Text 11452, 176 rader
Skriven 2007-02-02 23:55:37 av Josh Hill (14891.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: My Presidential Pick for 2006
=========================================
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 20:24:16 -0600, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:1vl7s2t5kjfosdicq85fn493oof79337gh@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 22:51:02 -0600, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>><snip>
>
>>>>>>>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."
>>
>
>Pehaps I'm just tired, but you seem to be arguing slightly cross purposes 
>here.
>
>You seem to say that because you believe the perception of social harm by 
>gay marriage as diminishing and that negative opinion against polygamy is 
>increasing that by itself provides (in answer to the original question) "the 
>defining difference that gives homosexual marriage a higher *right* than 
>polygamy among consenting adults."
>
>In other words, the *privilege* is granted when the minority opinion becomes 
>the majority (or at least a significantly large minority). At the same time 
>you seem to counter the very idea of popularity providing such a 
>justification in your reference to Ibsen.

It is growing late, and with fatigue comes, I find, a significant
drop-off both in grammaticality and the patience needed to recheck
what was said.

But -- I draw a distinction between what the public has a right to
decide upon and what I think is right. Which is to say that I believe
that society at large -- and voters in particular -- have the right
under the Constitution to ban gay marriage, although I personally
disagree with their decision. Somewhere in between my own quite
possibly erroneous judgment and the quite possibly erroneous judgment
of the voters sit the observations that society appears to be
manifesting social trends of the inevitable sort.

Anyway, in looking back at the thread, it seems to me that the
misunderstanding may date from this statement of yours:

"One infers from your words that the majority
does not perceive the appearance of social harm from gay marriage
(thereby creating the distinction)."

In fact, I didn't have the majority in mind, and I didn't have myself
in mind. What I had in mind was the subtler and more complex mechanism
whereby social needs enter upon our group consciousness, with perhaps
an emphasis on those who are more educated and more sensitive to new
trends. I believe that society exhibits an uncanny ability to sense
and act upon the need for change, without necessarily being conscious
of /why/ it senses that need. But the process isn't instantaneous.

-- 
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)