FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » OSC writing Superman (Page 6)

  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: OSC writing Superman
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't think polyamorous setups such as you might find in those particular cities tend to come with any of the legal benefits or ramifications of legal marriage.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tittles
Member
Member # 12939

 - posted      Profile for Tittles           Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not too concerned about the marriage or women's rights side of it, Dan. Sex, for most people, and especially young people, is a driving need. You can't ignore that while discussing changes to how society channels and supplies for those needs.

If we have Mormon Paradise and every man aspires to have a few wives to pump out the next universe's spirit children, I think it's a valid question to ask what happens to the losers, and how we deal with their reactions.

In real world terms, young angry men are problems in areas of the world where access to women is inhibited by religious or social restrictions. (Think burkhavilles.) These set-ups worked in the past because different society's leaders just had their young men kill each other in tribal raids or wars. What's the solution today?

China is going to be/is going to be going through something similar soon, because for a while Chinese people had a hobby of killing their infant girls. It'll be interesting to see how that situation resolves itself, although any serious unrest is covered by the friendly local Chinese police.

And like Kate, I'm interested about hearing about successful contemporary polygamous societies.

Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 11809

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If we have Mormon Paradise and every man aspires to have a few wives to pump out the next universe's spirit children, I think it's a valid question to ask what happens to the losers, and how we deal with their reactions.
If we have homosexual paradise and every person only has sex with their own gender I think it's a valid question to ask what happens to the population and how to deal with its annihilation.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tittles
Member
Member # 12939

 - posted      Profile for Tittles           Edit/Delete Post 
Well, for one thing, in vitro fertilization would cover any population crisis. Any woman and man could have children, and they wouldn't have to be married or even physically touch each other.

You know, like today.

Dan saying "well not everyone would choose to be polygamous" is one thing. You saying it strikes me as different. If Mormon Way is the Best Way, then all Mormons in Mormon Paradise are actively working to convert others, yes? Do you just try half-heartedly once the single male population starts reaching high levels? Do you look aside from adultery that might happen between fourth wife and single mailman? Does your god come down from heaven and chemically castrate the males who lost out?

Should only a quarter or a half of the population convert to Mormonism? Do we allow only the very most honored men, like less then five percent, to marry multiple wives? How is this fair to the other Mormons?

What is the solution in Mormon Paradise?

Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:
If we have Mormon Paradise and every man aspires to have a few wives to pump out the next universe's spirit children, I think it's a valid question to ask what happens to the losers, and how we deal with their reactions.
If we have homosexual paradise and every person only has sex with their own gender I think it's a valid question to ask what happens to the population and how to deal with its annihilation.
The difference is that "homosexual paradise" does not require everyone to be homosexual. That is not the goal of homosexuals.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I don't think polyamorous setups such as you might find in those particular cities tend to come with any of the legal benefits or ramifications of legal marriage.

Well, yeah, because that's denied to them! Some wouldn't marry even if they could, because marriage is sort of scorned in some parts of those subcultures... but the same was true of most gay subcultures in the 80s and 90s, too. When marriage excludes people, they tend to turn around and be derisive of marraige.

But not always.

I know a polyamorous foursome in Seattle in which only two members are US citizens. They married the two noncitizens. But it's awkward because US immigration services explicitly ask about whether or not you're in a polyamorous relationship, and if you admit you are, you're screwed.

quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Excellent. Got any examples of a contemporary culture where polygamy is practiced in a good way? I would honestly be delighted to see them.

Look in any progressive, young (20s and 30s I expect) hipsterish subculture and, as Scifibum mentioned, key in on "polyamory" instead of "polygamy." You'll find a few. I know Sam has mentioned that he knows some.

I dunno how good they really are, per se, but they're no worse than most relationships. They certainly don't tend to be misogynistic or involve grooming girls to join an old man's harem or any of the other stuff you've been alluding to.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
If we had been discussing polyamory - which is already legal - that would be relevant. I wasn't talking about polyamory. They are not the same thing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm confused. Or maybe I'm not. Let me rephrase what you said:

Before we make gay marriage legal, we should see some examples of gay marrying cultures where it wasn't catastrophic. And don't point out happy gay couples who aren't married and would totally love to marry, because that's not the same thing! It's not illegal to be in a gay couple, it's just illegal to gay marry.

Is that about right?

