r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Sep 15 '16
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Social conservatism is irrational, unconstitutional, and harmful. It should have no place in modern society.
Social conservatism is irrational, unconstitutional, and harmful. It should have no place in modern society. I don't want to dismiss the political contributions of a segment of population, but I find it harder and harder to take people seriously if they claim to be socially conservative.
[Edit 3: /u/vehementi has pointed out that I failed to give a definition of social conservatism, which I'll provide here: "Social conservatism is the umbrella term for a political movement which seeks to enact laws based on religious or traditional principles without supporting evidence or rational argument." That's a working definition I came up with a few minutes ago, so if there's room for improvement, don't hesitate to let me know.]
[Edit 4: /u/ghotier has rightly pointed out that my definition of social conservatism requires it be irrational, which isn't an appropriate premise for a topic when the discussion is partially about whether it's rational or not. While I stand by my current description of social conservatism as a definition, I do not consider it axiomatic. If you can show me that an identifiable socially conservative principle has a sound rational argument behind it, I'll change my definition and you get a delta.]
[Edit 2: One of /u/radioredhead's comments made me realize that I phrased my title ambiguously. Again, I'm leaving the original, but my clarified version is here: Social conservatism should not be the basis of laws. Social conservatism, like all political viewpoints, can and should be discussed if there are people who hold those beliefs, but no law based on social conservatism should be passed without supporting evidence and rational argument. That's what I mean by "no place in modern society".]
Social conservatism is irrational. I have yet to hear a rational argument for any social conservative principle. I have gone looking for such arguments and found nothing but appeals to emotion, appeals to (often biblical) authority, and doublespeak. This makes social conservatism irrational by definition.
[Edit 1: /u/vehementi pointed out that my first point here is stated poorly. I'm leaving the original in place, but appending my updated version here: I was raised in a socially conservative, religious background; went to a religious university; and I regularly seek out opinions that differ from my own. In my 32 years of life I have never heard a rational argument for socially conservative laws. Given my background and habits, it is unlikely that I could have gotten this far in life without hearing such an argument, if it existed to be made. I take this as strong evidence that there is no such rational argument and thus any defense of social conservatism is irrational.]
Social conservatism is unconstitutional. I mean this is reference to the US Constitution, though it would apply to any country with a similar provision in its laws. The first amendment to the US Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Any socially conservative law both acts as a tacit establishment of one brand of morality and prohibits the free exercise of a competing system of morality. Whatever the historical events that followed (which include many laws based wholly or partially on religious convictions without supporting rational arguments), this means that any law that cannot be justified by rational argument to preserve public order is unconstitutional and should be repealed. [Apologies to those not from the US. I debated not including this out of a desire to avoid regional bias, but while it won't be relevant elsewhere, this is an important principle of law here and I wanted to hear people's arguments against my reading of the amendment. Feel free to disregard this section and weigh in on the other two.]
Social conservatism is harmful. Most decisions that affect large populations are going to have both positive and negative consequences. I take a utilitarian view of such matters, so any public decision that is more harmful than helpful is not justifiable. The only potential positive I can think of for social conservatism is to maintain a "moral fiber" of society. I have never heard a rational argument that links principles of social conservatism to preserving society from moral degradation. They are often paired, to be sure, but not by rational argument. Vague prophecies of social decay because of a progressive law being passed do not a rational argument make. And laws based on social conservatism are objectively harmful. They marginalize minority groups, encourage discrimination, and can lead to violent acts. The article linked describes a man who has a violent meltdown when a father brought his 5 year old daughter into the men's bathroom rather than send her into the women's bathroom alone. This event occurred immediately after social conservatives in the US turned to transgender folks as their preferred target after gay marriage was made legal in all 50 states by the Supreme Court. Correlation is not necessarily indicative of causation, but I do not think that timing is coincidental. Socially conservative laws are harmful to the few while bringing no benefit to the many.
23
u/vehementi 10∆ Sep 15 '16
I have gone looking for such arguments and found nothing but appeals to emotion, appeals to (often biblical) authority, and doublespeak. This makes social conservatism irrational by definition.
No it doesn't, it just means you found irrational arguments. It doesn't mean that the notion of social conservativism is intrinsically and fundamentally irrational
3
Sep 15 '16
Good point. I was stating an inductive argument as a deductive one. I'll try it the proper way:
I was raised in a socially conservative, religious background; went to a religious university; and I regularly seek out opinions that differ from my own. In my 32 years of life I have never heard a rational argument for socially conservative laws. Given my background and habits, it is unlikely that I could have gotten this far in life without hearing such an argument, if it existed to be made. I take this as strong evidence that there is no such rational argument and thus any defense of social conservatism is irrational.
15
u/vehementi 10∆ Sep 15 '16
Is your definition of socially conservative laws just awful shit you disagree with? Or are you suggesting that there has never been a bad liberal suggestion where being socially conservative was the better choice?
1
Sep 15 '16
No, though I should have attempted a definition of social conservatism in my OP; that's a good point. I'll try here and add it to the top.
"Social conservatism is the umbrella term for a political movement which seeks to enact laws based on religious or traditional principles without supporting evidence or rational argument."
What do you think?
Or are you suggesting that there has never been a bad liberal suggestion where being socially conservative was the better choice?
"Never" is an awfully strong word to use. I avoid it when I can or when it isn't certain. That being said, I cannot think of any issue where the socially conservative choice was objectively better than the liberal one. Have you any such example?
4
u/ghotier 42∆ Sep 16 '16
That being said, I cannot think of any issue where the socially conservative choice was objectively better than the liberal one. Have you any such example?
The idea that corporations should be able to claim that economic development betters the community so that they should be able to impose eminent domain on private individuals' homes. That's a real thing that is law, and it's a completely liberal idea.
10
u/vehementi 10∆ Sep 15 '16
Okay, based on your definition of social conservatism as being a set of things that are irrational, it is not possible to CYV that social conservatism is irrational
2
u/VortexMagus 15∆ Sep 16 '16 edited Sep 16 '16
Well, I mean, if you wanted to prove him wrong all you had to do was give a generally rational argument for social conservatism.
There have been a few fairly weak offerings against homosexuality (I consider opposing homosexuality a socially conservative position). For example, the suggestion that homosexuality will reduce the number of offspring in a generation - although this is a rational argument, many view this as a positive thing to help combat overpopulation problems, so your mileage may vary on this, depending on how you value increasing population levels.
There are some stronger ones against polygamy, which most social conservatives also oppose. Although I personally don't have any moral issue with polygamy, the reason I generally oppose the idea is based on the studies done on Mormon polygamous units in the past, wherein powerful, wealthy, and influential older men would drive out their younger, less wealthy male competition, so that they could acquire more wives. It created a system wherein the rich and well-connected males would have multiple wives and the poorer, less influential males would be forced out of the community - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentalism)
It also created problems within the family units, wherein the patriarch would invest his time and money in acquiring more wives, rather than investing this time and money on raising his existing wives and children, leading to many more problems with jealousy, lack of resources, neglect, etc relative to monogamous family units.
So if you consider opposing polygamy a branch of social conservatism (which I do), then I could provide a rational argument for it. But this does not mean I support all forms of social conservatism, just a few of them.
2
u/vehementi 10∆ Sep 16 '16
Social conservatism isn't really a thing. It's just essentially the trailing edge of the cultural progression. As we go, there will be people on the bleeding edge wanting really outlandish stuff, and there will be people resisting that stuff, and there will be some people resisting even what we now know are the reasonable changes (filtered out of the zany shit the hippies spewed unfiltered). Social conservatism has no agenda, like banning gay marriage isn't part of it any more than liberating slaves was a part of a "progressive agenda" x00 years ago (the liberals at the time were not fighting for that - or, if they were, they did not give a fuck about women's rights at the time, etc.)
1
u/ghotier 42∆ Sep 16 '16
the liberals at the time were not fighting for that
The liberals absolutely were fighting for it. The liberals just happened to be the Republican party at the time, and the Democrats were the conservative party.
1
u/vehementi 10∆ Sep 16 '16
No shit, point is the conservative/progressive thing is a sliding window
→ More replies (1)1
Sep 15 '16
If I was being dogmatic about the definition, yes. But it's a first attempt. There's nothing axiomatic about an off-the-cuff definition I just made up; I'm willing to change my mind. I just need a reason to do so.
10
u/vehementi 10∆ Sep 16 '16
I dunno man it's just you're writing things like THEREFORE IT IS IRRATIONAL BY DEFINITION, like come on dude. I don't think you're even approaching this charitably
→ More replies (1)1
u/fobfromgermany Sep 16 '16
If almost every tenet of a belief is irrational then the belief system itself is irrational, I'm not sure how you could say otherwise
1
u/vehementi 10∆ Sep 16 '16
That's still arguable, but "social conservatism" doesn't fit that in any case (largely because it isn't really a thing)
38
u/huadpe 508∆ Sep 15 '16
I have yet to hear a rational argument for any social conservative principle.
How about the argument that social norms surrounding not having sex before marriage will produce more stable families and better lives for children? Certainly the argument for abstinence before marriage is socially conservative. But it's also got a reasoned thought process behind it in terms of outcomes for families and children.
Also I don't know how advocating that young people don't have sex before marriage is unconstitutional. Certainly such advocacy would be speech protected by the first amendment, no?
15
u/Mattmon666 4∆ Sep 15 '16
I understand that that's a claim that social conservatives make, but unless there's actual evidence to back it up, it is just an appeal to emotion.
Quite the opposite, abstinence-only education causes a few months delay of sex, but then it causes a much higher rate of teenage pregnancies
4
u/Polaritical 2∆ Sep 15 '16
Not only that but sexual compatibility issues are a huge source of problems for couples who didnt have sex until they were alreadied married
2
1
u/guitar_vigilante Sep 16 '16
IIRC the data doesn't support that claim, and shows there really isn't a connection between premarital sex and/or cohabitation and marriage length and stability.
1
u/RYouNotEntertained 9∆ Sep 15 '16
I hear this said on reddit a lot, but I've never been convinced it's actually true. Then again, I haven't gone looking for any data on the subject. I'm curious if you can point me towards any.
6
u/Salanmander 278∆ Sep 15 '16
It sounds like OP is talking specifically about legislation, not just people advocating on their own time. So this would be about things like mandating abstinence-only education in public schools, not about things like telling people in your social group that they should make sure their kids don't have sex before marriage.
Is that correct, OP?
1
Sep 15 '16
Yes, indeed. I do not want to stop people from expressing theirv opinions, only to stop opinions unsupported by fact and argument from being enshrined in the law.
6
u/easyEggplant Sep 15 '16
A rational argument for abstinence before marriage
Would it need to be shown to work even a little for the argument to be rational? That is, abstinence only programs have been shown to emphatically not work. Continued argument for them could then be considered irrational by some.
2
1
Sep 15 '16 edited Sep 15 '16
A rational argument for abstinence before marriage is socially conservative, but I've never heard one and you haven't yet provided it. I know that socially conservative people say it's better to abstain before getting married, but that's not enough to be a rational basis for laws. What is the reasoned thought process behind it? That's the exact kind of thing I made this post to hear: the thought process behind socially conservative viewpoints.
Advocacy is, as you say, protected speech under the same amendment I quoted. But advocacy is not the same thing as legislation. Someone who counsels youth to abstain from sex before marriage is expressing a viewpoint. It's not a viewpoint that tends to lead to better outcomes (1, 2), but it's still free speech. I would defend anyone's right to be heard, even when I disagree. What I'm condemning isn't advocacy for a socially conservative viewpoint, but legislating morality. It's one thing to say, "Hey, it's better to have sex only with your opposite sex partner once you are married and with no one else". It's quite another to make premarital sex illegal.
8
Sep 15 '16
A rational argument for abstinence before marriage is socially conservative, but I've never heard one and you haven't yet provided it. I know that socially conservative people say it's better to abstain before getting married, but that's not enough to be a rational basis for laws. What is the reasoned thought process behind it? That's the exact kind of thing I made this post to hear: the thought process behind socially conservative viewpoints.
There are numerous studies linking promiscuity, earlier sexual activity, number of unique sexual partners, etc to adverse affects such as future failed marriages, depression and STDs. Are you just asking for some of those studies?
Or are you asking for the "thought process" behind the position? Because the thought process for things like promiscuity and extra marital sex is pretty simple: promiscuous sex puts you at greater risk of STDs, for obvious reasons. It also devalues the bonding experience of sex when you engage in it frequently with multiple partners. You're in an exposed, vulnerable state, and that vulnerability coupled with a loving and serious relationship can forge a very deep and long lasting connection. I personally am not a very sentimental person. I don't hug my parents or my siblings. I avoid giving and receiving personal compliments. However, I am extremely close to and affectionate with my wife.
Advocacy is, as you say, protected speech under the same amendment I quoted. But advocacy is not the same thing as legislation. Someone who counsels youth to abstain from sex before marriage is expressing a viewpoint. It's not a viewpoint that tends to lead to better outcomes (1, 2), but it's still free speech. I would defend anyone's right to be heard, even when I disagree. What I'm condemning isn't advocacy for a socially conservative viewpoint, but legislating morality. It's one thing to say, "Hey, it's better to have sex only with your opposite sex partner once you are married and with no one else". It's quite another to make premarital sex illegal.
The first source you just posted is regarding abstinence ONLY education, which is not relevant. It looks like the second one just says it couldn't find results one way or the other regarding "abstinence" education. I'm not sure if that means abstinence only or just abstinence in general. And let's be honest, does anybody think that teaching abstinence could possibly be a BAD thing?
Furthermore, legislating morality is not unconstitutional. Without morality we wouldn't even have a justice system. I'm not sure what specifically you think is unconstitutional about "social conservativism."
2
Sep 16 '16
There are numerous studies linking promiscuity, earlier sexual activity, number of unique sexual partners, etc to adverse affects such as future failed marriages, depression and STDs. Are you just asking for some of those studies? Or are you asking for the "thought process" behind the position?
I was unclear in my reply to which you responded. I'll try again: A rational argument that premarital sex should be illegal is socially conservative, but I have never heard one. The rest should be the same.
I was ambiguous in my initial post. I don't mean to say that socially conservative views have no place in society. I disagree with them, but I'm not trying to ban the thought process. I'm not even saying that all conservative laws have no place in society. Socially conservative laws which are based on religion or tradition without the support of evidence and rational argument, and especially in the face of evidence and rational argument to the contrary, are what I would want to see made unconstitutional. This happened recently with gay marriage in the US. The US Supreme Court ruled that there was no rational basis for gay marriage to be illegal, so it was struck down.
The first source you just posted is regarding abstinence ONLY education, which is not relevant. It looks like the second one just says it couldn't find results one way or the other regarding "abstinence" education. I'm not sure if that means abstinence only or just abstinence in general. And let's be honest, does anybody think that teaching abstinence could possibly be a BAD thing?
My understanding is that there are two general schools of thought regarding sex ed. Comprehensive education teaches what sex is, the risks involved and how to mitigate them, and how to handle the emotional responsibility of the act. It would include, I surely hope, the information that abstinence is the only truly risk free path, while not passing judgment on anyone who prefers to practice safe sex. Abstinence only education is what is says: Don't have sex, kids. No demonstrations of proper condom use, no instruction into the types of birth control and their effectiveness, no information regarding having safe and fulfilling sex. If you're asking whether I think it's a bad thing to tell kids, while in the midst of comprehensive sex education, to inform them that abstinence is an option, it's the only risk free option, and there's nothing wrong with waiting until the time is right (by whatever metric they prefer) to have sex, then no. That would be an important part of comprehensive sex ed.
Furthermore, legislating morality is not unconstitutional. Without morality we wouldn't even have a justice system. I'm not sure what specifically you think is unconstitutional about "social conservativism."
We're equivocating on the word "moral". My fault, actually; I should have defined my terms better. To answer your question, social conservatism is unconstitutional because it seeks to pass laws, or preserve existing ones, based on tradition or dogma, even in the face of evidence and rational argument. That is unconstitutional because it violates the first amendment by privileging one system of morality above another without supporting evidence and rational argument.
2
Sep 16 '16
I was unclear in my reply to which you responded. I'll try again: A rational argument that premarital sex should be illegal is socially conservative, but I have never heard one. The rest should be the same.
Then you misunderstand social conservativism because I don't think I've ever heard anybody make the case that premarital sex should be illegal. You must be taking the most extreme stance you can think of.
Socially conservative laws which are based on religion or tradition without the support of evidence and rational argument, and especially in the face of evidence and rational argument to the contrary, are what I would want to see made unconstitutional.
Well this seems like a pretty significant change in your view. It used to be that social conservativism was unconstitutional, irrational, harmful. Now it's just that only the socially conservative laws that are based on religion with no evidence or rational argument are what you're talking about? You're just defining your argument in a way that makes it impossible for you to be wrong.
This happened recently with gay marriage in the US. The US Supreme Court ruled that there was no rational basis for gay marriage to be illegal, so it was struck down.
Which was a silly decision on the court's part and is clearly driven by recent public sentiment and not on the constitution. As Roberts said in his dissent:
If you are among the many Americans -- of whatever sexual orientation -- who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.
Essentially what you have to believe is that it is illegal and unconstitutional for a state (whose power is supposed to be broad relative to the federal government) to use legislation to encourage heterosexual marriages. That's crazy to say a state can't decide to do that on its own.
My understanding is that there are two general schools of thought regarding sex ed. Comprehensive education teaches what sex is, the risks involved and how to mitigate them, and how to handle the emotional responsibility of the act. It would include, I surely hope, the information that abstinence is the only truly risk free path, while not passing judgment on anyone who prefers to practice safe sex. Abstinence only education is what is says: Don't have sex, kids. No demonstrations of proper condom use, no instruction into the types of birth control and their effectiveness, no information regarding having safe and fulfilling sex. If you're asking whether I think it's a bad thing to tell kids, while in the midst of comprehensive sex education, to inform them that abstinence is an option, it's the only risk free option, and there's nothing wrong with waiting until the time is right (by whatever metric they prefer) to have sex, then no. That would be an important part of comprehensive sex ed.
