Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
A Moral Argument
Back to the same-sex issue. This is an issue of difference of morals. This is not about skin-color or gender or other natural, physical differences. This is about a moral difference. Same-sex couples must accept the fact that many people, in the fact, the majority of U.S. citizens, have a different set of morals then they do. It is not discriminatory. It is a fact they must accept.
Think of it this way. Say there are no absolute morals (I hope it's clear I do not believe this is true). It is all relative. We each individually choose our set of moral beliefs. So, same-sex couples have theirs, which of course support their practices. Traditional religious groups have theirs, which support only the traditional view of marriage. From a moral relativist standpoint, if same-sex marriage is banned, then same-sex couples are being discriminated against. Yet if same-sex marriage is allowed and religions must accept them (properties are open to the weddings, adoption agencies must adopt to same-sex couples), then religious groups are being discriminated against. One party or the other will have to sacrifice something. This is equality?
Say there is an absolute morality. Now the question is, how do we determine it? How do we decide if same-sex marriage is moral? This is the big question that makes this all so difficult. How do we determine what is moral? Can we turn to God? Many would say no because they do not believe in God. Do we turn to the practices of society for the much of recorded history? Well, there have been different understandings of marriage throughout history. Perhaps more damaging to this attempt is that many practices (slavery being a prime example) which were accepted for millennia but we do not consider moral today.
Not to say that there isn't an answer. I suggest that we look to what will create the most stable and long-lasting society. There is a lot to discuss and think about along these lines. I am not providing a complete argument here. But I believe it is common sense to promote heterosexual marriage. Only a man and a woman can have a child. Girls and boys are fundamentally different, not just physically but emotionally and mentally. Some would argue this. I wonder if they have ever spent time around boys and girls, though. From what I've observed of my nieces and nephews growing up, as well as the little I've read from philosophers and sociologists, it is blatantly obvious that boys and girls are different from the very beginning.
The ideal is that boys will grow up to be men and girls will grow up to be women. "Duh," you may say. But think about a few things. There are unique problems that girls face that two fathers would have difficulty helping their daughter get through. It doesn't matter how many books they have read, they have not experienced it and cannot provide the empathy a mother can provide. There are, of course, many other examples. Boys and girls are fundamentally different and the ideal is that every boy and girl has a man and a woman to guide and direct them through their development.
The fundamental differences in the man and woman, the mother and father, are vital for the children as well. I value highly the compassion my mother has taught me that I could not have learned in the same way from my father. My father has taught me how to be a man and how to deal with certain situations my mother would have difficulty helping me through. I can turn to my father and discuss with him subjects it would be difficult to discuss with my mother. These differences come from the fact that my father is a man - he is like me. My mother is a woman - she is different from me.
Like I said, I don't have time to fully develop these ideas. One more paragraph and I need to wrap up. Some would say that there are many children of single parents who turn out just fine. True, but how many children prefer this situation to having the mother or father they never had? Why should the non-ideal help us determine the ideal? Why should the failings of society determine how we shape our society? Those single parents have done incredible things and should be honored. But does that mean we just need to aim for single-parent households? Though there are successes, I feel it is common sense (common sense is not a very good argument, so research for yourself) from the things I have already written and more that a two parent-household, consisting of a mother and a father, is the ideal. A man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot accomplish the same thing.
I desire a strong and stable society. Society rests upon the foundation of the family. We should make that foundation as solid and stable as possible. A mother, father, and children is the ideal. There are those who have difficulty meeting this ideal. We should love them and help them. We should not hate them, ridicule them, reject them. But it is not love to weaken that foundation and change the ideal for them.
Think of it this way. Say there are no absolute morals (I hope it's clear I do not believe this is true). It is all relative. We each individually choose our set of moral beliefs. So, same-sex couples have theirs, which of course support their practices. Traditional religious groups have theirs, which support only the traditional view of marriage. From a moral relativist standpoint, if same-sex marriage is banned, then same-sex couples are being discriminated against. Yet if same-sex marriage is allowed and religions must accept them (properties are open to the weddings, adoption agencies must adopt to same-sex couples), then religious groups are being discriminated against. One party or the other will have to sacrifice something. This is equality?
