|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:43 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| jazzmaster wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| jazzmaster wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| jazzmaster wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I don't see any moral consistency in these people. I just see hypocrites who jump on the latest moral crusade bandwagon. |
I think someone called this behaviour 'virtue signalling,' a kind of self-righteous preening and moral posturing designed to show other people just how open minded and 'tolerant' you are. |
People are, on average, only of average intelligence, which is not much. Why worry about them? Also, in most, not all, cases I'd rather have 'virtue signaling' win the day than out and out open intolerance- or going further if people stopped worrying so much about what other people are doing in their private lives and stopped being so sensitive then we could all get along, eh? |
But 'virtue signaling' often leads to intolerance, especially when the other person's opinion differs from the "virtue signaler". I've already pointed this out. The freedom that allows people to "virtue signal" also allows people to express their beliefs and opinions. To try to have one without the other is a double standard and sheer hypocrisy.
And what happens when the day comes that the social crusaders opinions differ from you? Should we just consider you of average intelligence and prevent you from having free speech? |
I'm immune, I'm not overly sensitive and do not care what other people do behind closed doors. Perhaps you should consider it. There has been lots and lots of free speech against the recent ruling, and you are engaging in free speech right now. Your free speech doesn't prevent others from using their free speech to disagree or even to ridicule your speech. |
How many times are you going to miss the point?
Sometimes what people do behind closed doors should be cared about. Domestic abuse, sexual abuse, religious extremism. These things need to be stamped out. Once again you glib comments don't deal with any problems being raised. The attempt to paint me as some oversensitive nosy parker was particularly weak.
My problem isn't with gay marriage, homosexuality in general, free speech, disagreeing with what people say, or ridiculing what people say. My problem is with people attempting to prevent people speaking at all, because they don't agree with what is being said. |
Who is preventing you from speaking? What problems are being raised? All I see is a, in your words, oversensitive nosy parker (parker, what does that even mean?) Free speech was not even a part of the case, so what are you going on about? |
"I'm all for gay rights and gay marriage, but if other people aren't then they should have the right to say so. If you don't like what they're saying don't listen to them. But don't start limiting free speech just because you don't like what's being said."
"I support gay marriage but to suggest that one persons opinion is more valid than anothers is dependent on ones viewpoint and the culture that has formed that view. And to try to silence anyone who says something you don't agree with is the height of hypocrisy when it comes to tolerance."
"We've gotten to a point were something that was supposed to help us improve society is actually hindering us. I saw so many people on facebook with a "Je suis Charlie" profile pic after the Paris massacre, yet these people shout down and delete the comments of anyone who offers a different opinion from them regarding gay marriage. It's pure hypocrisy."
"Nowadays to be called "racist" or a "homophobe" is to be socially condemned. In the UK we have police officers who were scared to arrest muslims because they were worried they would be called racist."
All of these are from my posts in this thread. Seems to me you just started typing without understanding the points I'm raising. |
It's not a question of understanding or not, it's a question of whether they are interesting or important. People have the right to say all sorts of things, and in almost every case the law will protect them. What, you want me to protect your feelings because you have socially unacceptable views? If anything, perhaps you could then empathize with gays, because for the longest time nobody cared about their feelings, and in many cases they didn't even have the laws protection. So, buck up, stiffen your spine, and accept that if you want to change these things you will be mocked, condemned, etc., but if you mobilize, work hard and develop a compelling narrative, then you can change what is socially acceptable, you know like what the gays did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jazzmaster
Joined: 30 Sep 2013
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2015 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
It's not a question of understanding or not, it's a question of whether they are interesting or important. People have the right to say all sorts of things, and in almost every case the law will protect them. What, you want me to protect your feelings because you have socially unacceptable views? If anything, perhaps you could then empathize with gays, because for the longest time nobody cared about their feelings, and in many cases they didn't even have the laws protection. So, buck up, stiffen your spine, and accept that if you want to change these things you will be mocked, condemned, etc., but if you mobilize, work hard and develop a compelling narrative, then you can change what is socially acceptable, you know like what the gays did. |
It most certainly is a question of understanding, because you have clearly realized you've started your misguided ranting without comprehending what is being discussed.
I've not expressed any unacceptable views. The very fact that you refer to views as "unacceptable" shows how naive and ignorant you really are.
