Detroit Free Press:Did his right to choose end at bedroom door?

[Zguy28]

BTW, I'm not sure I fully answered your questions. Could you elaborate further on what you mean when asking where I draw the line on what's morally acceptable?

What I was trying to get at was literally where do we draw the line if everyone is different?

Is it ok to lie to your boss? Or your spouse? Or at all? Lying is acceptable, I see it on TV, yet people get upset when lyed too. Why is that?

Is stealing ok? Many seem to think it is today.

Is adultery ok? Many believe it is, even though we took solemn vows at marriage.

Is Murder OK? Obviously a large percentage of people think this is ok considering the murder rates.

If the people should decide, and everyone has a different opinion, how does naything get done? Someone has to decide, what standard do they use?

The 10 Commandments, the Koran, the Constitution maybe? Maybe something I haven't thought of.

[McMetal]

Sounds to me like she is more interested in his money than actually having him be a father to their child. Does she think taking him to court is going to help him foster a healthy relationship with her or her baby?

I'm a proud, but exhausted father of a six-month old, and I would never in a million years wish that on someone who wasn't fully prepared to take on that responsibility. It's damn hard enough when you are committed and responsible.

There's a lot of sides to this story, but I have to sympathize with the guy. He's been made into a virtual indetured servant for who knows how long...

[Henry]

Wha-wha-what? I understand your point here Henry, but let's not go crazy!! :laugh:

I know, I know. That's no fun.

Let me re-phrase.

Every time you have sex, there is a chance pregnancy can occur. You'd better be prepared to deal with that.

This guy doesn't want to deal. Too bad I say.

[DjTj]

What I was trying to get at was literally where do we draw the line if everyone is different?

Is it ok to lie to your boss? Or your spouse? Or at all? Lying is acceptable, I see it on TV, yet people get upset when lyed too. Why is that?

Is stealing ok? Many seem to think it is today.

Is adultery ok? Many believe it is, even though we took solemn vows at marriage.

Is Murder OK? Obviously a large percentage of people think this is ok considering the murder rates.

If the people should decide, and everyone has a different opinion, how does naything get done? Someone has to decide, what standard do they use?

The 10 Commandments, the Koran, the Constitution maybe? Maybe something I haven't thought of.

I think the Founding Fathers solved this problem ... or maybe it was the Greeks. In any case, the standard is democracy - through some process of voting and representation, we write laws that outlaw murder, stealing, etc. Even though every person has different morals, we agree on a collective rule of law through the democratic process.

[SkinInsite]

I think y'all are missing the point of the legal case -- it's about equal protection under the law.

The men will get equal protection when it's medically possible for the guys to carry a baby for 9 months and then deliver it.

[Zguy28]

I think the Founding Fathers solved this problem ... or maybe it was the Greeks. In any case, the standard is democracy - through some process of voting and representation, we write laws that outlaw murder, stealing, etc. Even though every person has different morals, we agree on a collective rule of law through the democratic process.

I agree totally. Some believe that the Constitution is a "living document" and has to be interpreted in the light of the current culture. I disagree personally. I do agree with democratic process. I was addressing the question of whether the government or people should make the decisions on morality. In a republican democracy such as the US is supposed to be, they should be the same thing (gov't & people that is), since they are elected of the people. Any way I have gotten this thread :ot:

[CaliforniaSkin]

What I was trying to get at was literally where do we draw the line if everyone is different?

Is it ok to lie to your boss? Or your spouse? Or at all? Lying is acceptable, I see it on TV, yet people get upset when lyed too. Why is that?

Is stealing ok? Many seem to think it is today.

Is adultery ok? Many believe it is, even though we took solemn vows at marriage.

Is Murder OK? Obviously a large percentage of people think this is ok considering the murder rates.

If the people should decide, and everyone has a different opinion, how does naything get done? Someone has to decide, what standard do they use?

