posted
Would "bigot" be better? We didn't call those who were opposed to rights for blacks "negrophobes" did we?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You haven't directly, but you keep bringing OSC's Mormonism up and referencing Mormon persecution when both things are rather unrelated to the Superman story or the backlash surrounding it.
Maybe its not your intent, but it reads to me like you're trying to swap the issue from being OSC's anti-homosexual stance to OSC's Mormonism.
Posts: 450 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Phobia doesn't just mean fear.
Yes it does. It's roots are literally grounded in fear. The fact people are trying to use it to mean not liking something is precisely what I am arguing against.
She said it doesn't JUST mean fear.
Nevermind that "homophobia" is literally itself an example of the suffix having a meaning that extends beyond the categorical requirement of a fear, but there are multiple usages of the suffix -phobia that have nothing to do with fear.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The English suffixes -phobia, -phobic, -phobe (of Greek origin: φόβος/φοβία ) occur in technical usage in psychiatry to construct words that describe irrational, disabling fear as a mental disorder (e.g. agoraphobia), in chemistry to describe chemical aversions (e.g. hydrophobic), in biology to describe organisms that dislike certain conditions (e.g. acidophobia), and in medicine to describe hypersensitivity to a stimulus, usually sensory (e.g. photophobia). In common usage they also form words that describe dislike or hatred of a particular thing or subject. The suffix is antonymic to -phil-.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Look I'm not trying (but I may be inadvertently doing this) to build a Mormons have it worse than homosexuals argument.
That's precisely what it sounds like. You're describing Mormons that are jealous that gays are becoming a protected group in American culture, protected from things like discrimination.
Then you're going on to say how Romney (arguably an idiot himself, after we carve out the Mormon attributes from him) could only win against a field of idiots or whether he would have to consult with the church.
But how would an openly gay candidate do in a Republican nomination? It's not even a question. And we'd be seeing speculation about whether they'd check in with a UN conspiracy or a gay agenda (it's a thing!).
When things like Proposition 8 can be passed in arguably one of America's most progressive states and while there's not even a political question that Mormons can, say, marry each each other or say that they're Mormon without being kicked out of the military, it's not even remotely a fair comparison.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... when a Jew wrote an editorial about how he found The Book of Mormon movie distasteful, and were it about Jews or Muslims people wouldn't be nearly so giddy about it, he got shouted down.
This I think is a significantly different direction. What is the role of healthy humour in a pluralistic society?
I would argue that protected groups should be protected from things like discrimination in the law, how they're treated at work, how they're graded in school, etc. It does not mean that Russell Peters or Chris Rock should not be allowed to make fun of Chinese/brown/white/black people. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't have things like Jesus Christ Superstar or X-Files episodes where the best sign that something's gone awry is that Christians from a small town show up. It doesn't mean that we get rid of the Journey to the West movies or Shaolin Soccer.
The comparison to Muslims and Jews is telling. People don't shy away from making fun of Muslims because they respect them so much, it's because people are afraid of being killed. And nobody likes to be compared to Hitler.
But these aren't signs of a healthy society, we shouldn't be aiming at getting Mormonism a place next to those two and trying to do so is just ass-backwards in my opinion.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's precisely what it sounds like. You're describing Mormons that are jealous that gays are becoming a protected group in American culture, protected from things like discrimination.
Jealous? That's not what I was saying. I am saying they are used to be ridiculed and scorned for their beliefs, which is what their scriptures say will happen, but that the people doing it tell them, "We're intolerant of your intolerance towards homosexuals!" So your choices are double down on intolerance because, nobody is tolerating you, or you get out of the way, and nobody likes you any better.
quote:But how would an openly gay candidate do in a Republican nomination? It's not even a question. And we'd be seeing speculation about whether they'd check in with a UN conspiracy or a gay agenda (it's a thing!).
We have openly gay Democratic legislators, and a bunch of Republican law makers just lobbied SCOTUS to overturn Prop 8.
quote:When things like Proposition 8 can be passed in arguably one of America's most progressive states and while there's not even a political question that Mormons can, say, marry each each other or say that they're Mormon without being kicked out of the military, it's not even remotely a fair comparison.
You're overstating this last bit. Mormons *cannot* enter into polygamist relationships, and there isn't a single good reason for this law that would not also apply to same-sex marriage.
quote:But these aren't signs of a healthy society, we shouldn't be aiming at getting Mormonism a place next to those two and trying to do so is just ass-backwards in my opinion.
You are absolutely right! So why don't we boycott every single person who supports a ban on polygamy?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mormons *cannot* enter into polygamist relationships, and there isn't a single good reason for this law that would not also apply to same-sex marriage.