I already support and empathize with homosexuals. Throughout this thread I've stated that I support gay marriage. Unfortunately your lack of intelligence seems to have blinded you from that fact, or perhaps it's because it doesn't suit the narrative you want to create of me as some homophobe spouting hatred. If you do a search on this site for the Seoul Gay Pride Event thread you'll find confirmation of my support. I practice what I preach.
Maybe you should educate yourself and try doing the same.
Don't expect any more replies as your idiocy is no longer worthy of attention. Feel free to keep posting though. The great thing about freedom of speech is that it allows the rest of us to realize what a halfwit you are, and therefore avoid you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, I agree that the Court overstepped its bounds with desegregation, although this also followed 100 years of the Court interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment such that it had no meaning.
Basically, with desegregation the Court became the legislative power and established an affirmative scheme and policy to remedy a past injustice, whereas in the gay marriage ruling the Court simply overturns legislation which is unconstitutional. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jazzmaster wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
It's not a question of understanding or not, it's a question of whether they are interesting or important. People have the right to say all sorts of things, and in almost every case the law will protect them. What, you want me to protect your feelings because you have socially unacceptable views? If anything, perhaps you could then empathize with gays, because for the longest time nobody cared about their feelings, and in many cases they didn't even have the laws protection. So, buck up, stiffen your spine, and accept that if you want to change these things you will be mocked, condemned, etc., but if you mobilize, work hard and develop a compelling narrative, then you can change what is socially acceptable, you know like what the gays did. |
It most certainly is a question of understanding, because you have clearly realized you've started your misguided ranting without comprehending what is being discussed.
I've not expressed any unacceptable views. The very fact that you refer to views as "unacceptable" shows how naive and ignorant you really are.
I already support and empathize with homosexuals. Throughout this thread I've stated that I support gay marriage. Unfortunately your lack of intelligence seems to have blinded you from that fact, or perhaps it's because it doesn't suit the narrative you want to create of me as some homophobe spouting hatred. If you do a search on this site for the Seoul Gay Pride Event thread you'll find confirmation of my support. I practice what I preach.
Maybe you should educate yourself and try doing the same.
Don't expect any more replies as your idiocy is no longer worthy of attention. Feel free to keep posting though. The great thing about freedom of speech is that it allows the rest of us to realize what a halfwit you are, and therefore avoid you. |
Yes, I'm rather a low intelligence idiot, thanks for pointing that out. I don't care about you personally, why would I care? However, in this thread, you are going on and on about how people can no longer disagree, debate being narrowed, etc. as if this is some new change rather than a change of direction. About ten years ago, the debate was narrow in the sense that there was little room to publicly express support for gays, I.e. The gays serving in the military scandal under Clinton. The people complaining about gay marriage do not care about free debat, just that their side is no longer winning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| The people complaining about gay marriage do not care about free debat, just that their side is no longer winning. |
I'm not sure how fair that is. For example, my own interest in this subject both begins and ends with a particular topic I very much think should be debated: what marriage actually is, and why we should have it at all. The courts have more or less decided for us that marriage is a "right," and from that point of course it becomes a Constitutional matter. But that's not the only conception of marriage possible, as is evinced by the fact that marriage was not a "right" for the overwhelming majority of history. I'm not saying of course that historic precedent need bind our hands in the present, but at the same time, there may well be good cause to handle marriage as a purpose-based institution rather than a individual right. But the courts, while they might not prevent a discussion on that subject, have certainly prevented such a discussion from having any real meaning, because they've laid a series of precedents which could only really be overcome through the production of a new constitutional amendment, something which has become politically impossible in an era where partisan hatred is reinforced 24 hours a day by mass media. The topic can be discussed, but not fruitfully; society cannot collectively reason its way towards the best answer, because they've had an answer forced upon them.
