[GoneForNow]

This young man is 20 years old and already in Harvard Law. You may disagree with his hypothesis but you have to admit he is frightfully intelligent:

Is blood really thicker than traditional moral values?
Benjamin Shapiro

7 September 2004
The Baltimore Sun

English
Copyright 2004, The Baltimore Sun. All Rights Reserved.
I RECENTLY PICKED up a copy of Boston Magazine while sitting in the green room at the Fox News studios in Watertown, Mass. Leafing through the publication, I came across an article titled "Confessions of an Ivy League Callgirl," written by Jeannette Angell, a university lecturer with a master's degree from Yale. The fact that she was a Yalie caught my eye - as a Harvard Law student, I've already adopted our communal animosities - and so I read the piece.
Apparently, Ms. Angell began trading sex for cash after receiving her doctorate in social anthropology. But what was shocking was not Ms. Angell's experiences but her insistence that she not be condemned for her actions. "Please don't be so quick to call us hookers, to judge us," she wrote. "We could be your mother, your sister, your girlfriend, your daughter. Even your college professor. No, I take that back. It's not a matter of saying that we could be. We are."
The logic goes something like this: If you have a relative who engages in a sinful act, the act cannot be condemned. After all, blood is thicker than morality, right? Loyalty to the tribe comes before loyalty to moral values.
It's a successful tactic often employed by proponents of liberal social policy. Recently, Michael Moore wrote in USA Today that most Republicans are actually social liberals. As proof, he cited a supposed interview with a "proud Republican." "Would you discriminate against someone because he or she is gay?" Mr. Moore asked the man. "Um, no," the man answered. Mr. Moore comments: "The pause - I get that a lot when I ask this question - is usually because the average goodhearted person instantly thinks about a gay family member or friend."
Unfortunately, Mr. Moore's explanation of moral hesitancy rings true. Social liberals expect to emerge victorious from the culture wars because of conflicting allegiances among social conservatives: allegiances to friends and family vs. allegiances to traditional morality.
In order to assuage the moral qualms of conflicted social conservatives, social liberals have created a whole new system of morality. Social liberals redefine right and wrong: It is right to value your friends and family and wrong to condemn them for moral failings. According to the social left, in any pitched battle between traditional morality and friendship, those who side with traditional morality are morally wrong.
And so tolerance has become the new morality. Those who condemn homosexuality are morally wrong. Those who condemn prostitution are morally wrong. Those who condemn abortion are morally wrong. Tolerance is moral - and traditional morality is simply intolerant.
Socially liberal Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania labels traditional morality immoral: "When you talk about gay rights, it's a civil rights issue, and you ought not to count votes on it. In the long sweep of history, those who favor gay rights are on the right side of the issue. It's a matter of moral principle."
The new religion of tolerance provides a slippery slope into moral oblivion. All activity must be tolerated, since sympathy for friends and family trumps traditional morality.
With tolerance for sin comes acceptance of sin, and with acceptance, promotion. With Roe vs. Wade, Americans grudgingly tolerated abortion. With tolerance came acceptance: Those who received abortions were no longer seen as immoral. Instead, they were the moral equals of mothers. Finally, abortion was promoted as a valuable alternative to pregnancy completion - and those who condemned abortion were slandered as sinners.
When Republicans passed the partial-birth abortion ban last year, Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, complained that such policy was immoral. "What I think is immoral is to take your views, or my views, and force them on the people of this country," she stated. "It is disrespectful, it isn't right, and it isn't what America is about."
The same progression holds true for gay marriage: tolerance, acceptance and promotion. The first step is always tolerance, and tolerance must be attained by appealing to sympathy. The easiest way to gain sympathy for social liberalism is to point out close friends or relatives participating in sin, and then dare us to condemn their actions.
So can we condemn Jeannette Angell as a whore? Can we condemn homosexuality or abortion as sinful? Of course we can. Morality cannot survive in a NIMBY (not in my back yard) context. If morality extends only to those far removed from our personal lives, it has no meaning. To preserve traditional values, justice must take precedence over sympathy.

[Davey7549]

GB
Interesting article and concept! How true it is.........
Using the same premise as stated in that article we must accept incest, murder, and rape if one of our close family or friends do the deed!
Sad but that seems to be the back-door policy to promote a certain value!
With that premise nothing is Immoral or out of bounds!
I may still love and care about the individual that perpetrated said Immoral\criminal act but I do not have to condone it or support it!
That concept is not part of the equation in Moore's mind!
Sure he has not spent a few nights at Neverland!

Dave

[EdGreene]

You don't have to like/dislike her because she is a whore: that's really none of your damn business. The same for homosexuality: it's none of your damn business.

Not one homosexual or whore in nearly any community in this country is any different than any of us except for what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. No different, no differences. Not any at all.
It is only when you old “fuddy-duddies” stick you fat, unbidden noses in their private affairs that the question arises and then, the questions only comes from those nosey bush-bodies with prurient (voyeuristic sexual) interests in other people's business.

I’m up to here with Right Wingers discussing what they think: the issue is clearly between those who want to impose their moral and ethical values on every American and those of use who say “how dare you”?

Strangely enough, it is only when someone asks the question, like here, that I even give a thought to either life style.

[plschwartz]

Originally Posted by Davey7549

GB
Interesting article and concept! How true it is.........
Using the same premise as stated in that article we must accept incest, murder, and rape if one of our close family or friends do the deed!
Sad but that seems to be the back-door policy to promote a certain value!
With that premise nothing is Immoral or out of bounds!
I may still love and care about the individual that perpetrated said Immoral\criminal act but I do not have to condone it or support it!
That concept is not part of the equation in Moore's mind!
Sure he has not spent a few nights at Neverland!