One of the primary legal purposes for marriage is the designation of next-of-kin for purposes of inheritance, medical decision making, etc. Allowing more than one person to be married to the same person eliminates the automatic nature of that designation.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: One of the primary legal purposes for marriage is the designation of next-of-kin for purposes of inheritance, medical decision making, etc. Allowing more than one person to be married to the same person eliminates the automatic nature of that designation.
While true, there are ways around that, like making the eldest partner the automatic designated decision-maker. As far as inheritance goes, those laws vary widely from place to place, and allowing polygamy would only make the size of the giant messes surrounding people's estates slightly larger. The whole contesting of wills, dying intestate, etc., etc. set of problems is already big, and we already have the issue of multiple children from different marriages making it worse (through divorce, etc.). Polygamy, etc. wouldn't complicate things that much more.
It is pretty indefensible to allow same-sex marriage without allowing polygamous/polygynous marriage, IMHO. However, those who want those kinds of marriages (in this country) don't have the numbers, money, or public support that gays/lesbians do. That's the only real substantive difference, again, IMHO.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Personally I don't mind nearly any form of marriage...between people that is.
What about between my cats? It would he hilarious! Just think about it, Stone Wolf. We could dress them in a dress and a little suit, and Mittins could do that thing he does when he's embarrassed. You know the thing I mean! Oh, and little Roxanne (we named her that because she's SUCH a little tease) would rub up against Mittins and then fake interest when the reception was over (typical Roxanne, I swear). Oh, it would be SO funny! And Samp could come and take pictures. Heck, the whole Hatrack gang could show up and celebrate. Just think about it. Everyone loves cats!
posted
Hey, you wanna have a wedding ceremony for your pretend cats, make sure to send me an invite...what I mind is people legally marrying non people.
I'm fairly open minded but, the law really shouldn't recognize this guy. Poor dog!
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But how would an openly gay candidate do in a Republican nomination? It's not even a question. And we'd be seeing speculation about whether they'd check in with a UN conspiracy or a gay agenda (it's a thing!).
We have openly gay Democratic legislators, and a bunch of Republican law makers just lobbied SCOTUS to overturn Prop 8.
There are three things to tease out here. Nominations for presidential candidate, presence as legislators, and laws that need overturning.
Mormons can stand as candidates for presidential candidate in both parties. Gays can probably do just the Democratic nomination without it being any kind of joke. Mormons are legislators in both parties. I'd like to think that gays are legislators in both parties.
Good thing that legislators are petitioning to have Prop 8 overturned, but the mere fact that there is a law to be overturned in one of America's most progressive states only underlines how far gays have to go to reach the levels of equality that Mormons currently enjoy.
quote:
quote:But these aren't signs of a healthy society, we shouldn't be aiming at getting Mormonism a place next to those two and trying to do so is just ass-backwards in my opinion.
You are absolutely right! So why don't we boycott every single person who supports a ban on polygamy?
I don't see how this comment relates to my discussion on the place of humour and ridicule in a proper society. Could you elaborate on the connection?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mormons *cannot* enter into polygamist relationships, and there isn't a single good reason for this law that would not also apply to same-sex marriage.
One of the primary legal purposes for marriage is the designation of next-of-kin for purposes of inheritance, medical decision making, etc. Allowing more than one person to be married to the same person eliminates the automatic nature of that designation.
There's a good list of reasons at our justice department webpage that simply do not translate to same sex marriages.
Among them, polygamy violates our obligations under international law to ensure equality between women and men, a historical and current context of polygamy playing a role in being harmful to women, harms that arise when marriages are not exclusive between two parties, harms that arise from competition between wives, and studies that show harms to children from polygamous households, etc. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/poly/chap2.html
None of these easily map to a same sex marriage between two partners.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mormons *cannot* enter into polygamist relationships, and there isn't a single good reason for this law that would not also apply to same-sex marriage.
One of the primary legal purposes for marriage is the designation of next-of-kin for purposes of inheritance, medical decision making, etc. Allowing more than one person to be married to the same person eliminates the automatic nature of that designation.
There's a good list of reasons at our justice department webpage that simply do not translate to same sex marriages.
Among them, polygamy violates our obligations under international law to ensure equality between women and men, a historical and current context of polygamy playing a role in being harmful to women, harms that arise when marriages are not exclusive between two parties, harms that arise from competition between wives, and studies that show harms to children from polygamous households, etc. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/poly/chap2.html
None of these easily map to a same sex marriage between two partners.