The 10 Commandments, the Koran, the Constitution maybe? Maybe something I haven't thought of.

Add a plethora of philosophical standards to choose from. Kant's categorical imperative, John Stuart Mill's version of utilitarianism, Rawls' theory of justice, Plato's forms for that matter.

The issue isn't just about majority rules though. That's why we have a Bill of Rights. People often make the mistake of refering to the Bill of Rights as this great democratic document when, in fact, it is exactly the oposite.

The Bill of Rights is a limit on democracy. It says that here are certain rights that you cannot, no matter how large you majority, legislate against. (OK, technically that is not completely true because you could, in theory, add another amendment to strike down one or more of the first ten but nonetheless).

I'm also not sure that simply because someone does something that you can conclude that they think it is OK. Many adulterers would claim to believe adultry is wrong.

And the standards of law are not the same as the standards of morality. Partially because morality, at least in Western, post-Enlightenment society is a personal, not a public, code. Laws exists to protect the larger community. But this country was founded on the Lockean principle of supporting individual liberty whenever possible. Laws should therefore only exist when they absolutely have to.

[DCsportsfan53]

What I was trying to get at was literally where do we draw the line if everyone is different?

Is it ok to lie to your boss? Or your spouse? Or at all? Lying is acceptable, I see it on TV, yet people get upset when lyed too. Why is that?

Is stealing ok? Many seem to think it is today.

Is adultery ok? Many believe it is, even though we took solemn vows at marriage.

Is Murder OK? Obviously a large percentage of people think this is ok considering the murder rates.

If the people should decide, and everyone has a different opinion, how does naything get done? Someone has to decide, what standard do they use?

The 10 Commandments, the Koran, the Constitution maybe? Maybe something I haven't thought of.

I see your point and it's a good one. The thing is, I think you can at least approach a consensus on a lot of those issues. You won't find many people standing up to say murder should be legal. You won't find many people who will tell you adulterers should be jailed. You won't find many who will tell you there should be no reprecussions for stealing. Those issues are no brainers to most rational people.

The things I'm talking about are things like gay marriage. To me, the people who are against it are not personally affected in any way by it so, even if they disagree with or don't like it, they shouldn't be allowed to make that decision for other people. They don't have to participate but why should the government be allowed to restrict people from doing that if that's what they want to do? The constitution doesn't say anything about homosexuals not being equal under the law and rightfully so. I just think that if other people aren't being harmed then the government has no place in restricting that activity.

I guess the main reason I believe this is because the variations in what people like to do, what people feel is right, what "floats their boat" is so vast that it's impossible to create a universal standard that is acceptable to all people. Therefore, if it's not hurting you, don't like it by all means but don't force that feeling on other people. Diversity is part of what makes this country great and that includes diverse opinions on what is morally acceptable. Laws should be made to protect people from harm by others but never to restrict personal actions because they are not agreed with by others. I believe that laws regarding personal decisions should be kept at absolute minimum possible.Protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and not much more. Too often, the things we restrict to appease the views of a select group of people violate other people's rights to those 3 things.

[DCsportsfan53]

And the standards of law are not the same as the standards of morality. Partially because morality, at least in Western, post-Enlightenment society is a personal, not a public, code. Laws exists to protect the larger community. But this country was founded on the Lockean principle of supporting individual liberty whenever possible. Laws should therefore only exist when they absolutely have to.

This is pretty much what I was trying to say but I took a lot longer about it and it didn't sound as good when I said it. That last sentence is one I believe to be an extremely important part of our democracy.

[DjTj]

I agree totally. Some believe that the Constitution is a "living document" and has to be interpreted in the light of the current culture. I disagree personally. I do agree with democratic process. I was addressing the question of whether the government or people should make the decisions on morality. In a republican democracy such as the US is supposed to be, they should be the same thing, since they are elected of the people.