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 11809

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tittles:
Dan saying "well not everyone would choose to be polygamous" is one thing. You saying it strikes me as different.

Me saying what? And how is it different from what Dan is saying? If polygamy were legalized today not all Mormons would enter into a polygamous marriage. Even historically the number of Mormons who practiced it were in the minority. Heck I doubt the church would change its policy, at least not immediately if ever. What bearing does any of this have on those Hipster people in the NorthWest in polyamorous relationships who would like to get married?

quote:
Originally posted by Tittles:
If Mormon Way is the Best Way, then all Mormons in Mormon Paradise are actively working to convert others, yes? Do you just try half-heartedly once the single male population starts reaching high levels? Do you look aside from adultery that might happen between fourth wife and single mailman? Does your god come down from heaven and chemically castrate the males who lost out?

See above. Just because it's legal doesn't mean you or anyone else has to practice it.

quote:
Originally posted by Tittles:
Should only a quarter or a half of the population convert to Mormonism? Do we allow only the very most honored men, like less then five percent, to marry multiple wives? How is this fair to the other Mormons?

I think you lack knowledge of what polygamy was in the LDS Church historically.

quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
The difference is that "homosexual paradise" does not require everyone to be homosexual. That is not the goal of homosexuals.

So your argument against legalizing polgamous/polyandrous marriages is that Mormons want to convert the world?

quote:
]Originally posted by kmbboots:
If we had been discussing polyamory - which is already legal - that would be relevant. I wasn't talking about polyamory. They are not the same thing.

It's legal to get married polyamorously?
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
I'm confused. Or maybe I'm not. Let me rephrase what you said:

Before we make gay marriage legal, we should see some examples of gay marrying cultures where it wasn't catastrophic. And don't point out happy gay couples who aren't married and would totally love to marry, because that's not the same thing! It's not illegal to be in a gay couple, it's just illegal to gay marry.

Is that about right?

Not really. Though we do have examples of countries (including this one) where such examples are plentiful. There is no reason for the same consent issues to pertain. We live in a culture where, for most of history, wives have been property and taught to be subject to the will of husbands. (And not just in the past.) How does that translate to men and men? Or women and women?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by stilesbn:

quote:
]Originally posted by kmbboots:
If we had been discussing polyamory - which is already legal - that would be relevant. I wasn't talking about polyamory. They are not the same thing.

It's legal to get married polyamorously?
No. But it is legal to be in polyamorous relationships.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
I'm confused. Or maybe I'm not. Let me rephrase what you said:

Before we make gay marriage legal, we should see some examples of gay marrying cultures where it wasn't catastrophic. And don't point out happy gay couples who aren't married and would totally love to marry, because that's not the same thing! It's not illegal to be in a gay couple, it's just illegal to gay marry.

Is that about right?

Not really. Though we do have examples of countries (including this one) where such examples are plentiful. There is no reason for the same consent issues to pertain. We live in a culture where, for most of history, wives have been property and taught to be subject to the will of husbands. (And not just in the past.) How does that translate to men and men? Or women and women?
I don't understand what you're saying.

The stuff you've written up there could be used against monogamous heterosexual marriage. It's not exclusive to polygamy.

What argument works against three people marrying that doesn't also work against two people marrying?

I don't get it.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by stilesbn:

quote:
]Originally posted by kmbboots:
If we had been discussing polyamory - which is already legal - that would be relevant. I wasn't talking about polyamory. They are not the same thing.

It's legal to get married polyamorously?
No. But it is legal to be in polyamorous relationships.
Yeah and it's legal to be in homosexual relationships. So, they don't need to marry, right?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Dan, seriously, try to follow instead of taking each statement out of context.

As I wrote, I have no problem with polygamy in theory. The types of cultures, judging by the evidence, that currently practice polygamy (or try) are cultures that also oppress women thus creating real problems when it comes to the matter of consent.

If there were a way to safeguard against those problems, I would not have a problem with polygamy.

The oppression of wives who can't consent doesn't really practically enter into SSM so I don't know why you are trying to shoehorn them together. All polygamy and SSM have in common is that they are non-traditional* forms of marriage.

*For some definitions of non-traditional. Polygamy is quite traditional in some ways.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
As I wrote, I have no problem with polygamy in theory. The types of cultures, judging by the evidence, that currently practice polygamy (or try) are cultures that also oppress women thus creating real problems when it comes to the matter of consent.

