Here’s where I go off the deep end – I’m OK with that. I know some (not many) people who are simply do not feel being gay should be considered “normal” and given the implicit endorsement of society through legal recognition. It’s their right to believe whatever they want to believe. The thing I’m not OK with is pretending to accept homosexuality as an aspect of modern society (“I have lots of gay friends!”) and then speaking out about gay marriage. I’m sorry to say, they are two parts of the same position.
We live in a liberal society (assuming “we” live in either Taiwan or a Western country) where it has generally been decided that being gay is perfectly fine, and a gay relationship should be respected as two individuals’ choice. Now that we’re here, we can’t arbitrarily stop and say, but that’s as far as we go. If you accept that gay relationships are legitimate, there is no intellectually defensible position that can argue against gay marriage. It’s no different form saying sure, blacks are equal to whites, but they have to sit at the back of the bus.[/quote]
You seem to hold an implicit assumption that what people believe does not matter at all. I don’t think that’s true. It seems possible that you might be offended by the thought-police tendencies of modern liberalism and cope by suggesting that beliefs don’t matter so long as people submit to the majority. I wouldn’t agree of course.
Getting back to my point, a lot of people don’t know that the brain can develop a resistance to its own chemical production that is associated with love: people.howstuffworks.com/love8.htm
One of the implications of these facts is that within a few years, the resistance to dopamine, norepinephrine, phenylethylamine and so-on actually guarantees an end to most aspects of an emotional high. This is another reason why a purely emotional conception of love and marriage would probably lead to temporary marriage licenses or plural marriage licenses, it’s physically impossible to maintain peak interest in a single partner indefinitely. This isn’t to say that all interest disappears however and relationships that are predicated off of more than just emotion can last.
One of the dangers in promoting a purely emotional conception of marriage (which I argue includes gay marriage or is implicit to gay marriage) is that people will not realize that love can be about more than just its emotional peaks.
That’s not a thing. That makes no sense. Do you realize how absurd that sounds? You are pinpointing a particular point in history and saying: THIS one arbitrarily defined section of history! Not before, not after, only THIS one!
Marriage being between one man and one woman and not involving concubines or anything has been the global standard for… what… a century? Since we’re on a Taiwan forum, our focus should be on this part of the world. Concubinage has been a Chinese tradition for thousands of years. Referring to an arbitrarily made up “recent tradition” is absurd. It makes as much sense as saying wearing Western-style suits and ties is a Taiwanese tradition… of the past century. Taking the MRT to work is a Taiwanese tradition, too, right?[/quote]
It may have only been the standard for a century or less, give or take depending on region, but it quickly became an almost international standard because it does the best job of reconciling and accomplishing what are otherwise disparate and conflicting goals that can be impossible to reconcile otherwise.
I’m sorry, but I am neither a communist nor a fascist, and thus I don’t want the government condescending to grant me permission to wed because it benefits society. What a hellish Orwellian dystopia that concept belongs in!
The only reason marriage deserves governmental recognition is because of tax and immigration purposes.
That is in fact what I mean. Personal belief is just that – personal. And no matter how strongly I disagree with it, Il Doge has the right to believe what he wants. He doesn’t have the right to act on it if it disobeys the law, though. And he has to be willing to put up with the rather unhappy response saying something like this is bound to create. But it’s his right to do so.[/quote]
You are merely saying that we can’t stop people from believing in certain things. However, sometimes people’s belief includes treating those they consider unequal differently.
For example, in this case, some people’s belief states that homosexuality is not normal and gas shouldn’t get to have an relationship, be accepted at church, or get married. As such they’d choose to refuse same sex couples services. Cake shops refusing to make cakes for homosexual couples might sit ok with some people, but where’s the line?
Restaurants refusing to serve homosexual couples? Buses that refuse to take homosexual couples? Military that refuse to have homosexual soldiers? Now that sounds really prejudice. Replace all references to homosexuals to blacks, Jewish or Chinese and you’d see why it is just not ok. A society cannot stay cohesive with that kind of mentality.
Saying that people can believe in something as long as they don’t act against the law might be ok if the laws are not prejudice themselves. However, did you forget that many racial prejudices back in the days were legal at the time as well? The laws regarding marriage is not fair for homosexual couples across all of the US, and saying it’s ok as long as it isn’t illegal leaves a lot of room for human beings to be treated unjustly.
