Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[kaysixteen]

Support for gay marriage, etc., is, ahem, an extremely novel view not only in this country, but more or less everywhere, for most places and times, throughout history.   Really, it is.   Back in the 90s, when the first stirrings of potentially legalizing it arose in the US, I, in grad school at the time, formulated my 'honest gay marriage supporters test', which goes like this: "you support the right of consenting adult homosexuals to contract lawful marriage-- therefore you also support the right of consenting adults to enter into polygamous marriages.   If not, *why not*?"   This test went over amongst my grad student peers more or less as well as you might have imagined.  I remain somewhat surprised that no case to overrule the 19th century prohibition on polygamy has even been accepted to be heard by SCOTUS, despite the reality that polygamy, quite unlike gay marriage, is long accepted throughout many cultures historically and even today, especially Islam.   Is it therefore not Islamophobic to continue to legally prohibit Muslims involved in polygamous unions to immigrate to this country?   Obviously I know why it is that gay marriage is celebrated by modern secular American (and Euro and Canadian) society, whereas polygamy isn't considered fit for acceptance or even toleration, but it does not make this dichotomy consistent, either.

[marshwiggle]

Support for gay marriage, etc., is, ahem, an extremely novel view not only in this country, but more or less everywhere, for most places and times, throughout history.   Really, it is.   Back in the 90s, when the first stirrings of potentially legalizing it arose in the US, I, in grad school at the time, formulated my 'honest gay marriage supporters test', which goes like this: "you support the right of consenting adult homosexuals to contract lawful marriage-- therefore you also support the right of consenting adults to enter into polygamous marriages.   If not, *why not*?"   This test went over amongst my grad student peers more or less as well as you might have imagined.  I remain somewhat surprised that no case to overrule the 19th century prohibition on polygamy has even been accepted to be heard by SCOTUS, despite the reality that polygamy, quite unlike gay marriage, is long accepted throughout many cultures historically and even today, especially Islam.   Is it therefore not Islamophobic to continue to legally prohibit Muslims involved in polygamous unions to immigrate to this country?   Obviously I know why it is that gay marriage is celebrated by modern secular American (and Euro and Canadian) society, whereas polygamy isn't considered fit for acceptance or even toleration, but it does not make this dichotomy consistent, either.

You've made the point very well, but the answer that is traditionally given to that argument is "No-one's ever going to propose THAT, so it doesn't really count." Once someone does propose EXACTLY that, the people who said it would never happen will conveniently forget their earlier statement. (Or say that what's being proposed is TOTALLY different.)

[onthefringe]

Support for gay marriage, etc., is, ahem, an extremely novel view not only in this country, but more or less everywhere, for most places and times, throughout history.   Really, it is.   Back in the 90s, when the first stirrings of potentially legalizing it arose in the US, I, in grad school at the time, formulated my 'honest gay marriage supporters test', which goes like this: "you support the right of consenting adult homosexuals to contract lawful marriage-- therefore you also support the right of consenting adults to enter into polygamous marriages.   If not, *why not*?"   This test went over amongst my grad student peers more or less as well as you might have imagined.  I remain somewhat surprised that no case to overrule the 19th century prohibition on polygamy has even been accepted to be heard by SCOTUS, despite the reality that polygamy, quite unlike gay marriage, is long accepted throughout many cultures historically and even today, especially Islam.   Is it therefore not Islamophobic to continue to legally prohibit Muslims involved in polygamous unions to immigrate to this country?   Obviously I know why it is that gay marriage is celebrated by modern secular American (and Euro and Canadian) society, whereas polygamy isn't considered fit for acceptance or even toleration, but it does not make this dichotomy consistent, either.

You've made the point very well, but the answer that is traditionally given to that argument is "No-one's ever going to propose THAT, so it doesn't really count." Once someone does propose EXACTLY that, the people who said it would never happen will conveniently forget their earlier statement. (Or say that what's being proposed is TOTALLY different.)