Dave

Why do you consider it your business what two consenting adults doespecially in their privacy. You may not do it but what makes you feel you have the right if not some obligation to monitor comment and even interfere with what they do. How ddoes it do any injury to you.
Just say that you had couch potato kids. Would you like a govt worker to tell you that you are immoral for allowing you kids to get too fat would that be OK with that (I know you will tell me that the analogy isn't equal but I tried to stay with the morality of the board.)

[Davey7549]

Originally Posted by EdGreene

Not one homosexual or whore in nearly any community in this country is any different than any of us except for what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

If their preferences or actions were kept inside the bedroom there would be little issue however you liberal thinking individuals believe anyone should be able to display, act, or force anyone to accept others differences with open arms even if it flies in the face of traditions!
The sad part Ed is you profess tradition in the military but yet accept anything presented in a attempt to root Bush from the Presidency no matter how far out it is!

Dave

[Mulder_Lite]

Originally Posted by EdGreene

I’m up to here with Right Wingers discussing what they think: the issue is clearly between those who want to impose their moral and ethical values on every American and those of use who say “how dare you”?

Hmmmmmm? You seem to have a problem with the manner in which I converse with some of the ladies on TSG even though they themselves have no problem with it. What you did is impose your morality on myself and others with whom I interact. None of it was directed at your nor did it concern you. "How dare you!"

Can you say "hypocrite?"

[Mulder_Lite]

Originally Posted by Davey7549

If their preferences or actions were kept inside the bedroom there would be little issue however you liberal thinking individuals believe anyone should be able to display, act, or force anyone to accept others differences with open arms even if it flies in the face of traditions!
The sad part Ed is you profess tradition in the military but yet accept anything presented in a attempt to root Bush from the Presidency no matter how far out it is!

Dave

No Dave--he doesn't tolerate you forcing "your" morality on someone else although he doesn't mind forcing "his" morality on me! I say again, Hypocrite!

[GoneForNow]

It appears to me that one of his points, among many, is that one isn't required to accept what you believe to be immoral behavior. That for someone to condemn your lack of acceptance is to engage in the same behavior. Simply, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Davey7549]

Paul
I see you are thinking along the same lines as Ed however this issue has moved out of the bedroom between two consenting adult and into mainstream with Gay people wanting full traditional rights as married couples. Until the 2000 year old traditional definition of Married couple gets changed in the mindset of mainstream belief I will not accept it personally and even then I still will not accept it since procreation is not possible!
If you have an issue with my stand then that is your prerogative but since this is America I have a right to my opinion!

Dave

[GoneForNow]

I also believe that's the author's point as: tolerance, acceptance and promotion.

[Mulder_Lite]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

I also believe that's the author's point as: tolerance, acceptance and promotion.

I believe his point is that he shouldn't have to accept what is morally repugant to him. What is morally repugnant to him is not to the next person and what is not to him, may be to the next person. If morality is relative, then at some point, there is no standard upon which to set societal norms.

Personally, as I am sure you recall, Gbrumb, I do not believe that "sexual conduct" is a proper basis to judge one's morality, but I do agree that societal norms regarding morality need to be honored.

[plschwartz]

Originally Posted by Davey7549

Paul
I see you are thinking along the same lines as Ed however this issue has moved out of the bedroom between two consenting adult and into mainstream with Gay people wanting full traditional rights as married couples. Until the 2000 year old traditional definition of Married couple gets changed in the mindset of mainstream belief I will not accept it personally and even then I still will not accept it since procreation is not possible!
If you have an issue with my stand then that is your prerogative but since this is America I have a right to my opinion!

Dave

Davey:
I know how you feel. But I kinda wonder why. You have a area of behaviors you feel inappropriate - here gay marriage. Say that I felt it was immoral to allow a child to grow obese (which really is dangerous) and every time I saw them in the street it made me mad. Would you be OK with my telling you how to raise your children?
In what way would a married gay couple interefere with your life. Would it hurt you physically would it make you feel different about your loved ones. How does there behavior diminish your life, as you wish to diminish theirs?

[GoneForNow]

My post number 10 was in response to Davey's post number 9. I should have quote part of his post.

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by Mulder_Lite

I believe his point is that he shouldn't have to accept what is morally repugant to him. What is morally repugnant to him is not to the next person and what is not to him, may be to the next person. If morality is relative, then at some point, there is no standard upon which to set societal norms.

Personally, as I am sure you recall, Gbrumb, I do not believe that "sexual conduct" is a proper basis to judge one's morality, but I do agree that societal norms regarding morality need to be honored.

Yup, and you believe in death taxes....social liberal written all over you. Bet you and Micheal Moore could be the best of buddies.

[plschwartz]

Originally Posted by Davey7549

Paul
I see you are thinking along the same lines as Ed however this issue has moved out of the bedroom between two consenting adult and into mainstream with Gay people wanting full traditional rights as married couples. Until the 2000 year old traditional definition of Married couple gets changed in the mindset of mainstream belief I will not accept it personally and even then I still will not accept it since procreation is not possible!
If you have an issue with my stand then that is your prerogative but since this is America I have a right to my opinion!

Dave

Do you really want to make the possibility of procreation the basis of allowing marriages? just off the bat what about the marriage of a woman past menarche?