You say "the types of cultures that practice polygamy." You asked for counter-examples that are not oppressive or misogynistic. And examples were provided.

The only way you have, thus far, dismissed those counter-examples is by saying that those people aren't being polygamous, they are being polyamorous. Because they are not getting married. If I've misunderstood this part of your argument, tell me, please. And clarify what you meant.

Because the whole conversation is about how it is illegal for them to get married. So this seems like a totally inadequate dismissal to me.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Before we make gay marriage legal, we should see some examples of gay marrying cultures where it wasn't catastrophic.
I would put the burden of proof in the other direction: before we make it illegal, we should see some examples where it was catastrophic.

The only reason to assume that the default is "illegal" is to assume that tradition should be codified in law, which is a position that is inconsistent with your politics.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Before we make gay marriage legal, we should see some examples of gay marrying cultures where it wasn't catastrophic.
I would put the burden of proof in the other direction: before we make it illegal, we should see some examples where it was catastrophic.

The only reason to assume that the default is "illegal" is to assume that tradition should be codified in law, which is a position that is inconsistent with your politics.

Erm... I can't tell if you're being serious here.

But... but I wasn't. Being serious, I mean. I was trying to indicate that this would be a silly onus to put on gay couples.

Or is your point that some examples of polygamy have been catastrophic, therefore it's okay to make it all illegal? I think either you totally misread me, or I've totally misread you. Or both, I guess. Both is probably an option too.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
Been busy, conversation may have moved past this.

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
... We currently subsidize and protect heterosexual marriage, so we should extend those rights to any relationship entered into by consenting adult parties.

I'm not entirely sure that the Canadian government does either of these two things. We 'regulate' marriages, but we don't 'subsidize' marriage or 'protect' it. In fact, I can think of more tax credits that benefit singles than couples due the assumption that it costs more to live as two independent singles rather than share a dwelling.

IIRC, one difference between our tax system and your tax system is that we usually tax as individuals (regardless of whether the individuals are in a relationship) while your system has income splitting for couples, which does subsidize marriages with significant income differences. I'll say outright, I prefer our system.

We do, however, give tax credits for children but those apply to children of singles, common-law, or married couples alike.

quote:
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?
Short answer: History and current events

Long answer:
quote:
In its General Comment no. 28 on the Equality of Rights between Men and Women, the HRC (Human Rights Council) noted that because “polygamy violates the dignity of women” and is “an inadmissible discrimination against women… it should be definitely abolished wherever it continues to exist.”[529] Likewise, CEDAW (Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women) has argued that because polygyny violates gender equality and often has deleterious financial and emotional consequences for women and their dependents, “such marriages ought to be discouraged and prohibited.”[530]

These statements by treaty bodies reflect the patriarchal discrimination and harms to women and children associated with polygyny. While such harms often differ according to the religious, customary, cultural and socio-economic contexts in which polygyny is practised, the loss of marital exclusivity is common to all such unions. Some of the other deleterious impacts include harms arising from competitive co-wife relationships, mental health harms, sexual and reproductive health harms, economic harms, harms to the enjoyment of one's citizenship, and harms to children of polygynous unions.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/poly/chap8.html

Chapter two details how they arrived at each of those harms.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
As I wrote, I have no problem with polygamy in theory. The types of cultures, judging by the evidence, that currently practice polygamy (or try) are cultures that also oppress women thus creating real problems when it comes to the matter of consent.

You say "the types of cultures that practice polygamy." You asked for counter-examples that are not oppressive or misogynistic. And examples were provided.

Were they? As far as I can tell, you pointed at some cities in the US in the States and one anecdotal group from Seattle. The latter seems impossible to verify, the former simply didn't provide enough detail to proceed anywhere as a discussion.

On the whole, I feel like the idea parallels Communism. I can see how theoretically, it could work out and yes, it might "work" in some isolated groups of hippies. But we've also tried it on a large scale multiple times in the past (or now) in extremely different cultural contexts and the results have been (and are) disastrous every time. Reality trumps theory for me in this case.

(This can be contrasted with same-sex relationships which actually has a decent historical reputation in my view. I would recommend Behind the Red Door for example, but this may be going off topic)

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
[qb] 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.
that's stupid, dan. It's immature of you to put it as me making a "bullshit trap" .. and it makes it seem like you are ignorant of the statement I made which I am backing up in complete fairness:

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
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.

