4 ms·

> My fear of the decline of traditional marriage? The only marriage you have the right to be concerned about is your own, if any. If you don’t like gay marriag

> My fear of the decline of traditional marriage? The only marriage you have the right to be concerned about is your own, if any. If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay married. It’s that simple. The whole “traditional marriage” mindset stems from religion. When forced upon others by law it’s just another way to limit individual freedoms. It’s disgusting and has to stop.

nske 6y ago
I totally agree that personal concerns/fears/moral compasses should not justify restrictions for the others. Sadly I can't find a single society that hasn't compromised on this painfully reasonable approach at the alter of what's popular. Things related to substances, sex acts, pornography, religion, obscenity, gambling, even vaping seem to be common victims nowadays. And when there is some progress in something, it seems that it's not for the right reason (that simply there is no rational basis to restrict some freedom for some arbitrary/subjective concept of "the greater good"), but for the reason that the people that are negatively affected by it became numerous and loud enough to not ignore.
FeepingCreature 6y ago
Sorry, now you're telling me what I'm allowed to fear? Is this still about freedom? It just seems like you're doubling down on a bad idea. People have a right to not be made afraid - but people don't have a right to be afraid except if it's a valid fear? I much prefer my position that freedom and fear do not intersect.
- nske 6y ago
  I might be failing to comprehend something, but I don't think you and D895n9o33436N42 necessarily disagree.
  - FeepingCreature 6y ago
    "The only marriage you have the right to be concerned about is your own, if any." => "You do not have the right to fear the decline of traditional marriage." Particularly relevant if you think, for instance, the gay agenda would be corrosive to your own marriage, due to what I am told is widespread sublimated homosexuality, or the dating life of your children, due to similar reasons. Regardless, I believe telling people that their fear is invalid doesn't tend to be a crowd-pleaser. Instead, I take the more extreme but also I think more defensibly liberal position that their fear is irrelevant, because reducing fear is not a legitimate policy goal of a well-functioning state. A state should reduce the referent of a fear, if such a referent exists. A state should not engage in sociology - it should not strive to shape the emotions of its citizenry. Such an endeavour is corrosive to the control mechanism of democratic feedback, because it decouples citizens' reaction from reality. "Any proxy measure that becomes a policy target ceases to be a good proxy measure."
- jones1618 6y ago
  He said "concerned" as in "it is none of your concern" because it shouldn't effect you. You are still free to fear gay marriage or spiders or clowns but your fear shouldn't dictate public policy or impinge on anyone else's freedom. I like your idea that freedom and emotion are orthogonal. A lot of the problem we're having with "culture wars" right now is the blurring of the line between the two. I think separating the two ideas might help solve a lot of issues from "cancel culture" to "war on Christmas" and "safe spaces" and maybe even gun control. You can hate/fear/boycott a comedian who offends you but you aren't owed their head on a platter. It's OK to think that your being a Christian/Vegan/Cosplayer is sacred but you shouldn't expect everyone to cater to your belief.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Religion is basically just the public policy of 1000+yr ago. If you look at the economics and societal mechanics of subsistence farming societies it's pretty clear why homosexual marriage throws a wrench into all the various mechanisms (inheritance, training the next generation in the skills they will need) that keep things moving from generation to generation and increases risk by reducing the future labor supply (kids). Disallowing homosexuality screws ~10% of the population but over the course of multiple generations and with the slim margins that agrarian societies exist on forcing that 10% of the population to find a heterosexual partner and raise a family and act like everyone else may very well be enough of a boost to keep your community intact when the next 50yr drought hits. Forcing Steve and Stan to find wives and raise kids is just the 50AD version of "your rights end where the community's ability to survive the next famine begins". Remember, there was a lot more suffering back then so people not being able to marry and live with who you want mostly didn't make the short list of problems these people had. Of course, over the past 1000yrs things changed. Famine mostly isn't an issue. Modern families don't need to pump out a bunch of kids to ensure they will have enough labor to work the fields when half of them die before age 5. We have ubiquitous written communication so that Steve and Stan can write their wills and their families won't feud over who gets the farm when they both meet an untimely end in an ox drawn cart accident. So while disallowing homosexual marriage seems nonsensical to us now they were actually optimizing for something 1000yr ago when the legacy code was written (written by people with information that mostly only consisted of what could be observed in a human lifetime no less). Traditional marriage as in "pegs minus holes = 0" doesn't really make sense as a sticking point in the modern world. "Traditional marriage" as in "for life unless something exceptional happens" is still accepted as the gold standard for child rearing (or all the public health experts and sociologists are wrong). So we definitely shouldn't trivialize marriage and unless something changes we should probably continue to have public policy carrots/sticks that keep child rearing parents together.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  'Traditional marriage' is the standard, sure, but maybe not 'gold'? Plenty wrong with many families today. I hope that 'public policy' isn't more 'penalize single-parent households' because that is sure not a positive thing. It's part of the problem.

