The Problem with the World...

Overview

The problem with the world is morality. Not morality in and of itself, but in its definition and the manner in which those who invoke "it's" justice or retribution through its namesake. The problem with morality is that its defintion (and the execution of law as an outcome of its ideology) changes from state to state, country to country and person to person. What is the definition for morality? Is there an ultimate definition for morality? Recently I’ve been engaged in the debate over the Ban on Gay Marriage. Now whether I am for it or against it is entirely not the point here; but the problem with the world is a problem of personal rights issues as related to the world and to the society one may be living in.

.

Thought Experiment

So to explore this thought abit I have created a thought experiment. Imagine if you will a society, not unlike our own, with three main groups: the green people, the blue people and the red people. Each of these groups has their own specific belief of what morality means to them and the way people should be governed in their respective societies. The three types of morality-based ideologies we will observe are: (1) Judicial Morality, (2) Religious Morality, and (3) Humanistic Morality. We will see what morality means to each of these “peoples” and see why we cannot get along on this planet and quite possibly, why we shall never get along.

The Green People

Now in this social group, the Green People believe all differences arising between people of ‘colors’, can be dealt with by Judicial Law. These laws, for the green people specifically are based on a belief of Governmental Law. These laws outline all of the guidelines for businesses, social contracts (such as marriage), crimes and government. Any grievances between two or more parties are dealt with in a court of law with the laws of the nation being the governmental code by which all ‘rights’ or ‘wrongs’ are judged against. For the Green People, morality is the Morality of Law.

The Blue People

Now in this social group, the Blue People believe that all differences arising between people of ‘colors’, can be dealt with by Religious Law. These laws, for the Blue People specifically are based on a belief of spiritual law. These laws outline all of the guidelines for businesses, social contracts (such as marriage), crimes and government. Any grievances between two or more parties are dealt with in a court of law with the laws of the nation being the religious code by which all ‘rights’ or ‘wrongs’ are judged against. For the Blue People, morality is the Morality of Religion and Faith.

The Red People

Now in this social group, the Red People believe that all differences arising between people of ‘colors’, can be dealt with by Humanistic Law. These Laws, for the Red People specifically are based on a belief of what is natural in the world. These laws outline all of the guidelines for businesses, social contracts (such as marriage), crimes and government. Any grievances between two or more parties are dealt with in a court of law with the laws of the nation being based upon the right of each individual to do or to say as they wish in society unless an action or actions affect(s) the physical well-being of their society or individual(s) For the Red People, morality is the Morality of Nature's Free Will.

.

Ethical morality vs Human morality vs Lawful morality

So now the question arises: which is best? which is correct? are there really any salient reasons why one should be picked over the other? other than a predisposition towards one based upon the culture one has been raised in. If the later holds to be true, then the following questions must be asked:

(1) does morality exist in the world at large? Or is morality merely a human idea, a human construct: a legal system (with its origins masked by particular belief systems within a particular country), for the sake of controlling society, keeping violence in groups to a minimum while allowing for and maintaining an economic base? If so, then:
.....(a) What is the true purpose of morality?
.....(b) Who or what does morality serve?
.....(c) Is morality necessary?
.....(d) Are there other ways for people to behave civilly without the need for morality?
.....(e) Is there morality in the natural world?

Gay Marriage: is not a political, religious or social issue

Overview

I find it amazing that so many people in our country make it their personal issue to worry about someone else’s lifestyle, personal beliefs and the manner in which individuals choose to express their lifestyle and personal beliefs. Some religious groups act as if the issue of Gay Marriage is an infringement upon their beliefs. The issue is not an infringement on their beliefs. No more than being a Democrat is an infringement on Republican beliefs or being a Female is an infringement on being a Male. The reality is if your religious affiliation has certain belief systems, then adhere to them. If you are a Mormon for example and Male you would not marry another Male; simple. If you are living in Dallas, Texas, you do not go to London, England and tell an Englishman on the street to cease speaking with an English accent no more than an Englishman from London should go to Dallas and do likewise to a Texan; simple. If you are a Male you do not complain to all Females in the world for not having the same genitalia that you have no more than a Female should complain to a Male about not having a clitoris; simple. If your family ancestery is European, Romania you do not fly to North America and tell a mainstream American family that Santa Claus is a very different person/persona in Europe and is refered to as St. Nicholaus no more than a mainstream American family would fly to Romania and complain about the use of "St. Nicholaus" as a name that is not in your local churches Bible; simple. If your lifestyle is in line with certain political, religious or social belief systems then that is your lifestyle choice. Adhere to it, but do not ask others who do not share your beliefs to live with your beliefs. If you think another human being will go to hell for not believing as you do, will then let them do so. That’s their business with God, not yours. But again, even that is an assumption.