The real bs trap here is adding or moving goalposts to the defense of my point.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Mucus: Chapter 2 says this at the very beginning.

quote:
To this extent, this Part II does not mean to be exhaustive nor representative of all polygynous unions, but rather suggestive of some of the harms associated with the practice.
quote:
While Kaganas and Murray are certainly correct in arguing that the sexual stereotyping of women is not limited to polygyny, they seem to underestimate the degree to which the inherent asymmetry of polygyny tends to perpetuate sex-stereotyping. Where polygyny exists, it often stereotypes women into reproductive and service roles. As a result of such stereotypes as well as its inherent structural inequality, women can never be truly equal in polygynous unions.
"They seem to" is already a weak assertion, and they don't even demonstrate why the counter-argument is wrong. And then they conclude that women can never be truly equal, for reasons they still haven't made clear. And really, all that would need to be done to throw out their whole argument is to find one polygamist relationship either now or in the past where all parties were equal, and happy with the arrangement. I'd be very surprised if this could not be done. Shocked even.

From the article,
quote:
As Altman and Ginat have noted, the implicit stereotype within this revelation and other writings at the time of women as dependent and obedient beings whose proper place was in the domestic sphere raising children helped to reinforce polygyny. Likewise, the characterization of men in Smith's revelation as having strong and "“inexhaustible”" sexual needs further perpetuated the theology of plural marriages
I have no idea why 'inexhaustible' is in quotation marks. Smith does not once mention men's sexuality or use that word in the revelation, or any other. Further, they neglect to mention that in that revelation it specifically says that the first spouse must give her consent. In practice it is questionable that this happened, but it's in the same revelation. It's not simply a matter of a man feeling like he needs more than one woman sexually so he goes and gets one.

I think one of the biggest arguments for polygamy is that there isn't an example of a society where women and men were considered equals, so how could there be one where polygamy was practiced? As Dan has pointed out, there are many poly-amorous relationships in the US, and in fact when I was a press clipper, I read relationship columns where Dan Savage and other all recommended an open relationship if both partners would consent to it. This is in effect polygamy or polyandry.

quote:
"“several… forms of threat or violence are used to ensure that women stay obedient within a marriage, for example the threat of the husband taking another wife…."
This happens in hetersexual marriage as well. "I'll divorce you, and find a younger more obedient wife!"

quote:
To this end, it is essential that discriminatory family structures be eliminated.
They have only made the case that polygamy can potentially be used in a certain way, they have not made a case that it must or is always this way.

This post is getting long, but the main issue I have is they mention that this problem exists in polygamy, which virtually every time exists in other relationships as well. Adultery is de-facto polygamy yet somehow the state should stop polygamy from happening but not pass laws outlawing adultery?

quote:
I'm not entirely sure that the Canadian government does either of these two things. We 'regulate' marriages, but we don't 'subsidize' marriage or 'protect' it. In fact, I can think of more tax credits that benefit singles than couples due the assumption that it costs more to live as two independent singles rather than share a dwelling.

IIRC, one difference between our tax system and your tax system is that we usually tax as individuals (regardless of whether the individuals are in a relationship) while your system has income splitting for couples, which does subsidize marriages with significant income differences. I'll say outright, I prefer our system.

We do, however, give tax credits for children but those apply to children of singles, common-law, or married couples alike.

I did not know this. In the United States there are tax breaks for being married, as well as child tax credits. You also have rights regarding your spouses medical care if they are in a coma or similar circumstance. Power of attorney if they die, etc.

If we are looking for historical relationships, polygamy is as ancient as homosexuality, full stop. As for the young being pulled into polygamist relationships, that is found in everything from heterosexual relationships (pre-arranged marriages), to homosexual relationships (Ancient Greece / Japan), to polygamy (A patriarch taking underage nieces into his fold). In Afghanistan there is a long tradition of young boys acting like girls and entertaining groups of men, who then gang rape them. There was a scandal recently where American contractors were procuring these young boys for diplomatic negotiation purposes.

Anyway there are countries that presently permit polygamy, especially in countries where Islam is the state religion. I'm certain (and I'd be happy to start doing this) were research conducted, you'd find communities where polygamy was not a problem.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
[qb] 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.
that's stupid, dan. It's immature of you to put it as me making a "bullshit trap" .. and it makes it seem like you are ignorant of the statement I made which I am backing up in complete fairness:

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
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.