Whether some homosexual somewhere is "married" or not is absolutely trivial to me. How our society understands marriage is not. The latter is being dictated by the courts to engineer a political outcome with regards to the former (because "dignity"). When the courts overturned sodomy laws, I saw a clear and compelling logic: it was a cessation of governmental interference in a private matter, and of course the state has no reason to persecute homosexuals in such a fashion. When it was decided the state could not discriminate against homosexuals with regards to military duty, again, I saw the logic: nothing about the purpose of the military has anything to do with sexuality. But sexuality is, while not the core of marriage, very closely related to it. What marriage is and how it should be implemented is a good topic for public debate and the standard legislative system, even if individuals might not like the outcome reached. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| The people complaining about gay marriage do not care about free debat, just that their side is no longer winning. |
I'm not sure how fair that is. For example, my own interest in this subject both begins and ends with a particular topic I very much think should be debated: what marriage actually is, and why we should have it at all. The courts have more or less decided for us that marriage is a "right," and from that point of course it becomes a Constitutional matter. But that's not the only conception of marriage possible, as is evinced by the fact that marriage was not a "right" for the overwhelming majority of history. I'm not saying of course that historic precedent need bind our hands in the present, but at the same time, there may well be good cause to handle marriage as a purpose-based institution rather than a individual right. But the courts, while they might not prevent a discussion on that subject, have certainly prevented such a discussion from having any real meaning, because they've laid a series of precedents which could only really be overcome through the production of a new constitutional amendment, something which has become politically impossible in an era where partisan hatred is reinforced 24 hours a day by mass media. The topic can be discussed, but not fruitfully; society cannot collectively reason its way towards the best answer, because they've had an answer forced upon them.
Whether some homosexual somewhere is "married" or not is absolutely trivial to me. How our society understands marriage is not. The latter is being dictated by the courts to engineer a political outcome with regards to the former (because "dignity"). When the courts overturned sodomy laws, I saw a clear and compelling logic: it was a cessation of governmental interference in a private matter, and of course the state has no reason to persecute homosexuals in such a fashion. When it was decided the state could not discriminate against homosexuals with regards to military duty, again, I saw the logic: nothing about the purpose of the military has anything to do with sexuality. But sexuality is, while not the core of marriage, very closely related to it. What marriage is and how it should be implemented is a good topic for public debate and the standard legislative system, even if individuals might not like the outcome reached. |
I get less fair after being called an idiot and a halfwit, I will admit to that, but that's jazzmaster's argumentation style not yours so I will be more fair now. I bolded the point that frustrates me. I am not sure that an actual discussion on this topic was ever really possible, or if so it was for a brief window. For most of my life being gay was condemned, and to be a national politician you had to come out against it, even if everyone knew you were personally for it, or at least probably didn't care about it. Clinton was against, but now is celebrating it, etc. A lot, not all, of the complaining that we hear about the closing of debate did not really happen, at least that I am aware of it and certainly not from the same people, until what was acceptable changed.
I think marriage, or at least co-habitation as it has become in Scandinavia, is incredibly important, but I think the staying together part is more important than the homo-hetro stuff. I think divorce rates or single parent rates are a much bigger issue. There is a case to be made for being concerned about the sweeping changes made by the court, and I find it convincing, however a lot of people playing victim complaining about the debate being cut off were very happy to cut off others when they had the upper hand and I have no sympathy for their hurt feelings or complaints. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
I think marriage, or at least co-habitation as it has become in Scandinavia, is incredibly important, but I think the staying together part is more important than the homo-hetro stuff. |
I see a distinction. With the abolition of anti-sodomy laws and anti-cohabitation laws, anyone who wishes to co-habit may do so without obstruction. Given that, it makes no sense for marriage to "merely" be considered co-habitation, because we need no state sanction for that. Surely there must be more to it?
| Leon wrote: |
| I think divorce rates or single parent rates are a much bigger issue. |
I agree. In fact, to the extent that a "decline" of marriage has occurred, I would say it started with the normalization and embrace of divorce (especially "no fault" divorce). Everything after that has merely been a symptom. This is also what might lead someone to support a purpose-based conception of marriage: since we've 'divorced' it from its purpose, we've seen it become a shallow parody of itself.