I actually do believe that the Constitution has to be interpreted in light of the current culture ... when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, segregation and Jim Crow was widely accepted, but today the Fourteenth Amendment would outlaw any explicit racial segregation - society does change and the meaning of the Constitution does evolve over time ... but since we disagree on that, you can vote for Presidents that appoint strict constructionists and I'll vote for Presidents that appoint contextualist judges - ahh, the miracle of democracy.

...and a footnote: although the government is free to legislate in all areas of morality, there are some procedural limits set by the Constitution e.g. Congress can't take away your right to trial by jury unless 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states agree ... now what falls within this footnote, that's the hard question.

[Zguy28]

Add a plethora of philosophical standards to choose from. Kant's categorical imperative, John Stuart Mill's version of utilitarianism, Rawls' theory of justice, Plato's forms for that matter.

The issue isn't just about majority rules though. That's why we have a Bill of Rights. People often make the mistake of refering to the Bill of Rights as this great democratic document when, in fact, it is exactly the oposite.

The Bill of Rights is a limit on democracy. It says that here are certain rights that you cannot, no matter how large you majority, legislate against. (OK, technically that is not completely true because you could, in theory, add another amendment to strike down one or more of the first ten but nonetheless).

I'm also not sure that simply because someone does something that you can conclude that they think it is OK. Many adulterers would claim to believe adultry is wrong.

And the standards of law are not the same as the standards of morality. Partially because morality, at least in Western, post-Enlightenment society is a personal, not a public, code. Laws exists to protect the larger community. But this country was founded on the Lockean principle of supporting individual liberty whenever possible. Laws should therefore only exist when they absolutely have to.

Good post. If an adulterer thinks adultery is wrong then why did he do it? What do you think?

Personally I don't buy the post-enlightenment bit. I believe we live in an age of darkness, because as a culture we care about ourselves more than anyone else. "Self" has become god to the masses. Very few these days actually care enough about other people to do something other than the occasional protest or once a year charitable giving.

[Zguy28]

The things I'm talking about are things like gay marriage. To me, the people who are against it are not personally affected in any way by it so, even if they disagree with or don't like it, they shouldn't be allowed to make that decision for other people. They don't have to participate but why should the government be allowed to restrict people from doing that if that's what they want to do? The constitution doesn't say anything about homosexuals not being equal under the law and rightfully so. I just think that if other people aren't being harmed then the government has no place in restricting that activity.

The reason there is an argument about same-sex marriage is that there is a percieved threat to the welfare of some. I personally against it.

Here is the analogy I draw from my point of view.

You are on one side of the boat named "marriage" and I am on the other. You say, I'm going to drill a hole in the bottom of my side of the boat because it is my right. I say "no you will sink the boat!" You say "you do what you want on your side of the boat and don't be telling me what to do. It has nothing to do with your side." Yet it does affect my side. It opens up a door for further actions such as polygamy.

[DCsportsfan53]

The reason there is an argument about same-sex marriage is that there is a percieved threat to the welfare of some. I personally against it.

Here is the analogy I draw from my point of view.

You are on one side of the boat named "marriage" and I am on the other. You say, I'm going to drill a hole in the bottom of my side of the boat because it is my right. I say "no you will sink the boat!" You say "you do what you want on your side of the boat and don't be telling me what to do. It has nothing to do with your side." Yet it does affect my side. It opens up a door for further actions such as polygamy.

But that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. It does not actually affect your life in any way, it offends your moral values because you believe it's not right. Really, what affect would it have on your personal life, your quality of marriage and life if two men were allowed to marry? Does it really harm you in any way or does it jut offend you and not sit right with you?

My point is, there are a ton of people out there who believe homosexuality is not morally wrong and you are taking rights and liberties away from the people who wish to marry. No one is saying you have to marry a man. No one is saying you have to associate with someone who would. No one is saying your marital rights under the law would be affected in any way.

