Supreme Court Ruling
- Thread starter soroban
- Start date
DexterOnline
Junior Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2015
- Messages
- 139
What Ya know
God created Adam and stEve Jobs
Steve is gone but the sitting CEO of Apple Corp. is proud of his sexual disorientation
Recently NY Times reported that the 1st gay couple who married after NY legalized gay civil unions gave birth to a baby boy
It's irrelevant what this unnamed "someone" stated (read: propaganda/agenda).
They weren't both adult human males, just to name one.
Last edited:
Thinking about it.
Yes it is a joke, a pun really. Of course it gets a laugh from people on one side of the issue who will then forget it, and a pang of irritation on the other side of the issue from people who obsess for hopefully only a short period of time over its inherent irrelevance.
What is interesting to me about this question, and other questions like "does spanking a child" result in an aggressive child, "should sterile needles be given to drug users to prevent the spread of aids", "is incest anathema", "is one race superior to another", is that there are two venues of assessment (at least) and no means to reconcile differing conclusions.
One venue is to do a longitudinal study under strict protocol, another venue is to convene a board of hopefully the genuinely wisest of people and discern a moral position. (Never mind for the moment how you would fairly choose such a board, just as one must never mind for the moment how one would determine if some "strict protocol" might, in fact not be cognizant of some hidden variable.)
In general, in our epoch, one mocks a moral position if it opposes, a rational conclusion. If studies show that having two parents of the same gender results in an equal proportion of healthy, thriving offspring, then clearly the moral position is to be derided, the same with needles and the incidence of aids in a society. How about "spanking a child", the rationally minded might be queasy but accede to the rational conclusion. How about incest and the the question of racial superiority. The question is, are some things so repugnant that even the most rational person will say, "even if you are right, you are wrong". Are there some things so innate to our identities, that we would rather die then abandon them, rather be dead then abandon our sense of humanity.
Please note that I am not arguing a case, i.e. that it is possible that incest and racial superiority could be demonstrated as being other then how they are generally perceived. I am assuming that in this forum the deeper question of how the subsets of rationality and morality coexist within the super-set of being human, and the validity that each possesses, and, frankly whether one can imagine a hierarchy where the rational always supersedes the moral. I suppose what I am doing here is suggesting that the clubbing of the moral position by a rational position is sometime inhuman, not a common position these days. Finally, who and what are we that we can see the limitation of each, and what - by gut (?), decide a course of action?
Ouch, headache, **** your funny joke.
(My four letter word has been **** out. Oddly this might make me appear more profane than I am, I did not use THAT four letter word, rather, the relatively innocuous dam-n ...
what a sticky web we weave when political correctness us deceive ...
not objecting, of course, there is a valid moral position here beyond rational demonstration or non-demonstration of kinder compromise let alone parental outrage.
)
Yes it is a joke, a pun really. Of course it gets a laugh from people on one side of the issue who will then forget it, and a pang of irritation on the other side of the issue from people who obsess for hopefully only a short period of time over its inherent irrelevance.
What is interesting to me about this question, and other questions like "does spanking a child" result in an aggressive child, "should sterile needles be given to drug users to prevent the spread of aids", "is incest anathema", "is one race superior to another", is that there are two venues of assessment (at least) and no means to reconcile differing conclusions.
One venue is to do a longitudinal study under strict protocol, another venue is to convene a board of hopefully the genuinely wisest of people and discern a moral position. (Never mind for the moment how you would fairly choose such a board, just as one must never mind for the moment how one would determine if some "strict protocol" might, in fact not be cognizant of some hidden variable.)
In general, in our epoch, one mocks a moral position if it opposes, a rational conclusion. If studies show that having two parents of the same gender results in an equal proportion of healthy, thriving offspring, then clearly the moral position is to be derided, the same with needles and the incidence of aids in a society. How about "spanking a child", the rationally minded might be queasy but accede to the rational conclusion. How about incest and the the question of racial superiority. The question is, are some things so repugnant that even the most rational person will say, "even if you are right, you are wrong". Are there some things so innate to our identities, that we would rather die then abandon them, rather be dead then abandon our sense of humanity.
Please note that I am not arguing a case, i.e. that it is possible that incest and racial superiority could be demonstrated as being other then how they are generally perceived. I am assuming that in this forum the deeper question of how the subsets of rationality and morality coexist within the super-set of being human, and the validity that each possesses, and, frankly whether one can imagine a hierarchy where the rational always supersedes the moral. I suppose what I am doing here is suggesting that the clubbing of the moral position by a rational position is sometime inhuman, not a common position these days. Finally, who and what are we that we can see the limitation of each, and what - by gut (?), decide a course of action?
Ouch, headache, **** your funny joke.
(My four letter word has been **** out. Oddly this might make me appear more profane than I am, I did not use THAT four letter word, rather, the relatively innocuous dam-n ...
what a sticky web we weave when political correctness us deceive ...
not objecting, of course, there is a valid moral position here beyond rational demonstration or non-demonstration of kinder compromise let alone parental outrage.
)