| Leon wrote: |
| , however a lot of people playing victim complaining about the debate being cut off were very happy to cut off others when they had the upper hand and I have no sympathy for their hurt feelings or complaints. |
That's true. Of course, that's also why I can't help but be baffled at the advocates of homosexual marriage who look to keep polygamists, the incestuous, and so forth "cut off" as well. Listening to an ardent advocate of homosexual marriage talk about how we can't have polygamy because it "hurts women" or some nonsense is trying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
I think marriage, or at least co-habitation as it has become in Scandinavia, is incredibly important, but I think the staying together part is more important than the homo-hetro stuff. |
I see a distinction. With the abolition of anti-sodomy laws and anti-cohabitation laws, anyone who wishes to co-habit may do so without obstruction. Given that, it makes no sense for marriage to "merely" be considered co-habitation, because we need no state sanction for that. Surely there must be more to it? |
Well, in the U.S. at least, marriage has significant legal, financial, etc. benefits that matter a lot, and there is the cultural cache as well. I mentioned Scandinavia because I know that their marriage rates are lower and their co-habitation rates are higher, but it does not seem to have had adverse effects, so I think that whether marriage is traditional or not, or strictly defined or not, may not be the decisive factor for how beneficial it is.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| I think divorce rates or single parent rates are a much bigger issue. |
I agree. In fact, to the extent that a "decline" of marriage has occurred, I would say it started with the normalization and embrace of divorce (especially "no fault" divorce). Everything after that has merely been a symptom. This is also what might lead someone to support a purpose-based conception of marriage: since we've 'divorced' it from its purpose, we've seen it become a shallow parody of itself. |
If it's purpose driven, than why not make the purpose explicitly creating strong, lasting, bonds that provide stability and support and have their own intrinsic worth. This does not discount child raising, and it could include it and enhance it. It is surprising how many people who condemn gay marriage have had affairs or multiple divorces, almost like a parody but it is real.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| , however a lot of people playing victim complaining about the debate being cut off were very happy to cut off others when they had the upper hand and I have no sympathy for their hurt feelings or complaints. |
That's true. Of course, that's also why I can't help but be baffled at the advocates of homosexual marriage who look to keep polygamists, the incestuous, and so forth "cut off" as well. Listening to an ardent advocate of homosexual marriage talk about how we can't have polygamy because it "hurts women" or some nonsense is trying. |
I do not care about polygamy, because I doubt that I would ever see it if it were to become legal. (However, I was thinking that if it were legal, than I wonder if there would be limits on how many foreign wives you could sponsor, maybe based on your income? Could someone make a business of having 100 foreign wives, anyways that is just where my mind wandered too, probably because I am in the midst of my own wife's immigration process.)
Incest, I do not know enough about the health effects for the children to comment meaningfully about it. Also, I think that the potential for a parent to coerce a child into a marriage, through grooming during childhood, etc. is higher than in marriage outside of families. This is not to say any of this is insurmountable, just that the incest, polygamy and homosexual marriage are not analogous and each have their own issues to be considered. As long as the issues are actually considered and safeguards are put in place to deal with the unique issues for each situation than, even if it makes me uncomfortable like incest, than it probably would have almost no effect on me, just like gay marriage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
Well, in the U.S. at least, marriage has significant legal, financial, etc. benefits that matter a lot, and there is the cultural cache as well. I mentioned Scandinavia because I know that their marriage rates are lower and their co-habitation rates are higher, but it does not seem to have had adverse effects, so I think that whether marriage is traditional or not, or strictly defined or not, may not be the decisive factor for how beneficial it is. |
There are some benefits one might derive from marriage in the United States, but there are some potential downsides as well, at least if one is not careful in one's life decisions. The question, I think, is why society should offer those benefits, and whether those benefits should be seen as "rights" or as "incentives." Note that even viewing them as the latter doesn't necessarily mean that marriage is off limits to anyone, it would simply mean it's not a matter of constitutional rights, and thus open to real, meaningful public discussion. And some states legalized homosexual marriage of their own volition (to say nothing of other countries), so it's clear that public discussion can handle this matter and get the results certain parties want. It just can't force them on an unwilling populace.
| Leon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| I think divorce rates or single parent rates are a much bigger issue. |
I agree. In fact, to the extent that a "decline" of marriage has occurred, I would say it started with the normalization and embrace of divorce (especially "no fault" divorce). Everything after that has merely been a symptom. This is also what might lead someone to support a purpose-based conception of marriage: since we've 'divorced' it from its purpose, we've seen it become a shallow parody of itself. |
If it's purpose driven, than why not make the purpose explicitly creating strong, lasting, bonds that provide stability and support and have their own intrinsic worth. This does not discount child raising, and it could include it and enhance it. It is surprising how many people who condemn gay marriage have had affairs or multiple divorces, almost like a parody but it is real. |
Well, how much real interest does society have in creating "strong, lasting bonds," independent of reproduction? I'd say it has almost none, to be honest: two people who will never reproduce getting married means almost nothing to the rest of us, and to the extent that it might be personally beneficial for them to co-habit, that personal benefit should surely be incentive enough. Plummeting fertility rates across the developed world seem to me to highlight exactly why society has an interest in reproduction per se, and I can see why someone might want to privilege reproductive relationships; why throughout most of history they have been privileged. But, that's just one point of view. If the populace collectively insists that the promotion of "strong, lasting bonds," is worth incentivizing in its own right, entirely independent of reproduction, that's at least coherent. But what's important here, I think, is that it's a discussion between two goals; a discussion about which direction we should move towards as a society and why. A discussion the American people really can't profit from any longer, because it's been taken out of their hands.