Not all polygamous cultures mistreat their women. In addition, using gender equality as a reason to ban polygamy/polyandry is conflating correlation and causation. Making sure women are equal under the law outside the home is far more essential in determining gender equality.
Educating women, giving them legal protections, making birth control cheap/reliable/convenient, and giving them economic opportunities are the best ways to help ensure their fair treatment in society. Banning polygamy is of practically zero usefulness compared to those other methods.
Educated, economically-independent women are MUCH less likely to tolerate being mistreated at home. That applies to women in both monogamous and polygamous relationships. How would it not?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Good thing that legislators are petitioning to have Prop 8 overturned, but the mere fact that there is a law to be overturned in one of America's most progressive states only underlines how far gays have to go to reach the levels of equality that Mormons currently enjoy.
And I am saying there is an equivalent law banning polygamy that nobody is interested in removing. It has blocked Mormonism from practicing their religion almost its' entire existence.
quote:I don't see how this comment relates to my discussion on the place of humour and ridicule in a proper society. Could you elaborate on the connection?
OK so we agree it's a bad idea to try to silence opinions by using PC to protect minorities when they are discussed negatively, or made fun of.
Yet, that is exactly what is happening. One group is saying, "We expect to be treated fairly and equally" another group is saying, "We don't believe your relationships are inherently equal to ours, so they should not be recognized by the state."
Neither group should be trying to go after the other at the individual level. I don't like NOM's boycott of Starbucks, I don't like people telling DC comics not to hire Mr. Card. Look, if we permit this to happen to Mr. Card, at what point is an opinion or belief system important enough that we should cause opponents of it to suffer economical damage just for having it? Where do you draw the line? The Republican party supported a needless war in Iraq, hundred's of thousands are dead because of it. Should we pressure companies not to hire Republicans who supported that war? It's just way too inconsistent and messy to boycott this way.
quote:Among them, polygamy violates our obligations under international law to ensure equality between women and men, a historical and current context of polygamy playing a role in being harmful to women, harms that arise when marriages are not exclusive between two parties, harms that arise from competition between wives, and studies that show harms to children from polygamous households, etc.
None of those arguments were persuasive to me. It sounds just like people who say that homosexuals tend towards short-term relationships therefore it's inherently harmful to endorse that kind of relationship regardless of how stable the relationships could be potentially. Bear in mind, I am not saying only men can have multiple wives, I would be comfortable with women have multiple husbands. Further, you could just as easily argue that making polygamy illegal drives it underground which is what makes it prone to gender inequality and illegality.
I am certain that were we to look at polygamy historically, we could find many examples of it working reasonably well. More importantly, it involves consenting adults. Polygamists may not want children, they may work out a system that is agreeable to all those involved. Who are you to tell them no?
posted
Look at what the FLDS is going through and tell me that it is a healthy system for women and children to live in. It really isn't. Women and children and even men suffered in such a system.
But, there could be some cases where it can work, depending, but from what I've read about it really does seem unhealthy and i sure as heck wouldn't want to share a mate with several other people.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I confess that it's spiteful, but if someone else were making the comparisons you're making, BlackBlade, someone who had stood in opposition to SSM for religious reasons who was also a Mormon and made the point about plural marriage/polygamy, I would cheerfully utilize the varied religious arguments against it and be baffled and irritable when proponents didn't immediately cede that they were good and sound objections.
As a question of right and wrong, the justifications I can find for prohibiting polygamy aren't very compelling, not near to the level I personally would need to advocate restricting it. That said, again speaking for myself and realizing you're not entirely speaking your own viewpoint here-it's more than a little galling to hear complaints about equality and unfair treatment from an institution which has stood shoulder to shoulder with those who wished to deny just that, and on the same issue (marriage) no less.
I think that's part of why many people may have a difficult time speaking in defense or support of Mormonism on this issue. Without intending offense, it's easy to recall some striking recent past as well as present examples of a crappy record on the whole equality issue as well as the 'don't mistreat us because you don't like our beliefs' issue. Throw in a good dose of most people regarding polygamy as something strange and not connected to them, and it's easy to go no further than the initial eye-roll when Mormons might speak about these matters.
That's not a justification, mind, because as I said I would've advocate banning polygamy. It's just an explanation.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Rakeesh: I appreciate that. It does suck being in the middle a bit, where your own faith thinks your on the road to apostasy, and liberals think you're crazy.
And I am clearly too angry at this topic, because here again I am posting.
