The Blueprint for Human Morality
June 21st, 2007 by Dave
One of the oft-raised arguments by SSM supporters is that seemingly homosexual behaviors have been observed within the animal kingdom. Consequently, they ask, how can we consider homosexuality immoral on the basis of natural law?
The simplest answer to this challenge is that animal behavior is not a roadmap to justify human morality. Animals also exhibit filicide (killing their own children). Some animals devour and consume others of their own kind. Does this mean we can accept murder and cannibalism as behaviors that are acceptable and morally justified within human communities? Certainly not.
It is obvious that the normal human reaction to such behavior is horror and revulsion. But have you ever stopped to consider why that is so? Those reactions and feelings arise in almost universal accord throughout humanity, transcending our cultural and religious differences. It is something that seems to be innate within the human condition, and yet not instinctive. Some would call it our conscience. Others would describe it as an aspect of our spiritual nature, ascribing it to the influence of our soul. But whatever it is, we all experience its emergence as we mature from infancy to adulthood.
This is what sets us apart from animals: the intellectual and emotional understanding of right and wrong.
According to Judeo-Christian tradition, the creation story in Genesis tells that mankind is formed in God’s image, and set apart to rule over all creatures of the earth. The human quality of conscience arises as a consequence of the fall of man into sin, when Adam and Eve taste of the fruit from the tree of knowledge – specifically, knowledge of good and evil. Setting aside the question of whether this story is literal or allegorical, the outcome is the same: only mankind has a conscience, an innate understanding of right and wrong.
Other cultures, traditions and belief systems may explain the origin of conscience differently, but again the overwhelming consensus is that mankind alone possesses a “moral compass” that guides his actions. And it is for this reason that we observe significant overlap between the moral laws held by different societies. Even in societies lacking a historical context of words engraved in stone, “Thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal,” murder and theft are still understood as wrong. And they are wrong not merely because of a conscious, intellectual understanding that such actions are contrary to an orderly society (which, of course, they are). More fundamentally, they are wrong because something deeper within our sub-conscious mind tells us that such actions offend human morality. And it shows that – however it may have happened – there is a commonality within the human experience that is a living proof of the blueprint for our design.
It is important to remember, however, that one’s personal sense of morality does not trump the community’s collective sense of morality. One cannot simply declare, “I personally believe it is morally acceptable to steal, notwithstanding what others may say”, and expect that society will abide that viewpoint!
Therefore, we should all recognize that government – its laws and regulations – draw their authority from the “free consent of the people.” Principles and ethics that have developed over the course of untold years throughout human history should not be easily set aside, despite the demands of a vocal minority.
Very profound posting, as usual from you, Dave.
I agree with everything you’ve said here, and especially note:
“It is important to remember, however, that one’s personal sense of morality does not trump the community’s collective sense of morality.”
How I long for the days before “moral relativity,” which is so rampant in our world now. Too many people have their own weaknesses which they refuse to give up, or even acknowledge as being sins according to God’s law–or “morally wrong” according to a less religious standard. A few of these include: cheating in school, abusing drugs/alcohol, sexual promiscuity, and imo, abuse of credit privilege (charging things beyond absolute necessities, which you know you can’t pay for).
Back to the SSM issue, I guess the SPs and radical gay acitivists thought we were so far down the road of moral relativity that legislating SSM should be a relative cakewalk now.
Fortunately, more citizens in Connecticut have become aware of the issue and are starting to speak up and take a stand for what is “morally right.” I notice it also in more discussions on talk radio and in articles and blogs such as at http://www.townhallcom. More people are refusing to be intimidated by the liberal MSM and the radical activists who label any who disagree with their agenda “hateful, bigoted, ignorant and homophobic.”
(Dave, did you happen to see the column by Gregory Koukl on townhall.com some months back, refuting ALL the arguments the SSM proponents use?)
1) The “natural law” argument is one that your side makes, not ours. Why are you disproving your own side’s argument?
2) Homosexuality is not the same thing as stealing. Duh.