Also, at least in terms of racism, the laws already prohibits some people from believing what they believe.
[quote=“Hokwongwei”]So, are you against post-menopausal women getting married or not?
What about infertile people?
There is no difference here from gay marriage.[/quote]
Part of the reason that’s okay is because old and infertile people generally emulate the extra-emotional marriage while a gay relationship is more likely to promote an emotional conception of marriage. Just so we’re clear, I’m also against easy divorce and if two gay people intend to stay married, I can accept that people will want them to get married (though I would still adhere to my religion) but the reality is that gays have much higher divorce rates than heterosexuals do. The divorce rates for lesbians in particular can be shockingly high. So the reality is that the gay relationships quickly become antagonistic towards the (recent) tradition of marriage because they start spamming the divorce system even as they give people the impression that marriage is solely about emotions.
Also, the government can’t give anyone “permission” to wed, it can only extend its subsidy.
[ul]1: Marriage is about more than love. It’s about making babies[/ul]
[ul]2: Any marriage that isn’t about making babies should be illegitimate[/ul]
[ul]3: Except for old people. Because, reasons. Yeah.[/ul]
Is that about right?
Where are the reliable figures to back this up? Gay marriage has only been around for a few years in the United States, so there wouldn’t be conclusive data. Even so, any kind of figure is better than a verbal promise of “trust me, I know what I’m talking about.”
So, what? We’ve already established that this “tradition” has been around a few decades at best. What does it matter if we install a new “recent tradition?”
Again… where are you getting your information?
But that is exactly what you’re saying. You’re saying the government should only endorse (what you consider) productive marriages. Certainly two gay men can go to a church and have a wedding, but without the government’s certificate it means nothing in a legal sense. Hence, the government is in fact discriminating and saying that some marriages are more equal than others. This is, well as I already said, discrimination.
If you support discrimination, that’s alright in my book, no matter how you justify it. I couldn’t disagree with you harder, but I support your right to have a quirky belief. But don’t think that the arguments you have presented lead to an inevitable conclusion that you believe.
[ul]1: Marriage is about more than love. It’s about making babies[/ul]
[ul]2: Any marriage that isn’t about making babies should be illegitimate[/ul]
[ul]3: Except for old people. Because, reasons. Yeah.[/ul]
Is that about right?
Where are the reliable figures to back this up? Gay marriage has only been around for a few years in the United States, so there wouldn’t be conclusive data. Even so, any kind of figure is better than a verbal promise of “trust me, I know what I’m talking about.”
So, what? We’ve already established that this “tradition” has been around a few decades at best. What does it matter if we install a new “recent tradition?”
Again… where are you getting your information?
But that is exactly what you’re saying. You’re saying the government should only endorse (what you consider) productive marriages. Certainly two gay men can go to a church and have a wedding, but without the government’s certificate it means nothing in a legal sense. Hence, the government is in fact discriminating and saying that some marriages are more equal than others. This is, well as I already said, discrimination.
If you support discrimination, that’s alright in my book, no matter how you justify it. I couldn’t disagree with you harder, but I support your right to have a quirky belief. But don’t think that the arguments you have presented lead to an inevitable conclusion that you believe.[/quote]
Gay marriage has been around for a long time in some European countries. It’s very well documented that lesbian divorce rates are 2-10x as high as heterosexual divorce rates depending on which country and whose statistics you use. Even Wikipedia (which IMHO leans left, run as it is by young people) acknowledges this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_o … ex_couples
Some people have used American statistics to argue that they are the same but as you noted, America has not had same-sex marriage for very long. Bearing in mind that the average divorce happens after around six years, it is too early to draw statistics from most western countries. The 10x rate comes from small European countries that have had same-sex marriage or civil unions for long enough that they can be compared on a similar time frame as to traditional marriages.
Also, you said traditional marriage as we know it has been around for a century earlier and now you’ve downgraded it to “a few decades.” It’s been longer than a century in most places though.