The real bs trap here is adding or moving goalposts to the defense of my point.
Not trying to move the goalposts, Sam. I know how annoying that can be. Let's back up a little.

The way it seemed to me, BB was objecting to "homophobia" changing in common use away from being about fear and into general dislike. He indicated this was what he was arguing against.

So, first of all, I'll address this:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
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.

Pointing out that homophobia itself is an example where the meaning has shifted away from just fear is a tautological argument. He's already aware of that, of course; that's the source of his disgruntlement.

... And since he's talking about labels that are applied to people, since people feel fear and inanimate objects don't, I do think it is also bogus to cite an example where scientists applied the -phobia suffix to a phenomenon of some inanimate matter. It still seems like a dodge, and I don't see how you've explained that it isn't.

I think an appropriate response would be to cite examples where the -phobia suffix is actually used on humans to indicate dislike or distaste instead of fear.

Personally, I'm pretty much okay with common usage changing words in a totally piecemeal and half-assed way. So the common usage of homophobia doesn't really bother me. But I don't think you've adequately refuted BB's main issue.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
As I wrote, I have no problem with polygamy in theory. The types of cultures, judging by the evidence, that currently practice polygamy (or try) are cultures that also oppress women thus creating real problems when it comes to the matter of consent.

You say "the types of cultures that practice polygamy." You asked for counter-examples that are not oppressive or misogynistic. And examples were provided.

Were they? As far as I can tell, you pointed at some cities in the US in the States and one anecdotal group from Seattle. The latter seems impossible to verify, the former simply didn't provide enough detail to proceed anywhere as a discussion.

On the whole, I feel like the idea parallels Communism. I can see how theoretically, it could work out and yes, it might "work" in some isolated groups of hippies. But we've also tried it on a large scale multiple times in the past (or now) in extremely different cultural contexts and the results have been (and are) disastrous every time. Reality trumps theory for me in this case.

Yuck. Communism leads to poverty, tyranny and death because those things follow logically from its premises. Misogyny doesn't follow from the basic axiom of "multiple people can marry together."

Plus, you're comparing a system of government (which inherently involves an entire culture, so it makes sense to examine other cultures that did it) to a system of personal relationships. It seems weird to keep looking at the macro level when you're thinking about a micro phenomena like that. Look at individual relationships.

It's totally true that most major cultures that practice polygamy today are regressive, horrible cultures. It's an old tradition that was stamped out by monogamy. It only really persists as a widespread system in those awful closed societies. So yeah, those are bad examples. Of course, monogamous marriages in those closed societies are also horrible, so... yeah.

Just about the only modern examples of poly that I know of, practiced in an open society by free people, are the "hippies." They don't have a distinct culture and nation, but they have google groups and meetups and stuff. You can take a look at them if you like. I guess because I'm inviting you and Kate to look them up, it doesn't count as an example? Shrug.

I'm hard pressed to understand why you think that legalizing polygamy in a free and open society like ours would lead to the regressive sort, instead of the progressive sort. Seems counter-intuitive.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
I think reducing polygamy to "multiple people can marry together" and stripping out the historical and current context is overly simplistic.

I'm also not sure how if we were reducing things in that way how poverty, tyranny, and death follow from Communism's axioms of working toward a classless society either.

The most important point in your post to address in your post though is buried at the end. I suspect we distinctly disagree as to how equal the position of women are in the US.

Let me clip a few relevant headlines from the last year:
"North Dakota state senate approves strict new abortion legislation"
"Arkansas' Abortion Ban Energizes Backers Of Fetal Heartbeat Laws"
"'Legitimate rape' rarely leads to pregnancy, claims US Senate candidate"
"Rush Limbaugh labels grad student a 'slut'"
"Wis. GOP vows to enact bill that would force women to undergo invasive transvaginal ultrasound"

So do I think that the legalisation of polygamy in that context would lead to a healthy balanced result? I'm going to say no, that when, for example the very question as to who controls women's bodies is still an open political question. That would not be the time.

I also would say that the both of you focus on minor groups of "hippies" when the much larger and more prevelant substitute for polygamy is not these small groups, but the much larger groups of men who hold mistresses, the John Edward's and Mark Sanford's on down. That may be a language thing, it's a bit more obvious in Chinese because the equivalent word for this practice would be "ernai."

