Rest assured fighter spirit is alive and well, the homophobia is fading though. (Helo guys are allowed at 'hook)

 

Now, that was damn funny~!

 

I definitely don't care what someone does in the privacy of their own home or behind closed doors. The problem is it doesn't stay there. When they want to change public law, inject their agenda into my kids school and demand my acceptance of their lifestyle at the risk of being labeled a homophobe or worse... Then yeah, I got an opinion.

Also, I don't know how you can assume someone's religious bias based on their stance on DADT or what they think is moral or amoral. I know a lot of Atheists who consider themselves quite moral. Do you think it's ok to rape, murder, or steal? If not, then I guess you have morals too. Just keep them to yourself, don't judge me and let me do what I want.

 

Just some specific distinctions in definitions. Moral=right and wrong absolutes exist and one strives to uphold the right (morals do, in fact, exist.) Immoral=right and wrong absolutes exist, but one chooses not uphold the right (morals do, in fact, exist). Amoral=right and wrong absolutes do not exist. There are no moral absolutes. Whatever "feels good" or is right for you is all that matters (morals do not, in fact, exist). We are, as a society, rapidly moving toward the most dangerous environment, that of amorality. No lines, no absolutes, no moral mores and/or standards.

 

Good effort, but a little simplistic. Everyone has a moral code, even a serial killer, it is just that their code is different from most.

A better definition: The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The real question here is if some authority exists which can prescribe a standard of moral behavior and force others to abide by it, especially in cases where that behavior has no effect on their ability to conform or perform their duties, which in this case is not entirely clear.

This question applies to many activities other than DADT. DADT was a statement that a moral issue would be ignored, the current policy seems to endorse a moral choice, which many have good reason to oppose. Just as many would oppose an endorsement of theft as a policy.

Having four wives might be another example. Forcing people to accept a moral position is a very steep and slimey slope.

Most accepted morals are based on not causing harm to others, which most people accept without problem. It is the question of what causes harm that is the point of contention.

This also applies to helo guys.

 

Actually, some things are just that simple. I too could make enigmatic arguments about most topics, but they are rarely that complicated. For instance, I could simply ask the question "what makes the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy the unquestionable definer of morality?" Although I didn't read the definition posted, I'm sure I would generally accept it as fine. Why? Because it's the Stanford....
The reality is the question of whether or not an authority even exists to define and dictate such questions and answers is trivial and elementary in thought itself. Obviously, those authorities exist all around us....be they in government, nature, etc. Social mores, and therefore generally accepted morals, have always and will always exist, and will reflect the societies they represent. By my post above, I could fall on either side of the DADT debate. I was intentionally vague, possibly even misleading about my view. My statement was only an editorial re: the definitions of moral, immoral, and amoral, which I think were being misapplied.
The slippery slope is to assume that damage or harm can only be applied to the physical. At some point standards have to be applied in order to assure a functioning society where individuals can reasonably exist in that society. There one begins to gray the lines between laws and morals. Chicken or the egg. I would suggest morals are the chicken.

Enigmatic arguments, got to luv 'em. But some things are just that simple.

Everything applies to Helo guys.

 

DADT wasn't established for the protection of aristocratic naval knights of the air. Shoe clerks in general have no problem with its repeal (and apparently neither do naval aviatiors). Ask a (forward deployed) Marine.

"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports."

George Washington's Farewell Address

 

...and helo pilots will still pull a jet guy out of the drink, even if he is gay, which would be the presumption going in.

 

Nice!

Can't wait until they take over the next uniform selection board. The new designs are sure to be "FABULOUS"!!!!!

 

"The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law" ... Marcus Tullius Cicero.

....the building of a society on principles of Natural Law was nothing more nor less than recognizing and identifying the rules of "right conduct" with the laws of the Supreme Creator of the universe.

You guys are grappling with trying to figure out whats right, wrong and moral, when the definition has been with us for thousands of years.