Dan's Soapbox

Dan's views on current events, popular culture, and other topics of interest.

Name:
Location: United States

I'm now on Twitter: http://twitter.com/Racnad

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

So What!

There were two consecutive news items on the TV news crawler that caught my attention.

1) Elton John plans wedding with an artist David Furnish.
My reaction: So what?

2) PETA blasts Kellie Osborne for dying her dog pink.
My reaction: So what?

Both the right and the extreme left seek to regulate people's private behavior. As far as I know, a dog will not care if it has pink fur, so there is no harm done provided the coloring agent is not toxic and the dog's owner is not too embarrassed to take it for a walk in public. And as far as I know, no one has explained in a logical manner how same sex marriages would or could cause the dissolution any heterosexual marriage, or prevent heterosexuals who love each other and want to start a family from getting married.

PETA's discomfort with pets of unnatural fur color makes as much logical sense some people's discomfort with same-sex couples solidifying their relationship the same way heterosexuals do. If you don't care for unusually colored pets, don't color their fur. And if marrying someone of the same sex doesn't appeal to you, don't marry someone of the same sex. But unless you can show that these actions are somehow harmful, don't impose your preferences on others.

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Hooking Up - New or Not?

I've been hearing in the media recently that college age people don't date any more. They "hook up," which is having sex with someone without even buying dinner. Or people have "friends with benefits," the benefits being booty-call on demand minus the hassles of relationships.

Well these stories triggered my BS alarm. I highly doubt human nature and male-female dynamics have changed that much since I was that age in the 1980s.

Here's what I think:"Hooking up" is a new name for what was known in the 1970s and 80s as "one night stands."

"Friends with benefits" is a new name for what used to be called slutty, loose, promiscious or free love, depending on how judgemental you want to be about it. Further, I doubt the majority of young people hook up or have friends with benefits, and most who do only do it a few times. The men who are hooking up are mostly the fortunate few with the same traits as those guys I used to know who got laid easily.

Everyone else is probably just dating or trying to date, but that doesn't sound in the media as good as "hooking up."

I have the same suspicion about reports that junior high school girls are having oral sex all over the place. When I see these stories on TV, kids are not talking about what they've done. They are tlaking about what they've heard other kids have done. Junior high gossip now replaces sound research.

Comments from those under 30??

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

The Civil Unions Comprimise

What it really comes down to for most people is what sort of couples they are comfortable applying the term "married" to. I have no issue with the label being applied to same sex couples, but many people do. However, I have to admit I'm not comfortable with siblings and other couples among immediate family members being referred to as "married."

However, among the benefits of marriage are the legal rights and responsibilities. It is my understanding that same sex couples wanting to establish these legal arrangements have to hire an attorney and pay several thousand dollars. I can understand why they feel discriminated against.

Also, a brother and sister wanting to get married could respond to the birth defects argument that people with genetically transmitted medical problems can still legally marry, despite the risk of passing medical problems on to children.

Therefore, I would be happy with the establishment of civil unions that allow any two people to establish marriage-like legal relationships between each other, available with the same cost and convenience as marriage licenses. Same-sex couples could still have weddings in churches that are willing to perform them, but the legal term "marriage" would still only apply to opposite-sex couples who are not related. I have heard of people getting married for the legal reasons who but have no interest in sex or children with each other, and this arrangement would suit them as well.

As for siblings and other immediate family members, this might make sense if both are single and want the other to speak for them critical medical situations, or pass assets in case of death outside of probate. Civil unions don't have to presume the partners are having sex together, so if they do that's their own private business (as it is now).

As for polygamy, current family law is not adequate to address all the issues that may arise. For example, is one or more of the wives divorce, then what are the child visitation rights among wives and ex-wives? Unless such issues can be sensibly ironed out, polygamous relationships will just have to exist outside of legal recognition for now.

So I would think that civil unions would satisfy most reasonable people. But there are some that oppose civil unions, as well as company health plans that offer benefits to same-sex partners. I still see that as little more than bigotry.

