• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2012 Dem Party Platform Draft for Gay Marriage and Repeal of Defense of Marriage Act

ChrisL68 said:
Do you think it is right to condemn Christopher Columbus based on the morality of today? Personally, I think it is kind of ridiculous. You are a creature of the time in which you live in.

Is there an objective right or wrong. Probably not. 100 years from now, there will be things that we do that people shake their heads about.
Click to expand...

Ok, so if denying homosexuals the right to marry isn't objectively wrong, then why should we, as a country, change course and allow it? If morality is just "majority rule," then why should the will of the majority ever change on any particular issue? I understand that, as a historical matter, it does, but why, as a philosophical matter, should it?
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
:LondonWhale:
Click to expand...

One of the biggest misperceptions on Wall Street right now. The London Whale wasn't a losing trader, he made JPM billions through the years. He got the go ahead from senior management to take on more risk (how much more and how much Dimon was involved is debatable) but he's still a star. If he left JPM he'd get snatched up in a second. Dude has testicles of steel, I doubt his losses even fazed him, just variance when you've made your company $7-8b in a couple years. Calling Dimon to the Hill was horseshit; I think the FT likened it to calling a "Straight A student to the principle's office for getting a B."
 
Junebug said:
Ok, so if denying homosexuals the right to marry isn't objectively wrong, then why should we, as a country, change course and allow it? If morality is just "majority rule," then why should the will of the majority ever change on any particular issue? I understand that, as a historical matter, it does, but why, as a philosophical matter, should it?[/QUote)

As a philosophical manner? I don't know. I think gay people should get married. If enough people agree with me, it will become a social norm.
Click to expand...
 
ChrisL68 said:
As a philosophical manner? I don't know. I think gay people should get married. If enough people agree with me, it will become a social norm.
Click to expand...

But on what grounds should anyone agree with you? I'm not asking you to list the reasons that have been given for homosexual marriage--fairness, equality, etc. I'm asking why, on the view that morality is just majority rule, those arguments should sway anyone.
 
Last edited:
Chris, remember Junebug knows all. Bow to him.

You, or anyone who won't kiss his about to be fired ass, aren't worthy to be in his presence.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Do you think it is right to condemn Christopher Columbus based on the morality of today? Personally, I think it is kind of ridiculous. You are a creature of the time in which you live in.

Is there an objective right or wrong. Probably not. 100 years from now, there will be things that we do that people shake their heads about.
Click to expand...

I agree about judging people according to the morality of their era. But I also think there is something of a timeless objective morality. Like it's never been right to lie and backstab for personal gain, etc. Tough venn diagram to flesh out.
 
Not to get back on topic, but there were a few points in Michelle Obama's speech that seemed to promote gay marriage.
 
Junebug said:
But on what grounds should anyone agree with you? I'm not asking you to list the reasons that have been given for homosexual marriage--fairness, equality, etc. I'm asking why, on the view that morality is just majority rule, those arguments should sway anyone.
Click to expand...

The reasons that somebody should agree with me are fairness and equality. Ultimately, however, others have to make their own personal decision about what is right or wrong.
 
ProfessorDeac said:
I agree about judging people according to the morality of their era. But I also think there is something of a timeless objective morality. Like it's never been right to lie and backstab for personal gain, etc. Tough venn diagram to flesh out.
Click to expand...

Even murder and torture have been acceptable social norms during certain periods of human history.
 
ChrisL68 said:
The reasons that somebody should agree with me are fairness and equality. Ultimately, however, others have to make their own personal decision about what is right or wrong.
Click to expand...

So are fairness and equality objectively desirable goals? If not, why should someone strive to have a moral compass that furthers them? In a system of relative moral values, aren't unfairness and inequality just as valid?
 
Junebug said:
So are fairness and equality objectively desirable goals? If not, why should someone strive to have a moral compass that furthers them? In a system of relative moral values, aren't unfairness and inequality just as valid?
Click to expand...

That's ultimately a personal decision. To me they aren't. To others they are. Ayn Rand for instance.

It doesn't mean that I can't be critical of somebody that has a different moral compass than me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top