| Leon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| , however a lot of people playing victim complaining about the debate being cut off were very happy to cut off others when they had the upper hand and I have no sympathy for their hurt feelings or complaints. |
That's true. Of course, that's also why I can't help but be baffled at the advocates of homosexual marriage who look to keep polygamists, the incestuous, and so forth "cut off" as well. Listening to an ardent advocate of homosexual marriage talk about how we can't have polygamy because it "hurts women" or some nonsense is trying. |
I do not care about polygamy, because I doubt that I would ever see it if it were to become legal. (However, I was thinking that if it were legal, than I wonder if there would be limits on how many foreign wives you could sponsor, maybe based on your income? Could someone make a business of having 100 foreign wives, anyways that is just where my mind wandered too, probably because I am in the midst of my own wife's immigration process.)
Incest, I do not know enough about the health effects for the children to comment meaningfully about it. Also, I think that the potential for a parent to coerce a child into a marriage, through grooming during childhood, etc. is higher than in marriage outside of families. This is not to say any of this is insurmountable, just that the incest, polygamy and homosexual marriage are not analogous and each have their own issues to be considered. As long as the issues are actually considered and safeguards are put in place to deal with the unique issues for each situation than, even if it makes me uncomfortable like incest, than it probably would have almost no effect on me, just like gay marriage. |
Sure, they each have their own issues to be considered, but homosexuality and heterosexuality have their own issues to be considered as well. Reasoned discussion of these specifics could be profitable, but again, that's not how this has been handled. Instead you see shallow talking points about "love" and "bigotry" and "religion" on the one hand, and the courts unilaterally dictating outcomes on the other. When it comes to protecting individuals from state intrusion, court dictates have a place, but when it comes to the formulation of social purpose, meaning, and aspiration? That's too important and sweeping a topic to leave up to Justice Kennedy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
Well, in the U.S. at least, marriage has significant legal, financial, etc. benefits that matter a lot, and there is the cultural cache as well. I mentioned Scandinavia because I know that their marriage rates are lower and their co-habitation rates are higher, but it does not seem to have had adverse effects, so I think that whether marriage is traditional or not, or strictly defined or not, may not be the decisive factor for how beneficial it is. |
There are some benefits one might derive from marriage in the United States, but there are some potential downsides as well, at least if one is not careful in one's life decisions. The question, I think, is why society should offer those benefits, and whether those benefits should be seen as "rights" or as "incentives." Note that even viewing them as the latter doesn't necessarily mean that marriage is off limits to anyone, it would simply mean it's not a matter of constitutional rights, and thus open to real, meaningful public discussion. And some states legalized homosexual marriage of their own volition (to say nothing of other countries), so it's clear that public discussion can handle this matter and get the results certain parties want. It just can't force them on an unwilling populace. |
I'm only now learning about the benefits, from personal experience, but am still unsure of how it all works. I actually buy the 14th amendment argument for gay marriage, but not the dignity one. As to your second point, I grew up in the south, I don't think public discussion can handle this matter everywhere. The south couldn't handle not having slaves, couldn't handle desegregation, couldn't handle inter-racial marriages, etc. etc. I think history has shown in many cases that it was ultimately a good thing that courts forced the south to do certain things that they were unwilling to do.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| I think divorce rates or single parent rates are a much bigger issue. |
I agree. In fact, to the extent that a "decline" of marriage has occurred, I would say it started with the normalization and embrace of divorce (especially "no fault" divorce). Everything after that has merely been a symptom. This is also what might lead someone to support a purpose-based conception of marriage: since we've 'divorced' it from its purpose, we've seen it become a shallow parody of itself. |
If it's purpose driven, than why not make the purpose explicitly creating strong, lasting, bonds that provide stability and support and have their own intrinsic worth. This does not discount child raising, and it could include it and enhance it. It is surprising how many people who condemn gay marriage have had affairs or multiple divorces, almost like a parody but it is real. |
