anyone else’s, but when demonstrations of your morality infringe on my rights, that’s where we have problems and that’s why we have rules.
We will never be treated as “equal” if our public behavior is not sufficiently “equal” to the behavior of other people.
Actualy, I wasn’t really arguing that point one way or the other. The point that you are blindly missing is not about the right or wrong of public sex or even gay sex.
You are confusing ‘morality’ w/law. While both are created to provide guidance and often overlap, they utilize different mechanisms and serve a different purpose. I do not and should not need to conform to higher standard to get the rights I deserve. You champion gay public sex as an example of why we can’t get ahead. So what about straight hookers? They are breaking the law and having sex in public. Have been since the beginning of civilization. Yet, they still have the right to marry. You now begin to see the fallacy of trying to use morality as a justification for equal rights.
Using morality as an argument to deny us rights is the same failed thinking used to justify the oppression of women, the enslavement of blacks, and the continued opression of gays. Instead of thinking like those who would hate us, try to see beyond it.
This is a much-needed discussion I think both for our community, our country, and me as an individual. A lot of people hate us (resent us?) because many of us have no qualms about having a really, REALLY good time. But yes, natural rights are something else.
Yet there is an intersection of morality and law. The question is: what is our legal system based on? Rule of what kind of law? Are there inalienable rights that belong to all humans that can be perceived universally and eternally? Or are “rights” just the priveldges that belong to those who have power to secure those rights? What is the basis of a constitution? Unless there is something “out there” that can be perceived by reason upon which to base a social contract, Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s alternative of might makes right would remain the human predicament.
As for myself, the question that haunts me is: “What do I do now that I acknowledge I’m gay?” I mean, how do I act rightly? What limits am I going to put on myself and why? How does what I do affect someone else? Is sex just a fun and casual way to express friendship with many freinds, or is it something reserved for a “mate” for life? and why? Is it possible to have a “special” freindship with many people? To what extent is jealousy legitimate and worthy of respect? Or is jealousy never justified because it’s one will trying to extend over and make exclusive claims over another will?
I just want everybody to get along and live well and be happy!
It’s f-ing Atlantis all over again. Are we as a species EVER going to get it right?