4 ms·

It irks me a bit and I am not a Google shareholder. If it were just the US, I'd be for it. But a global campaign, no, I am 100% opposed. How many ways can y

It irks me a bit and I am not a Google shareholder. If it were just the US, I'd be for it. But a global campaign, no, I am 100% opposed. How many ways can you say "Cultural Imperialism?" It's not that I am opposed to gay marriage. In fact as regards the US, I am for it. However..... Marriage is deeply cultural. It means remarkably different things in different places. Something like 30% of Japanese marriages are still wholely arranged. Another 30-40% are at least partially arranged. Marriage is seen very much as a matter of extended families and so personal choice doesn't have as much to do with it as we see in the US. So suppose you legalize gay marriage? What then? Are you going to insist that the Japanese adopt our individualistic notions of marriage too? It seems to me that the idea of marrying someone you want is a human right is nothing more than projecting our cultural preferences out to the rest of the world. Fortunately cultural diversity is not threatened by recognizing new legal arrangements. Societies will find other ways of regulating norms, just as Japan has done following legal changes to marriage laws imperially imposed by the allies following WWII. So fortunately even if successful it will not have a major impact.

ktizo 14y ago
It seems to me that the idea of marrying someone you want is a human right is nothing more than projecting our cultural preferences out to the rest of the world. Being forced to spend your life with someone who you don't want, is far more of an imposition than that of an organisation publicly stating that they think it would be nice if people were allowed to marry who they do want. [edit] Also, that position in general, regardless of topic, is unsound. If projecting cultural preferences onto other groups is bad, then all I have to do is claim to belong to a culture that finds it deeply offensive for people to claim that projecting cultural preferences is bad, and then anyone who holds the first position isn't even allowed to tell me about it, entirely by their own argument. Personally I have little faith with philosophical positions that are that easy to catch out.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  Gosh darn those crazy Japs! Even after we bring them our enlightened laws their families insist on keeping their arranged marriages! Seriously though.... At some point the structure of marriage and how it fits into society is a matter only for the people of that society, not a matter for outsiders. Regarding gay marriage, also consider this: In many parts of the world, adoption is relatively rare, and the entire retirement support program is moving in with one's kids. This means marriage in most parts of the world is socially tied to procreation. This also means that gay marriage may be a bit of an economic luxury made possible by 401(k)'s and spermbanks..... We can afford that in the US. How sure are we that we want to push this on other parts of the world?
  - ktizo 14y ago
    At some point the structure of marriage and how it fits into society is a matter only for the people of that society, not a matter for outsiders. There are no outsiders. While you were away we found out that people from different cultures have been shagging all along and that we are all related (which should please mr incest at the bottom of the thread), and that all societies are deeply interconnected at every level. Thanks for worrying about the retirement plans of impoverished homosexuals though, without people like you making sure they behaved responsibly and bred, who knows where they might end up in later life.
    - einhverfr 14y ago
      But there are outsiders. We all have social circles and societies of structures. My ancestors may have come over here from various places in Europe but I am still an outsider to where my ancestors may have been from. This is why I far prefer the company of anthropologists to human rights activists. I suppose though we can take this further. There are aboriginal tribes in Polynesia which engage in rituals where boys (presumably in early adolescence) become men by giving tribal elders fellatio. After all, I suppose, you are what you eat. We don't have to prove that this is harmful, since we can just claim it's child abuse.
      - ktizo 14y ago
        As far as your preference of company, I don't think that human rights activism and anthropology are particularly mutually exclusive. But on your other point, it is one thing to dispassionately note the behaviours of others, however this does not preclude having an opinion or forming a personal moral judgement on those behaviours. And if you have formed a moral judgement on a behaviour then it is perfectly ok to express your opinion, even if the people you are judging are far away or long dead. Everyone judges everyone, all the time, and this is not a terrible imposition that should be stopped, but rather is the main mechanism of social evolution throughout history.
        einhverfr 14y ago
- batista 14y ago
