4 ms·

> Your entire post is based on the premise that each culture's practices are all valid within the culture that they are practised within. Not really. I will e

> Your entire post is based on the premise that each culture's practices are all valid within the culture that they are practised within. Not really. I will explain below. > This is demonstrably false. While I would not necessarily agree with the validity view you said, I don't think it is demonstrably false. Please demonstrate that it is false in a way unbiased by your own cultural assumptions of autonomy. > The fact that Russians support each other via a traditional heterosexual family unit does not in any way mean that someone who is gay should be discriminated against. Define discriminated against. Is a retire-with-the-kids culture where parents get to say no to spousal choices (but won't if he's made her pregnant) inherently discriminatory? > The whole premise of your argument is that gays cannot retire with children, so they will be a burden upon the state. No. My point was that same-sex couples can't have equality if only opposite-sex couples get a veto override (via "accidental" pregnancy) against parental objections. If equality is the goal, one cannot tolerate a retire with the kids culture because parents have so much power over childrens' choice of marriage partners, and this is inherently greater with regard to same-sex couples. I don't think you read what I wrote very carefully. As for the cultural validity piece, as I said, I would come back to it. I don't think it can be demonstrated to be false, because cultures function in different ways to the point where apples to apples comparisons are essentially impossible, and so any comparison comes from assumptions, passed on by culture, which determine the conclusion. But at the same time there are certain problems that can't be easily addressed by a position of pure cultural relativity. In my view, these come in two forms: inter-group disputes and breakdown of institutions. The first includes things like intercontinental slave trade, Germany gassing Polish Jews, Japan's brutal treatment of various occupied areas in WWII, colonial treatment of Africa and Asia, treatment of Native Americans by the US government, etc. You can't solve an intergroup dispute by assuming that both sides are valid actors, so what one is left with is a political resolution. The second issue is the question of the breakdown of institutions. If a practice is perfectly valid in a culture, then institutions should be perfect, but they aren't anywhere. I think that critique of cultural institutions from a context sympathetic to the culture is a worthwhile endeavor.

chris_wot 13y ago
Please demonstrate that it is false in a way unbiased by your own cultural assumptions of autonomy. Just to make sure you understood me, I'm saying that not all cultural practices can be viewed as intrinsically good within that culture by an outside viewer. I can assure you that the practice of female genital "circumcision" is abhorent regardless of whether you are in the culture or not. Given that cultures change their morality and practices, it often means that there are cultural practices that are accepted that are abhorent within a culture that are changed at a later time. Define discriminated against. Is a retire-with-the-kids culture where parents get to say no to spousal choices (but won't if he's made her pregnant) inherently discriminatory? Well, yes. It means that the person has discriminated against the other. Ergo, that's inherently discriminatory. That's not from a value-judgement, that's definitional. My point was that same-sex couples can't have equality if only opposite-sex couples get a veto override (via "accidental" pregnancy) against parental objections. Well, that's royally screwed up in its own right then. But you're right, I don't think I did understand what you were saying. I stand corrected on this point. I'd just like to end this to say that not all cultural practices are equal. There are some that are fundamentally wrong, and some that are just different, but equally valid. That's really the only point I was making. Discrimination against gays by the state is one of those issues.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  > I can assure you that the practice of female genital "circumcision" is abhorent regardless of whether you are in the culture or not. Your assurances are different from demonstration. I asked for demonstration. If it is so clear that this is objectively true, how would you demonstrate it to someone who fully adopts the culture in question? Until you can do that, I don't think you have demonstrated anything other than "we feel horrified" which is a basic view that "these things are self-evident." The problem though is that what is self-evident depends on culture. > Well, yes. It means that the person has discriminated against the other. Ergo, that's inherently discriminatory. That's not from a value-judgement, that's definitional. So now we understand that if discrimination against same-sex couples is a human rights violation and retire-with-the-kids cultures are inherently discriminatory in this respect, then a cultural expectation to retire with family is a violation of human rights, right? This is just Aristotelian logic here. Hence my proposition, that one must choose between an equivalent to social security payments being a human right and access to same-sex marriage not being. > I'd just like to end this to say that not all cultural practices are equal. I actually never said they were. I think all cultures are open to critique but I think that critique is most productive (and more likely to be on the mark) when one treats the culture as a whole as a generally good, functional system.

chris_wot 13y ago

Please demonstrate that it is false in a way unbiased by your own cultural assumptions of autonomy. Just to make sure you understood me, I'm saying that not all cultural practices can be viewed as intrinsically good within that culture by an outside viewer. I can assure you that the practice of female genital "circumcision" is abhorent regardless of whether you are in the culture or not. Given that cultures change their morality and practices, it often means that there are cultural practices that are accepted that are abhorent within a culture that are changed at a later time. Define discriminated against. Is a retire-with-the-kids culture where parents get to say no to spousal choices (but won't if he's made her pregnant) inherently discriminatory? Well, yes. It means that the person has discriminated against the other. Ergo, that's inherently discriminatory. That's not from a value-judgement, that's definitional. My point was that same-sex couples can't have equality if only opposite-sex couples get a veto override (via "accidental" pregnancy) against parental objections. Well, that's royally screwed up in its own right then. But you're right, I don't think I did understand what you were saying. I stand corrected on this point. I'd just like to end this to say that not all cultural practices are equal. There are some that are fundamentally wrong, and some that are just different, but equally valid. That's really the only point I was making. Discrimination against gays by the state is one of those issues.

einhverfr 13y ago
> I can assure you that the practice of female genital "circumcision" is abhorent regardless of whether you are in the culture or not. Your assurances are different from demonstration. I asked for demonstration. If it is so clear that this is objectively true, how would you demonstrate it to someone who fully adopts the culture in question? Until you can do that, I don't think you have demonstrated anything other than "we feel horrified" which is a basic view that "these things are self-evident." The problem though is that what is self-evident depends on culture. > Well, yes. It means that the person has discriminated against the other. Ergo, that's inherently discriminatory. That's not from a value-judgement, that's definitional. So now we understand that if discrimination against same-sex couples is a human rights violation and retire-with-the-kids cultures are inherently discriminatory in this respect, then a cultural expectation to retire with family is a violation of human rights, right? This is just Aristotelian logic here. Hence my proposition, that one must choose between an equivalent to social security payments being a human right and access to same-sex marriage not being. > I'd just like to end this to say that not all cultural practices are equal. I actually never said they were. I think all cultures are open to critique but I think that critique is most productive (and more likely to be on the mark) when one treats the culture as a whole as a generally good, functional system.