by 
Reading about the big demonstration in Paris last weekend over a proposed French law allowing same-sex marriage, I paused at a paragraph that said Catholic, Jewish, and Islamic leaders are vehemently opposed to the legislation. The bishops, rabbis, and mullahs all agree that guys marrying guys and girls marrying girls is an unsavory practice that will surely breed “moral confusion.”
My immediate reaction was “Whoa there! Frenchmen are preaching about 'moral confusion'?” In a country whose national motto might well read, “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, and Moral Confusion”? In a nation that has produced characters like the Marquis de Sade, Marshal Pétain, Brigitte Bardot, and Dominique Strauss-Kahn? In Paris, a city that has staged morally dubious events such as the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, the Reign of Terror, and the Dreyfus Affair? If France's religious leaders haven't come to accept a pretty much institutional atmosphere of “moral confusion” by now, they're doomed to spend their lives in a perpetual state of surprise.
I mean, really. Doesn't the name Cardinal Richelieu ring a bell?
Seriously, though, this little French controversy mirrors similar battles over marriage equality in the US and elsewhere, where anxieties about “moral confusion” inevitably translate as: “What will we tell the children?”
Ostensibly, this is a sensible concern, especially in an era when conscientious parents seem to be constantly crouched down, explaining things — most of which need no explanation — to kids. When I was a kid, of course, the customary answer to “What will we tell the children?” was “Nothing.” This was fine with me, even when my parents split up, because their divorce made sense. By the time I hit kindergarten, Mom and Dad had long since ceased to hug and kiss, opting instead for epic, all-night fights on a regular basis.
Nobody had to tell the kids anything, because we'd seen it coming.
We did get some “moral confusion,” however, courtesy of the Catholic Church, which if not for the intervention of our saintly pastor, Father Mulligan, would have excommunicated Mom forever from the sacraments for one of the bravest moral decisions of her life.
Much later, I had a divorce of my own and was living with my second wife in a small town in Massachusetts. My kids from my first marriage, Aaron and Ellisa, spent most weekends with us. Even today, because the breakup of my first marriage was quiet and amicable, Aaron and Ellisa are a little confused. I tried to explain the divorce, but I wasn't very convincing. In this case, there was no fighting, the kids hadn't seen it coming, and they never truly understood why their parents were apart.
Coincidentally, our next-door neighbors in that town were Eugene and Marty, a gay couple who thought my kids were a hoot. Aaron and Ellisa ran in and out of their house all the time. Eugene and Marty, who had been together for years, were outgoing, funny, and generous, with a refrigerator full of stuff my kids liked. They were, by far, our favorite neighbors. Neither Aaron nor Ellisa ever asked why two men were living together in such obvious intimacy. They would have been shocked to learn that the household next door was, at the time, illegal in a dozen states.
When two people who love each other, move in together, and get married, children aren't confused about what's going on, morally or otherwise. Kids understand love. Many kids' first experience in life is being loved, overwhelmingly and unconditionally. Kids know that where there is love — in any arrangement of genders — there is warmth, friendliness, and safety.
Rather than asking, “What will we tell the children?” about marriage equality, perhaps the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim moralists-in chief of France and America, and everywhere else, should wonder, “What will the children tell us?”
Maybe we should shut up and listen. Maybe the message we'd get is that most of the moral instruction we inflict on children goes in one ear and out the other, especially if the kids are smart. Maybe we'd remember that the example we set, in our actions, forms their real moral education. Maybe we'd learn that “moral confusion” is the human condition, from which no child can be — or ought to be — protected. Maybe we'd notice that moral confusion, far from being the enemy of Big Religion, is its lifeblood.
I think when our day of reckoning comes the Lord will decide if we lived our lives correctly. As for our time on earth I say live & let live……..'so whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them”. Gay, straight what does it matter as long as you build a loving, caring, compassionate home.
hmm I have to ommit that it is a very complicated matter and even I truly believe that in any kind of relationship love is matter and it is what the kids want , from the other hand I am cautious about couples of the same sex to have kids.
In my opinion the taboo about the same sex marraiges is because , a marriage is always associated to building up a family , have children ,bring them up as per your family values and so on.
If the same sex companionships are termed as something else other than “marriage” , then there should be no reason for the religous leadres to oppose them.
The same sex maariage should be treated as a live-in relationship.
What come to mind is the Africa, Roman Empire and AIDS.
Hi, Anna
I keep on saying that PCs don't have a chance anymore. Tablets will take the reign, even taking the position of the laptops.
-Susan
I don't remember, and I am very curious to see if the same dilemma and discussions were taken place when the netbooks came into the market.