  >Being forced to spend your life with someone who you don't want, is far more of an imposition than that of an organisation publicly stating that they think it would be nice if people were allowed to marry who they do want. Thats what you say after 200K hollywood movies and romantic novels, which is another form on imposition. Is what you say good for society in general? Is it even better for the persons involved? If you answer yes without hesitation, you should question how much of your thinking has been shaped by the prevalent ideology on your country. >If projecting cultural preferences onto other groups is bad, then all I have to do is claim to belong to a culture that finds it deeply offensive for people to claim that projecting cultural preferences is bad, and then anyone who holds the first position isn't even allowed to tell me about it, entirely by their own argument. For one, that would be a fake culture (the one youll claim o belong to). Cultures are made by populations, not a random guy. Second, the workaround is bs. Here's another version: "projecting cultural preferences onto other groups is bad, period, even if its acceptable in your culture".
  - ktizo 14y ago
    Thats what you say after 200K hollywood movies and romantic novels Japanese cartoons and classic sci-fi, mostly. I don't really like hollywood, or romance novels. Is what you say good for society in general? Is it even better for the persons involved? If you answer yes without hesitation, you should question how much of your thinking has been shaped by the prevalent ideology on your country. Well, on balance, I think you'd have to ask the people in forced marriages and also look at the outcomes for different societies in comparison to each other. However my opinion already stands, so asking whether I would answer yes to things I have already said that I agree with and then trying to use the immediacy of any response to try and spread doubt seems to be a little bit of a false construct. For one, that would be a fake culture (the one youll claim o belong to). Cultures are made by populations, not a random guy. Fine. I'll go find some disciples. Twelve of them preferably, just to annoy people. We'll be up to culture status in no time. Second, the workaround is bs. Here's another version: "projecting cultural preferences onto other groups is bad, period, even if its acceptable in your culture". Please will you stop projecting your cultural preferences about not projecting cultural preferences. I don't want to have to send my disciples round again. You didn't like it last time when they refused to stop singing.
rickmb 14y ago
Cultural? With the same excuse you could call keeping black people as slaves or treating women as second rate citizens "cultural". Excluding gay people from marriage is about discrimination, hatred and bigotry. It's not about changing other cultures, it's about allowing those who do not conform said culture to live their lives in freedom and equality. This is the typical bullshit argument used against gay marriage: that it somehow negatively affects the existing cultural traditions. It doesn't.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  Strangely the same sort of cultural arrogance that lead to praising slavery in many parts of the US as good for black people is behind this sort of global campaign. Just think of the number of Africans who would have grown up never knowing about Christ, or never seeing the marvels of the New World if it were not for slavery! Yes there were people defending slavery at the time in precisely these terms. So I think that issue works out the exact opposite way you say. Indeed, in cases where slavery is primarily endogenous (say, ancient Greece or Rome, or even Viking-age Scandinavia), slaves tend to have some legal rights, and some freedoms because it functions as a bit of a safety net, and there are political incentives to free slaves. For example in those three cultures (Greece/Rome/Viking-age Scandinavia), freed slaves formed important sources of political and economic support. Dred Scott v. Sanford ensured in he US that such a solution could not exist here. So slavery in the new world was uniquely evil and oppressive. One can defend many other systems of slavery in the world throughout history, but certainly not that one. Indeed the only second-person perspective defence that was made was that we were so much better than the Africans that it was better to be a slave on a plantation in Virginia than free in Senegal. That same arrogance is, once again, behind this today. Heck, I won't even defend the system of prison labor/slavery we have in the US today because I think that's beyond defence. But I won't just say "we're labelling it slavery and therefore it's evil." So in New Guinea there is an indigenous tribe called the Sambia. In this tribe you can't become a man unless you go through a coming of age ceremony where you are given a nosebleed by having a tooth of a wild animal shoved in your nose (this is to drain feminine influences, and remove childhood), and where you are required to fellate a tribal elder. Of course this happens at an age roughly similar to adolescence. Now obviously if this happened in NYC, we'd call this sexual predation, and try to send people to jail for life. But are you saying that we need to insure that if indigenous children don't want to go through such rituals that they have a right to be left alone?
potatolicious 14y ago