3) Homosexuality is not immoral. In fact, there have been many human cultures that have accepted it. There is no ethical basis for loving sexual relations between consenting adults being immoral beyond the fact that you find it icky.
4) We set aside slavery and caste, we set aside discrimination based on race and gender, we set aside the divine right of kings and autocracy. Precedent does not indicate principle.
“Principles and ethics that have developed over the course of untold years throughout human history should not be easily set aside, despite the demands of a vocal minority. ”
Keyword – developed. Had the “principles and ethics” of society not been continuosly changing we would still be back in the dark ages somehere. You cannot ignore or explain away the fact that much of what is considered moral and acceptable today was not in the past. And for the most part that is a good thing, much evil has been done in the name of “maintaining morality”
And there has been nothing easy about the LGBT struggle for equal treatment in this country. It has been a long, had and painful process. Perhaps some of you look longingly back to the days when we had to hide, pretend to be someone else and could be arrested for the slightest real or imagined act that the majority call “immoral”. But thankfully they are gone (well somewhat anyway), to the benefit of the whole country. In a civilized country the “free consent of the people” cannot be used as a justification for bigotry and violence. So sorry Tricia, but yes it is ““hateful, bigoted, ignorant and homophobic.” and I add to that un-American and un-Christian behaviour.
Pray tell Tricia, what is an SP? I lost my right-wing dictionary so if you could help that would be nice.
As far as Townhall and talk radio, they are the voice of the far right people of this country, right up there in civility with Free Republic. There isn’t an antigay story or slur that they don’t love on these places and any voices to the opposite NEVER see the light of day or are heard on talk radio. Of COURSE what you read and hear are overwhelmingly anti-gay. There’s about as much chance of a “liberal” opinion appearing in one of these places as there is for a pro neo-nazi article to appear in Jewish press/media. It simply ain’t going to happen. If that is all you feed your brain with then you will never even know that there is a large percentage of people that think it’s simply hate vomit that is being spread.
NO ONE has ever thought that getting legal same sex marriage would be a “cake-walk”. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the history of this country knows that EVERY SINGLE step of progress towards justice for all citizens has taken blood, sweat and tears to achieve. And these same steps were virulently opposed by the majority who considered themselves “moral and correct”. You will find much company in the pages of our history books when this chapter is finished. I doubt you’ll be comfortable with those around you, but you made the choice.
Perhaps I was too subtle. The point is not that the acts are equivalent, but that the reasoning some use to justify the behavior has a certain similarity. Allow me to clarify:
It is important to remember, however, that one’s personal sense of morality does not trump the community’s collective sense of morality. One cannot simply declare, “I personally believe it is morally acceptable to
stealparticipate in a homosexual act, notwithstanding what others may say”, and expect that society will abide that viewpoint!Now do you see the similarity?
Yet in each of those cases, the changes were adopted by the free consent of the people – or at least the majority of the people. That is a crucial difference that ought not to be brushed aside so lightly.
No, Dave, you’re still wrong. There is no connection between stealing and homosexual acts.
Yes, in fact, one can.
Stealing is harmful behavior, to both the self and to others. Property is taken from one person by another without recompense. One person acquires a good through criminal means. This is antisocial and self-destructive behavior, and because an obvious injustice is committed against the victim, clearly morally wrong. This is common, human sense.
Homosexual acts take place in private between consenting adults, many of whom are in committed, loving, long-term relationships–just like in the heterosexual world. Who is being harmed? Where is the injustice? Why is this morally wrong? To me there seems to be a very clear difference.
I don’t understand, honestly. If you remove, as you have, the argument that homosexuality is against some vaguely defined “natural law,” then what remains?
This isn’t moral relativism, believe me. If you apply any reasonable standard of what is right and what is wrong to homosexual behavior and homosexuals themselves, you will see that there is no argument for their supposed immorality that can’t be applied to heterosexuals and heterosexuality.