Say there is an absolute morality. Now the question is, how do we determine it? How do we decide if same-sex marriage is moral? This is the big question that makes this all so difficult. How do we determine what is moral? Can we turn to God? Many would say no because they do not believe in God. Do we turn to the practices of society for the much of recorded history? Well, there have been different understandings of marriage throughout history. Perhaps more damaging to this attempt is that many practices (slavery being a prime example) which were accepted for millennia but we do not consider moral today.
Not to say that there isn't an answer. I suggest that we look to what will create the most stable and long-lasting society. There is a lot to discuss and think about along these lines. I am not providing a complete argument here. But I believe it is common sense to promote heterosexual marriage. Only a man and a woman can have a child. Girls and boys are fundamentally different, not just physically but emotionally and mentally. Some would argue this. I wonder if they have ever spent time around boys and girls, though. From what I've observed of my nieces and nephews growing up, as well as the little I've read from philosophers and sociologists, it is blatantly obvious that boys and girls are different from the very beginning.
The ideal is that boys will grow up to be men and girls will grow up to be women. "Duh," you may say. But think about a few things. There are unique problems that girls face that two fathers would have difficulty helping their daughter get through. It doesn't matter how many books they have read, they have not experienced it and cannot provide the empathy a mother can provide. There are, of course, many other examples. Boys and girls are fundamentally different and the ideal is that every boy and girl has a man and a woman to guide and direct them through their development.
The fundamental differences in the man and woman, the mother and father, are vital for the children as well. I value highly the compassion my mother has taught me that I could not have learned in the same way from my father. My father has taught me how to be a man and how to deal with certain situations my mother would have difficulty helping me through. I can turn to my father and discuss with him subjects it would be difficult to discuss with my mother. These differences come from the fact that my father is a man - he is like me. My mother is a woman - she is different from me.
Like I said, I don't have time to fully develop these ideas. One more paragraph and I need to wrap up. Some would say that there are many children of single parents who turn out just fine. True, but how many children prefer this situation to having the mother or father they never had? Why should the non-ideal help us determine the ideal? Why should the failings of society determine how we shape our society? Those single parents have done incredible things and should be honored. But does that mean we just need to aim for single-parent households? Though there are successes, I feel it is common sense (common sense is not a very good argument, so research for yourself) from the things I have already written and more that a two parent-household, consisting of a mother and a father, is the ideal. A man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot accomplish the same thing.
I desire a strong and stable society. Society rests upon the foundation of the family. We should make that foundation as solid and stable as possible. A mother, father, and children is the ideal. There are those who have difficulty meeting this ideal. We should love them and help them. We should not hate them, ridicule them, reject them. But it is not love to weaken that foundation and change the ideal for them.
Who is lying?
No on 8 said
Setting aside the fact that this is a same-sex couple, this is private property. The organization, church or not, has the right to rent the facility to whomever they choose. The court cannot decide that.
Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.
- Fact: The court decision regarding marriage specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”
Setting aside the fact that this is a same-sex couple, this is private property. The organization, church or not, has the right to rent the facility to whomever they choose. The court cannot decide that.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Network Neutrality
Taking a break from finals, I found this article about Google backing away from a stance for network neutrality. At stake is the traditional rule that Internet carriers - AT&T and such - don't prefer one content provider - Google, Yahoo, etc. - over another. It seems the carriers want content providers to begin carrying some of the cost burdens. And content providers are seeking for fast tracks - they want to pay to have faster connections.
Here are the pros and cons as I see it:
First, the benefits of a pay-for-speed deal means faster connections for the most successful websites - the ones which we all use. Amazon.com, Google, E-bay, will have guaranteed fast connections. I don't know all the logistics, but I think this means that it will be less common for these websites to go slow. Second, it will increase the ability of AT&T and Comcast and other companies to build high-speed networks. Right now, as they carry all the costs, it is difficult and costly to build these networks everywhere they are needed. But if those companies that require high-speed access are paying for it, then the networks will be built more quickly and we will have faster internet. Third, the quality of the internet will increase. As companies compete for bandwidth, they will need to earn more to pay for it. To earn more, they will need to have higher-quality websites that meet the needs of their users better.