I think it's at this point I want to step back and make a statement about YOU in regards to this subject: I think you're kind of putting yourself in a rocky middle. I don't think you need to think yourself stranded there. I think you've conflated what you're defending to the extent that you feel marooned in your position, like mormonism is on trial, or you are, when what it really is is that 1) an individual is on trial in a comic book world that doesn't want their industry to provide a platform for people who commit to the same organizations, extremism, and efforts as he does, and 2) the definition of the word "homophobe" is on trial with you.
This would be insanely frustrating for anyone, because you're pouring so much effort and putting yourself at so much risk for discrimination and scrutiny from your own church only to feel like you've found the unwinningest place on earth, where you feel you don't get anything back for actually managing, through great personal conviction and (I would guess) ostracizing criticism and scrutiny from the faith, and even maybe derision and discrimination, to be a mormon gay ally. And, yes, an actual ally, not just someone who talks sweet about loving the sinner while keeping the same regressive views (and accordant voting) about what they are or are not supposed to do in the eyes of God.
and it's not right, because it's the product of you honestly going way out of your way to stand up for doing good. Where you're battling to defend mormonism and osc and homosexual rights all at once.
But honestly I think you're accidentally conflating the issues INTO anti-mormon sentiment defense territory and also making the bizarre issue of trying to point out how good and "pc protected" the gays have it.
OSC is on trial for what he has done, and what he still does, and what he has said about gays. he isn't on trial for being a mormon. mormonism has its own problematic issues, but if the boycott was to keep mormons from writing comics, you bet I would be laughing my ass off at the boycotters and standing against them. Most people here would.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: I get that, I really do. I personally have no desire to be in a polygamous relationship at present. But you also have to realize that when I was against SSM, and when I heard the arguments that persuaded me to change my mind, I immediately recognized trends and commonalities with polygamy. It was the same struggle my people engaged in, and lost in the 1800s. Families were torn apart, the church had its property confiscated, and only some of it was returned. A group of people formed a new religion (FLDS) based on the belief that it was better to obey God than to submit to men and their unjust laws. It drove it underground, and people have suffered because of that state of affairs.
Does that compare in quantity to the suffering homosexuals have suffered through the ages? No. Are there countries were polygamy is permitted? Yes. But does it compare in terms of the kind of struggle it is? People with a relationship model that is ancient yet paradoxically considered atypical, being told that their rights are predicated on popular support. With homosexuals thankfully that hump is being crested. But think of what might have happened if Mormons hadn't been forced into submission? There would probably be out and proud healthy polygamist relationships all over the United States. Mormons as a group might have recognized that same link with homosexuality that I do, and they wouldn't have been pulled into the conservative arguments that the Christian right has promulgated. Mormons as a group are starting to come around, but I bet it would have happened much sooner.
So I get that it's frustrating that I'm talking about Mormonism when it's the homosexuals that people are talking about, but I find it endlessly mind boggling that when we talk about polygamy, the very people who are enthusiastic about same-sex marriage happening get cold feet or start hemming and hawing about how it's not the same thing.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But honestly I think you're accidentally conflating the issues INTO anti-mormon sentiment defense territory and also making the bizarre issue of trying to point out how good and "pc protected" the gays have it.
OSC is on trial for what he has done, and what he still does, and what he has said about gays. he isn't on trial for being a mormon. mormonism has its own problematic issues, but if the boycott was to keep mormons from writing comics, you bet I would be laughing my ass off at the boycotters and standing against them. Most people here would.
I appreciate the kind words, I do. And you may be right to some extent. I'm with you insofar that I don't think this is primarily about Mr. Card's Mormonism. But I don't think you can completely divorce it. Mormonism in many minds is synonymous with Proposition 8, which is synonymous with the gay rights debate in this country because SCOTUS is considering it, and the church lawyers are trying to get it upheld. Mr. Card's opinions on homosexuality I feel are virtually certain to be in part tied inextricably from his being Mormon. I just find it unlikely that most people who are calling for him being boycott are completely unaware he is Mormon, and that the Mormon church is a major player on the side against same-sex marriage.
I have managed to create a martyr pissing contest between homosexuals and Mormons, and I shouldn't have. I wasn't careful enough with my words, and I let some of my raw feelings just come out, without shaping them properly. I don't know what it's like to be gay, I just don't. I do know what it's like to be a Mormon. I do know for example that in certain contexts being gay is less of a problem than being Mormon. My father's line of work for example. Politics is an area where Mormons have more general acceptance than homosexuals do.