Not quite sure what you mean by "novel" since the most recent national poll suggests 70% of US voters support legal same sex marriage, and 30 countries and territories have legalized it in the last 15 years? Unless you are simply pointing out that viewpoints on this topic have evolved quickly?

Frankly I have no issues with consensual adult polygamy either. The only real issue becomes that there are so many important entitlements that get tied in to legal marriage — tax status, health coverage, immigration status, parents rights, and inheritance rights being key among them, and we would need to figure out how to handle those if people could legally have more than one spouse.

[Wahoo Redux]

I can't imagine the demands of a polyamorous marriage----one spouse is enough work as it is----but why would I care if other people do it?  Plenty of married couples are already involved in illicit polyamorous relationships.  It is nothing new to humanity.

[Wahoo Redux]

And back to the original purpose of this thread, which never seems to end:

An oblique relationship to the topic of this thread.  But still... 

A UCSD professor was punished for working with Chinese scientists. Is it an ethics breach or discrimination?

Xiang-Dong Fu says he was forced to resign after UCSD investigated his ties to Chinese researchers, part of a controversial initiative that some say unfairly scrutinized Chinese professors at American universities.

IHE: Punished for Talking to the Press

Two professors at Cuyahoga Community College are suing administrators, claiming they faced backlash for criticizing a discriminatory college policy to a local media outlet.

Reason Magazine: Court Upholds Discipline Imposed on Professors Who Called Fellow Professor "Racist" in Anonymous Flyer

Daily Citizen: University of Idaho Pays $90K to Three Christians and Professor Who Were Issued 'No Contact' Orders

The University of Idaho – a public school – is paying dearly for a First Amendment lesson it should already have known: you can't punish speech you don't like.

Last April, three Christian students of the university's law school who are members of the law school's chapter of the Christian Legal Society, along with a faculty member who served as an advisor to the club, sued the school's administration. The lawsuit stemmed from orders issued by the university to the three students and professor directing them to have "no contact" with a female, lesbian-identified student who was upset by the response she received when she asked the students why CLS required its officers to affirm that marriage is between one man and one woman.

[marshwiggle]

Not quite sure what you mean by "novel" since the most recent national poll suggests 70% of US voters support legal same sex marriage, and 30 countries and territories have legalized it in the last 15 years? Unless you are simply pointing out that viewpoints on this topic have evolved quickly?

That's exactly the point.

Frankly I have no issues with consensual adult polygamy either. The only real issue becomes that there are so many important entitlements that get tied in to legal marriage — tax status, health coverage, immigration status, parents rights, and inheritance rights being key among them, and we would need to figure out how to handle those if people could legally have more than one spouse.

Yeah, like the only real issue with curing cancer is getting all of those mutated cells out of a person's body - easy peasy!
Seriously, all of the laws are procedures related to marriage have developed over decades, or centuries, even, and have changed as various situations arose. With polygamy or polyamorous relationships in general, all sorts of those rules become totally moot, for instance due to no specific limit on the number of people involved. (Can 100 people be "married" to each other? 1000?)

It's the principle of Chesterton's Fence.

Building codes, safety procedures, and so on all exist because in the past people said "What could possibly go wrong?" when they did something.

Being too short-sighted to see potential problems isn't virtuous just because it's "open-minded". It's just intellectual laziness.

[dismalist]

Seriously, all of the laws are procedures related to marriage have developed over decades, or centuries ... .

Nay, Marsh, you're off by two orders of magnitude! Which religions have survived? Those that regulated marriage. The use of that was clear -- no kids with no two parent families. The kids had better survival chances that way. That's how we got here.

Because of our riches and technology allowing us to decouple reproduction from sexual activity, the passed down rules of marriage are no longer so useful. Indeed, anything goes.

My guess is that homosexual and other marriage is desired mostly for its economic benefits. After all, people can live together nowadays with 'nary an eyelid lifted.