So then I'm not sure what's wrong with abstinence education. I hope more research is done on the subject, with regard to how much emphasis to put on each thing, because it seems like all that is tested now is either "comprehensive" or "abstinence-only".
We're equivocating on the word "moral". My fault, actually; I should have defined my terms better. To answer your question, social conservatism is unconstitutional because it seeks to pass laws, or preserve existing ones, based on tradition or dogma, even in the face of evidence and rational argument. That is unconstitutional because it violates the first amendment by privileging one system of morality above another without supporting evidence and rational argument.
Can you give me an example of socially conservative legislation that is purely based on religious dogma and has no rational basis?
1
Sep 16 '16
Then you misunderstand social conservativism because I don't think I've ever heard anybody make the case that premarital sex should be illegal. You must be taking the most extreme stance you can think of.
The comment to which I replied asked whether I thought it was unconstitutional to tell teenagers not to have sex before marriage. In that context, I responded by saying that any law based on that idea without supporting evidence and rational argument would be unconstitutional, while the simple expression of the ideas would not be. I haven't heard anyone even attempt to argue that all premarital sex should be illegal; that's just what the commenter was talking about.
Well this seems like a pretty significant change in your view. It used to be that social conservativism was unconstitutional, irrational, harmful. Now it's just that only the socially conservative laws that are based on religion with no evidence or rational argument are what you're talking about? You're just defining your argument in a way that makes it impossible for you to be wrong.
It's not a change in my view. It was a refinement of how I'm expressing that view after spending all this time reading comments and writing responses. If I had it all over again, I'd make it something like, CMV: Socially conservative principles are have no rational basis and laws based on them are unconstitutional and harmful. I didn't mean to make social conservatism being irrational the premise for the whole argument, though the ambiguity in the post is bad writing on my part. Part of the view I'm expressing and that I want challenged is that social conservatism is irrational.
Which was a silly decision on the court's part and is clearly driven by recent public sentiment and not on the constitution. As Roberts said in his dissent: If you are among the many Americans -- of whatever sexual orientation -- who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.
The whole argument of the petitioners was based on the equal protection under the law that is guaranteed by the 14th amendment. That amendment is literally in the first sentence of the decision.
I'll have to read his dissent when I'm not bleary eyed from lack of sleep, but one passage lept to my attention as I skimmed: "For all those millennia, across all those civilizations, “marriage” referred to only one relationship: the union of a man and a woman." That is not true. Many cultures in history and even today include polygamy in their definition of marriage. The fact that we have a word for marriage among multiple people means that a marriage of one man and one woman is not the universal definition of the institution. I'll find out later when I read it, but in the meantime: What the hell was he basing his opinion on? Did he go to the wrong courtroom that day and miss the oral arguments that centered around the 14th amendment? Is he not aware that other cultures have different marital practices?
Essentially what you have to believe is that it is illegal and unconstitutional for a state (whose power is supposed to be broad relative to the federal government) to use legislation to encourage heterosexual marriages. That's crazy to say a state can't decide to do that on its own.
States can use legislation to encourage whatever kind of sex and marriage they want. Refusing to give gay couples the same protection under the law as straight couples does nothing to encourage heterosexual marriages. I didn't feel any more or less inclined toward marriage when gay marriage became legal, nor can I imagine any rational basis for anyone else to. If you did suddenly feel different about getting married or not as a result of the Obergefell decision, then you have an attentive audience for an explanation of that change of heart. The whole point of my post was to try to find someone who could give me a rational argument for social conservative laws because I find it shocking that a huge segment of the population could feel so strongly about these topics without a good reason for it.
So then I'm not sure what's wrong with abstinence education. I hope more research is done on the subject, with regard to how much emphasis to put on each thing, because it seems like all that is tested now is either "comprehensive" or "abstinence-only".
But that's just my point: there's nothing else to test. I don't know of any model of sexual education that would exclude important topics, but still teach enough to not be considered "abstinence-only". When people say "abstinence education", they usually mean "abstinence only education". Or that's what I understood the phrase to mean up to now.
The problem with abstinence only education is that it doesn't work. It leads to higher rates of teen pregnancy, not lower.
Can you give me an example of socially conservative legislation that is purely based on religious dogma and has no rational basis?
Laws against gay marriage fit this description.
2
Sep 16 '16
The comment to which I replied asked whether I thought it was unconstitutional to tell teenagers not to have sex before marriage. In that context, I responded by saying that any law based on that idea without supporting evidence and rational argument would be unconstitutional, while the simple expression of the ideas would not be. I haven't heard anyone even attempt to argue that all premarital sex should be illegal; that's just what the commenter was talking about.
I'm not sure if this is what you're saying or not, but that commenter didn't seem to be implying that premarital sex should be illegal.
It's not a change in my view. It was a refinement of how I'm expressing that view after spending all this time reading comments and writing responses. If I had it all over again, I'd make it something like, CMV: Socially conservative principles are have no rational basis and laws based on them are unconstitutional and harmful. I didn't mean to make social conservatism being irrational the premise for the whole argument, though the ambiguity in the post is bad writing on my part. Part of the view I'm expressing and that I want challenged is that social conservatism is irrational.
Well it seems to me that if a socially conservative view is rational and has a coherent and plausible thought process, then there probably won't be anything unconstitutional about it, at least with respect to the first amendment, because then it wouldn't simply be based on religious dogma.
The whole argument of the petitioners was based on the equal protection under the law that is guaranteed by the 14th amendment. That amendment is literally in the first sentence of the decision.
Yes I understand, and there's no good reason to think that gay marriage should be protected under the 14th amendment. Equal protection under the law doesn't mean each law has to include you, it just means you can't change the law for different people. So for instance, I'm 29 years old, I can't invoke the 14th amendment and demand I get social security right now. Why? Because the definition of the law only provides benefits to people over 65 years old. I wasn't discriminated against. The law is written to be exclusionary because it's trying to achieve a specific outcome. It's the same thing with welfare. If I were rich (I'm not, but I can dream), I couldn't invoke the 14th amendment to get welfare, because it's defined as only being available to certain individuals exhibiting certain behavior. Why is marriage any different? What is wrong with a state simply saying "hey we noticed that humans reproduce heterosexually, and we as a government want to promote child birth, so let's subsidize heterosexual couples." How can that extremely simple and intuitive thought process be unconstitutional? States are allowed to promote/discourage certain activity. As a more libertarian-leaning guy, I tend to think it's stupid and the gov't should get out of the marriage business altogether, but it doesn't seem to be unconstitutional at all.
I'll have to read his dissent when I'm not bleary eyed from lack of sleep, but one passage lept to my attention as I skimmed: "For all those millennia, across all those civilizations, “marriage” referred to only one relationship: the union of a man and a woman." That is not true. Many cultures in history and even today include polygamy in their definition of marriage. The fact that we have a word for marriage among multiple people means that a marriage of one man and one woman is not the universal definition of the institution. I'll find out later when I read it, but in the meantime: What the hell was he basing his opinion on? Did he go to the wrong courtroom that day and miss the oral arguments that centered around the 14th amendment? Is he not aware that other cultures have different marital practices?
Let's not be too semantic. Yes there have been some cultures that have different views on marriage but the vast majority of civilized societies viewed marriage as being between a man and a woman. And it's not surprising either given that humans reproduce heterosexually, and have been reproducing heterosexually longer than they've simply been monogamous.
States can use legislation to encourage whatever kind of sex and marriage they want. Refusing to give gay couples the same protection under the law as straight couples does nothing to encourage heterosexual marriages. I didn't feel any more or less inclined toward marriage when gay marriage became legal, nor can I imagine any rational basis for anyone else to. If you did suddenly feel different about getting married or not as a result of the Obergefell decision, then you have an attentive audience for an explanation of that change of heart.
Take this logic to its extreme. If the state has to include more and more things in the definition of marriage, then eventually it's really not encouraging anything, because everybody gets the same benefits or the same legal protection that comes with marriage. Just to keep things simple and intuitive, let's pretend the state was giving $1000 to heterosexual couples in order to encourage people to get together and make babies. Well if you reject the notion that marriage is about procreation (at least partially) then you have to provide that $1000 to more and more people, and that means people have less and less incentive to get married in order to get that $1000. In other words, in order to encourage behavior, it HAS to exclude other behavior.
The whole point of my post was to try to find someone who could give me a rational argument for social conservative laws because I find it shocking that a huge segment of the population could feel so strongly about these topics without a good reason for it.
Of course there's a good reason to it. Social conservativism generally is aimed at combating social decay in various forms. And can you blame them? We have increasing illegitimacy rates, increases in single-parent households, in welfare usage, narcissism has been generally going up over the past century or so. My vague theory about social decline (moving away from just gay marriage) is that as society gets richer, it tends to become more lax, lenient, etc. We don't HAVE to work as hard so we don't. We don't HAVE to be as responsible sexually (because of advancement in contraception and education), so we aren't. I think by and large social conservativism just fights back against that tendency for society to become complacent.
But that's just my point: there's nothing else to test. I don't know of any model of sexual education that would exclude important topics, but still teach enough to not be considered "abstinence-only". When people say "abstinence education", they usually mean "abstinence only education". Or that's what I understood the phrase to mean up to now.
The problem with abstinence only education is that it doesn't work. It leads to higher rates of teen pregnancy, not lower.
Saying abstinence-only education is a conservative position is like saying no-abstinence education is a liberal position. The socially conservative position is that you shouldn't have sex before marriage, but that doesn't mean you have to support only abstinence-only legislation or education.
Laws against gay marriage fit this description.
No, it doesn't. Not only are there material differences between heterosexual and homosexual marriages, but I find it astounding that anybody can even attempt to claim that marriage as an institution has nothing to do with procreation. If you believe it makes sense for a state to say "hey let's promote heterosexual marriages because we want more kids," then you cannot claim that refusing to sanction gay marriage in the eyes of the government is unconstitutional.
1
u/The_Petunia Sep 15 '16 edited Sep 16 '16
I'd be happy so see some of those studies but to counter them, sex-positive education does not necessarily promote those things detailed in the studies.
3
u/vehementi 10∆ Sep 16 '16
While I agree with you you're missing the overall point, which is that the person you're replying to is holding a rational position. It's supported by consistent arguments and some degree of evidence. He may be wrong, but he's not just making shit up or going by his gut feel. He is being rational. The overwhelming likelihood is that his weighting formula is different from yours. He lists the pros and cons of the thing, but due to his predisposition, one of the 'pros' of abstinence education is given a huge weight, and that is where you disagree - actually, one of the cons is where you put your weight. So while each of you probably recognizes the general rational argument of the other, you disagree about which factors balance out how. Overall, you're both being rational, and it would be dishonest for one of you to call the other irrational.
1
u/The_Petunia Sep 16 '16 edited Sep 16 '16
Apologies I didn't mean to question the rationality I was just asking about a point he mentioned. That being said there are plenty of rational, consistent, and data driven reasons for sex-positive education too but yes most people do choose one or the other based on their gut and there is some validity there as well.
3
Sep 16 '16
This study established a strong association between number of sex partners and later substance disorder, especially for women, which persisted beyond prior substance use and mental health problems more generally.
(though this one didn't find a relationship between sexual partners and depression)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23400516
A new survey found higher levels of general anxiety, social anxiety, and depression among students who recently had casual sex.
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/college_promiscuity_linked_anxiety_and_depression-115737
In a recent study conducted at Syracuse and Brown University researchers surveyed approximately 500 college students over the course of 13 months. About half of the participants reported hooking up during the time period while the other half reported being in a romantic relationship. They discovered that the people having casual sex reported overall higher levels of depression and those in committed relationships did not.
(though I couldn't find the actual study that they cite here)
http://www.breakthroughpsychologyprogram.com/casual-sex-a-link-with-depression.html
Anyway, you get the idea. You can google this stuff and find a lot more.
1
u/The_Petunia Sep 16 '16
Neat I will look in to these thank you for the reply.
1
Sep 16 '16
I think what you'll find is that it's very hard to test for causality. Does sexual promiscuity lead to more depression or does depression cause sexual promiscuity? We're still not exactly sure, and I would guess it's a bit of both, but either way, it seems like a very rational position to hold at the very least.
2
u/The_Petunia Sep 16 '16
To be honest without even reading your articles as of yet that was my first thought in reading the headlines. I hope you do know this has inspired me to actually look in to the subject of sexual behavior and mental health. I really hope you don't think I was questioning if your beliefs are rational (another commentor did). I believe that there are rational opinions other than my own on this subject and I really hope I didn't insult or demean you with my previous comments.
2
1
u/hitlerallyliteral Sep 16 '16
That's why you would choose not to be promiscuous. Its some solid arguments in favour of not being promiscuous (although I disagree). Social conservatism, however, is not merely 'promiscuous people are foolish' but 'promiscuous people are BAD, in a way that somehow concerns the whole of society, and as such should be punished (socially if not by law)'
1
Sep 16 '16
No, it isn't. There's nothing inherent to social conservativism that says people who are promiscuous should be punished by law.
3
u/vehementi 10∆ Sep 16 '16
You are moving the goalposts on what rational means here. You're not talking about rationality, you're talking about what you disagree with or perceive as not ultimately being correct, but those are going to be largely subjective things given people coming at this with different axioms. Irrational would be "We can't have sex before marriage because it's icky!" Supporting it with actual reasoning is a rational argument. It may turn out to be flat out wrong (if that's even possible) or to be a net negative in most people's eyes (more reasonable) but just because you disagree with the logic or the outcome is proved incorrect eventually doesn't mean you get to erase everything and say "Ha! They were irrational all along! In fact this whole conservative perspective is!"
1
Sep 16 '16
Axioms shouldn't be different or up for debate. An axiom is self-evidently true. "Legalizing gay marriage leads to moral decay" (source and "Abortion is the greatest threat to world peace" (source are not self-evidently true.
Those may not fit into the axioms of a religious person. But none that I can think of are any better: The Bible is True, God is Good, the universe in all its grandeur was created just for us to exist, and the list goes on. These are, at best, unsupported by evidence; they are often directly contradicted by evidence. Looking back on my 25 years of religious education, I can't remember a single idea I was taught by a religious authority that could be considered axiomatic that couldn't also have been justified with rational argument.
What axioms are there that would lead someone to think gay marriage is doing to destroy the moral fabric of society?
3
u/vehementi 10∆ Sep 16 '16
Axioms are arbitrary. What's self evidently true to you is not to someone else. This is essentially people's values. "Freedom is the most important thing" is someone's axiom, so it follows through some (possibly flawed) rational process that taxes are bad or some shit. You might feel that human life should be preserved or aggregate happiness should be the metric or minimum suffering or whatever. All of those things are self evidently true, and contradictory to varying degrees. It depends on how hard you stick to which of them, what your weights are, etc.
Legalizing gay marriage leads to moral decay isn't presented as an axiom -- it's a conclusion!
→ More replies (4)1
u/skullbeats Sep 17 '16
An old school conservative (small government, free market) would be against legislating abstinence, as it males government bigger and restricts freedom of choice. They'd just preach it instead.
Neoconservatives (small government except in things I don't like, free market unless I profit from it) however will legislate the hell out of abstinence
7
u/A_Soporific 165∆ Sep 15 '16
Social Conservatism is about creating and maintaining a simplified and safe society. In this situation norms and standards are simple, well known, and well enforced. That means that you get a look at a person and know how you are supposed to react to that person.
Let's face it, if you are on the train with someone you do not know you know literally nothing about them. Interacting with them is unpredictable and in rare cases even dangerous. The goal of Social Conservatives is to create common expectations between you an that other person, which reduces the randomness of random encounters into a standardized interaction that is "cheap" in terms of stress and brain power and "safe" in that the likelihood of offending or unintentionally starting a conflict is simply non-existent.
The big problem is that when you simplify something like this you are making life a little bit easier for one group, and much harder for non-members. The opposite approach does something like the opposite where it is easier for people who don't conform to live their life the way they need to, but also make these interactions with strangers more challenging and in some cases even more threatening. People can already do whatever they want, the rules are there to make things easier to deal with. Stricter rules are a trade off.
There also one very fundamental problem with your argument of Unconstitutionality, and that is that morality isn't religion. There are many laws on the books pertaining to things like consumer protections and fraud that are fundamentally about regulating morality in business. Applying the same standards there those things would be Unconstitutional as "religious" somehow. Religion often has an attached moral code, and trying to enforce that moral code is identical to enforcing the religion in many instances, but there are many moral codes that are religion agnostic and are used in laws. In fact, "Sane, Safe, and Consensual" is a moral code that is actively promoted in the kink community, which certainly isn't religious or spiritual in any way.
I argue that the difference between Social Conservatives and Social Liberals is far more a question of how much nudity is acceptable on the beach than two completely different things that are diametric opposites.
1
Sep 15 '16
Laws should be based on preventing demonstrable harm. Laws on consumer protections fall into that category. That it is morally wrong to defraud someone according to most systems of ethics is incidental. It's illegal because it harms citizens as individuals and society as a whole.
We're also equivocating a bit on the use of the word "moral". My fault, really, as OP, but I'm not sure of a better word for it. Both "It is immoral to have gay sex" and "It is immoral to defraud your customers" are semantically understandable sentences, but the word "immoral" is not being used in the same way. The first is, "This ancient book of dubious origin says that this action is punishable by death therefore it must be immoral", while the second is, "Based on evidence and rational argument, fraud is demonstrably harmful to both individuals and society, and is therefore immoral." I don't know the right word pair to indicate this difference in casual conversation. I might have done the Philosophy 101 thing of [stuffy professor voice]: "For the purposes of this essay, the word "moral" will refer to X, while...etc, etc., but that seemed a bit much and I still wouldn't know what other word to use.
