Obama endorses same-sex marriage (Page 14)

Are you a Mason?

Did I just lay a brick with that post?

I am not a mason, free or otherwise.

This would to me imply that devolvong would be a regression in our genetic structure of an earlier form.  To me, the human evolutionary process is progressive.  The state of the human condition as we know it doesn't have to do with evolution, since this process develops over tens of thousands of years not a few generations.  

The problems we are facing as humanity are social conditions.  If you would like to consider lack of moral character as devolving, then I would say you are taking this perspective to a subjective state.  Atrocities continue today as they have since recorded history, we just label them differently depending on our perspective of right and wrong.  

This seems to be in a constant state of flux.  

Have not read the entire thread, don't think I need to, everyone has hashed this all out before, and will again I am sure.  As a gay man, in a state recognized legal marriage to another man, this was nice to hear from the pres.  He has done a lot of things that I am grateful for.  Being a navy vet, I am grateful that DADT is over.  But to get back to topic.  I read this article today.  I do not know it validity, but found it interesting

http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

Thanks for cleaning that up, much more accurate. I place much of the blame on our elected officials who use issues to divide us rather than bring us together.

Why is it that homosexuals are more accepted in large cities? Could it be that close proximity to others forces us to find commonalities so that we can peacefully coexist? When diversity means your neighbor, coworker, friends, people in your tri club, etc. it becomes personal.

I'm pretty oblivious. I've had causal friends and coworkers I didn't know were gay for many years until they told me. It just didn't come up in conversation, or it wasn't until I met their partners. I've treated them as equals all along without knowing their sexuality, how hypocritical would it be to suddenly decide they were no longer worthy?

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand.

Are you saying that we have something akin to a morality gene that's been present from the beginning?

If I'm understanding you correctly, then why would anyone have "invented" gods to be feared?
There'd be no reason to, since everyone would have been acting out of their morality gene produced impulses to begin with.
Why would it occur to anyone to have to "fear" a god and divine retribution.

If I'm understanding you, what you are proposing is actually consistent with Judeo-Christian thought to an extent.

In the beginning we were whole and lived lives of moral perfection.
Then something went terribly wrong.
We call it "The Fall".

At the heart of The Fall is free will.
We get to choose whether to do right or wrong.

Otherwise if our capacity as moral agents lies simply in our biology,
then we're merely slaves to our biology. Slaves in a real sense of the word. 

I don't consider lack of moral character as devolving. I don't even consider such a thing as lack of moral character; I consider the lack of recognition of moral character, the lack of understanding of moral character, the lack of courage to act on moral character. Atrocities do happen today but human thoughts about them and reactions to them are changing. That change in thought will eventually lead to change in behavior on a global scale.

We are getting way off topic here. Back to the destruction of marriage!

Then you have the case of Chen Guangcheng, the Chinese dissident who is being targeted by the government
for exposing the realities of China's one child policy,
a policy that includes forced abortions and sterilizations. 

Estimates are that some 400-500 million women have undergone the forced abortions 
and an equal number of children have died.

He's an embarrassing  reality for the Obama administration.

Maybe the timing of his announcements were in part to get Chen's plight off of the news cycle.
If so, it worked. 

No, we continue to turn a blind eye to injustice (yes I said blind eye).
It's future generations who will look back on us and say "what were they thinking". 

As long as people in this country support abortion, including President Obama,
crimes against humanity such as have been occurring in China will continue. 

At the end of the day it's self interest that drives most of these sorts of cultural changes that have been pushed on us for fifty years or so, not any sense of working toward justice. 

Damn those self serving social changes...like inter-racial marriages and giving women the right to vote...or equal pay for that matter...wait...its been a while since I posted on here...how do I do the sarcastic font again.

I am saying that I believe we have a moral gene.  I am coming from the perspective of evolutionist.  

So to answer the question why we are moral, it is because our ancestors, who were apes and shared the common ape heritage of being social animals of a certain kind, were rule followers, and had to cooperate to survive and gain mating opportunities. And then we evolved language.

Morality was never individual, but as social structures among groups developed, it became vulnerable to selfish strategies of other individuals.  In humans this became social dominance behaviors, making alliances, etc.  This became a way for the stronger to maintain a moral stronghold on their populations.

And one of the ways that we can ensure that people are moral is to put a sanction on immoral behavior, which is why gods are so often called into duty to enforce morality. If you think you are being watched, you tend to be more moral. In other words, to return to the original issue, Gods are not necessary for morality, but like fines and tar and feathering, they can play a role in enforcement.  

Morality was always about surviving as a community in the beginning.  

I agree with you on all points here! 

No Michael, I meant the so called sexual revolution promoted by secular humanist progressives.

Evidence from the bloody last century suggests otherwise.
Particularly evidence from consciously atheistic regimes. 

You really do not want to go there the history of conflict encompasses all manner of reasons for blood drenched grounds religious and otherwise.  And by all means do not bother to stop at the last century when looking at bloody conflict it has been a mainstay of human history since before recorded time.  No one group has a corner on a a pass for barbarity in all its forms.

If I don't want to go there, it is only because time does not permit me today.

All of the atrocities committed by all religions for all time
pales in comparison to what happened, and what continues to happen,
in the name of human secularist atheism unloosed. 

Not even close.

And that was just the beginning as it emerged out of the shoot.

I totally agree. I'm not arguing that point. I'm just showing that middle America has a view of the gay lifestyle that doesn't jive with theirs and in the meantime they will not be compelled to make changes.

The fact that they feel it's being force fed to them instead of being led in that direction doesn't help overcome the resistance.

All he has to go against Romney with is smoke and mirrors,
sleight of hand,
and bumper sticker politics. 

Lol I needed a good laugh today.

Yeah, that
French Revolution
Russian Revolution
Chinese Cultural Revolution
and several more...

Barrel of laughs.

First, I would like to clarify that I am a practicing Buddhist, and am in no way coming from an atheistic POV.  

Second, I think that evidence of the bloody last century I would point to Botheius in The Consolidation of Philosophy where he pointed out, it is when one's apparent self interest conflicts with doing the right thing, that is when one gets to reveal their true character.  When we are out for self interest, then morality does not even enter the picture.  

Wars, conflicts that were bloody, were self serving, and thus has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Marriage.  

This is a hard one to keep our heads cool about.

This is a hard one for ME to keep MY head cool about.

I know that I am very judgmental about politicians who will not engage in respectful debate, and I am disappointed when they cannot agree even enough to move some really important legislature forward for consideration, much less consensus. (There are two, and arguably four politicians in my nuclear family. Each of us have been guilty of this.)

So I do not wish to state anything rashly, nor too off-topic, nor hurtful.

That said, I don't think which or how many atrocities religious communities vs. secular communities have committed (against the other or otherwise) has much to do with this.

Those who express opinions against same-sex marriage do tend to have a certain demographic. But they by no means constitute a unity.

The same is true of of those who express opinions favoring same-sex marriage.

WAIT! Are you telling be being gay isn't contagious? Whew I was worried. This topic has lit up the boards and even my local sports radio station. People were calling in saying "I feel bad for the kids". Really? You are saying it is worse having 2 SS parents than a single parent or one MIA/Not available (in jail). I'm not taking away from single parents (I was raised by one) but I think most of them would say that it is beneficial to have two parents overall.

What politician isn't?