My suggestion for you, Dave, is to go and talk with real live homosexual couples. Meet them. See how they live, and observe their affection for one another. Even the hard heart of Jerry Falwell was softened, if only a little bit, through contact with real human beings.
In quoting me, you left out a critical element of my position:
Yes people can, and do, try to force their personal moral viewpoints upon others, and coerce acceptance of actions that the majority of society feels are immoral. But that activism comes with a price: the deepening of divisions within society.
The fact that so many states have adopted constitutional amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman, refusing to give in to the SSM agenda, is precisely because society will not abide the usurpation of its community morality.
As to your question, “Who is being harmed?”, I’ve already spoken to that point in the other discussion thread, “Predisposition and Free Will” – especially my comments here.
Change is generational, Dave, but it does happen. You’re right in that forcing change often has bad results. But so too does holding it back–which is what those foolish and reactionary amendments have done.
In twenty years, if we allow things to take their course, half of the states in this country will allow gay marriage. Twenty years after that, they all will. Polls show that support for gay marriage is very strong among the younger generations, including my own. All we have to do is wait. That won’t be pleasant, but it can be done.
Then again, we have to start somewhere. I think Connecticut is ready now. We were obviously ready for civil unions, and I think we’ll be more than ready for gay marriage when it comes. The backlash, when it comes, will be small and easily survivable, especially if the legislature enacts gay marriage without court pressure.
As for who is being harmed, forgive me, but I still don’t see you name who is being harmed, or how they are being harmed. Humor me. Tell me again.
One way that harm has come is in the form of religious discrimination, and will only increase if SSM becomes law. One only needs to look at Massachusetts and the closure of the Catholic adoption agency, and children in public school being literally force-taught about homosexuality against the wishes and beliefs of parents. One need not have an active imagination to visualize that every public social institution will be affected, including charities and religious organizations. Will Christian 501c3’s be allowed to operate if they refuse to recognize homosexual marriage, for example – especially since SSM has been framed as a civil rights issue? We all know the answer. There is a colossal societal clash brewing between religious rights and SSM.
Steve, you’re probably exactly right about the 501c3’s — religious schools who refused to admit blacks were stripped of their tax exempt status for discrimination (in the 1970s), and the same thing will probably eventually happen to nonprofits that refuse to provide equal services to gays and lesbians.
“Yet in each of those cases, the changes were adopted by the free consent of the people – or at least the majority of the people.”
True, after the minority fought long and hard, in the courts, in the streets, in the churches. The “majority” has never willingly given up it’s prejudices without battle. No difference now.
Steve what you describe is not religious discrimination, everyone is still free in MA to practice their religion. If said religion based institutions want to use public money then of course must abide by the law. The message is be civilized or go it alone. I do agree there’s “colossal societal clash brewing” but it is between the religious right and civilized society. Your true rights to practice your religion are not even slightly endagered. Your “right” to hold others down based on the misquided and abusive teaching of is nonexistent and it’s more than about time that you realize that.
moderate majority,
Thank you for pointing out that there were institutions which fought racial equality. Dave attempts to make it seem that change in that area was readily embraced by all. You remind those who cannot recall the dogs and water cannons and Bull Connors and George Wallaces that much of this country opposed racial equality — even “Christian” organizations. Change came via federal law.
Dave,
The non-religious rest of us have a Constitutional right to be free of the moral mandates of your religion. So do those of us who are religious but who do not hold such a narrow view of God’s or Allah’s or Buddah’s or The Great Mother’s moral law. Organizations that now receive federal funds who practice discrimination against gay people should not be getting those funds, and never should have in the first place. The only reason you now do is because we have a narcissistic megalomaniacal bully in the White House who thinks that losing the popular vote in the last election means he has a mandate to impose his regressive views on everyone. Look at his poll numbers, and you’ll see that your days in power are numbered.
Deana wrote:
I don’t know what ever gave you the mistaken impression that FIC – or any of the religious institutions you railed on against – receives any money from the government. 501c3’s are merely tax exempt. But I think your interpretation of Constitutional rights is as equally misinformed as your medical interpretations. The first amendment is meant to ensure freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
Dave, please clarify.