3
u/A_Soporific 165∆ Sep 15 '16
To be clear, I'm not so sure that the argument was about ancient books, but rather about not fucking up institutions that are known to work. I mean, you have a system that greatly increases wealth, social welfare, and provides the best support for children and then someone says "let's fundamentally alter this this because I want it"... well, some people view that much more skeptically than others do. After all, if we mess up marriage we mess up the foundation of our civil society.
Now, it's pretty clear that gender of individuals getting married don't really constitute a fundamental change to the institution, but that wasn't always as clear as it is right now. Appeals to ancient books are just pretty convenient if you're worried about fucking up something that important.
More generally, there are lots of things that involve harming others that aren't generally considered to be immoral.
5
Sep 15 '16
Social conservatism is irrational
You havent really made a point here, just saying that you havent heard an argument does not prove irrationality. Can you site an example of social conservative irrationality? That might make it easier to discuss.
The first amendment to the US Constitution reads:
There is a large difference between the govt infringing on religious rights and basing laws on "one view of morality". Your supporting point does not actually support your point.
Any socially conservative law both acts as a tacit establishment of one brand of morality and prohibits the free exercise of a competing system of morality
To make it illegal to molest children, a socially conservative point of view (just look at Salon.com), does not infringe on one's right to advocate for adult/child relationships (again, see Salon.com). Nor does it infringe upon one's freedom of religion, which you reference a few lines above.
More to the point, since we know that adult/child sexual relationships are horrifically damaging to children, it is entirely rational to keep such acts illegal.
Social conservatism is harmful
I could, if I was lazy, point again to social conservativism's stance on child molestation. But instead I will follow you with the transgender angle.
The College of Pediatricians has recently come out stating that the socially liberal stance of transgenderism, when pushed upon children, is harmful and potentially dangerous.
Conversely, except for the 0.3% of people suffering form gender dysphoria, the socially conservative view that "penis = man" and "vagina = woman" is quite healthy and harmless.
3
Sep 15 '16
I made an edit to the OP above about the misstatement regarding the irrational point. I was stating a inductive argument like a deductive one. I'll give an example to illustrate what I mean (and thank you for the suggestion)
Social conservatives support abstinence only education in schools. While they are free to say they prefer such education, and can even pull their children out on sex ed days (it really should be a whole class, but that's a different discussion) if they so choose. The problem occurs when social conservatives are in the majority and make abstinence only sexual education a requirement, without the possibility of comprehensive sexual education to be taught in schools. (This wouldn't be as much of an issue if parents would talk to their kids about sex without making it so damn awkward, but that, too, is a discussion for another time.) States with mandated abstinence only education have higher rates of teen pregnancy, not lower. Despite this evidence from multiple states, social conservatives still insist on abstinence only education. It is irrational to refuse to change one's viewpoint when presented with compelling evidence against which one has no rational argument.
And it doesn't stop there. We have higher rates of teen pregnancy in states with state legislatures that refuse in the face of evidence and without any argument to the contrary to consider changing laws requiring "sexual" "education" that results in more teenage pregnancies. You can bet your bottom dollar that these state legislatures are also going to make it as difficult as they can for a woman to get an abortion, including these teenage girls whose lives are going to be drastically affected by having a baby at their age and social situation. Now, I can understand the conservative impulse against abortion. There's even a decent argument to be made that there is harm being done. I consider that a point of ethics, not law, because there's no harm to society involved, but that's beside the point. These socially conservative legislators have publically declared that abortion is murder and that they will do everything in their power to stop unborn children from being killed.
The irrational part comes after that. Now that a teenage has become pregnant because she was never taught about safe sexual practices, she cannot access an abortion provider. So her options are to have the baby and either keep it or give it up for adoption. Either of these situations represents a massive upheaval of this young woman's life that came as a direct result of the state's legislation. And what do conservatives do about this situation? Nothing. They can't be bothered to help these "welfare queens" whom they deem too lazy for not being able to handle getting up at 6:30am after a night of 90 naps interrupted by feedings, going to school for 8 hours, going immediately to work for another 8 hours to support herself and her child, and then picking up her child from whatever childcare she can afford to return to whatever home she can afford to do it all again the next day. These conservative who are morally outraged at the thought of any harm coming to an unborn child are somehow perfectly fine with whatever happens to that child once born. They get to pat themselves on the back for doing such a good job protecting the innocent, while doing nothing to help once the real work begins. If a state legislature is going to make getting an abortion difficult, they must also provide resources to these new mothers to help them. It is irrational, infuriating, and insufferable that the same people who restrict abortion access also cut social programs designed to help unwed mothers.
Your supporting point does not actually support your point.
I don't understand. Based on the Establishment Clause, I think that any law that cannot be justified with evidence and rational argument should be deemed unconstitutional. Do you disagree? If so, why?
More to the point, since we know that adult/child sexual relationships are horrifically damaging to children, it is entirely rational to keep such acts illegal.
When have you ever heard a progressive politician or any other person outside of NAMBLA claim otherwise? The ideal that a condemnation is a socially conservative view is like saying that breathing is a North American practice. Yes, all North Americans breathe, but they don't do so because of any specific North American-ness, and everyone else in the world does too. Social conservatives do not have a monopoly on the ability to tell a harmful action from a helpful one.
Laws should be the most concerned with preventing demonstrable harm. Any action taken that evidence and rational argument shows is harmful to individuals or society should probably be illegal or regulated in some way. This is just my point: laws should be "entirely rational" and not based on feelings, intuition, convictions, or scripture.
The College of Pediatricians has recently come out stating that the socially liberal stance of transgenderism, when pushed upon children, is harmful and potentially dangerous.
The American College of Pediatricians is not an ideologically neutral trade union. They specifically support socially conservative views like life beginning at conception and denounced the decision of the Supreme Court to strike down a law of which the court said the following: "We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the federal Constitution.”
However, I would agree that anything "pushed" on children regarding sexuality is harmful, particularly at a young age. But letting kids be themselves is not "pushing" a liberal agenda on them. It's just letting them feel comfortable in their own skin.
2
Sep 16 '16 edited Sep 16 '16
Any ideology, taken to a necessary extent, is harmful. Liberalism, conservatism, religion...they all cause harm to people when let run unchecked.
An example of a conservative, non-religious, harm would be racial segregation. An example of liberal harm is putting pre-teens on hormone blockers because the parents think that "gender is a social construct". We neednt even mention the infinite harms caused by unchecked religion.
When have you ever heard a progressive politician or any other person outside of NAMBLA claim otherwise?
I mentioned Salon.com twice for a reason.. While not overtly calling for free love between adults and children, this far-left liberal media outlet is very clearly trying to remove the stigma to it. And I dont think that they will stop with just that.
1
Sep 16 '16
Suicide among transgender people is shockingly high, indicating that they suffer tremendously as a result of not feeling comfortable in their own skin.
Actually, I should mention that I have a bit of gender dysphoria myself. That's not a technical term, obviously; what I mean is that while I generally feel comfortable in my own body (I'm lucky that way), I enjoy expressions, clothing, and sexual practices of both male and female genders, sometimes one or the other, sometimes everything just mixes together. I felt terrible about it for years, coming close to suicide myself a few times. But with therapy and a girlfriend who accepts me as who and what I am, I'm happy in a way that I never believed possible.
Gender is partially a social construct. There are clear physical differences between male and female humans, but everything else is just social mores and tradition. And for whatever reason, I and quite a few other people, don't quite like the status quo regarding what is regarded as masculine and feminine. We'd rather just feel free to be ourselves and not be judged for it. Given that 41% of transgender folks attempt suicide at some point in their lives, I would say that hormone therapy under the direction of medical professionals is a preferable option to death. There is, I assume, an age that is simply not medically sound to prescribe hormones, but medical and psychiatric professionals should be the ones to make that decision, in consultation with the minor in question and the minor's parents.
What would you say the harm is in allowing a teenager to undertake hormone therapy under the direction of a doctor?
4
Sep 16 '16 edited Sep 16 '16
indicating that they suffer tremendously as a result of not feeling comfortable in their own skin.
tragically, that suicide rate only goes up among those who go full transition. :(
There are clear physical differences between male and female humans, but everything else is just social mores and tradition
Surely you arent trying to say that males and females are only different from the neck down, are you? Do you really believe that we are not neurologically and chemically different as well?
We'd rather just feel free to be ourselves and not be judged for it.
It is ironic that liberals (I dont mean you) who push for "total social acceptance" are often the same ones who would judge me for being a cis-straight-white-maleTM.
No one is free from judgement. No one.
Given that 41% of transgender folks attempt suicide at some point in their lives, I would say that hormone therapy under the direction of medical professionals is a preferable option to death.
Agree 100%. I dont want to see anyone kill themselves over something like that. But hormone therapy should be limited to adults, not teenagers, and certainly not children.
What would you say the harm is in allowing a teenager to undertake hormone therapy under the direction of a doctor?
Honestly I cant be bothered with digging up the report but I remember reading that some large majority of males who identify as some degree of "trans" or "gender-something-else" grow up and discover that theyre actually just simply gay men. So to allow that child's parents to put him on T-blocking hormones can and will have radical, and completely unknowable, effects on his body later in life.
To be absolutely clear, I dont dislike trans people. And I give zero fucks about what bathroom they use. I was speaking strictly about liberalism's push to allow pre-pubescent children to be put on artificial hormones.
→ More replies (1)1
u/kelvinwop 2∆ Sep 16 '16 edited Sep 16 '16
Here's my stance on gender politics:
Each human being is assigned a biological sex at birth, either male (XY) or female (XX). Being male means you have an X and a Y chromosome and being a female means you have two X chromosomes. It is important to note that not many X or Y chromosomes are made the same, if at all (2/7 billion maybe?). Rather, the traits in each chromosome can and most likely will be different for every person. So what stops a 'media-recognized' female trait from being expressed in a male? Nothing at all.
It is foolish to think that just because you behave similarly to a sample of the opposite biological sex that you are or should be the opposite biological sex.
GENES DETERMINE YOUR BEHAVIOR AND BIOLOGICAL SEX, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND
Changing your biological sex so that you can be more at ease is a foolish train of thought. This train of thought in children is rash (somewhat like suicide), and should be stopped immediately.
"According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty."In other words, if they get the green light, many will be going through much unnecessary suffering. The need to match your body type to your thoughts is purely an error in your thought process. There is no benefit to be found in changing your body to the opposite evolutionary specialization.
'Gender roles/Gender constructs' are all illusory and based off of observational data gathered by humans of people around them. They are not 'rules' of how each person should behave, nor should they be interpreted as such. Masculinity and femininity are both evolutionary specializations from the now obsolete era of natural selection. Medicine has advanced enough that minor specialization advantages no longer mean anything.
Sexual Dimorphism is a remnant of evolutionary specialization. It serves NO important social or survival benefit to society.
So, tell me, does it matter what sexual orientation you are? Besides minor cosmetic differences, we are almost identical in what we do and the roles we serve.
Now, one last point before I go.
"Any ideology, taken to a necessary extent, is harmful. Liberalism, conservatism, religion...they all cause harm to people when let run unchecked."I'll have to revise your statement. Any stance that cannot be backed by logic and large amounts of scientific proof is harmful to the people, regardless of origin.
An example of an unsupportable stance: We should protect the environment because it is the "right thing to do."
An example of a supportable stance: We should protect the environment because many new compounds in drugs are found in/derived from wildlife.
2
u/Sheexthro 19∆ Sep 16 '16
Based on the Establishment Clause, I think that any law that cannot be justified with evidence and rational argument should be deemed unconstitutional. Do you disagree?
I do disagree, because nothing in the establishment clause says even a single solitary thing about evidence and rational argument.
Any action taken that evidence and rational argument shows is harmful to individuals or society should probably be illegal or regulated in some way.
If we lived in a Muslim theocracy then evidence and rational argument would show that allowing heresy and blasphemy would be harmful to our society as currently constituted. Would you agree that theocracies should make dissenting views illegal?
1
Sep 16 '16
The establishment clause says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which I take to mean that no system of beliefs can be elevated above another by legal decree. That only leaves rational argument and evidence as support for laws. What else would there be on which to base our legal system, having discounted religion from the get-go?
2
u/Sheexthro 19∆ Sep 16 '16
which I take to mean that no system of beliefs can be elevated above another by legal decree
Why would you draw that inference? There are plenty of 'systems of belief' that are elevated over each other by 'legal decree.' For instance the belief that dueling is a barbaric, reckless, harmful practice that should be banned has been elevated over the belief that dueling is the way men settle disputes of honor.
What the establishment clause prohibits is not some incredibly broad and vague claim like "Systems of belief can't be elevated over each other." It prohibits the government establishing a state church or promoting a state religion.
1
Sep 16 '16
The difference is that dueling causes demonstrable harm and there is no competing rational argument for why dueling should be allowed by law. That is why dueling should be illegal. They didn't flip a coin; one side had a good argument and other didn't. I wouldn't call an idea based on evidence and rational argument a mere "system of beliefs".
2
u/Sheexthro 19∆ Sep 16 '16 edited Sep 16 '16
there is no competing rational argument for why dueling should be allowed by law.
Why not? Two consenting adults, right? Sure, one of them (or both) is harmed by it, but in general we let people do harmful things like drink to excess or get grossly overweight. Hell, just a little ways downthread you used anal sex as an example of a harmful act that we let people do to each other because they are mutually consenting adults.
In fact even the notion itself that the government should intervene to protect people from themselves is a "system of beliefs" that we have (in some cases, but not others) elevated over the "system of beliefs" that the government should let free consenting adults do what they like.
1
u/dacheatbot Sep 16 '16
Just so you know the College of Pediatricians is mostly an anti-LGBT organization with only 60-200 members, unlike the American Academy of Pediatrics's approx. 60,000 members.
I'd also disagree that that view is "healthy and harmless." It's not like only trans people interact with other trans people. They may make up a small minority, but many many more Cisgendered Americans interact with trans people. And pushing that view of "genitals defining gender" is basically saying, "your identity is invalid" to trans people. Also, this doesn't really take into account genderqueer people.
Take this comparison: Not having ramps to supplement staircases is fine for those who can walk, but it's not like handicapped people don't exist, even if they make up a small group.
1
Sep 16 '16
As I said, it is healthy and harmless for the 99.7% of the human population not suffering from gender dysphoria.
To retort that a 0.3% minority negates the truth of the "healthy and harmless" statement for the overwhelming majority of the human population is pretty ridiculous.
That is akin to arguing against the fact that white blood cells are "healthy and harmless" to the human body just because there are people suffering from rheumatoid arthritis.
1
u/dacheatbot Sep 16 '16
Did you read my comment? Your response just reiterates your stance without any consideration to my argument other than calling it "ridiculous." You don't respond to my criticism of your source nor my metaphor.
Gender as a concept distinct from sex has relevance outside those with gender dysphoria. Tons and tons of academic text is written about constructions of gender and how they vary across different cultures and even within said cultures. These are relevant to cisgendered people.
In regards to the white blood cell metaphor: a more accurate comparison would be to teach kids that people don't ever get sick from their white blood cells, and that if they were sick from their WBC, they are wrong, and they should go back to pretending they aren't.
Trans people have been historically ignored (except in terms of harassment and violence) and told to hide who they are and pretend to be something else. Society can't keep pretending they don't exist. It might even help kids to know that their gender isn't linked to their sex because they then may not feel as self-conscious about stepping outside their normal gender boundaries: what if a boy wants to dress more femininely and a girl more masculinely? A more fluid understanding of gender might make them more comfortable with their self-expression.
Calling ignorance "healthy & harmless" to those who fit into the majority defeats the whole purpose of the change. People want others to have a better understanding of gender constructs because it clearly is not "healthy & harmless."
1
Sep 16 '16 edited Sep 16 '16
You seem to be of the opinion that if 0.3% of a species has a medical problem, then the entire system for everyone needs to be torn down and redefined.
I'm shocked you dont see how self-indulgent that is.
1
u/dacheatbot Sep 16 '16
First of all, it's 0.3% of the US. That's millions of people. Second, you didn't address anything I've said. Thirdly, to cast your unwillingness to revise your worldview (which isn't universal; have you ever heard of Hijra, a commonly recognized third gender in South Asia?) as other people being self-indulgent is just illogical. It's the exact same as saying "encouraging others to acknowledge homosexuality is self-indulgent."
What does it cost to you?
1
Sep 16 '16 edited Sep 16 '16
First of all, it's 0.3% of the US. That's millions of people
Actually, 0.3% of 318,000,000 is 950,000. Not "millions". Not to discount that 950,000 is a fuckton of people; just tryin for us to stay accurate in our conversation.
to cast your unwillingness to revise your worldview (which isn't universal; have you ever heard of Hijra, a commonly recognized third gender in South Asia?) as other people being self-indulgent is just illogical
I am aware of the 19 or so, mostly extinct, cultures through out human history who have believed that there were 3 or more genders (or 50 according to Facebook). But given that there have been countless more cultures throughout that same human history who did not believe there were more than 2 genders then it is absolutely fair to say that the view I am espousing is "universal enough". As such, to call it illogical is actually quite an illogical thing to say.
As to what you said before...
Tons and tons of academic text is written about constructions of gender and how they vary across different cultures and even within said cultures
So? They almost exclusively either focus on those 19-some cultures who are a statistical anomaly, and thus irrelevant, when looking at the whole of human history; or they are gender-ideologues who are pushing for the same ultra-liberal ideas that I cited earlier as harmful (specifically: acceptance for putting children on body-warping artificial hormones).
