Thursday, December 04, 2008

shades of grey

You know,
I am still not happy with the last post. There used to be a day and people would agree what was good and bad. And a behavior could be declared off limits if the majority of the people felt it was bad.

Nowdays, one can not use the simple argument that it is good or bad. In fact it seems like one can barely argue on the grounds that the behavior brings forth good things or bad things. In fact one of the questions to determine if an action is moral or not is "if everybody did it, what kind of world would we have?"

Well, that seems to be a logical place to start... a logical question to ask. We all want to live in a happy, healthy world.

So... If everybody loved each other, the world would be more pleasant. (I think we can agree on that)so loving one another is good.

If everybody smoked, there would be more lung cancer, health problems and air pollution. Therefore smoking is bad- scientifically proven. And in this case, even upheld by laws.

if everybody used gas sparingly, the air would be cleaner, the gas prices would drop and the world would be healthier. Positive effects can also be seen for recycling and eating less meat this way.

ok.... let's get into traditional values...
if everybody was honest and ethical in their school work and then in their jobs, gee, they might not get as rich, and there also might not be as much government bail outs. In fact, there even has been a cry for more ethical behavior in business, but yet ignoring the fact that ethical behavior stems from trainings in traditional morality.

So, back to tenets of traditional morality. How about if everybody slept around? Would that improve our world, or would that cause more cases of STDs and less feelings of trust- I know it would wreck almost all personal relationships, cause more single parenting and little if any accountability for child having or child rearing. But if all people did it and it was acceptable, single parenting would become the norm, but single parenting is tough, and often needs state aid. In fact, I am sure that changes would be made calling for longer school days, mandatory all day preschools and so on. And because of the biological nature of things women would be the bearers of most of the weight of this in society. Therefore one can argue that is it definitively in the women's' and children's best interest to have a monogamists relationship with trust worthy men. Better on the state, on the women, on the children. And ladies, lets face it. Men are happier when someone is there to care for them., and I know that my man likes not having to wo and win to get sex every time. All he has to do is the dishes.

Ok.. now the moralist grey ground at this time.... if everybody was gay, how would this world be? (100 years ago, people would have said happy. But that is no longer the meaning of the word). Well, there would be no children, with out assisted reproduction. Which means that only rich people (who can afford the price of a house for a kid) would have children. (now please don't argue that that is not a problem... remember the rules of the game "if everybody did....?")
Gee, no children. And the men would loose out on fatherhood. The children would most likely end up with 2 mothers- which would make the working mother issue easier, but learning what it means to be one of your gender would be challenging). Basically world populations would fall to an unsustainable level in 1 (count it 1) generation.

According to the rules of the game gay marriage does not pan out. Now lets look at the 7th generation games. What impact will these decisions have on the 7th generation from now?

How will it effect how our children, and their children view marriage and child rearing? In "1984" by George Orwell. Couples were chosen by the state and had to "do their duty" to their state every Saturday night. Their duty was to reproduce the next generation. As a biological being/ race, we have the imperative to grow the next generation and for society to function that imperative implies the rearing of them to carry on our work.

Sodom and Gomorrah did not have to be destroyed by God. The society destroyed it's self. All God did was bury their remains (probably in the hope that others would head the warning a not follow in their footsteps). Can our society expect better results if we accept gay marriage as equal to the marriage in which a man and woman naturally try to carry on our biological imperatives?

By allowing them to marry you are not only giving them the legal rights that go along with marriage, you are saying that the state accepts it as equal in importance and value to the marriage between a man and a woman. This can not be so if the state wishes to have healthy populations to govern in the coming centuries.

1 comment:

Paul said...

Near the end, are you saying that, if the state recognizes that gay couples have basic rights, everybody will want to be in a gay marriage?

A basic flaw in the beginning of the argument is the tenant that goodness and badness can be judged by what would happen if everybody did it.

It would silly to ask... What would happen if everybody was a full time cop? or drug manufacturer? or television salesman? We only need a few of each. God and nature saw fit to make a somewhat consistent percentage of every kind of critter have homosexual tendencies. I must assume there is a reason why we need a few.

We should respect the differences among us.
Our world and our ecology are made possible by diversity.