Well, how much real interest does society have in creating "strong, lasting bonds," independent of reproduction? I'd say it has almost none, to be honest: two people who will never reproduce getting married means almost nothing to the rest of us, and to the extent that it might be personally beneficial for them to co-habit, that personal benefit should surely be incentive enough. Plummeting fertility rates across the developed world seem to me to highlight exactly why society has an interest in reproduction per se, and I can see why someone might want to privilege reproductive relationships; why throughout most of history they have been privileged. But, that's just one point of view. If the populace collectively insists that the promotion of "strong, lasting bonds," is worth incentivizing in its own right, entirely independent of reproduction, that's at least coherent. But what's important here, I think, is that it's a discussion between two goals; a discussion about which direction we should move towards as a society and why. A discussion the American people really can't profit from any longer, because it's been taken out of their hands. |
I think the interest is that this kind of bond happens the be the best one for producing healthy social outcomes in general, and producing healthy development for children in particular. If you make strong healthy bonds the gold standard that society strives for, it will benefit individuals surely, but also benefit children more than the current status quo. It's win-win.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| , however a lot of people playing victim complaining about the debate being cut off were very happy to cut off others when they had the upper hand and I have no sympathy for their hurt feelings or complaints. |
That's true. Of course, that's also why I can't help but be baffled at the advocates of homosexual marriage who look to keep polygamists, the incestuous, and so forth "cut off" as well. Listening to an ardent advocate of homosexual marriage talk about how we can't have polygamy because it "hurts women" or some nonsense is trying. |
I do not care about polygamy, because I doubt that I would ever see it if it were to become legal. (However, I was thinking that if it were legal, than I wonder if there would be limits on how many foreign wives you could sponsor, maybe based on your income? Could someone make a business of having 100 foreign wives, anyways that is just where my mind wandered too, probably because I am in the midst of my own wife's immigration process.)
Incest, I do not know enough about the health effects for the children to comment meaningfully about it. Also, I think that the potential for a parent to coerce a child into a marriage, through grooming during childhood, etc. is higher than in marriage outside of families. This is not to say any of this is insurmountable, just that the incest, polygamy and homosexual marriage are not analogous and each have their own issues to be considered. As long as the issues are actually considered and safeguards are put in place to deal with the unique issues for each situation than, even if it makes me uncomfortable like incest, than it probably would have almost no effect on me, just like gay marriage. |
Sure, they each have their own issues to be considered, but homosexuality and heterosexuality have their own issues to be considered as well. Reasoned discussion of these specifics could be profitable, but again, that's not how this has been handled. Instead you see shallow talking points about "love" and "bigotry" and "religion" on the one hand, and the courts unilaterally dictating outcomes on the other. When it comes to protecting individuals from state intrusion, court dictates have a place, but when it comes to the formulation of social purpose, meaning, and aspiration? That's too important and sweeping a topic to leave up to Justice Kennedy's whims. |
Yes, I agree, but good luck with all of that. I mean, I don't know what to say except I agree, but have little hope of things getting better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
That's true. Of course, that's also why I can't help but be baffled at the advocates of homosexual marriage who look to keep polygamists, the incestuous, and so forth "cut off" as well. Listening to an ardent advocate of homosexual marriage talk about how we can't have polygamy because it "hurts women" or some nonsense is trying. |
Polygamy has been shown to be harmful to women and society. Thus, banned.
How is same-sex marriage harmful to society? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
Polygamy has been shown to be harmful to women and society. Thus, banned. |
No, here's what you should have said:
| honest catman wrote: |
| I, catman, saw some article on the Internet which saught to attack polygamy and thus designed a methodology to undermine it by drawing on selective data pulled from third world countries. I uncritically accepted the results of this study without question, because it told me what I wanted to hear. |
That's the fact of the matter; that's what you're really saying when you say, "Polygamy has been shown to be harmful to women and society." And if you were to be shown some similarly dubious "research" showing problems with homosexual relationships (random example, one which I am not necessarily supporting, but rather holding up as a similarly-motivated study of similar quality to the ones which "prove" we have to ban polygamy), you would likewise uncritically reject it, because it tells you what you don't want to hear. In neither case is any real thoughtful consideration occurring, so what the Hell do you want me to say to you? Almost all research done on these topics is politically motivated, because that's what the social "sciences" really are: political tools for justifying desired outcomes.
I know of a woman who is 'married' to two men living out in California. Catman says the state cannot recognize that relationship because polygamy "hurts women and society" in some abstract sense. We can conclude from this that his support for homosexual relationships can't be about "love" (polygamists can love one another), nor about "freedom" (he demands a ban), so what's left? Politics, and nothing else: his political tribe uses gays as a mascot.