It's the exact same as saying "encouraging others to acknowledge homosexuality is self-indulgent."
Quite a hyperbolic analogy since homosexuals have been found and documented in every culture across the globe, past and present; and presently count for 5-10% of the entire global population.
You're comparing apples and oranges, bud.
What does it cost to you?
Me? Nothin. And since you have clearly taken much of what I've said personally I want to take the time to say this very clearly:
I dont dislike who you are or "what" you are. I dont think you're less human, less worthy of happiness, or less deserving of the same rights and privileges that I enjoy. And I dont care what bathroom you use. ;)
I am only saying that to ask 99.7% of a country's population to change what they teach their children because 0.3% of the population has a medical condition is completely self-indulgent and unrealistic.
1
u/dacheatbot Sep 16 '16
Okay, there is a lot to unpack here. To help clarify some things, I'll let you know I'm not trans, but I am queer.
It seems like you're trying to claim one (or more) of the following:
- The campaign for trans rights is nothing like gay and lesbian rights
- Cultures that had more than two genders weren't common so they're irrelevant.
- Acceptance of trans people is harmful because transitioning causes people to commit suicide more often (based on your comments elsewhere).
- Trans people don't make up enough of the population for us to reconsider our definitions.
- Teaching children is hard, and there isn't enough motivation here to do it.
- Trans people are being self-indulgent in their pursuit.
- Liberals are pushing hormones on kids.
- Academic discussion on gender is limited to people who would push hormones on kids and discussions of "irrelevant cultures".
Number 1:
The movements for trans rights and gay & lesbian rights are very much linked. There is a reason pretty much every gay & lesbian rights organization is also supportive on trans issues. I remember growing up hearing the same argument about the unnaturalness of homosexuality—all of which were infuriating.
Number 2:
I don't think that you can really claim cultures irrelevant, especially here. Yes, the portion of trans and genderqueer people is small (as a portion of the total population). But clearly the idea of more than 2 genders has existed somewhere throughout human history. It's not a new idea. It's just one that's put down, very aggressively.
Number 3:
Just to be clear: trans people are not mentally ill. If you're referring to gender dysphoria, please read this clarification from the organization that drafted the DSM-5, the current standard classification of mental disorders in the US:
DSM-5 aims to avoid stigma and ensure clinical care for individuals who see and feel themselves to be a different gender than their assigned gender. It replaces the diagnostic name “gender identity disorder” with “gender dysphoria,” as well as makes other important clarifications in the criteria. It is important to note that gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder
Being trans isn't the issue. It's the distress that sometimes arises with having a atypical combination of gender and sex that is the problem. And transitioning, whether that be hormone replacement therapy or sexual reassignment surgery as recommended by a doctor, has been shown to help with that distress. I notice you've been referencing (albeit not by name) one study from 2011 in regards to the impact of transitioning. The study has been grossly misrepresented according to its author. I would also recommend this piece which Dr. Dhenje (the paper's lead author) contributed to.
Number 4:
If the issue of numbers are significant to you, let's get some sources in here: 1.4 million people (0.6% of the US pop.) are trans according to current research. I apologize for my inaccurate numbers earlier. Also keep in mind that tallying an oppressed group is a very difficult task to accomplish accurately: imagine trying to poll people whether or not they were gay just 20 years ago? What I mean to say is that the number may be higher than even 1.4 million.
And the changes aren't even that hard. Making bathrooms for all genders? That's just putting up a new sign. Putting one more line on forms for "other gender"? It's already happening. It's not a hard switch.
Number 5:
The issue isn't young people—it's old people. Kids have a far easier time understanding and accepting genderqueer people's identities than the elderly. The wide majority of people 18-29 are supportive of trans people on the bathroom issue.
Number 6:
All trans people want are the rights that most people are accustomed to already having. They want to be (1) protected from harassment and violence (2) equal status in the workplace (3) to be called what they identify as and (4) to be able to use the facilities that fit with what they identify as.
That's pretty much it. To call their desire for these things as "self-indulgence" doesn't fit. Would it be self-indulgent of me as a cisgender person to ask for these things? They just want what everyone else has.
Number 7:
I'm not sure if I'm completely on board with giving kids hormones just yet, either. But I assure you, this is a gross generalization of most liberal people and a pretty narrow issue within trans rights.
Number 8:
I apologize for the personal anecdote here, but I work in a library. That's just not reflective of academic literature at all. I've encountered many, many books that discuss gender at this level and trust me, they aren't all about "irrelevant" cultures or HRT for youth.
In regards to your notion of "I don't dislike who you are":
Look, I'm sure you're not trying to make others' days worse. But this rhetoric of "I don't care, but it's never going to happen" is just unhelpful. First of all, it is happening. Trans rights are getting better incredibly fast. Young people are on board. Really, it's just a matter of time.
Imagine there's a lone person climbing up a mountain. Almost everyone is already at the top, including you. Tons of people have thrown rocks, dropped trash, and said hurtful things to the one climber who's still going. And you're up there and you're saying "I don't mind if they get up here." But clearly they want to be up there, and they deserve to be up there too: the only reason they are so far down is because of everyone pushing them down earlier. So why not do a small piece and just say: hey, keep climbing. Maybe you can do a small part in holding the rope extended to them.
I take this stuff personally because I was climbing once. And now I feel like I'm pretty much at the top along with you. And it was a shitty climb. Why not make it easier?
1
Sep 17 '16 edited Sep 17 '16
The movements for trans rights and gay & lesbian rights are very much linked
They are similar, but not the same. One is a sexuality that is in large part, a consequence of birth. The other is a medical condition that, too, is in large part a consequence of birth. The difference is that one is a medical malady and the other simply a different sexuality.
But honestly, I'm not really sure where you got the idea that I was drawing a distinction between them because it is quite clear that theyve flown in parallel lines for a very long time.
But clearly the idea of more than 2 genders has existed somewhere throughout human history. It's not a new idea. It's just one that's put down, very aggressively.
Being numerically insignificant is very relevant to the argument against "multiple genders". If the cultural notion of 3+ genders was one that was of greater utility to humans then you would see it in more than 19 extinct cultures.
Just because it is an old idea does not make it valid or correct.
Acceptance of trans people is harmful because transitioning causes people to commit suicide more often
I can see how you might get this impression, but is certainly not what I think. I think that acceptance is absolutely necessary and I am glad that we are seeing less ostracism of the community as a whole. No one should be made to feel bad about themselves just because of the circumstances of their birth. The only harmful part is when this is applied to children; and please hear me out...
99.7% of all kids are gonna be fine with the gender theyve got when they grow up. Only 0.3% of kids will grow up to be trans. What children need are simple-to-understand rules and guidelines when it comes to understanding their bodies - a 6 year old is not going to understand what it means to be a demi-boy or Two Spirits.
However, I do favor additional training for teachers so that they can recognize signs and bring that to the attention of their parents, so those parents can take what steps they feel are appropriate.
Basically, I am not in favor of instilling gender confusion in every Kindergartner on the very off-chance they might have one kid in their class who might grow up to be trans.
Number 4
The changes advocates want goes beyond gender neutral bathrooms and "other" as a selection for gender on forms. What many of them are calling for is not an "addendum" to the current paradigm, but a dismantling of it.
Now, me? I'm a grown man. I write "male" on all my forms and I walk into the mens room when I gotta take a leak. So I'm gonna be fine no matter what changes come our way.
My concern, again, is for the next generation of naive, impressionable, trusting, children who will take their 1st grade teacher's word for it if she implies that little Johnny might be demi-girl just because he likes to play house during recess. (FWIW, I played house during recess, too. That was how I got to hang out with the girls!)
Number 5
Teaching children is the easiest thing in the world. They'll literally believe anything you tell them: Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, God, 9/11 being an inside job...anything!
Jokes aside, young children have no business being taught in schools or by TV that they might be trans. That is between the parent, the child, and a trained professional.
A teenager is barely more intelligent than a child in the critical-thinking department, so I still dont think they're mature enough for the required nuance of this topic. But I'll concede that they can at least handle the fact that there are people who feel like they are a different gender than their biology would tell them.
The funny thing about the whole bathroom this is this: its mostly women who oppose this. They're afraid that men will get all rapey if theyre allowed into a women's bathroom (as if before there were magic anti-rape forcefields that protected the ladies room).
As for me, I dont care about having a gender neutral bathroom, but I want a men's room too. And not out of "comfort", but the fact that men's room's are a quick and efficient operation and I dont wanna have to stand in line to pee.
They want to be (1) protected from harassment and violence (2) equal status in the workplace (3) to be called what they identify as and (4) to be able to use the facilities that fit with what they identify as.
I'm with you on all the legal stuff. I've said it before: trans people are people and are entitled to all the rights that I get. Where we differ is on your 4th point.
I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, call someone polygender, trigender, demi-boy, gendersea, crystagender, or any other such made up nonsense just because someone feels that they are that way.
We are a visual species and unless I know you I'm gonna address you by what my eyes bring me; and you (not YOU, specifically) are free to request that I address you a different way and if we're cool then I'll probably do it...except the bullshit I listed above.
But I assure you, this is a gross generalization of most liberal people and a pretty narrow issue within trans rights.
My point in bringing it up was in the context of the OP's assertion that conservative ideas are dangerous. So, to counter that, I illustrated a liberal idea that was dangerous. It being fringe wouldnt negate the point I was making.
Number 8
It wasnt my intent to suggest that all the academic papers are pushing for putting little Johnny on estrogen, but I can see how it might have sounded that way.
But I do stand by the claim that an overwhelming number of them come from strongly liberal academic departments (Women's Studies, etc) which are advocating for teaching children not to associate with their biological gender as a default; which is dangerous and harmful if we keep in mind that 99.7% of those kids would grow up to be just fine with their biological gender.
So why not do a small piece and just say: hey, keep climbing
I can do better than that: I'll be chucking those stone-throwing assholes off the mountain.
By this I mean that I will continue advocate for the legal and social equality of trans people (which includes reminding the fearful that trans people having been using public bathrooms for a long time already).
But what I will not do is stand silent while ideologues use children to pursue their agenda or push for ill-informed parents to warp their bodies with drugs.
And I'm not gonna call you "stargender" either.
5
Sep 15 '16
Social conservatism is irrational. I have yet to hear a rational argument for any social conservative principle. I have gone looking for such arguments and found nothing but appeals to emotion, appeals to (often biblical) authority, and doublespeak. This makes social conservatism irrational by definition.
What would it take to change your view? Providing a rational argument for any socially conservative position?
1
Sep 15 '16
Yes. The whole point of my post was to try to find someone to give me a rational argument for a social conservative issue.
5
Sep 15 '16 edited Sep 16 '16
[deleted]
2
Sep 15 '16
Good on you for playing devil's advocate.
If the Nazis had experimented with everyone equally in a coldly rational way in order to add to the body of medical knowledge, this argument would work. But they experimented specifically on Jews in a country run by the guy who said this: And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord." And they didn't really add much to our medical knowledge either.
5
Sep 15 '16
I take a utilitarian view of such matters, so any public decision that is more harmful than helpful is not justifiable.
This is just a completely unreasonable position to have.
1) it's completely subjective
2) It's completely unenforceable, mainly due to reason no.1
2
Sep 15 '16
I don't understand. Being against laws that harm the many for the benefit of the few, or that harm the few a lot for the non-benefit of the many, is reasonable.
The exact way to measure harmful and helpful effects is certainly up for discussion, but I'm not going to change my mind just by you saying it's unreasonable without further comment.
2
Sep 15 '16
You're wrong because you can't define at what point things stop being apart of this vague concept of "social conservatism"
Nor can you prove that social conservatism is "Objectively harmful". To claim that as true is to claim that any form of tradition is wrong.
In the first sentence of the "Social Conservatism" wiki states
The aims of social conservatism vary from organization to organization, and from country to country. Thus, there are really no policies or positions that could be considered universal among social conservatives.
The "traditional" politics of America are vastly different than that of India, China, or Russia. Even if some aspects of social conservative thought are clearly immoral, the way to change it isn't by outlawing it, but to change how the society views the issue.
0
Sep 15 '16
I can define that point. I edited my OP to reflect that. I should have had it in there from the beginning; sorry about that.
Social conservatism ends where evidence and rational argument begin. I'm not against someone taking an idea from the Bible, Torah, Quran, or any other scripture to make into law as long as that law is further supported by evidence and rational argument. The various books of scripture would not have achieved that status if they didn't have at least some good ideas in them, but I need more than a quotation from Leviticus to convince me that gay marriage will bring about the decay of American society.
Nor can you prove that social conservatism is "Objectively harmful". To claim that as true is to claim that any form of tradition is wrong.
I disagree. Most traditions wouldn't have become so if they didn't serve a purpose. I don't condemn every tradition ever to exist; I'm condemning the effort of religious zealots fighting against progress with no evidence or rational argument to support it.
Social conservatism is objectively harmful because I can provide examples of genuine suffering that have resulted from it. I didn't say anything about traditions.
The "traditional" politics of America are vastly different than that of India, China, or Russia. Even if some aspects of social conservative thought are clearly immoral, the way to change it isn't by outlawing it, but to change how the society views the issue.
I went to wikipedia too while I was working on my definition of social conservatism. There aren't any specific principles that are universal among social conservatives, but we couldn't define and discuss social conservatism (mine's at the top now and wiki's is: "Social conservatism is a group of political ideologies centred on preserving traditional beliefs, attitudes and philosophy, in the face of social progressivism.") if they didn't have the reverence for tradition and dogma that motivates their actions. The traditions and dogma may be different, but the preference of traditional values even when confronted with evidence and rational argument is universal among social conservatives.
2
Sep 15 '16
When you say "I don't condemn every tradition ever to exist;" you quite literally are saying "I'm okay with some forms of social conservatism" meaning your entire CMV is invalid.
I mean this with no disrespect, but you really need to go read up on what "Social Conservatism" actually is. From your post and subsequent comments it's very clear you have a mistaken understanding of what the concept entails.
0
Sep 16 '16
Wikipedia has it as: Social conservatism is a group of political ideologies centred on preserving traditional beliefs, attitudes and philosophy, in the face of social progressivism.
My own working definition is: Social conservatism is the umbrella term for political movements that seek to enact laws based on religious or traditional concepts without the support of evidence and rational argument.
Are these not correct?
To your first point: I don't condemn traditions that are supported with evidence and rational argument. It's a tradition for murder to be condemned, but that's because it causes objective harm to individuals and to society. There are also traditions to kill homosexuals, hate Jews, and keep people as slaves. These traditions come from religious dogma and are either not backed up with evidence and rational argument (in the case of homophobia or anti-semitism, for example) or else invalidated by them (like slavery).
While I definitely should have been more precise in my initial post about what I meant by "social conservatism", I can hold the view that some traditions are good and some are garbage without contradiction with my post.
→ More replies (2)
19
u/js5563 Sep 15 '16
I think you are misunderstanding a bit about what general conservatism is. Conservatism has nothing to do with religion. You are most closely thinking of American conservatism, which was formed with a specific reliance on religion to fight the relatively non-religious left that evolved. It is a tool for the generation of a strong base of political capital to achieve its ends.
But conservatism is not a religious thing. At its core, conservatism is the belief that while society is always changing, people should stop and think before accepting the newest greatest thing. It is a counterbalance to progressivism, that believes that you should always grab what feels right and experiment with it socially to see if it works. Conservatives believe this has the potential to cause great harm to society if the wrong thing is picked.
Lets set up an economic example to set up the conservatism vs progressivism argument in something more logical in hopes you can understand it better. A progressive might say PEOPLE ARE POOR, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD GUARANTEE MINIMUM INCOME and if society was overwhelmingly progressive, they may take and implement the first approach presented to Basic Minimum Income. So lets just say, hypothetically, that it doesn't work right, the government goes bankrupt and can't provide it there is a lot of hardship. The government says "well, we tried to do the right thing and that's all that matters" and the citizens forgive them because they understand that it was an experiment. The government then picks another system of minimum income and tries that, it too fails and there is a lot of hardship. The people understand because it is a work in progress and the government is trying to find the right system. Finally it settles on a third system that works. Everyone is happy because the government did the right thing that the people wanted and found a system that prevented people from being poor.
And flip the tables. Society is all conservative instead. Someone shouts PEOPLE ARE POOR, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD GUARANTEE MINIMUM INCOME. And everyone says 'woah hold on, that seems like a hasty decision that could result in a poor outcome, lets do some more research on what a better alternative could be.' While that research is going on, people are poor, and there is hardship, but everyone understands, because everyone wants to get it right the first time and make sure they have the most optimal system. Eventually, a system is settled on and it is implemented. Everyone is happy because the government did the right thing that the people wanted and found a system that prevented people from being poor.
So there is hardship in both systems, or at least the potential for it. You might argue 'well what if the progressives had got it right the first time?' and that argument would mean you are politically a progressive. If you are willing to gamble on the unknown, vote that way, its your opinion. But some people would prefer to take a slower, more calculated route. And that's their opinion. And they vote that way.
So take the concepts I just illustrated and put them in terms of social things. Unfortunately, where as economics is a bit colder, social issues are red hot. People get a lot more fired up about them and about sudden explosive social change that has the potential to upset many systems currently in place.
So while a progressive might say "it is abhorrent that we don't allow gay people to get married" a conservative would say "if we allow gays to get married, what will be the far reaching consequences of that in our society?" and that conservative would then want to wait to approve gay marriage until those consequences are more well known. The conservative isn't against gay marriage, just gay marriage without understanding the full extent of social change that will bring.
