This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Sure, there's no reason to treat a bisexual in a heterosexual marriage any differently from a heterosexual in a heterosexual marriage. Actions, not thoughts, must be the basis of rewards and punishments, but "cohabiting with someone of the same sex" and "cohabiting with someone of the other sex" are different actions.
(If you extend "membership in a group" to include actions, this statement would seem to preclude locking people up for being in the group "murderers"; I'll presume you didn't intend that.)
Same-sex couples are not equal to opposite-sex couples in child-raising capabilities. There is, for starters, the issue that a same-sex couple trying to raise a child of the opposite sex is not intimately familiar with the biology of that sex and may not recognise developmental abnormalities. There are also biological issues; girls go through puberty earlier without a dad around, for the example I have to hand. Furthermore, human instincts against cuckoldry are strong, for obvious evolutionary reasons, and outside of dubious techniques involving making girls out of two eggs, it is certain that a same-sex couple with children involves at least one cuckold or cuckquean; this does pose a risk, if a small one.
They are still, overall, superior to single parents, but yes, there is a societal interest in there being more opposite-sex couples in particular, and non-recognition of same-sex marriage seems like a lever that could affect it given the far-greater prevalence of bisexuals than true homosexuals. It's not remotely a strong enough interest to justify sodomy laws, but we have government subsidies for many prosocial things without this being considered a heinous sin against those who do not do the prosocial things and thus do not receive the subsidies.
So, cards on the table: I'm a bisexual who's had a homosexual relationship (albeit a long-distance one), and I regret voting for same-sex marriage in our plebiscite due to having been convinced that bisexuals like myself ought to be somewhat incentivised and encouraged to pick an opposite-sex partner. Do I stand accused of animus against myself?
More options
Context Copy link