I think everything that needs to be said between us on this matter has been said. Have a nice day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| As to your second point, I grew up in the south, I don't think public discussion can handle this matter everywhere. The south couldn't handle not having slaves, couldn't handle desegregation, couldn't handle inter-racial marriages, etc. etc. I think history has shown in many cases that it was ultimately a good thing that courts forced the south to do certain things that they were unwilling to do. |
I think you're misspeaking here, equivocating between "handling" and "achieving the outcome certain parties want." Just because a given society doesn't swiftly achieve the standard, politically-correct "solution" to a particular topic, that doesn't mean it hasn't been handled. I mean, I obviously support interracial marriage, but the idea that the entire world needs to be forced to accept it, even against their will, does not strike me as reasonable. There's room in this world for diversity of thought and value, doubly so in a place like America where you can move between the states with no trouble.
| Leon wrote: |
I think the interest is that this kind of bond happens the be the best one for producing healthy social outcomes in general, and producing healthy development for children in particular. |
How does it produce healthy collective social outcomes in general in any way other than producing circumstances optimal for rearing children, thought? If catman (I wouldn't usually use a poster as an example, but he did decide to make a thread about it, so it's clearly common knowledge) is single forever, for example, the consequences of that are his to bear and his alone. It's only if he were to have a child that it really becomes a collective matter; the social benefit of strong, united families in this generation is first and foremost the positive influence it has on the next, isn't it? If we were struck by a plague of mass infertility and assured to be the last generation, the societal (as opposed to individual) benefit of enduring relationships would seem to me to be zero. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| catman wrote: |
Polygamy has been shown to be harmful to women and society. Thus, banned. |
No, here's what you should have said:
| honest catman wrote: |
| I, catman, saw some article on the Internet which saught to attack polygamy and thus designed a methodology to undermine it by drawing on selective data pulled from third world countries. I uncritically accepted the results of this study without question, because it told me what I wanted to hear. |
That's the fact of the matter; that's what you're really saying when you say, "Polygamy has been shown to be harmful to women and society." And if you were to be shown some similarly dubious "research" showing problems with homosexual relationships (random example, one which I am not necessarily supporting, but rather holding up as a similarly-motivated study of similar quality to the ones which "prove" we have to ban polygamy), you would likewise uncritically reject it, because it tells you what you don't want to hear. In neither case is any real thoughtful consideration occurring, so what the Hell do you want me to say to you? Almost all research done on these topics is politically motivated, because that's what the social "sciences" really are: political tools for justifying desired outcomes.
I know of a woman who is 'married' to two men living out in California. Catman says the state cannot recognize that relationship because polygamy "hurts women and society" in some abstract sense. We can conclude from this that his support for homosexual relationships can't be about "love" (polygamists can love one another), nor about "freedom" (he demands a ban), so what's left? Politics, and nothing else: his political tribe uses gays as a mascot.
I think everything that needs to be said between us on this matter has been said. Have a nice day. |
How about this. I will post evidence showing how Polygamy is harmful and you can post your evidence that shows how same-sex marriage is harmful? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| How about this. I will post evidence showing how Polygamy is harmful and you can post your that shows how same-sex marriage is harmful? |
How about this: you go and converse with like-minded people in the comments section of salon.com, and I converse with the people on this forum I think have something useful and interesting to say? Because putting aside the fact that I never strictly said same-sex marriage is harmful to society (you're literally putting words into my mouth so you can attack them before I've even agreed to have a discussion with you), I've already posted a random example of an article criticizing homosexual relationships, one which will be on a par with whatever trash you can dredge up on Google attacking polygamy. You didn't even acknowledge it, because you're not really interested in discussing this subject. And again, I'll stress I'm not necessarily saying I endorse the contents of that article. Rather, I'm using it as an example of the kind of "study" which exists only to prove what the writer wants proven, and as an illustration of the hypocrisy intrinsic in accepting one kind of politically-motivated research (anti-polygamy) but not another (anti-homosexuality) without reasoned consideration in either case.
Look, I'm not interested in your political-identity chest thumping. I've acknowledged you, but I've nothing else to offer you on this matter, because you don't even really seem to be interacting with what it is I'm saying. You're so eager to wave your rainbow flag that you evidently can't spend a moment reading and comprehending what I've written. I'll say it again: have a nice day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