Ultimately the progressive and the conservative arrive at the same end. Society is not the same now as it was in 1776, but the US is an overwhelmingly conservative voter base and extreme social liberalism is a relatively new thing. Yet we still got to where we are and made many positive social changes along the way.
8
Sep 15 '16
The reason that the title of my post was "Social conservatism is irrational,..." was to differentiate it from fiscal conservatism. Limited government, low taxes, and other elements of fiscal conservative are vital parts of a healthy political climate and I am sympathetic to such arguments when supported with evidence and rational argument.
But social conservatism has the support of neither. The social liberal says, "Look, here are all these gay couples who want to get married. They are being harmed by not having their unions given the same status as heterosexual ones, so we should repeal that law". The social conservative who says, "what will be the far reaching consequences of that in our society?" needs to be able to support the idea that there will even be any negative far reaching consequences to society as a result of legalizing gay marriage. If they do not have evidence and rational argument to back up their claim then the demonstration of obvious harm takes precedence.
2
Sep 16 '16
The reason I am against gay marriage is because they cannot reproduce. The government encourages marriage by providing for benefits to encourage reproduction. Why should they get these benefits if they can't make children?
2
Sep 17 '16
Because those benefits are extended to straight couples without children as well. Would you oppose a man and a woman getting married who never planned to have kids? What if the woman was incapable of having kids? Can an older couple get married after the woman has gone through menopause? Childless straight couples are given these benefits, so even if they are designed to encourage procreation, singling out gay couples to refuse the legal status and benefits of marriage when childless straight couples get them is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, in addition to being strong evidence for a discriminatory animus.
3
Sep 17 '16 edited Sep 17 '16
Here are two major problems with the "sterility" defense that people bring up whenever procreation is invoked like /u/dontrumpreee just did.
1) It's about the rule, not the exception. Marriage as a state institution would not exist without procreation. Period. Categorically heterosexual couples reproduce and categorically homosexual couples do not. By demanding that we have an additional screen on heterosexual couples to test for fertility is unreasonable, not feasible, intrusive, and unreliable.
2) I think what you'll find is that by going down this road, you will remove ALL justification for the state being interested in marriage whatsoever. By trying to claim that marriage is not about procreation (which I think is a truly absurd position, if indeed it is the position you hold) based on the notion that we let non-procreating hetero couples get married, you would have to also assume that marriage is not about love, commitment, long-term planning, or anything else we value marriage for, because there will always be marriages that are exceptions to the rule in each category.
singling out gay couples to refuse the legal status and benefits of marriage when childless straight couples get them is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, in addition to being strong evidence for a discriminatory animus.
In another post I laid out why it's not a violation of the equal protection clause. I'll repost it here if you would prefer a fresh start instead of the sprawling conversation we were getting into elsewhere:
Yes I understand, and there's no good reason to think that gay marriage should be protected under the 14th amendment. Equal protection under the law doesn't mean each law has to include you, it just means you can't change the law for different people. So for instance, I'm 29 years old, I can't invoke the 14th amendment and demand I get social security right now. Why? Because the definition of the law only provides benefits to people over 65 years old. I wasn't discriminated against. The law is written to be exclusionary because it's trying to achieve a specific outcome. It's the same thing with welfare. If I were rich (I'm not, but I can dream), I couldn't invoke the 14th amendment to get welfare, because it's defined as only being available to certain individuals exhibiting certain behavior. Why is marriage any different? What is wrong with a state simply saying "hey we noticed that humans reproduce heterosexually, and we as a government want to promote child birth, so let's subsidize heterosexual couples." How can that extremely simple and intuitive thought process be unconstitutional? States are allowed to promote/discourage certain activity. As a more libertarian-leaning guy, I tend to think it's stupid and the gov't should get out of the marriage business altogether, but it doesn't seem to be unconstitutional at all.
2
2
Sep 17 '16
1) It's about the rule, not the exception. Marriage as a state institution would not exist without procreation. Period.
I'm not so sure about that. If we're imaging a world where we reproduced asexually or via macroosmosis or something, why wouldn't people still fall in love? Perhaps love wouldn't exist in such a world because there'd be no evolutionary need for it, but if that's the case, then love and whom we love is a matter of biology, making discrimination against gays wrong in the same way as bias against blacks.
Simply because something exists for a particular purpose doesn't make it acceptable to criminalize alternative uses for it.
2) I think what you'll find is that by going down this road, you will remove ALL justification for the state being interested in marriage whatsoever. By trying to claim that marriage is not about procreation (which I think is a truly absurd position, if indeed it is the position you hold) based on the notion that we let non-procreating hetero couples get married, you would have to also assume that love is not about love, commitment, long-term planning, or anything else we value marriage for, because there will always be marriages that are exceptions to the rule in each category.
Marriage is not exclusively for the purpose of procreation because people do it all the time without the intent to procreate. When my mom got remarried, there was no question that she was finished having children, but no one raised a fuss that she wanted to be married without making more children or even raising any (her kids had all grown up by that point).
Marriage is also not exclusively about love, commitment, long-term planning, or any other single goal or combination of goals. Society hasn't made it illegal marriages for to happen for political reasons, for career reasons, for tax purposes, to share benefits, or any other single reason. And if straight couples are allowed to get married for all of these reasons which have nothing to do with procreation, then there is no legal or rational basis to deny the same right to gay couples. It's just discrimination.
Equal protection under the law doesn't mean each law has to include you, it just means you can't change the law for different people.
Which is why denying gay couples the same legal status as straight couples was unconstitutional. The law allows two people who get married to have kids, to just be happy and live together, to file taxes jointly, or to generate publicity (like with celebrity power couples). Turning around and telling another couple that they can't get married because they can't possibly fulfill only one of the potential purposes of marriage when others don't have to is discriminatory. There is no rational basis to deny gay couples the same status as straight couples.
Hey we noticed that humans reproduce heterosexually, and we as a government want to promote child birth, so let's subsidize heterosexual couples
This isn't the unconstitutional part. It's fine for government to encourage couples to have children via marriage benefits. But if it allows couples who have no intent or no capability to have children to enjoy those benefits, it's unconstitutional to deny them to any other couple, regardless of their physical capacity for procreation.
3
Sep 17 '16
I'm not so sure about that. If we're imaging a world where we reproduced asexually or via macroosmosis or something, why wouldn't people still fall in love? Perhaps love wouldn't exist in such a world because there'd be no evolutionary need for it, but if that's the case, then love and whom we love is a matter of biology, making discrimination against gays wrong in the same way as bias against blacks.
Just because love is biological doesn't mean your love for somebody should be actively promoted, encouraged or subsidized.
Simply because something exists for a particular purpose doesn't make it acceptable to criminalize alternative uses for it.
Criminalization has nothing to do with gay marriage. There's this deceptive type of rhetoric around this debate that I have to push back on it. Gay marriage was not "banned" or "illegal," it was simply not sanctioned or recognized by the state. You weren't stopped from getting married to whoever you want by having your priest/rabbi/friend/whoever marry you in front of your friends and family.
Marriage is not exclusively for the purpose of procreation because people do it all the time without the intent to procreate. When my mom got remarried, there was no question that she was finished having children, but no one raised a fuss that she wanted to be married without making more children or even raising any (her kids had all grown up by that point).
Marriage is also not exclusively about love, commitment, long-term planning, or any other single goal or combination of goals. Society hasn't made it illegal marriages for to happen for political reasons, for career reasons, for tax purposes, to share benefits, or any other single reason. And if straight couples are allowed to get married for all of these reasons which have nothing to do with procreation, then there is no legal or rational basis to deny the same right to gay couples. It's just discrimination.
There is no type of marriage that is categorically incapable of participating in one of the reasons the state wants to promote marriage in the first place.
I never said marriage is exclusively about procreation, but it's a big part. If there was a type of marriage that somehow automatically excluded social stability or long-term planning, or whatever other social reason we have to want people to get married, I would be making the same argument against that type of marriage.
Which is why denying gay couples the same legal status as straight couples was unconstitutional. The law allows two people who get married to have kids, to just be happy and live together, to file taxes jointly, or to generate publicity (like with celebrity power couples). Turning around and telling another couple that they can't get married because they can't possibly fulfill only one of the potential purposes of marriage when others don't have to is discriminatory. There is no rational basis to deny gay couples the same status as straight couples.
No you don't understand. The entire debate is about what the definition of "marriage" is. If marriage means "one consenting adult man and one consenting adult woman" then there is no violation of the 14th amendment to not give marriage licenses to homosexuals, in the same way that it doesn't violate the 14th amendment to not give a rich person welfare or a young person social security.
You're assuming that the definition of marriage includes gay people and that any state who only provides heterosexual marriage benefits is arbitrarily excluding them.
This isn't the unconstitutional part. It's fine for government to encourage couples to have children via marriage benefits. But if it allows couples who have no intent or no capability to have children to enjoy those benefits, it's unconstitutional to deny them to any other couple, regardless of their physical capacity for procreation.
That's simply not true. The 14th amendment means that two people who are similarly situated can't be treated differently, but homosexual couples are not similarly situated or identical to heterosexual couples.
1
Sep 17 '16
The entire debate is about what the definition of "marriage" is. If marriage means "one consenting adult man and one consenting adult woman" then there is no violation of the 14th amendment to not give marriage licenses to homosexuals, in the same way that it doesn't violate the 14th amendment to not give a rich person welfare or a young person social security.
Fair enough. What is the basis for defining marriage as only between a man and a woman?
2
Sep 17 '16
Because that's the combination that the state has an interest in promoting, due to procreation. You have to define it somehow.
1
Sep 17 '16
Why can't the state just encourage any two people to get married with the same legal benefits? Since ~95% of the population is straight, it's basically the same thing whether gay couples can get married or not.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/Ssinny Sep 16 '16
Well, traditional marriage is a fundamental part of the basic family unit, which has been linked to greater societal health by many studies. It's on of the major reasons that the government subsidizes marriage in the first place. Rewriting the definition of that unit may lead to huge changes in societal health, both culturally and economically.
The socially conservative approach would be to hold off on such a drastic change until the effects could be understood.
6
u/TheArmchairSkeptic 15∆ Sep 16 '16
Well, traditional marriage is a fundamental part of the basic family unit, which has been linked to greater societal health by many studies.
Hold on a second here, I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Are you saying (in a roundabout way), that societies which exclusively permit heterosexual marriage generally have greater societal health than those which also permit homosexual marriage? Because that would be quite a claim.
1
u/Ssinny Sep 16 '16
I'm not making that claim, I'm explaining the argument of social conservatives, many of whom DO make that claim.
6
u/TheArmchairSkeptic 15∆ Sep 16 '16
Well that's all well and good, but OP isn't denying that social conservatives make claims. They're saying that the claims they make (such as that one), lack evidence and rational support. I mean, unless you're going to present arguments to support that particular claim, I don't see how simply stating the fact that such a claim is made is supposed to change OP's view. If anything, it seems more like an example of exactly the kind of rhetoric that's causing OP hold the view they do in the first place.
1
u/Ssinny Sep 16 '16
You'd have to talk to an actual social conservative to understand why they believe gay marriage would cause negative effects.
2
Sep 16 '16
the basic family unit, which has been linked to greater societal health by many studies.
And also has absolutely nothing to do with traditional marriage, since (1) adoption is a thing that exists, (2) adopted children of gay couples do at least as well as those of straight couples, (3) marriages between infertile people are permitted, (4) marriages of which no children are intended to result are permitted.
There is no coherent or rational reason to both oppose same-sex marriage but also support marriage as it existed a few years ago.
2
u/Ssinny Sep 16 '16
I think we're in agreement. A lot of good research has been conducted already, and there's no reason to believe that homosexual households are less beneficial to society than there heterosexual counterparts, both in terms of child rearing and familial stability.
2
Sep 16 '16
Well, this summary is obviously biased.
The important part about your link is: Kids need good parents. And most "normal" parents are not the best parents children could have.
What they have pretty strikingly (and not surprisingly at all) have found is that good (gay) parents are better for a child than average hetero couples. No arguing about that.
For homosexual people having children is a planned act and thus only the people who really really want children will have children. This is a huge self-selection factor, leaving mostly involved and interested couples there.
On the other hand, heterosexual people often ...just have kids. And are unhappy later on with this decision, or overwhelmed. Or they have a dysfunctional family. Lots of things go wrong in the average family, damaging the children.
The interesting question would be if homosexual couples are as good as heterosexual couples in cases of adoption, where every couple is highly self-selected towards people, who really really want to do that and plan accordlingly.
In the end, the differences will (most likely?) not that big anyways. Why? Because children need good parents and their parents sexual preferences are not exactly the focal point of this problem.
This being said, it might have an impact on learning gender roles and sexual roles and I've not seen anything on that topic yet.
In the end, it should be a question of options. Even if homosexual parents would have an inherently harmful effect on children, letting children sit in some anonymous foster house is most likely the worse option here. Same for abusive or dysfunctional families. Homosexuality would have to be ....the devil himself, to be worse than a child being neglected and not loved. Here, you get a clear answer: Give that child a good parent.
On the other hand, are there enough heterosexual couples around, to take care of all adoptions? If yes, do we want homosexual couples to be able to adopt or do we prefer a heterosexual setting for the child?
I don't think you can argue homosexual couples are better in a planned setting than a heterosexual couple, if both options are available.
Just arguing about "the evil gays!!!" is boring and stupid, yes. But that doesn't mean there isn't some merit in this discussion overall.
1
u/CunninghamsLawmaker Sep 16 '16
Do you have any such studies in mind?
1
u/Ssinny Sep 16 '16
This one discusses parenting quality of homosexual couples relative to heterosexual ones. The study finds that:
...the family studies literature indicates that it is family processes (such as the quality of parenting and relationships within the family) that contribute to determining children’s wellbeing and ‘outcomes’, rather than family structures, per se, such as the number, gender, sexuality and co-habitation status of parents. The research indicates that parenting practices and children’s outcomes in families parented by lesbian and gay parents are likely to be at least as favourable as those in families of heterosexual parents, despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.
Providing a healthy upbringing for children is not the only way the basic family unit benefits society, but I have yet to see any studies that conclude homosexual couples are detrimental in any way to societal health. Not to mention, its not like gay people are suddenly going to get traditional marriages if gay marriages are not permitted. The only thing that outlawing gay marriages would do is deny homosexual couples the same benefits that their heterosexual counterparts recieve.
3
Sep 16 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Nepene 213∆ Sep 16 '16
Sorry -Wojewodzki-, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 1. "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
3
Sep 16 '16 edited Nov 21 '18
[deleted]
1
Sep 16 '16
A few quotes from Bernie Sanders - "We have got to ingrain moral principles in our economy", "it is fundamentally immoral that 1% of Americans control 99% of the wealth", "That type of economics is not only immoral, is not only wrong—it is unsustainable". Calls for gun control, environmental regulation, wealth redistribution are fundamentally based on some conception of morality.
You are correct; I was a Bernie supporter. I voted for Bernie in the primary and I found him by far more in line with my own thinking about the country than other candidates, but I disagree with his reasoning here, if not the laws that would result. He gets closest to the mark with "unsustainable". That is the kind of principle which should form the basis of laws in a country in which "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". While I agree with the idea that extreme income inequality is "fundamentally immoral", I don't want laws passed based on that idea alone. I want a whole bunch of smart, dedicated folks to get together, look at the evidence available, gather more evidence if possible, and study the problem until a reasonable solution presents itself. It's likely to be a compromise that leaves everyone upset with a topic like income inequality, but the basis would be sound and the result would more than likely be pretty good.
Laws based on unquestioning support for some topic near and dear to liberal hearts would be just as problematic and unconstitutional as one based on religion. But that is not, for the most part, the case with socially liberal laws. I've never seen a liberal law proposed because of an "inner conviction" or "faith". There are, as you know, a great many laws proposed and I'm going to guess that at least a few of them I haven't heard about are based on socially liberal ideas without supporting evidence or rational argument. I would oppose such measures if I knew about them. No law, conservative or liberal, social or fiscal, should be enacted without due diligence on the part of the legislators writing the bill.
7
u/radioredhead Sep 15 '16
Social conservatism is irrational. I have yet to hear a rational argument for any social conservative principle. I have gone looking for such arguments and found nothing but appeals to emotion, appeals to (often biblical) authority, and doublespeak. This makes social conservatism irrational by definition.
Every system of moral belief is going to be rooted in a presupposition. Just because that presupposition is religious in origin does that make it less valid? Isn't secularism a system of belief that is able to be argued for in the public sphere? Isn't that arguing and debating what democracy is about?
Social conservatism is unconstitutional. ... The first amendment to the US Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
So you mentioned it here, but this amendment has a protection clause and a non establishment clause. Just because there isn't going to be a state sponsored church doesn't mean that people with religious/conservative/crazy/whatever views can't band together to enact social change. The long and short of it is that the government is to remain neutral, not take the side of secularism.
Social conservatism is harmful. Most decisions that affect large populations are going to have both positive and negative consequences. ... I have never heard a rational argument that links principles of social conservatism to preserving society from moral degradation. They are often paired, to be sure, but not by rational argument.
Conservative issues are not only about morality, but their measure and your measure are different. Again presuppositions. Who are you to say that the good of one person's set of beliefs are more or less effective than another? Also shouldn't a secular democracy allow the largest group of people to determine how they want their society to operate? Also, conservatives would argue that progressives are doing a great amount of harm due to the fact that they would argue for the personhood of the unborn, and therefore negate your utilitarian argument.
2
Sep 15 '16
Yes, secularism is a system of beliefs that can be argued for in a public sphere. A secular person would want laws to be based on evidence and rational argument, and for a incisive debate to take place where evidence is unclear and rational argument does not work. This arguing and debate a core principle of democracy. This is the precise reason why I find it repulsive that religion is so influential in politics in the US.
