One should look into what is meant by "morals," or "morality," because there is no one morality on this orb we call Earth. Holy books, such as the Jewish (Old) Testament, the Christian New Testament, the Koran, Book of Mormon, or any other scriptures from other religious sources, are not certified truth. These documents have been written by human beings, having a definite agenda to spread their beliefs, which they consider to be the WORD of some deity to which they owe their allegence. The "morals" extracted from these so-called god-given books vary in many ways and include dictums that are considered sacred; that is, the morals are not a matter of choice but are the "holy words" from a heavenly source. It is said by many that civil laws cannot be legislated but, when we examine this remark, we find that a good many laws are, indeed, contrived from religious belief sources. I will not add much more at this writing except to say, categorically, that morals (all morality) is a Matter of OPINION! No more and no less. So, morals are BELIEF systems and not credible facts. So, those who question morals, and the guilt pangs often associated with the morality that they subscribe to, should re-evaluate just how much these morals impact their lives and see what damaging effects that such beliefs have had in their growing-up. (Paladin)
I believe that morals are a matter of opinion yes. This all makes sense, yup. People need to realize that they don't need some holy entity to tell them what is right and what is wrong. If you steal something or kill someone, you FEEL that what you are doing is wrong. Those who base their morality system solely off the beliefs of a group are nothing more than followers who don't make decisions for themselves, kind of like sheep. To the slaughter...
I think it's interesting and helpful to note that one's sense of morality shouldn't apply to the people around them. Especially when we're talking about individuals finding a way to come to terms with their sexuality, you can't try and force your own morals onto someone else because you think you know what's "right" for them. For example -- I have a friend who has showed both emotional and sexual interest in me, but denies it, or at least has trouble talking about it. He knows that I identify as gay. It's not my place to judge him based on the fact that I have "already been through that" and to think that I could help him out of the closet. To him, there may be no closet. He may not be hiding anything. He may just have been curious and is able to love his friend in an unorthodox way. I have doubts, and I believe my friend is suffering (he may not be), but until he makes the decision (or not) to tell me about it..I have no right to choose where he goes next. He needs to figure it out himself. Which brings up something else, lol -- there has to be something said for taking action to develop and define your morals.
Hello Nicvcer & NoLeafClover. sorry I'm late in responding. To NLC: In the laast, morality is defined by the indv. himself, provided he/she understands that the standard models of societies cannot easily be transgressed without penalty. Indv. standards are, by and large, morals well-thought out. Later, on this. To Nicv... You have grasped the fact that morals are opinions; nonetheless, some opinions appear better than others. Difficult judgements & interpretations here, don't you think? My thanks for your input both of you. Paladin