Friday, April 08, 2005

Morality and Pragmatism

I consider morality and pragatism to be the same. My view is that morals developed in ancient cultures as people discovered what rules were necessary for people to live together without ending up killing each other. The ancient communities that survived and prospered in the long term are those that devopled successful rules. Those communities and their rules evolved into the modern culture & morals we have today.

However, as cultures and techbology develops, what was pragmatically moral then may not be so pragmatic now. For example, I understand the Old Testiment says that if a man dies, the man's brother should marry the widow. This may have been pragmatic in ancient Judea, but in the modern age of life insurance, employment opportunities for women, and opportunities for second marraiges, this rule is no longer pragmatic.

Also, ancient cultures did not have to confront issues like persistant vegitative states, embryonic stem cell research or downloading copywrited music and movies from the Internet. Modern cultures have to decide what is most pragmatic from a long-term societal view, and that becomes part of our morality.

But some things don't change. Murder as a means to settle disputes and theivery always have and continue to be disruptive to smoothly running human communities, so they continue to be both immoral and non-pragmatic from the community persepctive.

I've often heard that people who lie, cheat, steal, abuse drugs and cheat on their partners are taking the "easy path." I disagree. It may be easy in the immediate momment, but it makes life more difficult. These people end up living in fear of and dealing with consequences of being fired from jobs, jail terms, broken relationships and increased health problems. I think my life is easier because I don't worry about these things so much. For me, that's both pragmatic and moral.

Tuesday, April 05, 2005

24: The President is not a terrorist

Well, 24 has proved me wrong. When President Keller declined to divert Air Force One to Palm Springs I thought I was right. But with next week's preview, I'm now fairly certain that my earlier prediction is wrong and the President is not a terrorist. Instead, Marwan seems to be after a briefcase or laptop containing nuclear codes.

I guess if our government has a device built that can take control of 130 nuclear power plants away from the crews manning them, our nuclear weapons could also be launched by anyone possesing the President's secret case.

Should we expect a surprise appearance by Dr. Strangelove in an episode or two?

Nature or Nurture? Liberal or Conservative?

An irony recently occurred to me how "political correctness," from either a conservative or a liberal perspective can affect the views one holds.

How many of the observed differences between men & women is due to socialization, and how much is innate?

Some liberals will argue that personalities differences, such as preferences for sports vs. playing with toy weapons vs. toy home appliances, playful roughhousing vs. sharing of feelings is due entirely to socialization and expectations that parents and society have for boys & girls. An infant is a blank slate.

Many conservatives on the other hand, believe that these are innate and due to cerebral and endochinogical differences between the sexes.

But when talking about sexuality, whether one is innately heterosexual or homosexual, the views are reversed. Liberals insist that sexuality is set at birth. This view is politically motivated because if sexual preference is not innate, then homosexuality can be classified as a disorder and reversed through treatment, or prevented through protecting children from influences that might cause them to become homosexual.

Many conservatives argue that sexual preference is largely due to nurture. This justifies discrimination against gays & lesbians under the guise of "protecting children." But if sexuality is innate, that makes discrimination against gays & lesbians the moral equivalent of racial discrimination.

So for Nature or Nurture, both sides of the culture war need to make up their minds? Personally I'm not emotionally invested in identifying myself as liberal or conservative, so strattle the fence. My belief is that 60-80 percent of the personality characteristics associated with gender, including sexual preference, is innate, and maybe 20-40 percent influenced by environment.

Monday, April 04, 2005

When Left is Right

The Schiavo case illustrates that the old definitions of Conservative and Liberal no longer apply.

Traditionally, Conservatives favored a small government that stays out of people's personal affairs, while liberals are more willing to legislate private behavior to acheive sociatal goals. Do you want to hire only white Christian heterosexuals for your business? You can't. Want to drain some wetlands you own to build a vacation home? Sorry!

But in this case, it's the Conservatives that are sticking their noses and second-guessing private decisions, while liberals say "hands off!"