Here, the inherent abuses in polygamy become more obvious: For example, how much real consent is possible when a male with much more access to the levers of power and money decides to take on an additional partner? Even the Hiliary Clinton's of this world seem to have a tough time tackling this kind of issue.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Sure, society should protect people...like women...from lecherous, old, powerful men who would like nothing more then a top notch wife collection...but I'm more invested in preserving freedom. What consenting adults do is their own gosh darn business. Even if colossally stupid or ultimately negative.


As long as it was someone's free choice to enter into a polygamous relationship (and leave it) then we as a free country shouldn't butt in.

If abuses are perpetrated, then those abusers should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The law shouldn't be used to inflict cultural morality, but only used to prevent parties from obviously harming other parties.


Having more then one spouse sounds horrible...and might be unwise, but it is hardly harmful in and of itself.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jeff C.
Member
Member # 12496

 - posted      Profile for Jeff C.           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
...but I'm more invested in preserving freedom.

I pictured a giant wolf with a superman cape riding on the back of a bald eagle.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
LOL,
I'm not American. So by comparison I'm going to be much more bullish on bringing down the regulation/taxation/ban hammers on cigarettes/alcohol/guns/etc. if its an overall improvement for society.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
...but I'm more invested in preserving freedom.

I pictured a giant wolf with a superman cape riding on the back of a bald eagle.
If only we could avitar icons...
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tittles
Member
Member # 12939

 - posted      Profile for Tittles           Edit/Delete Post 
Blackblade, I'm very interested in hearing about these peaceful polygamous communities. And what they do with their extra young men. Also, what the Mormon plan is to do with the extra men once Mormonism is accepted by the majority of the world.

I can't help but notice how so many of the Mormen men around here think polygamy is okay and it should and will be back some day. Do you see it happening in your lifetimes? Does all it require is that the federal government allows it? How do your wives feel about your hopes for banging other women in the future? Will they be screwing other men? I've been told that polyandy is the solution.

Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Pointing out that homophobia itself is an example where the meaning has shifted away from just fear is a tautological argument. He's already aware of that, of course; that's the source of his disgruntlement.

... And since he's talking about labels that are applied to people, since people feel fear and inanimate objects don't, I do think it is also bogus to cite an example where scientists applied the -phobia suffix to a phenomenon of some inanimate matter. It still seems like a dodge, and I don't see how you've explained that it isn't.

I think an appropriate response would be to cite examples where the -phobia suffix is actually used on humans to indicate dislike or distaste instead of fear.

This is an argument about the suffix -phobia and the extent of its use. It is not categorically limited to describing fear of something. That's what I am demonstrating.

I guess if I need to jump through additional hoops, I can remind again that a cited example of where the -phobia suffix is used on humans without the requirement for fear, I can again note - 'tautologically' - that homophobia already qualifies, as does xenophobia. Psychologically, Aphobia also counts.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Homophobia cannot qualify as an example of a -phobia that does not involve an irrational fear or disgust because that usage is what I am arguing against. Xenophobia typically is used to describe one having an irrational fear or revulsion towards outsiders.

Aphobia can't count for obvious reasons, because it's describing one not having a phobia.

The whole point is phobias especially when applied to humans by and large describe something I just described. To say we can use homophobic/phobia to describe anybody who opposes general acceptance of same-sex relationships or legalized marriage is to imagine that homophobia can stand alone as a word, while its phobia relations cut of all ties with it. It's an inconsistent use of language, this usage is certainly not current amongst the population which creates even more miscommunication on an important issue, and there's no reason the change needs to happen in the word. We already have words to describe people who disagree with homosexuality, but are not irrationally fearful of it.

Instead, it appears that the term homophobia/homophobe is being used as an indiscriminate bludgeon that cows people into getting out of the way. As if their opinions all stem from a clinical illness. Much like opponents of the war in Iraq were called Islamophiles, or Anti-Americans.

Homophobia is certainly out in force, but we do the movement (SSM) no favors when we use such a powerful word with all it entails and try to assign it to everybody on the other side of the fence.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Parkour
Member
Member # 12078

 - posted      Profile for Parkour           Edit/Delete Post 
Reread.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
I just did, and I'm not sure what I'm missing. Feel free to enlighten me.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
We already have words to describe people who disagree with homosexuality, but are not irrationally fearful of it.
Which words are these?

