Text 11407, 146 rader
Skriven 2007-02-02 20:04:41 av Josh Hill (14846.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: My Presidential Pick for 2006
=========================================
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 22:51:02 -0600, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:4ja5s2prk1fbjdmnqjuftvpbksptoi597f@4ax.com...
>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:15:39 -0600, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>>>>Marriage is a privilege by the simple example that the government says
>>>>>>that a man or woman can't marry 5 women (or 5 men or any
>>>>>>combination thereof) concurrently.
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think that saying that banning the misuse of something makes
>>>>>it a privilege. One can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, yet
>>>>>freedom of speech is considered a right. And governments have often
>>>>> been known to trample on rights.
>>>
>>>>You're begging the question of "misuse" aren't you?
>>>>
>>>>>What is the defining difference that gives homosexual marriage a higher
>>>>> right than polygamy among consenting adults?
>>
>>>>The same defining difference that applies in the theater situation:
>>>>polygamy appears to be socially harmful, whereas homosexual marriage
>>>>doesn't.
>>
>>>What statistics support your assertion that polygamy is socially harmful?
>>>I'm not advocating polygamy by any means, but you keep making
>>>statements without anything to support them.
>
>>>Where is the harm among consenting adults?
>
>>Seems to me you're applying a unique and unfair standard. How many
>>statements made by others here include references or statistics? I
>>daresay it's miniscule.
>
>I don't think it's unfair at all.  You've asked me for a cite in the past on 
>several issues.  Many of the topics discussed here have
>been covered before and stats or cites have been offered.
>
>If you make an assertion (or even a strong implication) that something... 
>anything.. is socially harmful, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask what 
>the basis for that statement is.  If you have no underlying statistic or 
>evidence that polygamy is socially harmful, then I consider this to be 
>simply your opinion (no negative intended by the word "simply").  If there 
>is such evidence, I weigh that in my consideration of the topic.  If you 
>consider this unfair of me, then we have different standards for such a 
>discussion.  I  am only asking for more information.

Well, as I said, I originally wrote "appears to be" with regard to
polygamy precisely because I hadn't seen /certain/ evidence and didn't
want to make the mistake of condemning it on the basis of priggery or
social prejudice -- there are, after all, societies in which
formalized polygamy is the norm.

>Getting back to the issue... one could make the argument that the way in 
>which many news stories have portrayed the gay community in general (and 
>with respect to AIDS in particular), one could...and I suspect many had... 
>come to exactly the same conclusion about gays being socially harmful.  That 
>doesn't make it so.

Sure. But just as I'm not willing to say that polygamy is /certainly/
socially harmful, I'm not willing to say that homosexuality isn't. But
these things are, I think, judged on the preponderance of evidence,
and I haven't seen any convincing arguments that homosexuality /is/
harmful, just religious injunctions which seem to me to proceed from
man rather than God and self-referential gorp about morality. The best
I can come up with myself is that by discouraging homosexuality,
society leads some men with gay preferences to marry and have
children, thereby directing their resources towards the next
generation. It's not a bad argument, really, except that I see no
evidence that the planet is raising too few children, besides which
the outcomes of such marriages are frequently bad and the cost of this
societal advantage (if it be an advantage to force people into
marriages that typically end in divorce) is repression of those who
are so strongly homosexual that they are going to practice it no
matter what. In addition, history and anthropology suggest that our
society is extreme in its denial of homosexuality. This may not be a
bad thing, but means we pay a psychic price -- and demonstrates that
other societies haven't gone to the dogs because they acknowledged or
practiced it.

>Again, I'm not arguing for polygamy... but no one has expressed a specific 
>reason why the two situations (gay marriage/ polygamy) are so different when 
>the argument often centers around the behavior of consenting adults.
>
>>That being said, a careful reading will note that I did not assert
>>that polygamy is socially harmful, but rather that it /appears/ to be
>>socially harmful.
>
>OK, then a careful reading of the question and your answer answer indiates 
>that your opinion is that "...the defining difference that gives homosexual 
>marriage a higher right than polygamy among consenting adults" is only the 
>*appearance* of social harm.  One infers from your words that the majority 
>does not perceive the appearance of social harm from gay marriage (thereby 
>creating the distinction).
>
>I would argue that the fact that the majority of every state that has 
>brought the issue to a vote seems to disagree with you
>implies that there is sufficent *appearance/perception* of social harm to to 
>fall into the same category as polygamy based on the standard you've given.

You're assuming that society's views are just a matter of the
majority. But I think if we're honest we'll recognize that they
aren't, that while I wouldn't go as far as Ibsen did when he claimed
that the minority is always right, society's beliefs they begin in one
or another small group and are first recognized by those members of
the elite who are most widely read and tuned in to emerging trends.

The question then becomes one of whether a trend will become general
among the public. The demographics of the attitude surveys suggest
that attitudes are changing inexorably among the members of the
public, with younger people having positive views. So do other factors
which I don't have time to go into now, in particular the theoretical
bases for the changes in our attitude towards sexual behaviors.

Ergo -- the perception of homosexuality is there, but in the
relatively early phases of dissemination. 

I have the opposite sense in the case of polygamy -- that the
perceptions among policy makers are becoming increasingly negative,
thanks to complaints about conditions in Mormon "harems."

>> I based that on a number of news accounts I've read
>>of the unfortunate social and economic consequences of present-day
>>Mormon polygamy (and, IIRC, at least one Usenet post). Apparently,
>>many of the brides end up living in poverty, off the state.
>
>As do many brides of a monogamous marriage.  Of course the news (being the 
>sensation driven beast that it is) is not likely to have stories about happy 
>polygamous families.

I don't read that kind of news. In any case, one oughtn't ignore the
ten fires on your street because there was one on the next.

-- 
Josh

[Truly] I say to you, [...] angel [...] power will be able to see that [...]
these to whom [...] holy generations [...]. After Jesus said this, he departed.

- The Gospel of Judas
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)