Anyway, I guess part of what I want to get across, is even if you have arrived at supporting same-sex marriage, it's paradoxically a big deal, but it isn't. It is because we're breaking out of an incorrect tradition that runs deep. It isn't because there are thousands of other beliefs you are probably still holding onto that need to be dumped. And those bad beliefs are holding you and society back. And some of those beliefs are probably oppressing other people.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: OK so we agree it's a bad idea to try to silence opinions by using PC to protect minorities when they are discussed negatively, or made fun of.
Yet, that is exactly what is happening. One group is saying, "We expect to be treated fairly and equally" another group is saying, "We don't believe your relationships are inherently equal to ours, so they should not be recognized by the state."
Ah, I see how you're proceeding and I disagree. You brought up examples like the Book of Mormon musical and a porno starring Mormon missionaries, and I compared them to X-Files episodes with Christians, Shaolin Soccer, and stand-up comics making fun of ethnic groups.
I was defending the place of all of this fiction and humour to exist in a healthy society. In many cases, these aren't even making fun of minority groups, they're making fun of majority groups which makes me much more sympathetic.
However, you're describing OSC's opinions, which are neither humour nor fiction (heading off the obvious side comment, you know what I mean ). Rather, they are very clear political advocacy in favour of laws that target homosexuals. There's a clear power disparity here that makes me uncomfortable.
In other words, when Russell Peters makes fun of Chinese people, Chinese people laugh. When OSC advocated, things like Prop 8 got passed.
I think its supportable for people to react differently in the two situations as customers.
quote: Where do you draw the line? The Republican party supported a needless war in Iraq, hundred's of thousands are dead because of it. Should we pressure companies not to hire Republicans who supported that war? It's just way too inconsistent and messy to boycott this way.
It probably is messy. That doesn't necessarily mean it isn't worth doing. I would note that it is what Americans have asked us to do time and time again. Whether its Cuba, North Korea, or Iran there doesn't seem to be much hesitation to punch the sanctions button and affect broad swathes of a countries population.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Anyway, I guess part of what I want to get across, is even if you have arrived at supporting same-sex marriage, it's paradoxically a big deal, but it isn't. It is because we're breaking out of an incorrect tradition that runs deep. It isn't because there are thousands of other beliefs you are probably still holding onto that need to be dumped. And those bad beliefs are holding you and society back. And some of those beliefs are probably oppressing other people.
Maybe it's just me, but you lost me a bit with your last paragraph, BB. ...?
quote:I have managed to create a martyr pissing contest between homosexuals and Mormons, and I shouldn't have. I wasn't careful enough with my words, and I let some of my raw feelings just come out, without shaping them properly. I don't know what it's like to be gay, I just don't. I do know what it's like to be a Mormon. I do know for example that in certain contexts being gay is less of a problem than being Mormon. My father's line of work for example. Politics is an area where Mormons have more general acceptance than homosexuals do.
I know what it's like to be both: gay and Mormon. I suppose ultimately it is impossible to explain in words.
One phrase perhaps come closest: cognitive dissonance. Especially coming from a fundamentalist family. In some contexts being gay is worse than being Mormon, especially growing up in small-town Utah one's entire life.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: None of those arguments were persuasive to me. It sounds just like people who say that homosexuals tend towards short-term relationships therefore it's inherently harmful to endorse that kind of relationship regardless of how stable the relationships could be potentially.
I think that you should probably take a look at the longer article. I'm not necessarily saying that you're thinking this way, but I think a strong case has to be made for each kind of relationship based on its merits.
I recall the commentators (not you) that were all like, "now that we've allowed same sex marriage, we should allow polygamy or marriage between people and animals." But there are fundamental differences in how consent is treated in each and how exclusivity is handled in each.
Feminism and the ideal that men and women are equal lead easily to a conclusion that gender doesn't matter when it comes to marriage between people. There's no equivalent road between feminism and the idea that the *numbers (or species)* of people in a relationship don't matter.
quote:Bear in mind, I am not saying only men can have multiple wives, I would be comfortable with women have multiple husbands.
And I would not. It sounds like trying to solve the phenomenon of white-people-only lunch counters in old America by creating an equal number of black-people-only lunch counters. Equality of opportunity for exploitation is not really the same thing as actual equality.
quote: Further, you could just as easily argue that making polygamy illegal drives it underground which is what makes it prone to gender inequality and illegality.
Except that it is/was far from underground in contemporary Muslim countries or China before the Communist Revolution. Rather, it was practised by the rich and openly, yet it is/was still horrible and a significant contributor to inequality.
quote:And I am saying there is an equivalent law banning polygamy that nobody is interested in removing. It has blocked Mormonism from practicing their religion almost its' entire existence.
