Talk:Morality

I would truly like to see someone that knows what it means saying that "A man marrying another man is a Moral action." There is no positive morality that would apply here, only immorality and amorality. The same goes for heterosexual marriages. The only exception i can think of is the utilitarian principal, where that which brings the most happiness (if the two guys want to marry and would be happy doing so they not only ought, but should and must preform said action). That said, this is the worst overview of morality I've ever seen. --Stills 04:19, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Somebody who has an orthodox Christian view of morality is going to place the gender of the couple involved as morally more important than the mutual love and commitment of the couple, because of Biblical injunctions. Such a person is going to feel that the marriage of two men is morally wrong under any circumstances and therefore think it's immoral. Somebody whose view of morality says that the declaration of mutual love and commitment before witnesses is a more important aspect of a marriage ceremony than the gender of the participants is going to feel that it is more moral to marry than not to marry. The utilitarian approach would argue that morality as such doesn't enter into it. There are legal benefits to marriage which are not available for people in a committed but unmarried relationship. Unless I've got the utilitarian argument wrong, in which case I'm happy for somebody to correct me (I didn't write the first paragraph of this article).Britinme 19:47 30 March 3007 (EDT)

Copyright violation

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/9332.html contains large sections of the current article. My revert to a version without copyright issues was reverted by TK and locked. Just pointing it out here for others to consider - I'm out for a few hours. --Sid 3050 10:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for your comment. It's obvious that you are deeply concerned about the success of this project. :-) --Ed Poor 10:26, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Unlock and revert - PLEASE.

The current "article" is a patchwork of copy-pasting from other sources. I would be extremely surprised if more than thirty or fifty words were actually written by TK himself.

• The entire section from the beginning until "Thomas E. Brewton wrote" comes from here (word by word).
• The entire (uncut) section about Brewton can be read here. Notice how the first parts were originally written by a reader.
• The "Morality and the Law" section comes from this page (each paragraph appears there, though TK left out one)
• The Buddhist section is a copy-paste of the cited source.
• The entire section about Jews can be found here. I don't know if they're quoting the book or not, but TK most definitely didn't write that himself.

TK, please revert to the version I originally reverted to. Conservapedia wants us to write our own entries. You are encouraged to use sources, but copying everything from elsewhere is not cool. --Sid 3050 15:09, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I note that the entire section I wrote about the non-religious sources of morality, which included solid references, has simply been cut. I have it saved, or somebody who has access to this now-locked article can simply revert to it. What is the point in putting in well-researched material if it is permissible to over-write it with what looks to me like a gigantic copy-and-paste job of copyrighted material - a tad ironic in an article about morality, don't you think? Britinme16:23 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, a revert to this version would be the best thing. The current version is really just a copy-paste gig. --Sid 3050 17:05, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Okay, it's been a full day since TK locked the article and started his little copyright violation spree. He's had his fun, but can we now please unlock this thing and revert it? --Sid 3050 08:48, 1 April 2007 (EDT)