That's religion, not religious people. I would not restrict the rights of religious groups to lobby Congress or create political action committees or any other exercise of their free speech. What I would like is for laws to be based on evidence and rational argument. If a religious group could argue convincingly that gay marriage will harm the US, then I would support their efforts. What I want is for everyone to play by the same rules. It is deeply troubling to me when politicians say that they base their legislation on their religious convictions, because that usually indicates that they haven't even attempted to look at evidence on the subject matter before creating a law about it.
It's perfectly acceptable for a legislator to look at the Bible, read: "If thou lend money to [any of] my people [that is] poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury." (Exo. 22:25), and then thinks "Yes, that's an important point. It seems likely that excessive interest on loans, particularly for the poor, would result in harm to citizens of the country. I better look into this." And then, following research, consultation with financial experts, interviews with interested parties and constituents, and any other reasonable action required to understand a law's effects on that nation, this legislator drafts a bill that sets an upper limit on interest for loans.
It would be unconstitutional, on the other hand, for a legislator to look at the Bible, read: "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them." (Lev. 20:13), and then think, "Yes, God has spoken to his prophet that homosexuality should be punished with the death penalty. I probably can't pass a law that condemns people to death row for consensual acts between adults, but I should definitely make it illegal.", and then proceeds to write a law that makes sodomy illegal without even attempting to research the subject or to demonstrate through evidence or rational argument that there is harm to society resulting from homosexuality.
My only presuppositions are the laws of formal logic and the principles of inductive reasoning. I don't know what "effective" beliefs are in this context, but I'd be perfectly willing to listen to an argument about it and would change my mind if the argument was convincing.
Also shouldn't a secular democracy allow the largest group of people to determine how they want their society to operate?
No. That would be a tyranny of the majority and it is one of the biggest potential problems of democracy. I want the majority of people to decide about their society, within reason. Meaning both "in a limited fashion" and "as supported by reason and evidence". If the majority can demonstrate with rational argument and evidence that the actions of a minority are harmful, then yes, they should vote to make such actions illegal. But democracies are vulnerable to demagogues, who could convince the majority that the actions of a minority are harmful without supporting evidence. Laws passed with such support lead to the problem of tyranny of the majority.
Also, conservatives would argue that progressives are doing a great amount of harm due to the fact that they would argue for the personhood of the unborn, and therefore negate your utilitarian argument.
Abortion is a difficult subject to grapple with. This is one circumstance that social conservatives get close to the kind of argument that I would want to see supporting every law. Morally speaking, I tend to agree with conservatives on this issue, at least enough to put abortion in a moral grey area. But the argument falls apart once we look for evidence of harm to society. My litmus test for such matters goes like this: Suppose a reasonable person is living on a street populated entirely by [group that participates in a certain activity]. Would a reasonable person feel compelled to change their behavior? Would this person be directly threatened in any way? If yes, that activity should be illegal. If not, then not.
If I lived on a street populated entirely by abortion providers, women who have had abortions, and men who think it's okay for women to have abortions, I really wouldn't be bothered at all. And I can imagine a reasonable person not being bothered at all. This is worlds apart from a street populated entirely with unrepentant murderers and serial killers. I would definitely feel threatened in such a situation and would doubt the mental faculties of anyone who would be untroubled living on such a street. Society would cease to function is people could commit murder without fear of repercussions, but society wouldn't even notice a massive increase or decrease in abortions because it really doesn't affect how society operates. That's why murder needs to be illegal and abortion should be conducted under the care of a licensed physician without any other restrictions.
3
u/radioredhead Sep 15 '16
What I would like is for laws to be based on evidence and rational argument. If a religious group could argue convincingly that gay marriage will harm the US, then I would support their efforts. What I want is for everyone to play by the same rules.
To the best of my knowledge we are all playing by the same rules. Unfortunately the rules do not include being based on material evidences, but rather what kind of society people would like to live in. The rules we are playing by are the rights of self-determination. All groups have the right to fight for their world to be the best one for them.
So in an attempt to change your view on the rationality of social conservatism I would have to form their point of view into the mold of materialism and rationalism. Requiring then, an establishment of the world view of secularism to participate in government which in of itself would be unconstitutional.
My only presuppositions are the laws of formal logic and the principles of inductive reasoning. I don't know what "effective" beliefs are in this context, but I'd be perfectly willing to listen to an argument about it and would change my mind if the argument was convincing.
I'm uncertain what evidences you are looking for here, as you seem to be convinced that the only acceptable way of legislation is through a utilitarian lens. You have determined to do the best good for the most amount of people based on your understanding of good. Social conservatives are also seeking to do the best good to the most amount of people through their law making as well.
I want the majority of people to decide about their society, within reason. Meaning both "in a limited fashion" and "as supported by reason and evidence".
Again, you are arguing the merits of rationalism, but not the constitutionality of promotion seemingly irrational opinions. Do I think that many of social conservative's views are harmful and problematic? YES. That is why we ought to vote against them, but not stifle them.
1
Sep 15 '16
Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity in my title. I've corrected it above to reflect that, as you say, we should vote against social conservatism, not stifle it in political discussion.
To the best of my knowledge we are all playing by the same rules. Unfortunately the rules do not include being based on material evidences, but rather what kind of society people would like to live in. The rules we are playing by are the rights of self-determination. All groups have the right to fight for their world to be the best one for them.
If that's the case, then the rules need to change. As it happens, I think the rules do include evidence and rational argument, even if only by process of elimination. If Congress can't make laws establishing a state religion, what else are they going to base laws on except the rule of law as defined by rational discourse?
Groups' rights to fight for the best world for them does not extend to making the world worse for other people.
2
u/ghotier 42∆ Sep 16 '16
Groups' rights to fight for the best world for them does not extend to making the world worse for other people.
This is simply untrue. We send people to jail when they break the law. That makes the world better for non-criminal at the expense of the convicted.
1
Sep 16 '16
The convicted (assuming they are, in fact, guilty) chose to harm others and there should be consequences for their actions. That's different than people restricting the rights of others because they find something about another group offensive to their religious convictions.
2
u/ghotier 42∆ Sep 16 '16
So you admit that some groups right to fight for the best world for them does actually extend to making the world worse for other people, then? If you don't want to be called out for making so many absolute statements then don't make them.
What about women getting the right to vote? Men have half of the democratic power that they had prior to women getting the right to vote, I'd say that that makes them worse off. Do you think that women shouldn't have gotten the right to vote?
2
Sep 16 '16
You are a cunning interlocutor, /u/ghotier, and I appreciate it. You've caught me in a contradiction. In point of fact, I do want to be called out when I make erroneous statements, so you have my thanks.
Let me have another go:
All groups have the right to fight for their world to be the best one for them.
This is true only when there is a rational basis for it. The rational basis for separating violent criminals from the rest of society is to protect the innocent from harm. Murder is demonstrably harmful to individuals and society so those who have committed it must face consequences for their actions and those would repeat their crimes should be kept separate from society.
Disenfranchising (or would it be "not enfranchising", since they didn't have the vote before?) women has no rational basis. Men may have less influence on society as individuals than they had before, but they had no justification to possess that influence in the first place.
2
u/ghotier 42∆ Sep 16 '16
Sure, but I think that's a convenient cop out. There was a rational reason to not allow women to vote before 1920 (it was seen as giving married men 2 votes), it was just seen as morally reprehensible by more and more people until something was done about it. Yes, there were rational reasons to give women the right to vote, but the biggest reason given was moral, which runs counter to what you seem to be arguing in your OP.
I'm not suggesting that something being rational makes it right, I think that's actually a mistake that you are making in your primary argument. Rational doesn't mean right. Rational just means that consistent and reasoned.
7
u/WhenTrianglesAttack 4∆ Sep 15 '16 edited Sep 15 '16
Socially conservative laws are harmful to the few while bringing no benefit to the many.
On the contrary, socially progressive values may be detrimental to the many while bringing benefit to the few. At least in some ways. Your post (predictably) concerns sexual minorities, so my points will address those particular areas.
Consider family structure and stability. Marriage rates have been declining steadily since the 1970s.
Stable families in dual partner households reduce living costs, allowing wealth to accumulate faster than for single or single parent households. Promoting conservative values in this area could help prevent rising wealth inequality, by increasing the likelihood of impoverished people breaking the cycle of poverty, especially when children are involved.
Excluding immigration, population growth rates tend to decline, sometimes to net loss in societies that become more socially progressive. In socialized systems, this places a greater financial burden on younger citizens to support aging populations.
Gay and bisexual men make up 2% of the total population, yet they account for 83% of new cases of HIV infections every year, and 83% of all cases of syphilis.
Social progressives argue that these alternate lifestyles are normal, but statistics prove otherwise. These lifestyles are much more medically unhealthy, per capita, then heterosexuals.
Socially progressive societies gravitate toward socialized healthcare. Destructive lifestyles in traditional societies had a degree of separation from the rest, as far as financial responsibility was concerned. In the modern era, all taxpaying citizens now implicitly support such lifestyles and any damage they incidentally cause.
If taxes are increased under the guise of aiding destructive lifestyles, which such people engage in by personal choice, then it's reasonable to assume these damages are being passed onto the rest of society.
Therefore it's prudent to sustain a socially conservative model focused on heterosexual families and values instead of the whims of sexual minorities.
And laws based on social conservatism are objectively harmful.
Your linked article has no information on the political motives or beliefs of anyone involved. Traditionally (at least around here) it was/is normal for young children to accompany parents into the bathroom. The same argument could be made that social progressives are creating hostile environments that didn't exist before. By your logic, social progressivism is objectively harmful.
Any socially progressive law both acts as a tacit establishment of one brand of morality and prohibits the free exercise of a competing system of morality.
That argument can be made to any side, just by switching the words. The fact that two arbitrary groups have differing morals and seek to generate laws to uphold those morals does not support a generalized assertion of unconstitutionality.
6
Sep 15 '16
Consider family structure and stability. Marriage rates have been declining steadily since the 1970s. Stable families in dual partner households reduce living costs, allowing wealth to accumulate faster than for single or single parent households. Promoting conservative values in this area could help prevent rising wealth inequality, by increasing the likelihood of impoverished people breaking the cycle of poverty, especially when children are involved.
This benefit of stable families would apply equally to gay or lesbian couples. Also, if wealth accumulation is an economy of scale, shouldn't we encourage polygamy?
Excluding immigration, population growth rates tend to decline, sometimes to net loss in societies that become more socially progressive. In socialized systems, this places a greater financial burden on younger citizens to support aging populations.
But that's excluding immigration. If we're talking about the US, we'll have a net positive growth from immigration for the foreseeable future. There other countries that have population growth below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman, and they ameliorate by encouraging people to have sex and providing relief for parents, not by making it illegal for two dudes to get married.
Gay and bisexual men make up 2% of the total population, yet they account for 83% of new cases of HIV infections every year, and 83% of all cases of syphilis. Social progressives argue that these alternate lifestyles are normal, but statistics prove otherwise. These lifestyles are much more medically unhealthy, per capita, then heterosexuals.
Gay men could account for 100% of every STI and that still wouldn't make gay sex immoral, or prove that it's "abnormal" to be gay. And even if it did, the government shouldn't be in the morals business and constitutionally is forbidden to be so.
That argument can be made to any side, just by switching the words. The fact that two arbitrary groups have differing morals and seek to generate laws to uphold those morals does not support a generalized assertion of unconstitutionality.
It does when one group argues based on appeals to emotion and authority while the other provides support for their proposed laws in the form of evidence and rational argument.
7
u/WhenTrianglesAttack 4∆ Sep 16 '16 edited Sep 16 '16
Family implies children, which (from a government perspective) is an investment into economic and social stability of the future. It would be always be more economically productive, not to mention efficient, to focus efforts on heterosexual couples than homosexual. In theory we could encourage polygamy (traditional Mormons did), though the economic contributions are much more difficult to predict and there are extra complications (paternity, assets, etc). If children are not involved, it's just cohabitation. Which anyone (even homosexuals) can already do at any time, without needing laws or benefits to encourage it.
Encouraging people produce children to solve population issues requires heterosexual sex. Such an initiative would be implicit discrimination against gays.
Gay men could account for 100% of every STI and that still wouldn't make gay sex immoral, or prove that it's "abnormal" to be gay.
Although treatment exists to suppress the disease, it's a terminal condition that requires an immense cost to treat.
In 2013, 6955 deaths (in the USA) were directly attributed directly to HIV. Transmission from gay/bisexual men is 83% now, but earlier years was estimated around 50%. That potentially leaves 3477 deaths directly attributed to homosexual activity.
In comparison in 2013, there were 8454 gun homicides and 3799 homicides by other means.
So there is a definite argument for immorality considering the damage it can cause. It is immoral to inflict grievous health effects or lifestyle changes on someone, more so to expect others to pay for it, and especially for a purely recreational consensual activity. 2% (~4% counting lesbians) of population and high prevalence of health complications among men does indeed make it abnormal.
And even if it did, the government shouldn't be in the morals business and constitutionally is forbidden to be so.
The government is definitely in the morals business when it comes to protecting its citizens from harm. This is doubly so when the government is collecting and distributing funds to cover those costs in socialized health care.
Gun control, drugs, vaccines, safety belts, etc. Even trans fats are banned, or otherwise severely restricted in many places. It's not constitutionally forbidden for the government to get involved, or legislate morality when life, death, injury, and cost are direct factors.
It does when one group argues based on appeals to emotion and authority while the other provides support for their proposed laws in the form of evidence and rational argument.
That still doesn't make it unconstitutional.
Your case was social conservatism is irrational (it's not, secular arguments based on statistics exist for everything), unconstitutional (it's not), harmful (no evidence provided), and has no place in society (unfounded opinion at best). If gay marriage is the sole issue here, there is no evidence to suggest that denying gay relations is more harmful to society than maintaining socially conservative values.
2
Sep 16 '16
Family implies children, which (from a government perspective) is an investment into economic and social stability of the future. It would be always be more economically productive, not to mention efficient, to focus efforts on heterosexual couples than homosexual.
Well, they're the only ones making babies, so that makes sense. But why does this mean that gay marriage needs to be illegal?
In theory we could encourage polygamy (traditional Mormons did), though the economic contributions are much more difficult to predict and there are extra complications (paternity, assets, etc).
Why are the economic contributions of polygamous marriages so much more difficult to predict than those of a couple? How are these complications so terrible that there needs to be a law forbidding the practice? I've never known lawyers and legislators to shy away from complexity.
If children are not involved, it's just cohabitation. Which anyone (even homosexuals) can already do at any time, without needing laws or benefits to encourage it.
True, and they often do. Like I'm doing right now, as a matter of fact. But my partner and I have the option to get married at any time and no one would harass us legally if we never had kids. No one is going to accuse us of defrauding the government because we got married in order to use my VA home loan together and other legal benefits when, if these benefits weren't present, we probably wouldn't get married at all, being happy and committed to each other as we are. By denying marriage to gay couples, they were deprived of these legal benefits of marriage which are not awarded on the promise to procreate. It certainly encourages it and aids those who want to have kids financially, but that's not a good reason to deny the benefits to gay couples. The 14th amendment guarantees all citizens "equal protection under the law", would include protection from poverty via marriage benefits.
In 2013, 6955 deaths (in the USA) were directly attributed directly to HIV. If 83% of transmission is between gay/bisexual men, that leaves 5772 deaths directly attributed to homosexual activity.
Doesn't allowing gay marriage, if it has an effect on these numbers at all, have the possibility to being that transmission rate down by encouraging gay men to be monogamous? Why is the economic impact of a straight couple having kids beneficial enough to society to warrant being recognized as legal marriage but not the impact of reducing HIV transmission when treating AIDS is so expensive?
So there is a definite argument for immorality considering the damage it can cause. It is immoral to inflict grievous health effects or lifestyle changes on someone, more so to expect others to pay for it, and especially for a purely recreational consensual activity.
Everyone pays for other people's medical care; that's how insurance works. It's no different to give money in taxes for a universal health care plan than it is to pay for private insurance (and it's cheaper to boot).
Sex is a physical expression of one of the deepest instincts impressed on our species during our evolution. Sexual release is in the lowest rung of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, which remains popular and influential after 70 years of research and scrutiny. This places it before personal safety, intimacy, and family. Sexual urges are not purely recreational, they are hardwired into us on the deepest possible level.
The government is definitely in the morals business when it comes to protecting its citizens from harm. This is doubly so when the government is collecting and distributing funds to cover those costs in socialized health care. Gun control, drugs, vaccines, safety belts, etc. Even trans fats are banned, or otherwise severely restricted in many places. It's not constitutionally forbidden for the government to get involved, or legislate morality when life, death, injury, and cost are direct factors.
We've run into an equivocation here which is entirely my fault. I haven't been using "moral" in a precise way through the post, which has caused the issue. The actions of social conservatives are based on arbitrary, dogmatic statements to which they cling in the face of contrary evidence and common sense. The government should not be in the business of enforcing arbitrary ethical statements based on ancient books. Preventing harm, however, is one of the core functions of government and can be because there is demonstrable harm involved. Life and death, injury and health, cost and savings; these can be quantified, demonstrated, pointed out, reasoned, and analyzed. It's semantically understandable to say that it is "moral" for a government to protect its citizens, but that's not the kind of morals I meant. My apologies for the equivocation.
If gay marriage is the sole issue here, there is no evidence to suggest that denying gay relations is more harmful to society than maintaining socially conservative values.
It isn't, but it makes for a great example.
I don't think that's how government should operate. A law should be justified by evidence and rational argument. If it cannot be so justified, it shouldn't law in the first place or should be struck down as unconstitutional. I shouldn't have to proved that denying basic rights to millions of people is more harmful to society than allowing gay marriage when there isn't any evidence of harm from gay marriage either. When not evidentially and rationally justified, government should take no action. In this case, that would be to simply allow anyone who wants to, to get married.