Who cares if it opens the door for polygamy, if you choose not to do it why should it matter to you if other people do choose to? This is the heart of my argument, you are attempting to restrict another's right because they have a different belief and different morals from you and that's not fair.

[twa]

This guy's case does not have a prayer.

There are cases where a male was raped,the woman had a child,and then succesfully sued for child support :doh:

Men don't stand a chance in court :laugh:

[CaliforniaSkin]

Good post. If an adulterer thinks adultery is wrong then why did he do it? What do you think?

Personally I don't buy the post-enlightenment bit. I believe we live in an age of darkness, because as a culture we care about ourselves more than anyone else. "Self" has become god to the masses. Very few these days actually care enough about other people to do something other than the occasional protest or once a year charitable giving.

People do things they believe to be wrong all the time. Sometimes they are simply weak. Sometimes they are self-deluded, by which I mean they don't truly believe what they claim is wrong to be wrong. Other times they are forced to make a choice between two disagreeable alternatives.

Personally I don't believe there are many, if any, moral absolutes. Do I beleve it is wrong to steal? Sure, usually. I don't believe that stealing to feed a starving child is wrong.

Even the most basic evil, the killing of an inocent can have nuance. I was a soldier. Innocents die in war. But war is sometimes necessary. (WWII makes it VERY hard to be a total pacifist - that war, at least, was worth fighting).

By post-Enlightenment, I meant the Age of Enlightenment: the 18th century historical intelecutal movement that forms the basis of our political thought. The ideas of Voltaire, Rousseau, Hume, Berkely, and Locke. (Can you tell I was a philosophy major )

[Stigmata]

True, but when 45% of the people disagree that's too many who are being forced to live within someone elses moral guidlines. That's why I say things like murder are no brainers but if there is a large amount of variation in opinion the minority should not be subject to other's morals.

I think this gets back to the problem of personal responsibility in this country, or lack of it. Issues that don't pertain to harm to others should be handled and taught by parents, churches, mosques, synagogues, ect because that's where morals are actually learned and understood. To most, they seem arbitrary when handed to them by the government. Morals hold much more value when you believe in them than when you abide by them because you have to.

Basically, my main point is, in a government controlled by white protestant males I believe it's extremely unfair to other religious groups and ethnicities to have to abide by the moral agenda set forth by others.

It really irks me that Americans these days feel we should capitulate to the beliefs and moral standards of other countries, change our laws as to not offend peoples of other nations that decide to live here in America.

That is just so obsurd, this is our country, these are our laws. hmm do other countries stop the presses in the name of american morals to redifne there laws as to be fair because the laws they have dont jive with american morals?

If you go to there country and break the law you pay the price, as you should according to there laws, we should respect others nations laws (WHEN) we visit.

But not in america nooooo we have to change our morals for the sake of (showing how nice we are) and we sit here and wonder why we have no balck and white borders in our morality and debate the smallest twist someone can come up with, that will some how give some kind of grey area as to render the law useless.

Hey but thats ok we will make new laws so they can be debated and deemed worthless by someone trying to get out of it...

when your driveing and you see (STOP) and dont stop will the cop debate with you? on the meaning of Stop?

[Zguy28]

But that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. It does not actually affect your life in any way, it offends your moral values because you believe it's not right. Really, what affect would it have on your personal life, your quality of marriage and life if two men were allowed to marry? Does it really harm you in any way or does it jut offend you and not sit right with you?

My point is, there are a ton of people out there who believe homosexuality is not morally wrong and you are taking rights and liberties away from the people who wish to marry. No one is saying you have to marry a man. No one is saying you have to associate with someone who would. No one is saying your marital rights under the law would be affected in any way.

Who cares if it opens the door for polygamy, if you choose not to do it why should it matter to you if other people do choose to? This is the heart of my argument, you are attempting to restrict another's right because they have a different belief and different morals from you and that's not fair.