> "It seems to me that the idea of marrying someone you want is a human right is nothing more than projecting our cultural preferences out to the rest of the world." As someone who has a trans member of the family still in Asia, who is deep in the closet for fear of persecution, who faces enormous obstacles simply with his immediate family, I heavily disagree. We're not talking about matters of convenience here, we're talking severe persecution and prosecution. The claim that persecution of LGBT individuals is a cultural preference, and that opposition to it is cultural imperialism, makes about as much as sense as saying slavery is a cultural preference, and that we should simply let societies "sort it out". The difference between gay rights and arranged marriage is that, in many cultures where arranged marriage features prominently, everyone involved is consenting. In cases where gays are ostracized, persecuted, and prosecuted, one side is very obviously non-consenting. This issue is not nearly as gray as you're making it out to be.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  Where do you draw the line? Should we eliminate indigenous cultures because their coming of age ceremonies are barbaric forms of child abuse (and many may be seen by modern standards as sex abuse)? Or do we leave the most deeply cultural concepts of society-- how we relate to our bodies, the form and function of marriage, and how we relate to growing up or dying to the members of that culture?
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    > "Where do you draw the line?" I addressed this part - consent. The most objectionable part of arranged marriages are the ones where one side is clearly non-consenting. There is still a dramatic misunderstanding of arranged marriages in the West because many fail to appreciate that in many cultures, everyone involved is consenting and uncoerced. > "Should we eliminate indigenous cultures because their coming of age ceremonies are barbaric forms of child abuse" Only if the children are non-consenting. It is not about how we feel about whatever tradition, it's all about whether or not everyone has the freedom to choose. This is not enforcing the Western ideal of marriage onto others - this is giving the persecuted and the non-consenting a legal recourse to choose as they will. Once this framework is in place, cultures will naturally evolve around it - in the same way that the legal protection of black civil rights has over time dramatically altered our collective cultural perception. Similarly, this applies to, say, women's dress in traditional Islamic nations. There are many people in the US who would seek to ban the hijab, or other clothing that is perceived to be harmful to women's rights. That is cultural imperialism, but that's not what this is about. The moderate, correct stance is to make sure that women who choose to opt out of traditional garb have the full protection of the law. With this foundation in place culture will evolve as it will - and maybe everyone will keep wearing the hijab, who knows. It is possible to enforce freedom and equality without moral judgment on specific aspects of culture.
henrikschroder 14y ago
> Marriage is deeply cultural. Marriage is a legal contract, and it is the most universally recognized cross-cultural legal contract. It doesn't matter how you got married, whatever ceremony was performed or not, whatever bureaucratic process was performed or not, your marriage is recognized worldwide. Unless it's a same-sex marriage, because then it suddenly becomes deeply cultural or whatever. That's bullshit.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  I don't accept any of that btw, though there are certain exceptions. Certainly if you were right on the face of what you wrote, polygamous marriages conducted overseas would be valid in the US, which they aren't. I don't think that marriage is the same in India as it is in Japan or the US. I don't think marriage is the same in Morocco as it is in Spain. I don't want to meddle in these. The exception though has to do with some forms of recognition in the US as people move about the country. If a same-sex couple is married in Massachusetts and they later move to Arkansas, I think it's fairly clear on the basis of what scant legal authority we have, that the Arkansas legal tradition determines whether they are still married. Andrew Koppelman suggests (and makes a good case for the idea that) the general trend is towards more recognition. However, if the family is merely visiting Arkansas and not moving there, then I think the analysis is very different and we have over a hundred and fifty years of jurisprudence which says that marriages don't wink in or out of existence when people travel around the country, and that rather the venue which controls is the venue of residency. Even pre-Loving v. Virginia I am not aware of a single case where miscegenation laws were applied against a mixed race couple who were merely travelling through a state or present to conduct business. The two cases I know of which involved relocating into states which banned miscegenation went different directions at the state supreme court level, and ex parte Kinney (same facts as Loving but about a hundred years earlier) included dicta that while Virginia could criminalize marriages of residents, they could not do so to out of state residents who were merely visiting. To hold that a marriage of a gay couple in Massachusetts would not need to be recognized in Utah while they are visiting Arches National Park doesn't work with our system of government. Similarly I would be entirely be supportive of a treaty that said that tourists' marriages would be recognized wherever they go. If you are a gay couple married in Massachusetts I think you have a reasonable expectation that Singapore will honor your marriage. I don't think you have a reasonable expectation that Singapore will alter their laws to let their residents follow in your footsteps.