[Wahoo Redux]

Not quite sure what you mean by "novel" since the most recent national poll suggests 70% of US voters support legal same sex marriage, and 30 countries and territories have legalized it in the last 15 years? Unless you are simply pointing out that viewpoints on this topic have evolved quickly?

That's exactly the point.

Frankly I have no issues with consensual adult polygamy either. The only real issue becomes that there are so many important entitlements that get tied in to legal marriage — tax status, health coverage, immigration status, parents rights, and inheritance rights being key among them, and we would need to figure out how to handle those if people could legally have more than one spouse.

Yeah, like the only real issue with curing cancer is getting all of those mutated cells out of a person's body - easy peasy!
Seriously, all of the laws are procedures related to marriage have developed over decades, or centuries, even, and have changed as various situations arose. With polygamy or polyamorous relationships in general, all sorts of those rules become totally moot, for instance due to no specific limit on the number of people involved. (Can 100 people be "married" to each other? 1000?)

It's the principle of Chesterton's Fence.

Building codes, safety procedures, and so on all exist because in the past people said "What could possibly go wrong?" when they did something.

Being too short-sighted to see potential problems isn't virtuous just because it's "open-minded". It's just intellectual laziness.

So Marshy, let's say that you are you, the same person you are now, with the same impulses and hang-ups, in 1967.

Where do you stand on Loving vs. Virginia?

Be honest.

[kaysixteen]

Hmmmm.....

Is there any reason whatsoever that you have to suspect that marshy might possibly be opposed to interracial marriage?  Heck, he's Canadian, and mesuspects interracial marriage has been legal there much longer than it has in Virginia, and probably did not require court action to legalize either.   Your snide question to him is a strawman, falsely equating interracial heterosexual marriage, something that has only been opposed by racists and those who have bought into false views of history, false exegeses of scripture, etc., with homosexual marriage, which is novel, because, well, ahem, 15 years is a pinprick in the history of civilization.   More or less all world religions have always opposed it, though of course at various times and places sometimes there has been a wink-wink nod-nod approach taken.   And it is just not biologically the same as heterosexual marriage, and clearly is not in the best interests of children and families. 

That said, the real problem here is what I see as an ever-increasing anti-tolerance for any verbal or written expressions of traditional views of homosexuality/ homosexual marriage, esp when expressed by evangelicals.   I fear greatly that efforts will soon be made in the public sphere to interdict freedom of speech here.   I used to think, as recently as maybe 5 years ago, that this was paranoid thinking, and expressed my sentiments to people in my church, amongst others.  I was wrong.

[Wahoo Redux]

It is a hypothetical, Kay.  That should be pretty obvious.

No, as a matter of fact, I do NOT think the Marshman is opposed to interracial marriage.  In fact, I think Marshy is a very good, moral person who has been blinded by our culture's last acceptable prejudice (or 2nd to last, actually; "tranny" issues are the new goats of the hard right now that 70% of the American public, and most young people who will soon assume their responsibilities as adults, recognize gay marriage as legitimate).  I had hoped to point this out to him by an analogy.  There were many good, moral people who within living memory were openly opposed to interracial marriage and felt completely justified in doing so.  Most of these people seemed to have reversed gears by now. 

It is a legitimate challenge.

Reading your post above about "it is just not biologically the same as heterosexual marriage, and clearly is not in the best interests of children and families," I think you may have been blinded as well.  Most abusers in our society are straight men.  Heterosexual marriage is hardly a stable institution.  I'd be curious why you posted that.

Why would I care what "all world religions" have believed up until now?  I do not belong to any of them.  May I remind you of Stain Paul:

"Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse."

I don't think we want to read this literally.  American slave owners did.

There are a great many things the religions of the world have done in the past that we have no part of now.  Don't be blind.

As for this----

the real problem here is what I see as an ever-increasing anti-tolerance for any verbal or written expressions of traditional views of homosexuality/ homosexual marriage, esp when expressed by evangelicals. 