No. What it actually does is de-value me as a human being. Proponents have actually reduced the beautifully complex nature of male and female to mere sperm and womb. They said to you, madam, that your femininity exists only in your eggs. They said to you, sir, that your masculinity is found only in your sperm. They have reduced who we are, in the deepest part of our humanity, to our sheer biological reproduction. And though we haven’t met personally, I trust your gender is a bit more integral to who you are than that.

Think about your relationship with your spouse…or your parents. There is much more happening there in the female/male dynamic than just procreation. To understand how the value of male and female exists outside of reproduction, think about how different your workplace would be if it consisted only of males or females. And smart money wagers it wouldn’t be much of a place to work regardless of which sex held it. And why do so many people shell out big dollars for “Venus and Mars” seminars if there’s no real differences to understand? Males and females bring deep and necessary things to each other. It is through the profound value – and mystery -- of male and female that we understand and experience much of the power of our collective humanity.

[Zguy28]

By post-Enlightenment, I meant the Age of Enlightenment: the 18th century historical intelecutal movement that forms the basis of our political thought. The ideas of Voltaire, Rousseau, Hume, Berkely, and Locke. (Can you tell I was a philosophy major )

I can tell.

Personally I prefer Spurgeon, Whitfield, Edwards, and Wesley.

[DCsportsfan53]

It really irks me that Americans these days feel we should capitulate to the beliefs and moral standards of other countries, change our laws as to not offend peoples of other nations that decide to live here in America.

That is just so obsurd, this is our country, these are our laws. hmm do other countries stop the presses in the name of american morals to redifne there laws as to be fair because the laws they have dont jive with american morals?

If you go to there country and break the law you pay the price, as you should according to there laws, we should respect others nations laws (WHEN) we visit.

But not in america nooooo we have to change our morals for the sake of (showing how nice we are) and we sit here and wonder why we have no balck and white borders in our morality and debate the smallest twist someone can come up with, that will some how give some kind of grey area as to render the law useless.

Hey but thats ok we will make new laws so they can be debated and deemed worthless by someone trying to get out of it...

when your driveing and you see (STOP) and dont stop will the cop debate with you? on the meaning of Stop?

I'm not saying at all that we should bow to other nation's laws. What I'm saying is that there are extreme variations in what American citizens view as morally right or wrong. One group should not be able to dominate moral supremacy, as I've pointed out with the example of gay marriage. I'm not gay, I don't want to marry a man but I don't believe I have the right to tell them they can't get married if they want to. That's what I'm talking about, tolerance of the miriad of views and perspectives we have in this country and allowing people to decide as families, as parents what is the morally correct way to behave.

[Destino]

This case is DOA - no matter what he may want to argue the bottom line is that he doesn't want to support his own flesh and blood. If you don't want kids don't have sex - and if you think that is an extreme statement think of the kid that gets to grow up with a ****ing court case detailing how her daddy just wanted to have a good time. Her daddy went and made his dream of not recognizing his own daughter a matter of national debate.

How wonderful that will be for her when she learns of it.

[DCsportsfan53]

No. What it actually does is de-value me as a human being. Proponents have actually reduced the beautifully complex nature of male and female to mere sperm and womb. They said to you, madam, that your femininity exists only in your eggs. They said to you, sir, that your masculinity is found only in your sperm. They have reduced who we are, in the deepest part of our humanity, to our sheer biological reproduction. And though we haven’t met personally, I trust your gender is a bit more integral to who you are than that.

Think about your relationship with your spouse…or your parents. There is much more happening there in the female/male dynamic than just procreation. To understand how the value of male and female exists outside of reproduction, think about how different your workplace would be if it consisted only of males or females. And smart money wagers it wouldn’t be much of a place to work regardless of which sex held it. And why do so many people shell out big dollars for “Venus and Mars” seminars if there’s no real differences to understand? Males and females bring deep and necessary things to each other. It is through the profound value – and mystery -- of male and female that we understand and experience much of the power of our collective humanity.