ktizo 14y ago

It seems to me that the idea of marrying someone you want is a human right is nothing more than projecting our cultural preferences out to the rest of the world. Being forced to spend your life with someone who you don't want, is far more of an imposition than that of an organisation publicly stating that they think it would be nice if people were allowed to marry who they do want. [edit] Also, that position in general, regardless of topic, is unsound. If projecting cultural preferences onto other groups is bad, then all I have to do is claim to belong to a culture that finds it deeply offensive for people to claim that projecting cultural preferences is bad, and then anyone who holds the first position isn't even allowed to tell me about it, entirely by their own argument. Personally I have little faith with philosophical positions that are that easy to catch out.

einhverfr 14y ago
Gosh darn those crazy Japs! Even after we bring them our enlightened laws their families insist on keeping their arranged marriages! Seriously though.... At some point the structure of marriage and how it fits into society is a matter only for the people of that society, not a matter for outsiders. Regarding gay marriage, also consider this: In many parts of the world, adoption is relatively rare, and the entire retirement support program is moving in with one's kids. This means marriage in most parts of the world is socially tied to procreation. This also means that gay marriage may be a bit of an economic luxury made possible by 401(k)'s and spermbanks..... We can afford that in the US. How sure are we that we want to push this on other parts of the world?
- ktizo 14y ago
  At some point the structure of marriage and how it fits into society is a matter only for the people of that society, not a matter for outsiders. There are no outsiders. While you were away we found out that people from different cultures have been shagging all along and that we are all related (which should please mr incest at the bottom of the thread), and that all societies are deeply interconnected at every level. Thanks for worrying about the retirement plans of impoverished homosexuals though, without people like you making sure they behaved responsibly and bred, who knows where they might end up in later life.
  - einhverfr 14y ago
    But there are outsiders. We all have social circles and societies of structures. My ancestors may have come over here from various places in Europe but I am still an outsider to where my ancestors may have been from. This is why I far prefer the company of anthropologists to human rights activists. I suppose though we can take this further. There are aboriginal tribes in Polynesia which engage in rituals where boys (presumably in early adolescence) become men by giving tribal elders fellatio. After all, I suppose, you are what you eat. We don't have to prove that this is harmful, since we can just claim it's child abuse.
    - ktizo 14y ago
      As far as your preference of company, I don't think that human rights activism and anthropology are particularly mutually exclusive. But on your other point, it is one thing to dispassionately note the behaviours of others, however this does not preclude having an opinion or forming a personal moral judgement on those behaviours. And if you have formed a moral judgement on a behaviour then it is perfectly ok to express your opinion, even if the people you are judging are far away or long dead. Everyone judges everyone, all the time, and this is not a terrible imposition that should be stopped, but rather is the main mechanism of social evolution throughout history.
      - einhverfr 14y ago
batista 14y ago
>Being forced to spend your life with someone who you don't want, is far more of an imposition than that of an organisation publicly stating that they think it would be nice if people were allowed to marry who they do want. Thats what you say after 200K hollywood movies and romantic novels, which is another form on imposition. Is what you say good for society in general? Is it even better for the persons involved? If you answer yes without hesitation, you should question how much of your thinking has been shaped by the prevalent ideology on your country. >If projecting cultural preferences onto other groups is bad, then all I have to do is claim to belong to a culture that finds it deeply offensive for people to claim that projecting cultural preferences is bad, and then anyone who holds the first position isn't even allowed to tell me about it, entirely by their own argument. For one, that would be a fake culture (the one youll claim o belong to). Cultures are made by populations, not a random guy. Second, the workaround is bs. Here's another version: "projecting cultural preferences onto other groups is bad, period, even if its acceptable in your culture".
- ktizo 14y ago
  Thats what you say after 200K hollywood movies and romantic novels Japanese cartoons and classic sci-fi, mostly. I don't really like hollywood, or romance novels. Is what you say good for society in general? Is it even better for the persons involved? If you answer yes without hesitation, you should question how much of your thinking has been shaped by the prevalent ideology on your country. Well, on balance, I think you'd have to ask the people in forced marriages and also look at the outcomes for different societies in comparison to each other. However my opinion already stands, so asking whether I would answer yes to things I have already said that I agree with and then trying to use the immediacy of any response to try and spread doubt seems to be a little bit of a false construct. For one, that would be a fake culture (the one youll claim o belong to). Cultures are made by populations, not a random guy. Fine. I'll go find some disciples. Twelve of them preferably, just to annoy people. We'll be up to culture status in no time. Second, the workaround is bs. Here's another version: "projecting cultural preferences onto other groups is bad, period, even if its acceptable in your culture". Please will you stop projecting your cultural preferences about not projecting cultural preferences. I don't want to have to send my disciples round again. You didn't like it last time when they refused to stop singing.