Did you read my post on this subject from the previous page?

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
To echo an earlier poster, what makes OSC a homophobe isn't a softening of the definition, it's stuff like this:
quote:
...giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
... Much like opponents of the war in Iraq were called Islamophiles, or Anti-Americans.

I feel like, those terms aren't very good for cowing people [Wink]
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Homophobia cannot qualify as an example of a -phobia that does not involve an irrational fear or disgust because that usage is what I am arguing against.

Homophobia can actually qualify as a word with the -suffix phobia which has no categorical requirement for involving fear, whether or not that usage is what you are arguing against. Case in point, that's what the word HAS become, whether you disagree with this from a prescriptivist standpoint or not.

you're missing what i am actually arguing, and what i am going to stick with: the definition of the word "homophobe" already has a definition beyond "person with a clinical phobia of gays" -- homophobes don't have to be afraid of gays (though they usually are in some way, despite pretty much never admitting it. no homophobe is really homophobic, it's always unfair to call them a homophobe, etc). The word "homophobe" pretty much is by now the analogue to "racist" for homosexuals. It describes someone who is prejudiced against gays.

quote:
Homophobia is certainly out in force, but we do the movement (SSM) no favors when we use such a powerful word with all it entails and try to assign it to everybody on the other side of the fence.
To compare, if one of our parties suddenly came out in force against interracial marriage and an attempt to reinstate anti-miscegenation laws, I would have no problem calling the policy and all of its supporters racist. Racist is also a powerful word, with 'all it entails,' and yet.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Sam:
quote:
Homophobia can actually qualify as a word with the -suffix phobia which has no categorical requirement for involving fear, whether or not that usage is what you are arguing against. Case in point, that's what the word HAS become, whether you disagree with this from a prescriptivist standpoint or not.
I don't believe it has made that far of a transition as you have described. But I don't one can persuade the other on this point.

quote:
To compare, if one of our parties suddenly came out in force against interracial marriage and an attempt to reinstate anti-miscegenation laws, I would have no problem calling the policy and all of its supporters racist. Racist is also a powerful word, with 'all it entails,' and yet.
It's not a good comparison because racist in that context would more than likely be accurate. We are dealing with whether somebody is prejudiced against race, hence racist. -ist is used all over the place, statist, sexist, anarchist, biologist. The -ist in of itself does not tell us much.

That can't be said for -phobia/phobic. With just the phobia part we are already told a lot of things.

I'm not arguing that there aren't people who are homophobic who would vehemently deny it. And they would be wrong. Homophobia can be very hard to identify within one's self. It can also be hard to get rid of. But again, I don't think homophobia to most people's minds simply means an opponent. I think it still carries the mental association of "my ideas are problematic because I arrived at them from an unsound mental state".

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't believe it has made that far of a transition as you have described.
That's the thing, though, is that this isn't a competing belief issue. It has, whether you believe it to have or not, and that's what creates the issue:

quote:
Unfortunately, there is only one word, "homophobia" in general use. And it is rapidly becoming a "snarl" word like racism and sexism.

The precise meaning that a person assigns to "homophobia" is often not obvious. Sometimes a person will switch from one definition to another in the middle of an essay or speech. Many individual and groups fit two or more of the above definitions at the same time; others fit only one. In an ideal world, we would have a different word for each of the above definitions. But it is not easy to create new and acceptable words in English.

quote:
That can't be said for -phobia/phobic. With just the phobia part we are already told a lot of things.
that's the post-prescriptive part of this. homophobe 'tells' me the person must have a literal phobia of gays the same way the word bathroom 'tells' me it must be a room with a bath in it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
With just the phobia part we are already told a lot of things.
Except we're not. Thanks to the reinvention of the various -phobias that are referenced in poltiical discussion, the suffix -phobia when applied to a group of people has come to represent any opposition. Xenophobia, Islamophobia, Homophobia - these all regularly refer to actions and feelings in opposition to foreigners, Muslims, and gays and not necessarily (or even usually) literal fear.

Homophobic as a reference to people and actions that are merely opposed to homosexuals, regardless of motivations, appears to now be the predominant usage.