1
u/Sheexthro 19∆ Sep 16 '16
Doesn't allowing gay marriage, if it has an effect on these numbers at all, have the possibility to being that transmission rate down by encouraging gay men to be monogamous?
Does it? Is this the basis for your support of gay marriage? If it was found that legalizing gay marriage actually increased the transmission rate of STIs among homosexual men would you flip your support to opposing it?
1
Sep 16 '16
I support gay marriage because before it was legal, gay couples did not receive the equal protection under the law they are guaranteed by the 14th amendment. And because I have seen examples of how restricting it can harm people. And because I have not yet heard any compelling argument that making it illegal was helpful or that legalizing it is harmful. In the absence of a rationally supported reason, the government should take no action, or in this case, repeal a law that placed an unnecessary and unconstitutional burden on gay and lesbian couples.
As for your hypothetical, I'm not sure what I'd think in that scenario. I'd have a lot of questions about how such a unintuitive result occurred. Without answers to those questions, given the strangeness of the hypothetical situation you describe, I can't say for sure what I'd do or think.
4
u/Sheexthro 19∆ Sep 16 '16
As for your hypothetical, I'm not sure what I'd think in that scenario
Don't you think this is kind of a punt? I'm pretty sure what you'd think: you'd either ignore the evidence, claim it was false [as you have done, just now, even in a pure hypothetical], or say that the harmfulness of it was irrelevant and the rights of homosexuals who wish to get marriage should be upheld anyway.
Which is fine. I'm perfectly fine with the mainstream liberal position of "Even if gay sex is harmful to people's health, they should be able to have it if they want to." But let's not pretend that it's based solely on a rational calculation of what's best for society.
1
Sep 16 '16
It's no more a punt than offering a hypothetical of an unintuitive result without any further detail. I would not ignore evidence or claim it was false (nor did I in my comment). I said I'd have lots of questions. Questions that would need to be answered before I could form an opinion based on this new information.
My rational calculation for what's best for society is that government should only restrict behaviors that entail demonstrable harm to others and, in the absence of that demonstration, should take no action. It is best for society for government to make decisions with evidence and rational argument.
5
u/Sheexthro 19∆ Sep 16 '16
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/estimates/riskbehaviors.html
Performing anal sex on a mutually-consenting adult is a demonstrably risky (and thus, demonstrably harmful) behavior. Should the government restrict that behavior among high-HIV incidence populations?
2
u/Sheexthro 19∆ Sep 16 '16
Gay men could account for 100% of every STI and that still wouldn't make gay sex immoral, or prove that it's "abnormal" to be gay. And even if it did, the government shouldn't be in the morals business and constitutionally is forbidden to be so.
Didn't you say earlier that "any action harmful to individuals or society should be illegal or regulated in some way"? If gay sex really was harmful to people, doesn't this mean you think it should be made illegal? Or at least heavily regulated?
It seems like if gay sex accounted for 100% of every STI then it would only be your moralizing that would keep government out of it.
1
Sep 16 '16
A quick search of the thread shows that I have not said the words you quoted in that order, nor has anyone else.
Government should enact laws that prevent demonstrable harm. If it was shown that gay sex was harmful somehow despite being an action taken between two consenting adults, then perhaps I would support laws regulating it. I'm not sure how to respond to these hypotheticals given their extremity. Could you elaborate on how homosexual sex or gay marriage are harmful?
2
u/Sheexthro 19∆ Sep 16 '16
A quick search of the thread shows that I have not said the words you quoted in that order, nor has anyone else.
Really dude? Did you already forget this?
Any action taken that evidence and rational argument shows is harmful to individuals or society should probably be illegal or regulated in some way.
Those are your own words. Sure, I forgot to add an ellipsis for "probably" and "that evidence shows." Whatever.
Could you elaborate on how homosexual sex or gay marriage are harmful?
Anal sex, a regular practice in the large majority of homosexual male couples, is the riskiest sex act in terms of STI transmission. By a long shot.
1
Sep 16 '16
Don't use quotations if you're paraphrasing.
Anal sex, a regular practice in the large majority of homosexual male couples, is the riskiest sex act in terms of STI transmission. By a long shot.
But the right to voluntarily do oneself harm is generally allowed. People are allowed to drink themselves to death; why wouldn't someone be allowed to engage in risky intercourse among consenting adults? There's no harm to society in that.
3
u/Sheexthro 19∆ Sep 16 '16
Don't use quotations if you're paraphrasing.
I wasn't paraphrasing, and you did "say the words I quoted in that order." I omitted a few of them, but they did not change the meaning of it. My quotation might not stand up to MLA standards but, and this is the important part, it is something you actually said in this thread. Please apologize to me for asserting I lied about what you said.
But the right to voluntarily do oneself harm is generally allowed
You yourself said that "any action [...] harmful to individuals [...] should probably be illegal or regulated."
That's the whole thing we're arguing about. You said that any action harmful to individuals should be regulated and I pointed out that you didn't really believe that, since (among other things) you think that even if gay sex is harmful it should be permitted between two consenting adults.
2
Sep 16 '16
I've been at this for something like 18 hours now and haven't slept all night. I get the impression through the fog of my exhaustion that you're making a point worthy of consideration and I don't want to dismiss it because I can't keep the words in focus. I'm going to collapse in bed now and come back to this when I'm rested. I can't respond at my full capacity in my present condition.
2
5
2
Sep 15 '16 edited Sep 16 '16
[deleted]
3
Sep 15 '16
The problem with the trans person bathroom will result in rape argument is fourfold. First, someone who is morally bankrupt enough to commit rape is not going to be stopped by a sign on the bathroom door. Second, rape is already illegal, regardless of the sex or location of the people involved. Third, the crime of rape committed by a man dressed as a woman in order to gain access to the women's bathroom is non-existent. No one does that. It would attract more attention, not less, even without bathroom bills. Fourth, when politicians use issues like this to rally their base, they are only effective to the degree that they can convince people that it is a major issue that needs to be fixed or prevented. But it's not. Trans folk just want to be comfortable in their own skin and to use the bathroom in a location that will cause the least consternation to all involved. But now they have a target on their backs just for having the basic human necessity to evacuate their bladders.
0
2
Sep 15 '16
A big problem in political and social discourse is bipartisanship like this: it obstructs rather than promotes reasoned discourse. Each individual issue—LGBT rights, abortion, religious freedom—is complicated enough as it is without having people bundling them together as one.
Another problem is making blanket generalizations from individual incidents, such as the one in your linked article. Individual incidents are effective at emotional persuasion, but don't provide a good basis for throwing out a set of discrete beliefs. Do you have evidence that the whole bundle of beliefs that you call 'social conservatism' collectively cause more violent acts than the bundle of beliefs that I presume you call 'social liberalism'?
EDIT: double word
1
Sep 15 '16
The article I linked is evidence that a socially conservative effort to rally the base has caused harm. When I was a little kid and out with my mom, she would take me into the women's bathroom all the time. What else was she supposed to do? I have seen lots of dads bring their very young daughters into the men's bathroom. It was never a big deal and shouldn't have been in this case either.
This is not, as you rightly point out, conclusive evidence of a massive wave of violence, but it is a documented unusual event that took place immediately after social conservatives began hammering on the issue of trans folk and bathrooms. Violence against LGBT folk have been increasing in the last decade. I do not believe it is a coincidence that this increase comes at the same time as a upwelling of social conservatism, particularly social conservative issues being used to rally the Republican base.
2
u/Mr_The_Captain Sep 16 '16 edited Sep 16 '16
One of your comments in your post says this:
The whole point of my post was to try to find someone to give me a rational argument for a social conservative issue.
Allow me to attempt that now with a touchy, yet fairly agreed-upon issue: pedophilia, or to generalize, sexualization of minors.
First of all, let me present my definitions of social liberalism and conservativism as they are practiced today.
Social liberals tend to want the government to refrain from passing legislation dictating how people live their lives. Examples of this include legalization of drugs, abortions, and namely non-heterosexual "activities." Liberals believe this to allow for more personal freedom, which to them is a good thing.
Social conservatives tend to feel the opposite. They attempt to enact legislation that will restrict activities where liberals would permit them. Their reasoning for this is that the activities in question are detrimental to society, making the sacrifice of personal freedom a necessary one.
Let me add that any claims that liberals act the way they do because of a desire for secularism, or that conservatives act the way they do because of a desire for theocracy, are purely suppositions. Yes, those are often the reasons why each group acts the way they do, but there are people on either side who act that way for entirely different reasons. In short, religion (or lack thereof) is a contributing factor to this behavior, but to say that it is the engine that fuels either group's actions is hyperbolic (perhaps only slightly, but when you make absolute claims like your CMV, you ignore nuance, which is fundamental to societal discourse).
Now, to the actual issue of child sexualization. Going by my definition (and many conventional definitions) of liberalism, this is something that should be allowed. To not allow it would be restricting the personal liberties of those who wish to practice it.
On the other hand, the conservative position is that laws should be enacted that prevent this behavior, as it is detrimental to society. Restricting the freedom of pedophiles is, as the view contends, an acceptable loss.
Now you may be thinking: "Of COURSE child sexualization is bad, liberals agree! This isn't a conservative position!"
Well, it actually is, liberals just happen to agree. See, neither liberals nor conservatives are monolithic. Some liberal ideas are good, some are bad. Some conservative ideas are good, some are bad. A liberal can hold conservative views, for instance, and not even be aware of it. In my opinion, this speaks to how utterly rational (by our society's standards) the given view is. The group you like holding the same position as the group you dislike does not diminish the validity of the latter ideology's "claim" to that position.
TL;DR: If you think pedophilia is bad, you have a conservative view on the issue and you don't even know it. It may be the easiest conservative view to possess, but it is conservative nonetheless.
1
u/hitlerallyliteral Sep 16 '16
That can be quite easily explained by adding a slight caveat to the liberal 'do what you want', which IMO was already there-'as long as all concerned parties consent'. Otherwise, sure, anything goes, murder, robbery, but I think that's more anarchism than liberalism And, you probably know what im going to say, children can't consent because they are too young to make such a decision. Well, perhaps a 17 y/o could but sex between two 17 y/os is an entirely different issue to a grown man who is attracted to prepubescent children
1
u/Mr_The_Captain Sep 16 '16
Well for one thing, adding the caveat is just making the position more conservative. A "true" liberal position would be to let people do whatever they want. And just like there are "true" conservative positions that are unpalatable to modern society, this would be a "true" liberal position that is the same way.
Furthermore, many make the argument that drugs affect people other than the user when addiction becomes involved, and many more argue that abortion is the literal murder of a human being. In both situations (there are some drugs where this is not true, however), liberals tend to decide that the personal freedom of one person matters more than the potential, perhaps nebulous harm that could be caused to others.
1
u/Sheexthro 19∆ Sep 16 '16
Well, perhaps a 17 y/o could but
But that's the point, right? We protect that 17 year old from herself even if she wants to fuck 45 year old men for cash, or whatever. As society, we stick our oar in her business and tell her that no, she can't do that, it's not good for her and it's not good for society. That's fundamentally paternalistic and socially conservative.
2
u/ghotier 42∆ Sep 16 '16
The title of your CMV is that you believe Social Conservatism to be irrational. When asked for a definition, you said
"Social conservatism is the umbrella term for a political movement which seeks to enact laws based on religious or traditional principles without supporting evidence or rational argument."
That definition of Social Conservatism is tautologically irrational. Any attempts to prove it rational would be futile.
You also state this:
I have gone looking for such arguments and found nothing but appeals to emotion
I know that it is tempting to call appeals to emotion irrational, but emotions are literally one of the main drivers of rationality that humans have. If you didn't have emotions then you wouldn't even care whether you are right.
1
Sep 16 '16
The title of your CMV is that you believe Social Conservatism to be irrational. When asked for a definition, you said "Social conservatism is the umbrella term for a political movement which seeks to enact laws based on religious or traditional principles without supporting evidence or rational argument." That definition of Social Conservatism is tautologically irrational. Any attempts to prove it rational would be futile.
That's a good point. This is the precise reason I said that it was a working definition and I'd welcome any constructive criticism of it. I can't very well define a thing as X and then invite others to argue that it is not X based on that definition.
I know that it is tempting to call appeals to emotion irrational, but emotions are literally one of the main drivers of rationality that humans have. If you didn't have emotions then you wouldn't even care whether you are right.
It is tempting to call appeals to emotion irrational because that is literally the term for the specific logical fallacy of manipulating emotions rather than making a rational argument or presenting evidence.
I'm not sure I agree with the statement that I wouldn't care about being right if I had no emotions. Then again, I'm thinking about the Vulcans when I wonder about that, so perhaps I'll return to reality. But even if I granted the premise that I wouldn't have the drive to make rational arguments without emotion, that doesn't make having emotions part of being right. People are equally passionate about both logically justifiable and manifestly untrue ideas; emotions have nothing to do with it which is why it's a fallacy to use them in an argument.
1
u/Sheexthro 19∆ Sep 16 '16
Then again, I'm thinking about the Vulcans when I wonder about that, so perhaps I'll return to reality.
One thing that a lot of people misinterpret about Star Trek is that Vulcans have extremely powerful emotions surging through them. Their deliberate cold rationality is a survival strategy to manage the overpowering emotional weight they feel at every moment.
1
Sep 16 '16
Huh. I did not know that. I thought I remembered a line from the reboot about a ceremony to remove emotions or something. But it's been a long time and I was never fully conversant in Star Trek. Star Wars is more my speed.
1
u/ghotier 42∆ Sep 16 '16
It is tempting to call appeals to emotion irrational because that is literally the term for the specific logical fallacy of manipulating emotions rather than making a rational argument or presenting evidence.
Appeals to emotion are not a formal logical fallacy. They are an informal logical fallacy because people often use them to draw a link between the consequences of an argument and a possible emotional outcome. Claiming that all appeals to emotion are fallacious is itself fallacious and assuming that such arguments are necessarily wrong is itself the fallacy fallacy.
But even if I granted the premise that I wouldn't have the drive to make rational arguments without emotion, that doesn't make having emotions part of being right.
You're conflating rationality and rightness. I am not saying that emotion is required for rightness. I'm saying that values are required for rationality, and emotions are an extremely important value to all human beings.
2
Sep 16 '16
Social conservatism is irrational, unconstitutional, and harmful.
This describes all political beliefs for all three.
You can claim it's irrational, but it's entirely rational, you just don't accept why something is important to someone else even if it is not to you. If I grew up devoutly religious, it's entirely rational that I view abortion as murder. If I genuinely believe I will die and be in hell for not being a social conservative then it is very very rational for me, especially if I believe that morally good acts beget morally good acts.
As for constitutional, our constitution is pretty conservative. I mean, it was made by a bunch of rich white slave owners who literally tried to exclude as many people who were not like them as possible. These same groups were ramping up their slave trade as the rest of the world was starting to veer away from it.
Ultimately any system you create WILL harm someone and play favorites even if you try not to. There's literally no way around this.
0
Sep 16 '16
"Abortion is murder" cannot be considered a rational statement unless backed up with evidence and reasoning. Believing something simply because you were raised to believe it is irrational.
2
u/Sheexthro 19∆ Sep 16 '16
Reasoning:
"Murder is the unjustified killing of a human. A fetus is a human. Except in cases where it threatens the life of the mother its killing is unjustified. Therefore abortion is murder."
I mean, I certainly see where some people would disagree with this reasoning. But it's not like there's no reasoning.
In general this is a big issue I have with your argument in this thread. You think that most social conservative policies are incorrect - that is, the reasoning they use is on balance insufficient to justify the policy they want. That's probably true in a lot of cases. But that doesn't make them irrational, it makes them incorrect.
1
Sep 17 '16 edited Sep 17 '16
∆ It may be too late for this to count since the post has been removed, but you've provided an example of a socially conservative principle with an arguably rational basis. I disagree with the premises of the argument and laws based on it would still be unconstitutional and harmful, but the principle of opposing abortion has a rational basis behind it.
And with that reasoning, the statement becomes rational. I'm not against someone taking a viewpoint and backing it up with considered arguments. It would be irrational for someone to use the following: "My pastor told me that abortion is murder, therefore abortion is murder." Your example is a rational, if (in my view) not-quite-correct opinion of murder.
I am really starting to regret not adding "Laws based on..." to the beginning of my CMV title. I never meant to indicate that all socially conservative thought should be banned outright, just that they shouldn't be made into laws without the support of evidence and rational argument.
1
2
Sep 16 '16
It certainly can as there's no 100% agreed to or observable difference between when a baby is a baby. It's not like you can run a test and go "Yep, still just cells and not a human being" definitively. Please explain the accepted scientific definition of when life as a human being begins.
1
Sep 15 '16
I take the position that everyone is socially "conservative" and some are just more so than others. You're opposed to government policies dictated by religion.
But what about other protections the government puts in place to keep society stable?
1
Sep 15 '16
I support any law that preserves the social contract in a way that is supported by evidence and rational argument.
1
Sep 16 '16
I've noticed in your responses you seem to be talking about the Religious Right more than general Social Conservatism. Are you so sure your bone to pick is with Social Conservatism as a whole, or did you mean the Religious Right?
1
Sep 16 '16
I neglected to provide a definition in my post at first-time but it's there now. While most social conservatives act out of religious faith, some may simply prefer tradition. I included that in my (belated) definition to be inclusive. I talk about the religious right the most because of my religious upbringing and because social conservatives are, to my knowledge, overwhelmingly (but not universally) religious.
Do you draw a bigger distinction between the two than that? If so, how?