rickmb 14y ago

Cultural? With the same excuse you could call keeping black people as slaves or treating women as second rate citizens "cultural". Excluding gay people from marriage is about discrimination, hatred and bigotry. It's not about changing other cultures, it's about allowing those who do not conform said culture to live their lives in freedom and equality. This is the typical bullshit argument used against gay marriage: that it somehow negatively affects the existing cultural traditions. It doesn't.

einhverfr 14y ago
Strangely the same sort of cultural arrogance that lead to praising slavery in many parts of the US as good for black people is behind this sort of global campaign. Just think of the number of Africans who would have grown up never knowing about Christ, or never seeing the marvels of the New World if it were not for slavery! Yes there were people defending slavery at the time in precisely these terms. So I think that issue works out the exact opposite way you say. Indeed, in cases where slavery is primarily endogenous (say, ancient Greece or Rome, or even Viking-age Scandinavia), slaves tend to have some legal rights, and some freedoms because it functions as a bit of a safety net, and there are political incentives to free slaves. For example in those three cultures (Greece/Rome/Viking-age Scandinavia), freed slaves formed important sources of political and economic support. Dred Scott v. Sanford ensured in he US that such a solution could not exist here. So slavery in the new world was uniquely evil and oppressive. One can defend many other systems of slavery in the world throughout history, but certainly not that one. Indeed the only second-person perspective defence that was made was that we were so much better than the Africans that it was better to be a slave on a plantation in Virginia than free in Senegal. That same arrogance is, once again, behind this today. Heck, I won't even defend the system of prison labor/slavery we have in the US today because I think that's beyond defence. But I won't just say "we're labelling it slavery and therefore it's evil." So in New Guinea there is an indigenous tribe called the Sambia. In this tribe you can't become a man unless you go through a coming of age ceremony where you are given a nosebleed by having a tooth of a wild animal shoved in your nose (this is to drain feminine influences, and remove childhood), and where you are required to fellate a tribal elder. Of course this happens at an age roughly similar to adolescence. Now obviously if this happened in NYC, we'd call this sexual predation, and try to send people to jail for life. But are you saying that we need to insure that if indigenous children don't want to go through such rituals that they have a right to be left alone?

potatolicious 14y ago

> "It seems to me that the idea of marrying someone you want is a human right is nothing more than projecting our cultural preferences out to the rest of the world." As someone who has a trans member of the family still in Asia, who is deep in the closet for fear of persecution, who faces enormous obstacles simply with his immediate family, I heavily disagree. We're not talking about matters of convenience here, we're talking severe persecution and prosecution. The claim that persecution of LGBT individuals is a cultural preference, and that opposition to it is cultural imperialism, makes about as much as sense as saying slavery is a cultural preference, and that we should simply let societies "sort it out". The difference between gay rights and arranged marriage is that, in many cultures where arranged marriage features prominently, everyone involved is consenting. In cases where gays are ostracized, persecuted, and prosecuted, one side is very obviously non-consenting. This issue is not nearly as gray as you're making it out to be.