Wikipedia's article on the subject encapsulates well that the word has come to mean:
quote:
Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, and may be based on irrational fear.
It also includes a discussion about some alternate terms that have been suggested but have failed to gain much traction.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
that's the post-prescriptive part of this. homophobe 'tells' me the person must have a literal phobia of gays the same way the word bathroom 'tells' me it must be a room with a bath in it.
I have a pet peeve for people saying bathroom when they mean restroom too. [Razz]

quote:
That's the thing, though, is that this isn't a competing belief issue. It has, whether you believe it to have or not, and that's what creates the issue.
Right or wrong, I believe the word is very much still in a transformative state. I want to push it back into its clinical roots, since the word is still relatively new I think it can still be done.

I do admit I've never really heard a convenient word for describing opponents of same-sex marriage, that I've been happy with.

----------

Matt:
quote:
Xenophobia, Islamophobia,
I have not heard these words to mean simply opposition to foreigners or Islam without the irrational fear or revulsion aspect.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I have not heard these words to mean simply opposition to foreigners or Islam without the irrational fear or revulsion aspect.
Really? Particularly in the case of xenophobia, the term is used almost exclusively to mean "anti-foreigner" or even "anti-immigration". Few people are actually pathologically fearful of non-citizens.

Again Wikipedia indicates this softer definition:
quote:
Xenophobia is a dislike or fear of people from other countries or of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange. Some definitions suggest xenophobia as arising from irrationality or unreason.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Matt:
quote:
Really? Particularly in the case of xenophobia, the term is used almost exclusively to mean "anti-foreigner" or even "anti-immigration". Few people are actually pathologically fearful of non-citizens.
Still seems very married to the fear/anxiety element of phobia. And I would say most people are pathologically nervous or scared of foreign cultures.

If some country was invading us, and somebody said, "We need to kick these foreign invaders out of the country." I wouldn't assume they are xenophobic. If they said, "After we get these foreigners out, we need to get all the rest of them out too!" I would.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Fighting definition drift is like fighting thread drift or the tide coming in...fruitless.

But I do understand where you are coming from.

In previous discussions I had suggested that "anti-homosexuality" might fit the bill, but like the tide, the on rush of tons of momentum can not be stopped.

I simply can not imagine how difficult your job is about to become after the EG movie comes out and this site is literally flooded with new people, quite a few I imagine will be here solely for the purpose of bashing OSC.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Maybe. But people pushed the word into the usage it has today, it can be pushed in other directions too.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 11809

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
In previous discussions I had suggested that "anti-homosexuality" might fit the bill, but like the tide, the on rush of tons of momentum can not be stopped.

I vaguely remember that thread. It seemed some posters didn't even like the fact that you were trying to find a different word. I thought that was interesting...
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 11809

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tittles:
I can't help but notice how so many of the Mormen men around here think polygamy is okay and it should and will be back some day. Do you see it happening in your lifetimes? Does all it require is that the federal government allows it? How do your wives feel about your hopes for banging other women in the future? Will they be screwing other men? I've been told that polyandy is the solution.

I don't think any of the men on this board have said they would like to be in a polygamous relationship. In fact, I don't really know any Mormon men who would like to enter into one.

Since you support gay marriage (At least I'm pretty sure you do...) do you want to enter into one?

Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Maybe. But people pushed the word into the usage it has today, it can be pushed in other directions too.

I don't think it was pushed so much as drifting on its own because it was the existing word which best worked and was most closely related to the concept it has come to describe and no better term has manifested. If the definition changes again it also won't be because of a deliberate push.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
I wouldn't at all object to a concerted push to move it to "heterosexist" or "heteroist" or another connotatively more appropriate word for being prejudiced or intent on discriminating against the homos but pretty much any applicable new word will be just as objected to by pretty much everyone who it described because, after all, it's always unfair namecalling, forever, always. So "use slightly nicer connotatively-structured language that prejudiced people will still whine and derail over" is really not high up on the importance list.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
I wouldn't at all object to a concerted push to move it to "heterosexist" or "heteroist" or another connotatively more appropriate word for being prejudiced or intent on discriminating against the homos but pretty much any applicable new word will be just as objected to by pretty much everyone who it described because, after all, it's always unfair namecalling, forever, always. So "use slightly nicer connotatively-structured language that prejudiced people will still whine and derail over" is really not high up on the importance list.

I don't think that is the case but we may never know.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2