Generally I feel as if some of my arguments are being ignored so I’m not very interested in continuing. I just want to say that, not unlike abortion, people aren’t going to stop expressing their opinions just because some court cases took the side of the majority. In abortion there’s a simple articulation (don’t kill babies) but also much more complex articulations. Traditional marriage is the same way. You can put it simply (don’t be gay) or you can point out the interests a benign government has in promoting a form of marriage that reconciles difficult goals for its population. This is what I’ve been calling “extra-emotional” marriage and while the goal of some people on the left is to try and bury extra-emotional marriage for not being PC or for promoting inequality or so-on, we are not going to forget and we will not stop advocating for it either. Thanks for reading
No one is trying to bury it or call it un-PC. I’m saying it’s complete bullshit. You’ve just made it up. You have not defined what it means, except it might have something to do with childbirth, but infertile people can “emulate” it. Because you have not properly defined it, you have not been able to explain why only heterosexual people can “achieve” it. You also haven’t explained what the benefits of it are, or how heterosexual people are differently affected by emotions in marriage, such as swings toward and away from the person they are married to.
Don’t fool yourself- the only reason you don’t feel like continuing is because you have presented a very stupid idea without any evidence or logic and people have unanimously said BULLSHIT.
But there isn’t a single marriage subsidy lavished blindly on all marriages. There are a whole bunch of targeted policies that, together, add up to give a married couple either a subsidy or a penalty. It is very simple for a government to direct such a subsidy at married couples with children only, if that is what they want to do. Having a child (or children) is a criteria for many such subsidies already.
The direction of these subsidies does not rely on the definition of marriage.
[quote=“Rocket”][quote=“Hokwongwei”]So, are you against post-menopausal women getting married or not?
What about infertile people?
There is no difference here from gay marriage.[/quote]
Exactly!
What about all the guys who have nonexistent, substandard, or non-functioning genitals?
Huh?
You know, like all those guys from Spain??[/quote]
And what about the gay guys shooting blanks and they don’t even know it!
I wanna learn to emulate whatever it is infertile heterosexual people emulate so that I can be part of [strike]mainstream[/strike] crazy evangelical America
But there isn’t a single marriage subsidy lavished blindly on all marriages. There are a whole bunch of targeted policies that, together, add up to give a married couple either a subsidy or a penalty. It is very simple for a government to direct such a subsidy at married couples with children only, if that is what they want to do. Having a child (or children) is a criteria for many such subsidies already.
The direction of these subsidies does not rely on the definition of marriage.[/quote]
This is fair, thanks. I do not expect many responses like this on this forum… the objection to gay marriage, as part of the emotional vs. extra-emotional conception of marriage, has a lot to do with what we are advocating for people to take as paths in their own life. It isn’t strictly related to government’s subsidies and penalties although depending on your country etc. it can be.
Insofar as it effects individuals, it ties into the false dichotomy re: the “patriarchy vs. equality” struggle. Which I will get into next.
Consider this preliminary question: if there are two parties to a relationship and they are both 50% responsible for the state of the relationship, which party is responsible for keeping the relationship together? The answer of course is both. For a single party to be presumed responsible at the onset of problems, they would need to have at least 51% of the responsibility. Before someone can have 51% or more of the responsibility they need to have 51% or more of the power. This isn’t a radical proposition, we call it “preponderance of the evidence” in law. If the prosecution doesn’t cross the 50% threshold, the defendant cannot reasonably be found guilty.
In a relationship, the person who is “in charge” has the weight of responsibility, at least in terms of social judgments. This is because power should be paired with responsibility. Power without responsibility is tyranny and responsibility without power is scapegoating. The “passive” party in a relationship (traditionally the woman) may be better off if she lacks power because then she also lacks the presumption of responsibility: she doesn’t have to be put on the spot rhetorically when the relationship fails if she had less responsibility for that relationship. Short of adultery or severe insanity there is simply no way to hold the less powerful party responsible for a failed marriage. This benefits a woman because she needs protections against a man leaving her and her children.
In contrast, when a relationship is 50% the man’s responsibility and 50% the woman’s responsibility, any party can sever the relationship at any time and avoid the full weight of social judgment. The 50/50 split sounds equal in theory but in reality, the woman gets pregnant and the man does not. The woman ages faster than the man. This means that equality actually benefits the man. Not just a little bit; it benefits him a lot. It raises up a generation of men like “Christian Grey” who offer equality on the surface but below that, they are really offering women a chance to be their toy until they move on.
What looks like inequality on the surface is not always inequality. Women often need the rhetorical and social advantages that being “victims of the patriarchy” gives them. Otherwise they have only one choice: be a childless feminist who has slept with lots of men who all moved on to greener pastures. This is why most women who self-describe as feminists are just that. It’s also why feminism is facing dissension in its ranks; plenty of women want to have a family. The best way to get that is by playing the damsel in distress. That’s just how it is and it’s how it will stay.