Again, that amounts to your principles being offended, you are not actually harmed in any way or devalued in anyone's eyes but your own. Homosexuality has existed since the begining of mankind. Being straight, I don't believe we can say that two men or two women cannot have a healthy, fufilling and meaningful relationship with each other. How would we know, we've never experienced it. Who are we to decide for them that it isn't right if they feel it is?

[Destino]

Personally I don't buy the post-enlightenment bit. I believe we live in an age of darkness, because as a culture we care about ourselves more than anyone else. "Self" has become god to the masses. Very few these days actually care enough about other people to do something other than the occasional protest or once a year charitable giving.

You really shouldn't be so down on the modern era. While I don't argue with your take on the self interested attitude of today - the sex industry is once again turning humans into commodities, and the notion of responsiblity to anyone other then "#1" is all but forgotten. It's routine for people to walk out on their families and society doesn't even view it as bad anymore.

Having said that I think that the balance is that the value of human life has never been higher. Can you imagine the world power being plagued by complaints of innocent lives lost at war 200 years ago? I can't. People today in many countries around the world worry endlessly about criminals being treated fairly and decently - the poor being not only helped but treated with respect - I could go on and on.

There certainly are a great many moral questions that need answers but I think the progress is clear.

[Zguy28]

My friend, I am sorry you feel that way. The reason I am against same-sex marriage, homosexuality in general is moral. I believe that those along with fornication (sex out of marriage) is the same as adultery. People call me a Bible thumper, but I just have strict morals. They are rooted in the Bible though.

[Stigmata]

I'm not saying at all that we should bow to other nation's laws. What I'm saying is that there are extreme variations in what American citizens view as morally right or wrong. One group should not be able to dominate moral supremacy, as I've pointed out with the example of gay marriage. I'm not gay, I don't want to marry a man but I don't believe I have the right to tell them they can't get married if they want to. That's what I'm talking about, tolerance of the miriad of views and perspectives we have in this country and allowing people to decide as families, as parents what is the morally correct way to behave.

But in a perfect world the small factions of belief systems be it religeouse or otherwise wouldnt dominate the court system. Our country is letting a small minority dictate morality for the majority.

And sadly we dont say (come on) you want to change the law to fit a special need (YOU) and your small group does, that will affect the whole country, and furthermor what your asking cheapens morality. Based on common sense, such as beastiality, when will the day come when our morality has sunk so low as to some how find a grey area, as to deem beastiality some kind of individual moral right? Thats a scary thought, but unless people stand up to what they know in there heart to be evil (most people know instantly) what is right and wrong. unless we stand up and say NO its going to get worse, i have to raise my kids in this world of ours, but my teachings to my children are being trampled on by the minority every time they go to school. suddenly those that claim we should have all these rights deny me as a parent my rights.

They are destroying the fabric of this country incrementaly. so when my daughter comes home with a home work assignment on the book Heather has 2 mommys, uh yes it gets me mad...

[DCsportsfan53]

Here's a good example of my end of the perspective. I believe I feel as strongly as you do about gay marriage in reference to animals' right to live. I don't like the idea of hunting at all, expect for sustinence, and I think to hunt without that purpose and to waste life is wrong. I don't believe that humans are spiritually "better" or closer to God than other animals and in a lot ways I respect wild animals more than humans.

That being said, I understand that a lot of people disagree with me. Therefore, I would never support the idea of banning hunting for sport because that is just my moral view and I don't believe in pushing that on another person. I think it's wrong, I think it degrades the spirit of humanity and our relationship with the nature and the world, it's wasteful and harmful but I WOULD NOT attempt to take away another's RIGHT to come to and practice a different conclusion. I believe that is the American way and as strongly as I feel on the issue I put the freedom America provides ahead of that. That is what I feel you are failing to do in regards to gay marriage. Sometimes, you just have to accept that not all people feel like you do and more importantly RESPECT their right to do so.