When you say the Constitution is “meant to ensure freedom of religion, not freedom from religion” — are you saying that the Constitution allows you to force your religious beliefs on others, and we have no freedom from your imposition?
Deana,
This is not a blog for BDS (that would be “Bush Derangement Syndrome,” David) sufferers.
Perhaps you would be more satisfied visiting the Daily Kos or somewhere similar, although many of your similarly afflicted peers vent often on general conservative blogs at http://www.townhall.com and the like.
David,
For any who may not have read my first post, I said:
“More people are refusing to be intimidated by the liberal MSM and the radical activists who label any who disagree with their agenda ‘hateful, bigoted, ignorant and homophobic.'”
So, please clarify, David. When you wrote (in post #3):
“So sorry Tricia, but yes it is ““hateful, bigoted, ignorant and homophobic” and I add to that un-American and un-Christian behaviour,”—you, David, MEANT to say that anyone who simply “disagrees” with the radical gay agenda is “hateful, bigoted, ignorant and homophobic” and “un-American and un-Christian?”
If so, then you obviously believe that **only SOME PEOPLE** are entitled to First Amendment Rights–in other words, only those who agree with YOU. You, David, (as well as any other American) are entitled to your own opinion–but it is very un-American of you to try to stifle those of other Americans. Furthermore, you are simply **wrong** (as in “in error”) to characterize all (or even most) of us who disagree with the SSM agenda as wanting all homosexuals to suffer, “hide, pretend to be someone else and …be arrested.”
As far as the Christianity aspect of the issue—Christians are ‘tasked’ to speak out to defend what is GOOD and RIGHT. When those things, beliefs, institutions (such as traditional marriage and family) are being **attacked**, then we have the moral obligation to act in defense of them. And yes, David, WE are the ones in **defense** mode in this “battle” (for lack of a better word). The radical gay activists for SSM are the ones in **offense** mode. AND, they don’t even represent the ENTIRE “gay community,” as the New York Times published last year–half of them **do NOT support** or want SSM.
David,
An “SP” is a “secular progressive.”
You really should ‘lighten up’ a little, David, and listen once in awhile to “talk radio”–and I’m NOT saying this to taunt you. Honestly, you present your thoughts and feelings on this blog in such a way that you come off as a professional “victimist.” (And if that is not a real word, I am hereby coining it.)
David wrote (in post #3):
“As far as Townhall and talk radio, they are the voice of the far right people of this country, right up there in civility with Free Republic. There isn’t an antigay story or slur that they don’t love on these places and any voices to the opposite NEVER see the light of day or are heard on talk radio. Of COURSE what you read and hear are overwhelmingly anti-gay. There’s about as much chance of a “liberal” opinion appearing in one of these places as there is for a pro neo-nazi article to appear in Jewish press/media. It simply ain’t going to happen.”
1. “Talk radio” hosts such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin take calls every day from “liberals” who disagree with them. As long as they are calm and cogent, and converse AND DISAGREE in a civil manner, they get “on the air.”
2. townhall.com has literally THOUSANDS of posts by “liberals” (many of whom agree with you, David), nearly every day in the threads following articles on their site. Seriously, David—you should check it out. You would probably be very pleasantly surprised.
3. You might even want to be like Deana, who has probably taken advantage of Sean Hannity’s dedicated “Hate Hannity” phone line for liberals to phone in and record a hateful message to him. (Many of which he plays on the air each day.) Sean does this as a public service to take away some of the ‘venom’ which would otherwise be directed to us in the public. Maybe this would help you, David, to be a little less angry and so wrapped up in your persecution complex.
Freedom to practice no religion is equally protected as freedom to practice religion. Those of us who do not share your religious beliefs must not have our freedoms curtailed because practicing those freedoms is against your religion.