Today we’re in the middle, or perhaps the tail end, of a sad state of affairs. People are expected to justify things like faith and are laughed at for honor but no one is expected to justify their lust. Lust breaks up families and damages society and no one presumes judgment against the men because they were only 50% responsible for the relationship, so it would be unreasonable to presume their guilt. Men never should have been freed from responsibility by giving up 1% of their power. How is that 1% of power the feminists gained working out for women today? Not well it seems.
This is also one of the problems with gay marriage. If two men or two women marry, they will naturally be 50% responsible each for the state of the relationship. Neither party can ever reach the 51% threshold because they are of the same gender. This means that neither party can be presumed responsible for the break-up of a gay marriage. Calling a gay marriage a marriage makes a mockery of traditional marriage because we presume that “equality” is better than “inequality” and the gay marriage is naturally more equal than the traditional marriage. The truth though is that “equality” is not a simple thing; sometimes it is better to be in a position of apparent weakness. If that were not so, we would have no western liberals or progressives today…
In sum, sometimes being “unequal” is actually better than being “equal” if that inequality engenders responsibility and creates a breeding ground for trust. I’m going to presume here that responsibility and trust have inherent value, though I suspect there are some out there who would challenge those positions, fortunately I have no interest in debating with them.
This also ties into questions of honor. I think that honor can be found in two sources, the first being an observance of rules when they are not individually beneficial to yourself and the second form of honor is when someone (such as a host or a husband) has power over another individual and lives up to the responsibility inherent to that power.
One of the reasons that people today seem so honorless is because our increasingly legalistic society tries to put everyone into 50/50 relationships. There’s no need for trust, no opportunity for honor, no organic consequences for lacking honor and therefore almost no one has or expects honor, even if they understand what it is.
First, a preponderance of the evidence is required for civil cases, not criminal cases, so prosecutors have nothing to do with it. Prosecutors are required to prove cases beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, so your 51% description of criminal law is completely wrong. But let’s say you meant civil. Asking a jury to weigh the evidence to decide responsibility and deciding men are more than 50% responsible… just cuz, well, that’s not the same thing at all. The above may be the dumbest thing I have read on any forum, ever.
[quote]The “passive” party in a relationship (traditionally the woman) may be better off if she lacks power because then she also lacks the presumption of responsibility: she doesn’t have to be put on the spot rhetorically when the relationship fails if she had less responsibility for that relationship. [/quote] Here that ladies? Submitting is in your best interest. This isn’t sexist, we just want you to be safe through submission. Men know what is best.
[quote]Short of adultery or severe insanity there is simply no way to hold the less powerful party responsible for a failed marriage.[/quote] You can really only imagine adultery and insanity as making a less powerful person responsible for the health of a relationship? I don’t think you’ve ever been in a relationship. Hear that ladies, submit, be faithful and not insane- then it’s all good!
[quote]The 50/50 split sounds equal in theory but in reality, the woman gets pregnant and the man does not. The woman ages faster than the man. This means that equality actually benefits the man. [/quote] By making women equal we’ve been disadvantaging them all along! Who knew?
[quote]It raises up a generation of men like “Christian Grey” [/quote] You mean fictional men?
[quote]who offer equality on the surface but below that, they are really offering women a chance to be their toy until they move on.[/quote] Yes, because women who have sex outside of marriage have all been duped by a man whore. Always. Women never just want sex. Or do they?
[quote]being “victims of the patriarchy” gives them. Otherwise they have only one choice: be a childless feminist who has slept with lots of men who all moved on to greener pastures. This is why most women who self-describe as feminists are just that.[/quote] So women who have not yet submitted their power are all sluts. Got it.
[quote]Lust breaks up families and damages society and no one presumes judgment against the men because they were only 50% responsible for the relationship[/quote] So is Josh Duggar more or less responsible because he made his wife submit to his inherent male awesomeness?
[quote]Men never should have been freed from responsibility by giving up 1% of their power. How is that 1% of power the feminists gained working out for women today? Not well it seems.[/quote] Wow, what a difference 1% makes. What is this 1% composed of again, exactly? It must be the same subtle distinction between marriages that are somewhat vs all emotional.
