8 ms·

Except when the state is subsidizing heterosexual lifestyles to wage a culture war on its population

by mikojan 4y ago

cato_the_elder 4y ago
- ItMayWorkTryIt 4y ago
  Agreed, we should also make sure to ban interracial marriage since same culture marriages are universal among all the countries in the world. I don't know of any thriving culture which frowns on same race marriage. (Sarcasm if it wasn't obvious)
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    Not really, probably most people around the world have ancestors from different cultures and ethnicities.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- noSyncCloud 4y ago
  >Heterosexual lifestyle is universal among all countries around the world. If this were true then everyone everywhere would be in a heterosexual lifestyle. Demonstrably false.
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    - washbrain 4y ago
      Almost everyone isn't red haired, doesn't make it ok to exclude red haired people just because they represent 3% of the population.
      - cato_the_elder 4y ago
        Yet again, that's irrelevant. I think the point we are debating here is universality of heterosexuality/heteronormativity.
        washbrain 4y ago
        No, I'm not debating it. I'm asserting it. It is not a subject of debate. You might as well debate the existence of left handed people. So no, no debate. Your positions are factually wrong.
        cato_the_elder 4y ago
        Well, that kind of comment adds nothing to the discussion. It's certainly not as an unpopular position among the "experts" as you probably think it is [1]: > "For the Greeks, the concept did not meaningfully exist at all; the social identities we today understand in the West as a gay man or a bisexual woman, for example, simply weren’t something that people recognized." [1]: https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/rules-attraction https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/rules-attraction
- washbrain 4y ago
  You do not see the hypocrisy in your position? Homosexuality is not unique to humans, it's common in the animal kingdom (including humans) and only unusual in some countries for cultural reasons. It's also universal among all countries around the world. Just some criminalize it.
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    - washbrain 4y ago
      I'm saying there are gay men in all countries, whether they are in the open or not. Their existence might be underground or behind closed doors, but they are there.
      - cato_the_elder 4y ago
        If by gay you mean MSM, that's correct. But if you mean males wanting to marry each other, that's debatable.
- lalaland1125 4y ago
  > separating the institution of marriage and the state doesn't seem like a completely unreasonable idea What does this mean precisely? Marriage without the associated state components (shared property rights, child custody rights, inheritance, etc, etc) seems like it would be much less effective than our current approach. Being able to legally form a union where are assets are shared is a really useful function of marriage, and that function relies on the state to work.
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    Well, the institution of marriage is older than the nation state. So, it's independent existence is within the realm of possibility. I agree that it's a vague proposition in our era though. I'm just saying that it's not completely unreasonable.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  There are definitely cultures where, for instance, polygamy is seen as the desirable goal (for men) and monogamy is the poor man's fallback. And cultures where abstinence/celibacy etc. is revered. I would be surprised if there'd never been a culture where heterosexual marriage (implying a life-long commitment etc.) was the exception rather than the rule. The Na of Yunnan is supposedly one such example though I know very little about it.
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    > polygamy is seen as the desirable goal (for men) and monogamy is the poor man's fallback. But that's still heterosexual. > And cultures where abstinence/celibacy etc. is revered. > The Na of Yunnan is supposedly one such example But those cultures aren't thriving, are they?
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      > But that's still heterosexual I knew you'd say that. So you'd be ok with government subsidisation of polygamy? I was only replying to your claim of universality. Who knows what will be the norm in another few centuries.
      - cato_the_elder 4y ago
        > So you'd be ok with government subsidisation of polygamy? In the cultures which approve of it? It's none of my business. In my own country, no.
        wizofaus 4y ago
        Then in your own country if the vast majority of the population approve of homosexual marriage, why is it particularly your business to be concerned about it?
        cato_the_elder 4y ago
        Yes, because it's the country where I live in, and I (like most other people) care about my culture.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
danny_codes 4y ago

Except when the state is subsidizing heterosexual lifestyles to wage a culture war on its population

cato_the_elder 4y ago

ItMayWorkTryIt 4y ago
Agreed, we should also make sure to ban interracial marriage since same culture marriages are universal among all the countries in the world. I don't know of any thriving culture which frowns on same race marriage. (Sarcasm if it wasn't obvious)
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  Not really, probably most people around the world have ancestors from different cultures and ethnicities.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
noSyncCloud 4y ago
>Heterosexual lifestyle is universal among all countries around the world. If this were true then everyone everywhere would be in a heterosexual lifestyle. Demonstrably false.
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  - washbrain 4y ago
    Almost everyone isn't red haired, doesn't make it ok to exclude red haired people just because they represent 3% of the population.
    - cato_the_elder 4y ago
      Yet again, that's irrelevant. I think the point we are debating here is universality of heterosexuality/heteronormativity.
      - washbrain 4y ago
        No, I'm not debating it. I'm asserting it. It is not a subject of debate. You might as well debate the existence of left handed people. So no, no debate. Your positions are factually wrong.
        cato_the_elder 4y ago
        Well, that kind of comment adds nothing to the discussion. It's certainly not as an unpopular position among the "experts" as you probably think it is [1]: > "For the Greeks, the concept did not meaningfully exist at all; the social identities we today understand in the West as a gay man or a bisexual woman, for example, simply weren’t something that people recognized." [1]: https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/rules-attraction https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/rules-attraction
washbrain 4y ago
You do not see the hypocrisy in your position? Homosexuality is not unique to humans, it's common in the animal kingdom (including humans) and only unusual in some countries for cultural reasons. It's also universal among all countries around the world. Just some criminalize it.
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  - washbrain 4y ago
    I'm saying there are gay men in all countries, whether they are in the open or not. Their existence might be underground or behind closed doors, but they are there.
    - cato_the_elder 4y ago
      If by gay you mean MSM, that's correct. But if you mean males wanting to marry each other, that's debatable.
lalaland1125 4y ago
> separating the institution of marriage and the state doesn't seem like a completely unreasonable idea What does this mean precisely? Marriage without the associated state components (shared property rights, child custody rights, inheritance, etc, etc) seems like it would be much less effective than our current approach. Being able to legally form a union where are assets are shared is a really useful function of marriage, and that function relies on the state to work.
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  Well, the institution of marriage is older than the nation state. So, it's independent existence is within the realm of possibility. I agree that it's a vague proposition in our era though. I'm just saying that it's not completely unreasonable.
wizofaus 4y ago
There are definitely cultures where, for instance, polygamy is seen as the desirable goal (for men) and monogamy is the poor man's fallback. And cultures where abstinence/celibacy etc. is revered. I would be surprised if there'd never been a culture where heterosexual marriage (implying a life-long commitment etc.) was the exception rather than the rule. The Na of Yunnan is supposedly one such example though I know very little about it.
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  > polygamy is seen as the desirable goal (for men) and monogamy is the poor man's fallback. But that's still heterosexual. > And cultures where abstinence/celibacy etc. is revered. > The Na of Yunnan is supposedly one such example But those cultures aren't thriving, are they?
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    > But that's still heterosexual I knew you'd say that. So you'd be ok with government subsidisation of polygamy? I was only replying to your claim of universality. Who knows what will be the norm in another few centuries.
    - cato_the_elder 4y ago
      > So you'd be ok with government subsidisation of polygamy? In the cultures which approve of it? It's none of my business. In my own country, no.
      - wizofaus 4y ago
        Then in your own country if the vast majority of the population approve of homosexual marriage, why is it particularly your business to be concerned about it?
        cato_the_elder 4y ago
        Yes, because it's the country where I live in, and I (like most other people) care about my culture.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

danny_codes 4y ago