And very soon Tablet and PC will have one more product to share its market – mobile phone like Samsung Note II and others. Eventually they will all mature and settle at equillibrium.
Susan, When and if I find myself buying another PC, which most likely would be a laptop, I can tell you it won't log as many miles with me as my current PC.
@Bolaji If you'll be using a tablet for some PC functions, would a new PC even be necessary?
@ Susan, I agree with you on that but thats is going to be future tablets with more features and functions
@Ariella, We would still need the PC for quite a while because the processing power of tablets isn't still high enough and the storage is also limited. People defending the PC need to understand that we said the same about desktop PCs never falling behind notebooks. It happened. I will eventually give up the PC and so will others.
Eventually, companies like Apple will find a way to meet users' demands as far as the shortcomings of the tablets might be. Apple sells more tablets than it does PCs and it want more of the market share of PC holders. That's where it's future lies.
@Bolaji what of the possibility of smartphones and tablet merging, or do you believe people will continue to carry both?
Ariella, Sorry, we are stuck with the smartphone and tablet as individual devices. I don't think it's impossible but the miniaturization (power and size) isn't there yet. The first combination we'll see is the PC-tablet combo. They'll exist as individual devices but they'll also become either/or for users.
Tablets versus real computers? There are two different uses for them. Just attempt to create anything, using a real cad program, on a tablet. Bad news there: you really do need at least a PC for that. Likewise, real document creation, spreadsheets, or even PowerPoint presentations. The tablet may work for watching TV or playing music, and surfing the internet, but for real work, it is a toy. Don't get a city bus if you want a motorbike, and vice versa.
There is a place for both of them, indeed.
But if Microsoft creates a tablet, we can expect that to contribute to a resurgence of desktop PC systems. It certainly is possible to take something that was usable and revise it into something totally foreign, which they are good at.
@William K: it is a good point and I would like to elaborate it just a little more; after all, there are many devices around PCs and tablets and although it seems an adveniristic plane, I believe we could consider within the discussion Gooogle glass; maybe some features from them, will substitute in a such way those from tablets…
The various features such as the Google Glass thing may possibly have some use on PCs, that is true. BUt there are a lot of differences between what folks do on a tablet or smartphone and the work that some of us do on a descktop box. Can you imagine a tablet with 10gigabytes of ram??? Or with a mouse good enough for CAD work? And what about even the simpler flow simulators? and the logic circuit simulators? The tasks that would overwhelm any tablet are quite a few. On the other side, of course, are those tasks like restaurant searching and near-field paying a bar tab, that would be just fine for a tablet or smartphone. I don't see how a touch screen, even the best that Apple can offer, would help with a spreadsheet or even a cad application, although it is probably simple enough to make them work togather.
So while the market is split, it does not look like the end of the road for either type of device, and those who keep harping that it is should be asked to explain why they are makig all of that noise. Those predictions have no value and they are unable to benefit anybody, so we would be better off with silence on the subject.
Both devices are serving nearly same purpose to consumers – touch screen/qwerty, emailing and multi-media. The only major difference that still preventing consumers from ditching one for another – phoning, and perhaps size. That could affect either tablet or smartphone in near future.
@Wale I've seen people holding up full size tablets to take pictures. Now, that looks awkward to me, but I imagine the picture quality could be better than one gets on a phone. But if someone develops a fully functional tablet that could be folded up to the size of a phone and has some convenient phoning feature built in (even though I'm told that everyone in the know today texts and doesn't call), then there can be a combination mobile device that covers all the on-the-go computing needs.
In very near future i can see one get displaced this might probably depends on some additional features swap over. But PC remains in market, this might be for a set of people and enterprise sector
Samsung has its Galaxy S2/3 a mini -tablet (smartphone) features and very portable and lighter than tablet. This's a perfect example of what would happen to tablet and smartphone soon.
@Wale, yes, I would think so. I believe their advertising says something like “the next thing is here.”
@WK: really interesting perspective, not so easy as you have mentioned, to find out the right scenario; anyway, objects around us are becoming smart, no doubts.
@WB: interesting point and I would like to elaborate just a little more; “size” – as you have outlined – is a key factor that probably will impact the market in the future; I am also convinced humans will interact with objects instead of handling devices, as of today, by using tablets and so on; what about?
What has ocurred to me is that the predictions about the incredible growth of one form or the other are the self-serving propositions of folks attempting to boost their favored direction. Just like I posted a while back, elsewhere: “What else could the CEO possibly say?” If you don't predict unbelieveable growth in your segment of the market, the board will find another CEO who will make those predictions. Reality has very little to do with it. Sort of like the “Hype” that went on in the record business back in the sixties and fifties. Keep repeating the story often enough and eventually some people will believe it.