einhverfr 14y ago
Where do you draw the line? Should we eliminate indigenous cultures because their coming of age ceremonies are barbaric forms of child abuse (and many may be seen by modern standards as sex abuse)? Or do we leave the most deeply cultural concepts of society-- how we relate to our bodies, the form and function of marriage, and how we relate to growing up or dying to the members of that culture?
- potatolicious 14y ago
  > "Where do you draw the line?" I addressed this part - consent. The most objectionable part of arranged marriages are the ones where one side is clearly non-consenting. There is still a dramatic misunderstanding of arranged marriages in the West because many fail to appreciate that in many cultures, everyone involved is consenting and uncoerced. > "Should we eliminate indigenous cultures because their coming of age ceremonies are barbaric forms of child abuse" Only if the children are non-consenting. It is not about how we feel about whatever tradition, it's all about whether or not everyone has the freedom to choose. This is not enforcing the Western ideal of marriage onto others - this is giving the persecuted and the non-consenting a legal recourse to choose as they will. Once this framework is in place, cultures will naturally evolve around it - in the same way that the legal protection of black civil rights has over time dramatically altered our collective cultural perception. Similarly, this applies to, say, women's dress in traditional Islamic nations. There are many people in the US who would seek to ban the hijab, or other clothing that is perceived to be harmful to women's rights. That is cultural imperialism, but that's not what this is about. The moderate, correct stance is to make sure that women who choose to opt out of traditional garb have the full protection of the law. With this foundation in place culture will evolve as it will - and maybe everyone will keep wearing the hijab, who knows. It is possible to enforce freedom and equality without moral judgment on specific aspects of culture.

henrikschroder 14y ago

> Marriage is deeply cultural. Marriage is a legal contract, and it is the most universally recognized cross-cultural legal contract. It doesn't matter how you got married, whatever ceremony was performed or not, whatever bureaucratic process was performed or not, your marriage is recognized worldwide. Unless it's a same-sex marriage, because then it suddenly becomes deeply cultural or whatever. That's bullshit.

einhverfr 14y ago
I don't accept any of that btw, though there are certain exceptions. Certainly if you were right on the face of what you wrote, polygamous marriages conducted overseas would be valid in the US, which they aren't. I don't think that marriage is the same in India as it is in Japan or the US. I don't think marriage is the same in Morocco as it is in Spain. I don't want to meddle in these. The exception though has to do with some forms of recognition in the US as people move about the country. If a same-sex couple is married in Massachusetts and they later move to Arkansas, I think it's fairly clear on the basis of what scant legal authority we have, that the Arkansas legal tradition determines whether they are still married. Andrew Koppelman suggests (and makes a good case for the idea that) the general trend is towards more recognition. However, if the family is merely visiting Arkansas and not moving there, then I think the analysis is very different and we have over a hundred and fifty years of jurisprudence which says that marriages don't wink in or out of existence when people travel around the country, and that rather the venue which controls is the venue of residency. Even pre-Loving v. Virginia I am not aware of a single case where miscegenation laws were applied against a mixed race couple who were merely travelling through a state or present to conduct business. The two cases I know of which involved relocating into states which banned miscegenation went different directions at the state supreme court level, and ex parte Kinney (same facts as Loving but about a hundred years earlier) included dicta that while Virginia could criminalize marriages of residents, they could not do so to out of state residents who were merely visiting. To hold that a marriage of a gay couple in Massachusetts would not need to be recognized in Utah while they are visiting Arches National Park doesn't work with our system of government. Similarly I would be entirely be supportive of a treaty that said that tourists' marriages would be recognized wherever they go. If you are a gay couple married in Massachusetts I think you have a reasonable expectation that Singapore will honor your marriage. I don't think you have a reasonable expectation that Singapore will alter their laws to let their residents follow in your footsteps.