There's a difference here, from the paper:
quote:Moreover, United States' jurisprudence on Mormon polygyny, most notably Reynolds v. United States,[290] has clearly recognized that although state law cannot interfere with religious belief, it may intervene where religious practices undermine the rights of others. ... As Deller Ross has noted, the important belief-practice distinction drawn by the United States Supreme Court has resonated in other domestic court decisions on polygyny.[292] In each of the two cases where the Bombay High Court in India upheld local statutes prohibiting Hindu polygyny (before national law prohibited it), for example, it cited the belief-practice distinction drawn by the U.S. Supreme Court.[293]
I can't see in any way that same-sex marriage undermines the rights of others. On the other hand, I can easily see how polygamy does/did.
I accept that maybe some day in the future when things like gender equality, religions that are hostile to women, and economic opportunity have evened/weakened out much more significantly than they have today, then the prospect of consenting adults entering a polygamous relationship might be more realistic. But in today's world, like repealing the your Voting Rights Act, there's only a superficial veneer of plausibility that would lead to massive abuse if actually done.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This would be insanely frustrating for anyone, because you're pouring so much effort and putting yourself at so much risk for discrimination and scrutiny from your own church only to feel like you've found the unwinningest place on earth ...
I appreciate and second this thought, BlackBlade, by the way.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's also the fact that when one guy gets five wives, the other four guys end up frustrated and pissed off. Not good for peace and harmony in society.
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: There's also the fact that when one guy gets five wives, the other four guys end up frustrated and pissed off. Not good for peace and harmony in society.
Unless, of course, some women have multiple husbands, and gays are allowed to be openly gay, are free to adopt and/or pay willing women to bear their children, and therefore don't have to marry women in order to have children.
In that kind of world, it's less likely that there would be a shortage of available women.
You're right, though, that this problem can come up. It definitely does in the FLDS church. They are an extreme example, though.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Look at what the FLDS is going through and tell me that it is a healthy system for women and children to live in. It really isn't. Women and children and even men suffered in such a system.
But, there could be some cases where it can work, depending, but from what I've read about it really does seem unhealthy and i sure as heck wouldn't want to share a mate with several other people.
Not all polygamists are FLDS, or even religious at all. I know a number of people who are polyamorous, and would be willing to marry an additional partner if the law ever allows.
I wonder why they don't go to a Muslim country and get married.
Come to think of it, I wonder what happens when a Muslim man with multiple wives moves to a non-polygamy-friendly country. Hmm.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: As a result, the Orson Scott Card story (co-written with Aaron Johnston, Card’s writing partner on Marvel’s Ender’s Game comics) will not appear in either the digital or print editions of Adventures of Superman, the upcoming anthology series launching later this year; instead, it will be replaced by a story by respected creators Jeff Parker and Chris Samnee, with the print edition featuring the Parker/Samnee collaboration in addition to work by Justin Jordan and Riley Rossmo, as well as Jeff Lemire. Because of this last-minute substitution, the first print issue of Adventures of Superman will be made returnable to comic stores that have already ordered it.
The news has inspired speculation about whether or not this could mean that DC will quietly kill off the controversial Card story entirely, with some suggesting that the story remaining un-illustrated gives the publisher an “out” to avoid any potential breach-of-contract legal response. (As a freelancer, Card wouldn’t have the option of a wrongful termination suit.)
posted
Well, I mean of course. Who would expect someone's own website's front page *not* to speak in defense of themselves? Hardly shocking.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: hydrophobia
If somebody is hydrophobic then most people would assume they are irrationally afraid of the water. We certainly don't use it to mean, "Hey, you just don't bond chemically with water!"
quote:I recall the commentators (not you) that were all like, "now that we've allowed same sex marriage, we should allow polygamy or marriage between people and animals." But there are fundamental differences in how consent is treated in each and how exclusivity is handled in each.
Yes I've heard that argument. The animals one is obviously flawed because as far as we know animals cannot give consent. Though just how sapient some species like dolphins are might blur that line one day, but I am not convinced it has been breached as yet. With polygamy, when you are dealing with consenting adults who are under no sort of psychological duress that you cannot say, "Well these studies show that polygamy just doesn't have the same societal value as other forms of relationships, sorry."
Maybe we approach same-sex marriage from different places, but I'm grounded in our Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law. We currently subsidize and protect heterosexual marriage, so we should extend those rights to any relationship entered into by consenting adult parties. Or else the government must get out of the marriage business entirely. But this next part is probably the crux of our disagreement.
quote:I can't see in any way that same-sex marriage undermines the rights of others. On the other hand, I can easily see how polygamy does/did.
What is intrinsic to polygamy that undermines the rights of others?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll ask again, what happens to the young men who get the short end of the stick?