I'm sorry, but I think homophobia is wrong, no matter who utters it.  Evangelicals or whoever should get used to the idea that someone like me will be out here to point out their bigotry.

That is my freedom of speech.

As for your second point:

I fear greatly that efforts will soon be made in the public sphere to interdict freedom of speech here.   I used to think, as recently as maybe 5 years ago, that this was paranoid thinking, and expressed my sentiments to people in my church, amongst others.  I was wrong.

That is precisely why I curate this thread.  I believe we disagree completely, but I absolutely support your right to express yourself.  We should be aware of the hysteria out there to curb expression in the pursuit of social justice and conformity. 

However, I do not think such a ban would withstand First Amendment challenges-----after all, we still have the KKK and the American Nazi parties frittering about at the fringes; I think your evangelicals will be okay. 

Try not to make your cause into martyrdom as a rationale. 

[marshwiggle]

It is a hypothetical, Kay.  That should be pretty obvious.

No, as a matter of fact, I do NOT think the Marshman is opposed to interracial marriage.

My (non-white) wife would be pleased to hear that. She kind of rolls her eyes at terms like "raciallized" and "BIPOC".

In fact, I think Marshy is a very good, moral person who has been blinded by our culture's last acceptable prejudice (or 2nd to last, actually; "tranny" issues are the new goats of the hard right now that 70% of the American public, and most young people who will soon assume their responsibilities as adults, recognize gay marriage as legitimate).  I had hoped to point this out to him by an analogy.  There were many good, moral people who within living memory were openly opposed to interracial marriage and felt completely justified in doing so.  Most of these people seemed to have reversed gears by now. 


It is a legitimate challenge.

In a nutshell, in the Bible all prohibitions against interracial marriage basically come down to what we would call interfaith marriage. The issue was religious, not ethnic. (Examples like Ruth, the great-grandmother of King David, stand out.)
("Worshipping other gods" was the concern.)

Prohibitions on same-sex relationships are different. (Whether you agree with either of those restrictions or not, the point is that the passages relating to them are very different. So lots of Christians who have no problem with interracial marriage don't support same-sex marriage in the church.)

One more point to make is that all kinds of religious prohibitions exist for thing which do not cause "harm" to any identifiable person. The idea that the only reasonable basis for what should be prohibited is whether it "harms" someone is totally out of place in any major religion. (Most, if not all, have prohibitions against many things that do harm others, but just not harming others doesn't make something OK.)

[Wahoo Redux]

So are you opposed to interfaith marriages? Should there be a law prohibiting them?

[marshwiggle]

So are you opposed to interfaith marriages? Should there be a law prohibiting them?

The government can regulate however it sees fit. Faith communities can make whatever restrictions they feel are appropriate.

(Personally, I think the government should not be in the "marriage" business.The government should regulate "domestic partnerships", like business partnerships, that affect things like pensions, benefits, etc. They can determine who can be in such a partnership, including how many people, and it doesn't necessarily have to have to require any sort of conjugal relationship. since it's not a religious "thing", faith communities don't have to be concerned about it. On the other hand faith communities should be free to make whatever restrictions on "marriage" they choose, and it's none of the government's business. This means that marriage and domestic partnerships will be overlapping but not concentric classes.)

[Wahoo Redux]

I think the government should not be in the "marriage" business.

So the government should not restrict interfaith, gay, or polyamorous marriages?

[marshwiggle]

I think the government should not be in the "marriage" business.

So the government should not restrict interfaith, gay, or polyamorous marriages?

The government needs to make restrictions based on non-religious factors. And as long as they don't suggest that faith communities ought to abide by the same rules, I don't really have a problem. (Although, as I said, I'd give it a different name since it's about the government's concerns, which are primarily economic, and don't necessarily have anything to do with sex. Presumably no government wants to declare any sexual relationship a "marriage" regardless of whether the people in it want that. Similarly, the government probably doesn't want to demand that a certain relationship have a sexual component to have the economic benefits.)