[quote]This is also one of the problems with gay marriage. If two men or two women marry, they will naturally be 50% responsible each for the state of the relationship. [/quote] Naturally. Right? I mean, this makes total sense! Equality is so bad! Oh wait, you actually just made a case for gay marriage in the real world (where equality is a good thing).
[quote]Neither party can ever reach the 51% threshold because they are of the same gender. This means that neither party can be presumed responsible for the break-up of a gay marriage. [/quote] Marriage should obviously be based on what happens when people break up. I think that’s in the bible.
[quote]Calling a gay marriage a marriage makes a mockery of traditional marriage because we presume that “equality” is better than “inequality” and the gay marriage is naturally more equal than the traditional marriage. [/quote] Who ever said gay marriage is more equal than straight marriage? Only you. And the only mockery of marriage are people like the Duggars.
[quote]In sum, sometimes being “unequal” is actually better than being “equal” if that inequality engenders responsibility and creates a breeding ground for trust. [/quote] Yes, ask the Duggars. She submitted. He cheated and lied.
I can’t bother with the rest. I’ve never seen someone bend himself into such a pretzel. You are not anywhere as good at this as you think you are.
Have you considered moving Saudi Arabia? You’d love it there. The women there have to trust their husbands because they’re not allowed to drive themselves and there isn’t much public transit infrastructure. I hear they’re now letting the lesser sex vote for mayors there – boy will they regret that decision!
[quote=“Il Ðoge”]Consider this preliminary question: if there are two parties to a relationship and they are both 50% responsible for the state of the relationship, which party is responsible for keeping the relationship together? The answer of course is both. For a single party to be presumed responsible at the onset of problems, they would need to have at least 51% of the responsibility. Before someone can have 51% or more of the responsibility they need to have 51% or more of the power. This isn’t a radical proposition, we call it “preponderance of the evidence” in law. If the prosecution doesn’t cross the 50% threshold, the defendant cannot reasonably be found guilty.
In a relationship, the person who is “in charge” has the weight of responsibility, at least in terms of social judgments. This is because power should be paired with responsibility. Power without responsibility is tyranny and responsibility without power is scapegoating. The “passive” party in a relationship (traditionally the woman) may be better off if she lacks power because then she also lacks the presumption of responsibility: she doesn’t have to be put on the spot rhetorically when the relationship fails if she had less responsibility for that relationship. Short of adultery or severe insanity there is simply no way to hold the less powerful party responsible for a failed marriage. This benefits a woman because she needs protections against a man leaving her and her children.
In contrast, when a relationship is 50% the man’s responsibility and 50% the woman’s responsibility, any party can sever the relationship at any time and avoid the full weight of social judgment. The 50/50 split sounds equal in theory but in reality, the woman gets pregnant and the man does not. The woman ages faster than the man. This means that equality actually benefits the man. Not just a little bit; it benefits him a lot. It raises up a generation of men like “Christian Grey” who offer equality on the surface but below that, they are really offering women a chance to be their toy until they move on.
[/quote]
I don’t doubt the sincerity of your writings but many of your statements simply don’t square with the data. You portray women as passive, less powerful and in need of protection against men in case the men decide to move on. But the data shows the overwhelming majority of divorces are initiated by women, not men.
Lastly, it is very difficult to untangle relationships of cause and effect. Just because the children of married parents perform better it doesn’t automatically follow that marriage is the cause of this. It is possible they are simply correlations and both the products of wealth and education. After all, wealth allows a couple to get married and have kids and educate them.
If, alternatively, religiosity or tradition was the cause of a society’s childhood outcomes then the children of the most religious or the most traditional societies would perform the best. But that is not the case. One might also wonder why it is that the wealthiest and most educated societies are allowing same-sex marriage. Looking at trends internationally and back across centuries we see that the tremendous growth in wealth, economic freedom and human well-being - which continues, by the way - has corresponded with a decline in the importance of tradition and religion, not an increase. ‘Traditional marriage’ is not the cause of a nation’s prosperity. China is not becoming wealthy and powerful because Deng Xiaopingguo, finally, after 5000 years of compulsory homosexuality, introduced Chinese civilization to the idea that women should marry men.
If you want to be one of the great Italian thinkers I would read Mr Palomar by Italo Calvino. Or maybe Alberto Moravia. Please don’t post another pseudo-essay until you’ve studied them. I would be nicer, but you are pushing prejudice, which is the last thing we need.
You are just making shit up. No one is handed money from the government because they are married.
