RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-Prince
Editor's note appended
What makes sex moral? In recent debates over this question, it always seems that the moral traditionalist position becomes the field of battle; that is, the Anscombe Society or individual students present (as well as can ...
(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
Man is the style vile. Was this originally a term paper?
"Bradon McGinley is a sophomore from Pittsburgh, Pa."
Really? Two more years of this? I thought the four I had already endured were enough...
No, thankfully he is a senior. Unfortunately, he is also willfully blind to the many public statements of those who oppose the "moral traditionalist" view.
Sigh. Too bad I have a full time job, which I need to get back to instead of arguing here.
Calling Christian morality "moral traditionalism" is a major revision of ancient history that kind of ignores the millennia of very different views on sex and conduct that predate Brandon's religion. It's his tradition, but by no means a universally held or primordially existent one like his statement implies (after all, Jesus' sermon on the mount was only 2,000 years ago). I'm sure Brandon's pagan ancestors had a very different view of "traditional" morals.
and @666, diddo with the job thing.
I recommend Style: On Clarity and Grace, by Joseph Williams.
I got a comprehensive sexual ethic for you cupcake: Anything I do sexually that doesn't break the law is none of your homophobic, panty-sniffing business. Clear enough?
"I write this today not as some sort of shocking “slippery slope” social prediction..."
I don't believe THAT for an instant.
Miscegenation: traditionally considered immoral, incl. by the vast majority of Americans when it was made legal 43 years ago. Just one example of the fact that we haven't seen that "traditional" comprehensive sexual ethic spelled out either. Bring it on, but show us just how traditional each item is, and whose traditions we're talking about.
Funny that, although the usual snarky and insulting commenters felt the need to go after his 'style,' no one has actually answered Brandon's clearly stated challenge or responded directly to his argument. If his claims are SO stupid, shouldn't they be easy to take down? If he's being "willfully blind," can someone enlighten him, and us? If not --what does that show us?
Well, one problem with what he claims as a necessary conclusion of the "non-traditionalist" camp's agenda is that it also applies to the "traditionalists." The Bible is replete with instances of incest (indeed, were it not for incestuous relationships among the offspring of Adam and and Noah, who were dutifully multiplying and repleneshing the earth through incestuous heterosexual intercourse, there would be no humanity, at least if you believe the Bible). The tradition of Western marriage in the last few hundred years is also full of uncles marrying nieces, cousins marrying cousins, etc. It's scientific knowledge and cultural norms that make incest taboo (and not the Bible, that foundational text of his version of morality), but unfortunately (for Mr. McGinley), these are the same forces that insist that things like homosexuality are a normal part of the human condition, as well.