It's not as easy as it used to be to gather them into raiding parties and have them die facing the next tribe over's young men.
I know its a big world and they could find someone else from outside society, but what happens in the Mormon Ideal World? Are females with multiple husbands okay in that world? Even if they are, do you think men are going to be as willing to enter into that type of relationship when they can't know the children are theirs? I haven't heard of that type of system working, historically.
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no problem with polygamy in theory. In practice, however, it is quite often oppressive to women, either treating them as property or grooming girls to provide sex and children to old men once those girls have passed an almost laughable age of consent.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is it healthy for the children? One man having 50 children with 5 different wives. Where will he get the resources for all of them? The children definitely get the short edge of the stick in such an arrangement.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I have no problem with polygamy in theory. In practice, however, it is quite often oppressive to women, either treating them as property or grooming girls to provide sex and children to old men once those girls have passed an almost laughable age of consent.
Marriage is quite often oppressive to women too, treating them as property and instantly available victims to rape and abuse.
People seem to be arguing from a point or moral repulsion, which puts you in the same bucket as many people you rail against who are against gay marriage.
You need to provide proof that if polygamous marriage were legal and multiple adults consented to enter into a polygamous marriage that the rights of those adults or their children would be infringed upon as a direct result of the fact that they are polygamously married.
Pointing out a case where the husband is abusive and oppressive has nothing to do with polygamy. One could just as easily be abusive and oppressive in a monogamous relationship.
Despite my personal aversion to the idea, I've learned time and time again that personal moral aversion to something isn't a legitimate basis to make something illegal.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no "moral repulsion" for polygamy. I do have "moral repulsion" for lack of true consent. As polygamy is usually practiced it generally there is a culture that limits the ability of women to freely consent or withhold that consent. If four or five adults met and decided to take up housekeeping and so forth, that wouldn't bother me in the least. When a culture grooms girls to be brides for whoever the alpha male is in that community, I have a problem. It isn't "as easy" to be oppressive or abusive in a monogamous relationship (though it is easy enough) because there isn't as a rule the same level of cultural conditioning in the general populace as is present in communities where polygamy is practiced.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: hydrophobia
If somebody is hydrophobic then most people would assume they are irrationally afraid of the water. We certainly don't use it to mean, "Hey, you just don't bond chemically with water!"
Psychological fear of water is "aquaphobia." Hydrophobia has literally nothing to do with fear. At all. A hydrophobic substance like vegetable oil is not afraid of water. There is no psychological component to it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a moral repulsion for polygamy. What I have is an aversion to living in a society full of undersexed and pissed off young men, for the benefit of a few older rich men.
I think such a society would be less stable and more dangerous.
The same can not be said of a society that allows same sex couples to consenually marry each other instead of the opposite sex.
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: I don't have a moral repulsion for polygamy. What I have is an aversion to living in a society full of undersexed and pissed off young men, for the benefit of a few older rich men.
Good point, but what about polyandry? That is practiced in a few cultures.
Certainly a culture that accepts both polyandry and polygamy wouldn't be likely to have a net shortage of available women.
For that matter, it's like I said before, protecting women's rights is about education, access to birth control, enforcing rape laws in a fair way, etc. etc.. Oppressive forms of polygamy are as much effects of oppression as they are causes.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: hydrophobia
If somebody is hydrophobic then most people would assume they are irrationally afraid of the water. We certainly don't use it to mean, "Hey, you just don't bond chemically with water!"
Psychological fear of water is "aquaphobia." Hydrophobia has literally nothing to do with fear. At all. A hydrophobic substance like vegetable oil is not afraid of water. There is no psychological component to it.
OK, but the original point was that -phobia is used to describe an irrational fear or revulsion to something. You have pointed out there are contexts where it isn't. So I'll conceded that, but I don't think there is a word with the suffix -phobia that when applied to human's does not invoke the clinical definition.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's an etymologically complicated matter. As an antonym to -phile, -phobe is useful to describe a condition of dislike and repellence and need not necessary mean a literal fear.
The semantically accurate word for someone who hates/dislikes something would incorporate the Greek "mis-" component, such as misogyny or misanthropy. In the case of homosexuality that term is "homosexualmisia", a word with only ~500 Google hits and which is flagged as a misspelling in my browser; It's extremely unlikely to enter into common usage.
Generally speaking, when we see the "-phobe" suffix used in reference to social issues, we are almost exclusively talking about a dislike or distrust, not a literal fear (though that is also sometimes a component). Islamophobe, xenophobe, etc.
