3 ms·

I upmodded you, though I completely disagree with what you just said. For starters, monogamy in highly socially stratified societies is a very rare social phen

by geebee 18y ago

I upmodded you, though I completely disagree with what you just said. For starters, monogamy in highly socially stratified societies is a very rare social phenomenon. You might want to check out "The Moral Animal" for some discussion of this. The line I remember: "socially stratified monogamous cultures are the true freaks of nature" (paraphrasing here, but I'm close). However, they do tend to be the norm among highly prosperous and free societies, which takes us to your second point... Haven't you noticed the strong correlation between wealth and freedom and gay rights? Look who is for gay marriage and who is against it. Genentech, Google, and Apple were were very high profile donors against Prop 8. This isn't just a San Francisco leftist coalition - we're talking the biggest, heaviest hitters in the most innovative fields in America. I agree with you that Scandanavian countries are lauded a bit too much by the left... but let's compare these economies (where gay rights are supported strongly) with the cultural and economic environment in regions where they are not... oh, say, Afghanistan? Even in the US, the regions that support gay marriage tend to be attracting the best companies with their top notch workforce. They companies come to them, not the other way around. The regions that don't are still wondering what low skilled factory they're going to be able to attract to replace the textile mill that closed in the seventies. Seems to me like this one is pretty obvious.

while 18y ago
Some people compare gay rights with slavery (which I think is a bit of a stretch) and argue that though the majority of the population thought slavery was ok back then, it didn't make it right. That's certainly true, but one must also realize that the "wealthy and free" were big supporters of slavery. The point is, being wealthy and free does not give one a more "correct" opinion than one who is not. And I don't see a strong correlation between "wealth and freedom and gay rights". I see a strong correlation between gay rights and political image.
kingkongrevenge 18y ago
> strong correlation between wealth and freedom and gay rights The upper classes carry themselves on with bourgeois family traditions whatever the legal environment. They don't personally see the disastrous consequences of family breakdown because their families remain whole, so they don't give a second thought to liberalizing laws. In poorer areas, the breakdown of family values is a real pressing issue. People see the social catastrophe around them and recognize the further threats. Wealthier areas are more socially liberal because it's personally irrelevant to them. The areas are wealthy usually because of strongly bourgeois family traditions. Poorer areas are usually more socially fragile.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- geebee 18y ago
  I assure you that families break down in upper class environments. I went to a very expensive episcopal school, and when I was making plans to play tennis with a classmate, he asked "should I call you at your mom's house or your dad's house?" I told him they lived in the same house. "Really?" he said. The assumption was that they were divorced. In one grade, 22 of 26 students were from divorced households. Now, that doesn't mean you're wrong about the social catastrophe that the failure of marriage brings in poor areas - just because wealthy episcopalians get divorced all the time doesn't mean they experience financial disaster when they do. They're well off enough that they can just split into two (or three or four) different households and still have enough to pay the mortgage, fix the car, buy clothes, and take nice vacations. But I will definitely disagree that they are wealthy because of strongly bourgeois family traditions. Man, that's the last phrase I would use to describe these people. For the record, I was in the 10% of the class that lived across town, and didn't come from a family with that kind of money - though I would certainly not describe myself as deprived or from a social class that feared financial catastrophe. By the way - I'm genuinely interested in hearing why you think that gay marriage would be a threat to marriage in poorer areas. I do agree with you that families are important and should be protected - but why from gays? That one doesn't really make sense to me. It seems like poverty, layoffs, long shifts, poor schools, and so forth threaten families. Adultery and constant conflict (I'm not talking about the truly criminal violence, just the way people can be constantly fighting) can also obviously wreck a marriage - though I think that's often a symptom of the things I listed above. Gays getting married? Seems like the last thing I'd worry about. This is why the anti prop-8 crowd is so frustrated to see the Catholic, Mormon, and Evangelical churches so actively working to ban gay marriage. It's like: people are hurting, and this is where you put your resources?

by geebee 18y ago

while 18y ago

Some people compare gay rights with slavery (which I think is a bit of a stretch) and argue that though the majority of the population thought slavery was ok back then, it didn't make it right. That's certainly true, but one must also realize that the "wealthy and free" were big supporters of slavery. The point is, being wealthy and free does not give one a more "correct" opinion than one who is not. And I don't see a strong correlation between "wealth and freedom and gay rights". I see a strong correlation between gay rights and political image.

kingkongrevenge 18y ago

> strong correlation between wealth and freedom and gay rights The upper classes carry themselves on with bourgeois family traditions whatever the legal environment. They don't personally see the disastrous consequences of family breakdown because their families remain whole, so they don't give a second thought to liberalizing laws. In poorer areas, the breakdown of family values is a real pressing issue. People see the social catastrophe around them and recognize the further threats. Wealthier areas are more socially liberal because it's personally irrelevant to them. The areas are wealthy usually because of strongly bourgeois family traditions. Poorer areas are usually more socially fragile.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
geebee 18y ago
I assure you that families break down in upper class environments. I went to a very expensive episcopal school, and when I was making plans to play tennis with a classmate, he asked "should I call you at your mom's house or your dad's house?" I told him they lived in the same house. "Really?" he said. The assumption was that they were divorced. In one grade, 22 of 26 students were from divorced households. Now, that doesn't mean you're wrong about the social catastrophe that the failure of marriage brings in poor areas - just because wealthy episcopalians get divorced all the time doesn't mean they experience financial disaster when they do. They're well off enough that they can just split into two (or three or four) different households and still have enough to pay the mortgage, fix the car, buy clothes, and take nice vacations. But I will definitely disagree that they are wealthy because of strongly bourgeois family traditions. Man, that's the last phrase I would use to describe these people. For the record, I was in the 10% of the class that lived across town, and didn't come from a family with that kind of money - though I would certainly not describe myself as deprived or from a social class that feared financial catastrophe. By the way - I'm genuinely interested in hearing why you think that gay marriage would be a threat to marriage in poorer areas. I do agree with you that families are important and should be protected - but why from gays? That one doesn't really make sense to me. It seems like poverty, layoffs, long shifts, poor schools, and so forth threaten families. Adultery and constant conflict (I'm not talking about the truly criminal violence, just the way people can be constantly fighting) can also obviously wreck a marriage - though I think that's often a symptom of the things I listed above. Gays getting married? Seems like the last thing I'd worry about. This is why the anti prop-8 crowd is so frustrated to see the Catholic, Mormon, and Evangelical churches so actively working to ban gay marriage. It's like: people are hurting, and this is where you put your resources?