When was the last time you heard a gay couple complain about people being heterosexual? What makes a person with certain political, religious or social affiliations feel they have the corner on another person’s religious, political or social affiliations? and the manner in which an individual or their affiliation chooses to express their group(s) belief(s)? Clearly not everyone in this nation thinks alike.

Flaws in the current thought process

The central tenant for the argument of a "Ban on Gay Marriage" is based upon a religious belief that marriage is sacrosanct between a woman and a man for the sake of procreation under the eyes of God. This argument at it's very best is weak and full of problems. So lets address some of those problems with several key points: (1) Do all marriages produce children? No. (2) Do all couples marry for the sake of having children? No. (3) Do all couples marry for the sake of love? No. People marry for various reasons in our country and many of these reasons have little if nothing to do with religion or love, and usually between heterosexual individuals. Some examples are: (1) to consolidate power structures between two families (for business and or other power related reasons), (2) arranged marriages, (3) loneliness between older folk who are past child baring age, (4) sex (older man or an older woman marrying someone of quite a younger age with no intent for producing a child-commonly referred to as a trophy wife/husband). In fact the number one reason citied for marriage between couples of the same gender is…love. There are no political gains to be got from two women marrying, there are no family gains to be got from two men marrying…only…love.

A Partial Ban: poltical, social and religous hypocrisy

If certain religious groups want to out-law same sex marriage then they should also go the complete distance in that argument which would be: No marriage for couples not intending to have children in the eyes of God or Marriage only for couples with the intent of having children. If the Religious Right cannot make this leap then they must abandon the central tenant to their argument because then there are no other bases for their argument other than to say God does not wish it. And at this point they are in violation of their own belief because they are only willing to carry out a small portion of Gods will. That small portion would be: a partial Ban on Marriage, but a ban only for those who they deem not worthy. And why would they engage in only a partial ban? Simple. They are then picking on a social minority in our culture because these same religious folk/leaders know that there is simply no way they could get the general public to adhere to a complete religous censorship over who gets married and who does not based upon their religous doctorine; however, the Religous Right does know they can get a large portion of the public to agree to a smaller portion of that ban. So why then do they pick on the GLBT community? Simple: We are their "agenda differentiating" whipping post. The GLBT community provides those religous and political figures with "pulpit and election pro's and con's", that at the heart allow them to differentiate themselves from the other person. These social issues are nothing more than ways for political and religous organizations to define themselves. They sell it as "sin" and "politcal dogma" to the general public, but really they just want the power that comes with people following them and paying their monthly dues or campaign contributions.

"God's will" argument

What exactly is Gods will? If the argument is that marriage is sacrosanct between a man and a woman for the purpose of ideological procreation, then most marriage contracts would have to be denied and most of the marriages in our country and the world at large…dissolved. Some examples of marriages that would have to be out-lawed under the religious argument are: (1) Marriage between folk well past the age of procreation (for no children will come of these unions), (2) Marriage between partners in which one or both partners is incapable of reproduction, (3) Marriage for pure sexual gratification (does one ask the couple if they are only marring for sex? What if they say "No, we love each other"...how would you know they aren’t lying?), (4) Marriage between partners in which genetic gender is quesitonable: such as when one or both partners have chromosomal disorders in which they have an XY mosiac: such as XXY.

So then here’s the problem: How would these same religious, political and or social affiliations decide when a marriage between a Man and a Woman is in line with God’s beliefs? Would they make a judgment call on the healthy productive capabilities of a potential couple? Would they make a judgment call on the depth of the religious beliefs of a potential young couple? Would they make a judgment call on the political beliefs of a potential couple? Would they make a judgment call on the social standing of a potential couple? For if Gay Marriage is outlawed then all of these other limitations must be included.

p.s. For additional information on the wacky madness of mankind see SouthPark's Episode: "Go God Go XII", Episode 1013 (Original Air Date: Nov 8, 2006)