Microsoft surface and windows 8 actually are good bridging between tablets and PCs. The software and the interface of windows 8 look quite the same on tablet on and on PC. There is high chance hybrid devices will be growing and attracting attention
Well, it is another great point to discuss. We have assisted several times to the events you have outlined: incredible predictions in terms of revenues and footprint on the market, despite to what was really happened. I am wondering if there is a universal and fair model for making CEOs responsible of results achieved; it seems, that model runs for collecting huge bonus, but doesn't run properly in case of negative impacts or it happened only recently those responsibilities have been applied to.
William K.,
Microsoft created the Surface already.
-Susan
Susan, of course, you are correct. but making a product a big success takes more than just making the product, even if you are Steve Jobs. The push to make a product into a business success is not simple, and it requires constantly telling folks how everybody else loves it. And any CEO who did not constantly remark about the fantastic future, when everybody will have their product, would quite soon be evicted from office per the demands of the stock holders.
So no matter what the product is the predictions will always be that in three years everybody in the whole world will be purchasing them no matter what the price.
William K.,
“making a product a big success takes more than just making the product,”
Yes, I know. But don't you think that Microsoft has what it takes to make a product sucessful?
-Susan
Microsoft has used skillful manipulation to get a huge market share and they have certainly made lots of money. And while a lot of the things that they have done over the years have increased the MS market share, they still sell products that would bring other companies a lot of criticism.
But what gains Microsoft has made are often at the expense of destroyed competitors. They have the resources to dump product at a loss until the competition can't survive by matching prices. They have done that with software many times in the past.
So I would have to acknowledge that Microsoft has been a business success, but only by means of what I would assert are dishonorable and underhanded business practices. Just because a person is “the last man standing” does not mean anything except that they are anything other than a winning fighter.
And, in our discussion about tablets versus non-hand-held computing, just because they would force “newthink” on everybody does not mean that everybody will embrace “newthink”.
Whynin the whole world should I choose to do the same thing that everybody else does, just because they are doing it?
William K.,
“Just because a person is “the last man standing” does not mean anything except that they are anything other than a winning fighter.”
I can't disagree with that. Certainly it's true. If all the companies in the world would play clean and ethical games everything would be better.
Then we have to wonder if the problem is of one sole company or if it is a generalized business attitude, which corresponds to the attitude of the whole global society.
Indeed, business ethics should be more inforced and promoted.
“And, in our discussion about tablets versus non-hand-held computing, just because they would force “newthink” on everybody does not mean that everybody will embrace “newthink”.” Whynin the whole world should I choose to do the same thing that everybody else does, just because they are doing it?”
I am of the first in supporting the idea of not doing something just because everyone else is doing it if what is in question is against your way of thinking, principles, etc..
But, I am not sure if I have clear your concept here. Do you think that they are forcing tablets on consumers?
-Susan
What I mean is that through marketing efforts and their large collection of resources that Microsoft is able to create a crowd hysteria type of effect and use that effect for their financial benefit. This is similar to the effects that a very skilled orator could produce back in the era when people would actually pay serious attention to a public speaker. That doesn't happen much these days because many people are unable to focus their attention for any length of time.
But those people at MS have mastered the art of crowd dynamics and manipulation to the point that they have some folks eager to embrace whatever they choose to sell. As proof, look at all of the folks standing in line to buy the next release of each new operating system.Those lines prove the dkills at crowd manipulation.
William K.,
But don't you think that crowd manipulation is present almost everywhere rather than just in one company?
“. . . through marketing efforts and their large collection of resources that Microsoft is able to create a crowd hysteria type of effect and use that effect for their financial benefit. “
I am not taking any sides here. However, I believe that same can be said about many other companies. Anyone trying to sell a product or service is going to apply direct or indirectly some crowd manipulation. That's what marketing is all about, isn't it?
I am not saying that I agree with it either. It's one more characteristic of human behaviour in the times of massive consumerism that we are living.
Masses also line up at an Apple store every time there is a new iPhone. Crowd manipulation is some sort of invisible hypnosis, and not necessarily always used for the benefit of the crowd, as much as it benefits the one moving the strings of the puppets.
-Susan
About the Apple crowds: I think that the Apple products are a much better value than any Microsoft product has ever been.
Consider the number of times that Apple has had to send out patches for buggy products. Not very many, are there. Now consider how many fixes get sent out to fix that other company's products. The numbers speak much louder than I ever could. I believe that it is dishonest to take people's money and not deliver the promised performance. If one is selling junk, then describe it truthfully as junk before selling it.