nske 6y ago

I totally agree that personal concerns/fears/moral compasses should not justify restrictions for the others. Sadly I can't find a single society that hasn't compromised on this painfully reasonable approach at the alter of what's popular. Things related to substances, sex acts, pornography, religion, obscenity, gambling, even vaping seem to be common victims nowadays. And when there is some progress in something, it seems that it's not for the right reason (that simply there is no rational basis to restrict some freedom for some arbitrary/subjective concept of "the greater good"), but for the reason that the people that are negatively affected by it became numerous and loud enough to not ignore.

FeepingCreature 6y ago

Sorry, now you're telling me what I'm allowed to fear? Is this still about freedom? It just seems like you're doubling down on a bad idea. People have a right to not be made afraid - but people don't have a right to be afraid except if it's a valid fear? I much prefer my position that freedom and fear do not intersect.

nske 6y ago
I might be failing to comprehend something, but I don't think you and D895n9o33436N42 necessarily disagree.
- FeepingCreature 6y ago
  "The only marriage you have the right to be concerned about is your own, if any." => "You do not have the right to fear the decline of traditional marriage." Particularly relevant if you think, for instance, the gay agenda would be corrosive to your own marriage, due to what I am told is widespread sublimated homosexuality, or the dating life of your children, due to similar reasons. Regardless, I believe telling people that their fear is invalid doesn't tend to be a crowd-pleaser. Instead, I take the more extreme but also I think more defensibly liberal position that their fear is irrelevant, because reducing fear is not a legitimate policy goal of a well-functioning state. A state should reduce the referent of a fear, if such a referent exists. A state should not engage in sociology - it should not strive to shape the emotions of its citizenry. Such an endeavour is corrosive to the control mechanism of democratic feedback, because it decouples citizens' reaction from reality. "Any proxy measure that becomes a policy target ceases to be a good proxy measure."
jones1618 6y ago
He said "concerned" as in "it is none of your concern" because it shouldn't effect you. You are still free to fear gay marriage or spiders or clowns but your fear shouldn't dictate public policy or impinge on anyone else's freedom. I like your idea that freedom and emotion are orthogonal. A lot of the problem we're having with "culture wars" right now is the blurring of the line between the two. I think separating the two ideas might help solve a lot of issues from "cancel culture" to "war on Christmas" and "safe spaces" and maybe even gun control. You can hate/fear/boycott a comedian who offends you but you aren't owed their head on a platter. It's OK to think that your being a Christian/Vegan/Cosplayer is sacred but you shouldn't expect everyone to cater to your belief.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

Religion is basically just the public policy of 1000+yr ago. If you look at the economics and societal mechanics of subsistence farming societies it's pretty clear why homosexual marriage throws a wrench into all the various mechanisms (inheritance, training the next generation in the skills they will need) that keep things moving from generation to generation and increases risk by reducing the future labor supply (kids). Disallowing homosexuality screws ~10% of the population but over the course of multiple generations and with the slim margins that agrarian societies exist on forcing that 10% of the population to find a heterosexual partner and raise a family and act like everyone else may very well be enough of a boost to keep your community intact when the next 50yr drought hits. Forcing Steve and Stan to find wives and raise kids is just the 50AD version of "your rights end where the community's ability to survive the next famine begins". Remember, there was a lot more suffering back then so people not being able to marry and live with who you want mostly didn't make the short list of problems these people had. Of course, over the past 1000yrs things changed. Famine mostly isn't an issue. Modern families don't need to pump out a bunch of kids to ensure they will have enough labor to work the fields when half of them die before age 5. We have ubiquitous written communication so that Steve and Stan can write their wills and their families won't feud over who gets the farm when they both meet an untimely end in an ox drawn cart accident. So while disallowing homosexual marriage seems nonsensical to us now they were actually optimizing for something 1000yr ago when the legacy code was written (written by people with information that mostly only consisted of what could be observed in a human lifetime no less). Traditional marriage as in "pegs minus holes = 0" doesn't really make sense as a sticking point in the modern world. "Traditional marriage" as in "for life unless something exceptional happens" is still accepted as the gold standard for child rearing (or all the public health experts and sociologists are wrong). So we definitely shouldn't trivialize marriage and unless something changes we should probably continue to have public policy carrots/sticks that keep child rearing parents together.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
'Traditional marriage' is the standard, sure, but maybe not 'gold'? Plenty wrong with many families today. I hope that 'public policy' isn't more 'penalize single-parent households' because that is sure not a positive thing. It's part of the problem.