At this point the definition of the word has moved beyond it's literal meaning and it would probably be best to just qualify it when necessary if you feel it needs to be clarified that you are applying a literal or clinical definition, which is usually not the case.
That said, I would suggest that Card's belief that the normalization of homosexual relationships and the legalization of gay marriage would destabilize society constitutes an irrational fear.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: I don't have a moral repulsion for polygamy. What I have is an aversion to living in a society full of undersexed and pissed off young men, for the benefit of a few older rich men.
Good point, but what about polyandry? That is practiced in a few cultures.
Certainly a culture that accepts both polyandry and polygamy wouldn't be likely to have a net shortage of available women.
It's not really that good a point. Tittles, you're making several big assumptions here, none of which really make sense. The first is "everyone will become polygamous if polygamy is legalized." This is akin to "straights will all gay marry if we legalize gay marriage."
It doesn't follow. Most of our culture prizes monogamy. Most people in our culture do too. If polygamy was legalized, we wouldn't suddenly see tons of monogamous people getting lots of wives.
Also, you're assuming that our society currently breaks down into sexual/relationship parity and everyone gets a mate. But that's ridiculous. Many people don't get spouses at all. Many people serially marry, and many people stop dating after a failed marriage. In some locations there are tangible gender disparities, and also sometimes lopsided numbers of gay men or lesbians.
There are a ton of people in our society. Only a tiny fraction of them would practice polygamy if it were legal. It's not going to cause any of the things you're afraid of.
quote:Originally posted by steven: For that matter, it's like I said before, protecting women's rights is about education, access to birth control, enforcing rape laws in a fair way, etc. etc.. Oppressive forms of polygamy are as much effects of oppression as they are causes.
Right.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I have no "moral repulsion" for polygamy. I do have "moral repulsion" for lack of true consent. As polygamy is usually practiced it generally there is a culture that limits the ability of women to freely consent or withhold that consent. If four or five adults met and decided to take up housekeeping and so forth, that wouldn't bother me in the least. When a culture grooms girls to be brides for whoever the alpha male is in that community, I have a problem. It isn't "as easy" to be oppressive or abusive in a monogamous relationship (though it is easy enough) because there isn't as a rule the same level of cultural conditioning in the general populace as is present in communities where polygamy is practiced.
Kate, it seems like you're basing "how polygamy is usually practiced" on one or two specific subcultures that you happen to be aware of. What's your basis for thinking that's "usual," other than confirmation bias?
Go somewhere like Portland, Seattle or San Francisco and you'll likely see there are other subcultures that would value polygamy too, that do not have the misogynistic flaws you're referring to.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: hydrophobia
If somebody is hydrophobic then most people would assume they are irrationally afraid of the water. We certainly don't use it to mean, "Hey, you just don't bond chemically with water!"
Psychological fear of water is "aquaphobia." Hydrophobia has literally nothing to do with fear. At all. A hydrophobic substance like vegetable oil is not afraid of water. There is no psychological component to it.
This is such a BS trap, Sam. There's no psychological component because it doesn't apply to things with psychology.
Do you have examples of -phobia being applied to humans where there is no connotation of fear? Because that's what BB was actually saying, and you know it.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: For that matter, it's like I said before, protecting women's rights is about education, access to birth control, enforcing rape laws in a fair way, etc. etc.. Oppressive forms of polygamy are as much effects of oppression as they are causes.
Perhaps when we have done a better job at those things, we will be better equipped to do polygamy in a good way.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I have no "moral repulsion" for polygamy. I do have "moral repulsion" for lack of true consent. As polygamy is usually practiced it generally there is a culture that limits the ability of women to freely consent or withhold that consent. If four or five adults met and decided to take up housekeeping and so forth, that wouldn't bother me in the least. When a culture grooms girls to be brides for whoever the alpha male is in that community, I have a problem. It isn't "as easy" to be oppressive or abusive in a monogamous relationship (though it is easy enough) because there isn't as a rule the same level of cultural conditioning in the general populace as is present in communities where polygamy is practiced.
Kate, it seems like you're basing "how polygamy is usually practiced" on one or two specific subcultures that you happen to be aware of. What's your basis for thinking that's "usual," other than confirmation bias?
Go somewhere like Portland, Seattle or San Francisco and you'll likely see there are other subcultures that would value polygamy too, that do not have the misogynistic flaws you're referring to.
Excellent. Got any examples of a contemporary culture where polygamy is practiced in a good way? I would honestly be delighted to see them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). Rather, they are very clear political advocacy in favour of laws that target homosexuals. There's a clear power disparity here that makes me uncomfortable. 