I was not specifically thinking tha FIC is a 501(c)(3), but referring to (for instance) the non-profits that receive federal money for abstinence education, which comes with strings mandating that abortion can’t be discussed, or those who get federal funds for advancing creationism or intellilgent design or other ant-evoluntionary belief systems.
Deanna,
“Freedom to practice no religion is equally protected as freedom to practice religion. Those of us who do not share your religious beliefs must not have our freedoms curtailed because practicing those freedoms is against your religion.”
Wow…what a statement….that means absolutely nothing. I can say the reverse, too. Freedom to practice religions is equally protected as freedom ot practice no religion. Those of us who do share religious beliefs must not have our freedoms curtailed because it offends those who don’t practice religion.
I for one didn’t want my children to go to school and hear about how it is OK to be gay, or have an abortion, or contracept, or have sex before marriage. But it is not possible for my kids to go to public school and not hear those viewpoints. So my freedom of religion has been abused by the public school system. I would love to find a doctor or pharmacist out here who is allowed to practice his profession and religion at the same time-ie. be free to choose not to dispense birth control medication and not to sterilize or refer for abortions but all of the aethists, secular progressives or others prevent that from happening.
I would like to be able to take my kids to the library and not have to watch what comes up on the computer because the liberals say that freedom of speech means freedom for porn everywhere.
And I would like to go into a store with my bundle of children (I am a “breeder” to quote a former passage) without having rude, mean and downright hateful remarks made to my face….not because my kids are misbehaved but because so many people think that actually having a large family is a bad thing.
If this society was truly free and open towards religious expression, I would have an openly pro-life doctor and pharmacist, I could take the kids to the library, museums etc…and not have to wonder what is going to pop up on the internet on the computers….I could send my kids to public school and not need to worry about deprogramming their brain everyday, and people would not come up and hand me contraceptive devices in the stores….
But alas, I have to homeschool, go to a doctor that argues with me, field rude comments in the stores,etc….
No society is perfect and it certainly won’t be by the time liberals get done stripping all religious expression from society.
Opal
Tricia, my response to you was censored. Sad, but certainly perogative of the editor of this blog. It’s ok, the words were wasted anyway, you have no intention of ever seeing another side in your crusade. So be it.
Opal, do you ask those people who are rude to you in stores if they are “liberals” or do you just assume. Of course there are no rude “conservatives” who poke their nose into other people’s business right? Yeah it’s rude and uncalled for but it’s hardly a “liberal” plot against religious expression. There is absolutely no way that you are forced to go to a doctor who disagrees enough with your belief system to argue with you. Unless you are one of the very poor (which of course the “conservatives” claim don’t exist) and can’t choose your own health care providers you certainly can change doctors. Interesting you use the word “deprogramming” to descirbe public schools, because that’s exactly what home schooled children raised in households who refuse to give proper health related education need. Brainwash you children if you choose but ultimately they will need to face reality. Too bad they will do so completely unequipped to do so. No matter what is taught in the public schools you are free to practice your religion in all aspects of your life but other people’s children to not have to be help captive to your dangerous views. Children who are taught to think and reason can certainly handle conflicting ideas when presented to them. Children who are taught to blindly accept cannot.
You would censor the internet so young people will not have access to information that is sometimes life saving, because your children may see something “pop up” that you don’t want them to. Perhaps rather you should not let your children on the ‘net unsupervised. My nieces and nephews are certainly not given free reign to run amok and explore. Simple concept isn’t it?
It’s really a bit funny to see the same people who believe in controlling other people’s lives with their own religious beliefs try and play the victim card. Well, actually it’s not funny at all, it’s pitiful. Lets make a deal, you do something to stem the tide of people expressing their distaste for LGBT people with base ball bats and 2x4s and I’ll see what I can do about people insulting you in Walmart.
How interesting it is to hear you say this. The very same words could be applied to you. Really now, let’s be honest – who are the ones on a crusade to change the status quo? In truth it’s the left-wing fanatics seeking to redefine time-honored family values who are so blinded by their own selfish agenda for special rights that they seem beyond the reach of any reasoned dialogue.