On the flip side of that argument, a lot of people may lose their voice. Right now anyone could make a website and have it seen by just about anyone. With a pay-for-speed system, then all those smaller organizations will load slowly and the big companies' websites will load quickly. People will favor the big and neglect the small. There is a possibility costs could go up, as well. As internet companies begin paying for bandwidth, their costs will increase. These higher costs will eventually end up on the bills of the users.
I better get back to studying, so I'm going to wrap this up. My initial conclusion is in favor of pay-for-speed. I'm in favor of a faster, higher-quality internet. Some people claim working for money kills innovation. Hm...an interesting argument considering the most innovative nation in known history has a market (money) based economy. Were our most innovative men working solely for the public good? I could go into history, but why not consider the topic of this article - Google. Incredible innovators, they have made incredible profits. Some may claim it is out of goodwill and wealth comes to those who do good for others, but I flatly and bluntly disagree (think Mother Theresa). Google is in it for the money. And that is not a bad thing, because as long as they abide by the rules (which they seem to be doing), we all end up better off.
Here are the pros and cons as I see it:
First, the benefits of a pay-for-speed deal means faster connections for the most successful websites - the ones which we all use. Amazon.com, Google, E-bay, will have guaranteed fast connections. I don't know all the logistics, but I think this means that it will be less common for these websites to go slow. Second, it will increase the ability of AT&T and Comcast and other companies to build high-speed networks. Right now, as they carry all the costs, it is difficult and costly to build these networks everywhere they are needed. But if those companies that require high-speed access are paying for it, then the networks will be built more quickly and we will have faster internet. Third, the quality of the internet will increase. As companies compete for bandwidth, they will need to earn more to pay for it. To earn more, they will need to have higher-quality websites that meet the needs of their users better.
On the flip side of that argument, a lot of people may lose their voice. Right now anyone could make a website and have it seen by just about anyone. With a pay-for-speed system, then all those smaller organizations will load slowly and the big companies' websites will load quickly. People will favor the big and neglect the small. There is a possibility costs could go up, as well. As internet companies begin paying for bandwidth, their costs will increase. These higher costs will eventually end up on the bills of the users.
I better get back to studying, so I'm going to wrap this up. My initial conclusion is in favor of pay-for-speed. I'm in favor of a faster, higher-quality internet. Some people claim working for money kills innovation. Hm...an interesting argument considering the most innovative nation in known history has a market (money) based economy. Were our most innovative men working solely for the public good? I could go into history, but why not consider the topic of this article - Google. Incredible innovators, they have made incredible profits. Some may claim it is out of goodwill and wealth comes to those who do good for others, but I flatly and bluntly disagree (think Mother Theresa). Google is in it for the money. And that is not a bad thing, because as long as they abide by the rules (which they seem to be doing), we all end up better off.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Good Math, at least for Wall Street
Ah, Dilbert. Greg Mankiw found some good commentary on the current mess.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Expensive Oil = Fewer Deaths
There are always more consequences to changes in our world than we expect. Take high oil prices, for example. We are all glad they have dropped back down. Especially at this time of year, it feels good to spend money on something other than filling up the gas tank.
But there is, of course, a bigger picture. Prices are low, but the economy as a whole is still falling. The additional good news and the unnoticed benefit? Deaths are down in car related accidents. So while many people struggle to make ends meet, there are a few thousand who can simply be grateful that they have the ability to worry about making ends meet.
But there is, of course, a bigger picture. Prices are low, but the economy as a whole is still falling. The additional good news and the unnoticed benefit? Deaths are down in car related accidents. So while many people struggle to make ends meet, there are a few thousand who can simply be grateful that they have the ability to worry about making ends meet.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
No Mob Veto
This is a great ad. We don't need to all agree. We simply need to accept that we have different viewpoints. Fundamental to this country is the ability to express those viewpoints. I have no problem with gay people speaking about their desire for marriage. I disagree with them, but I would never do anything to silence them. It's a pretty simple matter - I don't like being intimidated or hated for being Mormon. Obviously, they wouldn't want to be intimidated or hated for some of their beliefs. So, I will grant them the same respect that I ask for - to be allowed to express my opinions and views without fear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)