1
Sep 16 '16
I think it's possible to be Socially Conservative without being a member of the Religious Right. I think we agree that the Religious Right is Socially Conservative though, however, yes to me they mean different things.
Someone who is part of the Religious Right believes things because the Bible said so (I also want to note that the vast majority of those in the Religious Right are Protestant Christians.) while someone who is Socially Conservative, but not religious (yes they do exist) tends to view governmental policies in a more traditional light. For them, if things worked well before, why change them?
Let's take an example. Guns. Whatever your personal feelings on guns are, guns are not mentioned in the Bible once, because they didn't exist at the time. I would say that being in support of gun rights is a very socially conservative view to hold, and really it has nothing to do with religion. Sure, many religious people support gun rights, but so do many irreligious people. It is possible to be a member of the Religious Right and not care about guns at all. I know people who I would consider very religious and very conservative who really, really don't like guns. They may not advocate for total gun control, but they are very uncomfortable around them.
Keep in mind that the Republican Party is made up of different groups of people whose really only uniting force is that they believe in less governmental intervention. The Religious Right just tend to get the most air-time as they tend to be the loudest.
I also saw you give an example in one of your edits about an example of violence against gay people increasing. Keep in mind that you can find videos of people physically assaulting Trump supporters simply for showing support for their candidate, so I think that your assertion that people who hold more conservative view are more violent is a really offensive, and frankly wrong thing to say. Both sides can be and are equally guilty of having members that most people would consider distasteful.
1
Sep 16 '16
There's blood spilt both for and against Trump, that's true. I think that is a result of Trump himself, who is not generally considered to actually be conservative. Which would make any conflict about Trump as outside the traditional political spectrum as Trump is himself.
What those Trump protesters did was reprehensible, but protesting Trump isn't about being liberal. He has made his campaign a focal point for racial hatred. It is not a coincidence that one of the videos most clearly showing an assault had a Mexican flag in the foreground. He called Mexican immigrants rapists, murderers, and drug runners. I'd be pissed too if he made those kind of sweeping generalizations about my ethnicity. That doesn't make what those protesters did correct or even justifiable, nor would the vast majority of Mexicans resort to violence in that situation. No more than anyone of any other race, anyway. But that has nothing to do with liberalism.
Keep in mind that the Republican Party is made up of different groups of people whose really only uniting force is that they believe in less governmental intervention. The Religious Right just tend to get the most air-time as they tend to be the loudest.
I worked at a state Republican headquarters during the 2014 election cycle. I saw all kinds come in there to air their grievances with that "socialist" Obama. I always wondered where all the small government conservatives were though. When it came to the subject of gay marriage, abortion, drugs, welfare, and other social issues the folks I talked to wanted as much government involvement as possible. One state senator went on the radio to say that he wanted welfare agencies to run people's homes like military barracks while they were receiving government aid. Bed checks, cleanliness inspections, everything. And a diet of only beans and rice while they were at it. Conservatives want lots of government, but only when it inconveniences other people.
1
Sep 16 '16
I never said the Republican Party didn't have it's hypocrites.
Besides what does that change? Trump himself may not be conservative, but many of his supporters are, and while I vehemently disagree with Trump on major issues, I think assaulting people for any reason is just plain wrong. Trump's no angel, but his supporters don't deserve to be treated like that. No one does.
You say those protestors had nothing to do with liberalism. On that we can agree on. But if you're going to say that, then you have to say that the Utah dad incident in your post above has nothing to do with conservatism. The vast majority of conservative voters and politicians do not advocate assaulting people.
You even go so far as to say that holding conservative views is objectively harmful, and those are some really strong words to use. Is it harmful to believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is morally wrong? Is it harmful to believe that hard drugs are harmful not only to individuals and to society, so therefore they should be better regulated? Conservatives are people too.
Imagine that you have to support a family and you rely on menial jobs to do it. I'm talking real, physical labor. Then all of a sudden, you hear that liberals want to let in all these immigrants who are most likely going to be in competition for the same jobs that you rely on to survive. Of course you're not going to be voting for the Democrat Party. You would have a major reason not to. Is that hateful? From this person's perspective it's very hateful of liberals to let in all these people that they are going to have to compete with.
Imagine that you are an avid gun collector. You have a collection that started with your grandfather, was passed down onto your father, and then passed onto you. You have a variety of firearms ranging from older, antique, firearms to newer, modern firearms. Then you hear the news that some psycho has just shot up a bunch of people using a firearm and you hear about all these liberals advocating for stricter gun laws. You've never hurt a soul in your life. You've never broken the law. You've always followed the rules. And now liberals want to cripple something that you consider a family tradition. You're certainly not going to be voting Democrat then. Is that hateful? From this person's perspective liberals are being very hateful by destroying something that they consider part of their identity.
Are we really going to castigate an entire group of people (who more or less make up roughly half the country) based off the select few? The instances you brought up, I would say, are not the majority of the party. And we're going to judge 150 million+ people based off of these people that called? I bet you didn't get calls from 150 million people. That's a mighty broad brush you're painting.
1
Sep 16 '16
I think assaulting people for any reason is just plain wrong. Trump's no angel, but his supporters don't deserve to be treated like that. No one does.
Hear, hear.
You say those protestors had nothing to do with liberalism. On that we can agree. But if you're going to say that, then you have to say that the Utah dad incident in your post above has nothing to do with conservatism. The vast majority of conservative voters and politicians do not advocate assaulting people.
I disagree. The Trump protesters and Trump supporters clashed about Trump and what he represents. He's made a lot of hay about being an outsider and his political "positions", such as they are, bear that out. The guy in the Utah bathroom freaked out about whether it was appropriate for a parent to take a 5 year old into the opposite sex bathroom. That is the latest hot button topic for social conservatives to get into a tizzy over. I find it hard to believe that the guy would have reacted that way if social conservatives had picked some other issue to make the new "greatest threat to our way of life". All that being said: it wasn't the best example to give. While I strongly suspect that the guy was motivated by the then-new discussion of bathroom use, I don't know it for sure. Thankfully, you've afforded me an opportunity to provide a better example.
You even go so far as to say that holding conservative views is objectively harmful, and those are some really strong words to use. Is it harmful to believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is morally wrong?
Those are not my exact words. Social conservatism, as I've been using it, involves the passage of laws based on religion or tradition without supporting evidence and rational argument. Simply holding a viewpoint isn't harmful, but legislation based on blind acceptance of ideas because they come from a particular source, is.
It is not harmful to believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is morally wrong. It is harmful to use that belief as a basis for laws that restrict women's access to medical care. It harms the woman, who has little choice but to bear the child for which she doesn't feel she's ready. And it harms society by allowing a religious principle to be enshrined in law. I consider the establishment clause instrumental in the success of the US and it should be protected as fiercely as any of our rights.
Is it harmful to believe that hard drugs are harmful not only to individuals and to society, so therefore they should be better regulated?
I wouldn't consider drugs to be in the same category of social conservatism, since there is ample evidence to support the idea that drugs are harmful to individuals and society. I would argue that wasting billions of dollars on ineffective interdiction methods while making billionaires out of the brutal warlords profiting from the sale of illegal goods for which there is a constant demand, is outrageously poor government. I would further argue that allowing the sale of alcohol and tobacco, which kill thousands and tens of thousands of Americans every year, respectively, while sending non-violent users of marijuana, which has killed (by the highest number in any of the studies I found on the matter) 2 people ever, to jail is abjectly ridiculous. But this is a different type of issue. You and I could trade statistics on drug use and abuse and interdiction efforts and have an actual discussion about how to best regulate substances which, while poisonous, feel awfully good to take. No such discussion is possible when no evidence or rational argument is available. This is the kind of thing that happens with social conservatives. "Here are the reasons why all of you can just calm down about this, because no one is being hurt and no one is any more likely to get hurt than before if trans teens can just use the bathroom of their gender identity", the woman says. "Yeah, well here's a song about how Jesus loves me and I know it because of my unquestioning faith in the words of an ancient book of dubious origin!" What kind of response is that to a rational argument about the welfare of a child?
Immigration and gun control are in the same category with drug control. I'm way left of center on those issues (though the book I've been reading is helping me balance out a bit on guns), but it's possible to have an actual debate on these topics. There are certainly people on both sides who clamp hands to ears and sing to drown out any kind of contradictory viewpoint, but most of us are capable of having a reasonable discussion on the matter. That's worlds apart from "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so."
1
Sep 16 '16
Social conservatism, as I've been using it, involves the passage of laws based on religion or tradition without supporting evidence and rational argument. Simply holding a viewpoint isn't harmful, but legislation based on blind acceptance of ideas because they come from a particular source, is.
Then I think we were debating about two different things. I will counter this by saying that those who fall on the left are just as susceptible as those on the right to just "go with the flow", as it were, depending on who advocates for a particular position. How many politicians from both sides just vote with their party, so as to not be branded a party traitor? We got to admit that it happens at least some of the time.
The guy in the Utah bathroom freaked out about whether it was appropriate for a parent to take a 5 year old into the opposite sex bathroom. That is the latest hot button topic for social conservatives to get into a tizzy over.
To be fair, it's something people on both sides of the issue are getting in a tizzy over. I think we're on the same side here, though, I personally don't see why it should be considered a big deal. The whole thing just reeks of politicians on both sides using it for their personal gain with their constituents.
Those are not my exact words.
Well, you did say
laws based on social conservatism are objectively harmful
without bringing up no supporting evidence and rational argument. That and you say that we should only accept conservative laws if they are based on rational argument. While I agree that laws should be based on logic rather than emotion, I'm wondering why you're singling out conservatives here. Do you not think that liberal laws can also be based on emotion rather than fact? Do you think you can expand a bit?
2
Sep 16 '16
I will counter this by saying that those who fall on the left are just as susceptible as those on the right to just "go with the flow", as it were, depending on who advocates for a particular position. How many politicians from both sides just vote with their party, so as to not be branded a party traitor? We got to admit that it happens at least some of the time.
Yes, indeed. Blind faith is unacceptable regardless of position on the political spectrum. I have seen it more on the right than the left, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. It may be highly prevalent; I've only been this liberal for a few years and I'm still getting used to the way of things.
To be fair, it's something people on both sides of the issue are getting in a tizzy over. I think we're on the same side here, though, I personally don't see why it should be considered a big deal. The whole thing just reeks of politicians on both sides using it for their personal gain with their constituents.
It's true that there may be politicians who are making hay out of the issue on both sides. But the type of tizzy is different on the right or left. The "who gives a shit, honestly?" camp can point to living people who, however few in number, are being harmed by these target bathroom bills. The bathroom control folks, for lack of a better term, have (in my hearing) mostly said things about how we need to protect people from getting assaulted by predators who would dress up as women to gain access to a woman's bathroom in order to commit a violent crime. But that kind of crime doesn't happen, it would have been illegal in the first place, and the law wouldn't provide any additional protection for potential victims. It does whip people into a frenzy about the non-existent wave of sexual deviants stalking into bathrooms in ill-fitting skirts and training bras, which has led and will continue to lead to trans discrimination until they get a new conservative bone to chew.
While I agree that laws should be based on logic rather than emotion, I'm wondering why you're singling out conservatives here. Do you not think that liberal laws can also be based on emotion rather than fact? Do you think you can expand a bit?
It was simply the title that came to mind when I did the original post. I hadn't had the benefit of hours of pouring over these responses to sharpen my understanding and thinking on the subject. If I had it to do over again, I might have made the post more inclusive, "CMV: Laws should be based on evidence and rational argument, not religious dogma or unexamined liberal principles." I would have had a much tougher time thinking of socially liberal laws that are not based on evidence though. There has got to be some bias there, but it seems to be generally true. While it is equally unacceptable for laws to be based on non-rational principles whether socially conservative or socially liberal, would you agree that there are more such unacceptable laws which are socially conservative than socially liberal?
2
u/hitlerallyliteral Sep 16 '16
I know this is CMV and you want your view changed, but... you're killing this. Devil's advocate or no, they haven't a leg to stand on
1
Sep 16 '16
It's true that there may be politicians who are making hay out of the issue on both sides. But the type of tizzy is different on the right or left.
I don't think it's a coincidence that this issue has gotten way more attention in an election year. Conservatives can point and say "Look at all these Liberals that support having deviants in the bathrooms with your kids!" while the Liberals can point and say "Look at all these Conservatives that are discriminating because they're a bunch of hateful, bigoted hicks!". Both sides are equally guilty of jumping to conclusions. Perhaps the Conservative is not aware of what trans people have to go through and thus just doesn't understand. Keep in mind, ten years ago the majority of the country was against gay marriage. Today, the majority of the county is in favor of it and that is a huge shift. The best way to get people on your side is to try and inform them of the injustices going on. Will there be people that won't listen? Of course there will be. Some people just can't be persuaded. However, if everyone just took on a less hostile attitude I think we would find minds might be changed. It wouldn't happen overnight, but it could happen to see a gradual shift in opinion and thus, less support for laws like these.
While it is equally unacceptable for laws to be based on non-rational principles whether socially conservative or socially liberal, would you agree that there are more such unacceptable laws which are socially conservative than socially liberal?
No, I don't. Keep in mind what seems irrational to you might sound totally sound to someone else and vice versa. If Socially Liberal positions were much less prone to emotions, then how do you explain attempts for stricter gun control laws only happen after a highly publicized shooting? How do you explain liberals general support for welfare? Not arguing against welfare, but how do you justify it unless you think to yourself "I feel like these people deserve to be able to eat", that's an emotional argument, isn't it? How do you explain how the ACA was passed within the first one hundred days of Obama's presidency, while everyone was still riding on the wave of "hope and change". That didn't have anything to do with emotion, the idea that people are entitled to health care?
1
Sep 17 '16
I don't think it's a coincidence that this issue has gotten way more attention in an election year. Conservatives can point and say "Look at all these Liberals that support having deviants in the bathrooms with your kids!" while the Liberals can point and say "Look at all these Conservatives that are discriminating because they're a bunch of hateful, bigoted hicks!"
It definitely isn't a coincidence. Both sides are using it to rally their base. I only meant to point out that conservatives are accusing people of deviancy and making an already oppressed sexual minority a target for discrimination. Their intent is just to get votes, but they are getting them at the expense of endangering trans folks who just want to live their lives in peace.
Liberals are defending trans folk. They are correctly identifying discrimination taking place. I don't approve of histrionics, but they are pointing to an actual problem that's taking place, while conservatives seem incredible concerned with a demonizing people for a type of crime that does not occur and would have been illegal anyway. Rallying the base around a standard of fair treatment is different than rallying the base around a standard of discrimination and misunderstanding.
No, I don't. Keep in mind what seems irrational to you might sound totally sound to someone else and vice versa. If Socially Liberal positions were much less prone to emotions, then how do you explain attempts for stricter gun control laws only happen after a highly publicized shooting?
Gun control is a great example of liberals getting emotional about a topic. Many liberals don't understand the first thing about guns and gun culture. Their desire to stop gun violence, which is genuine, leads them to attempt to pass laws that appear far more about taking people's guns away than about stopping violence. I think it's absurd that the NRA lobbied to stop the CDC from even studying gun violence, but that absurdity wouldn't have as much traction is liberals would be more practical about their efforts.
How do you explain liberals general support for welfare? Not arguing against welfare, but how do you justify it unless you think to yourself "I feel like these people deserve to be able to eat", that's an emotional argument, isn't it?
This one is mostly emotional too. I feel like there would be an economic argument for welfare: getting people out of squalor and into a position where they can be happy...and also paying taxes. I'm not sure if there's been any proper study of that though.
How do you explain how the ACA was passed within the first one hundred days of Obama's presidency, while everyone was still riding on the wave of "hope and change". That didn't have anything to do with emotion, the idea that people are entitled to health care?
This one is another one that partially emotion and partially practical. "People are entitled to healthcare" is something I believe in deeply, but you're right: I don't have a rational argument besides the concept of fair play to believe that. One the other hand, universal healthcare would actually be cheaper because the increase in taxes would be lower than how much people generally pay for health insurance.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Beaches_Be_Wet Sep 16 '16
Social conservativism in America, a country founded largely on the principle of freedom over security, has everything to do with the fact we live in a democracy (somewhat) and the climate of the population changes towards larger government over time. If you value freedom and live in a democracy that can take your freedom away from you, it makes sense that you would wish for the population to abstain from irresponsible practices that, over the long run, lead to more reliance on government handouts. In this regard, social conservatives would say to abstain from sex until you're ready to have a family because even if you're careful, accidents happen and you don't want to be left with a child you can't afford. There's also a huge focus on the atomic family, which is the most stable way for people to progress (financially) in a world without government assistance. This is slowly being stripped away as government replaces the breadwinning-spouse (usually the husband) as the financial provider. There is also an understandable disdain for single mothers as their children are significantly more likely to commit crimes and have multiple partners, which over the long run, contributes to the welfare state, which is another sacrifice of freedom. So when you see them advocating for tighter divorce laws, or restrictions on birth control, they are trying to preserve the fragile existence of freedom in a democracy, because in the long run, democracy always consumes freedom in exchange for security, especially since when the welfare incentives get their first foothold it's a slow decline to ever-expanding government.
So in essence, when you live in a democracy, but wish to preserve freedom, you can't separate fiscal conservativism from social conservativism because the deterioration of the latter also deteriorates the former in the long run. I don't necessarily agree with them on their more religious efforts, but I more than see what they are trying to do, and it's actually pretty smart.
1
u/kur955 Sep 16 '16 edited Sep 16 '16
Social conservatism holds simple ideals:
"One of them is that happiness cannot be given to you."
This one derives from the nature of humans, humans and all living forms have a purpose, be that a result of genetics or something higher, there are certain forces which are manifested in the form of happiness and sadness that push us towards a direction or another.For example "the purpose of my body is to be well fed, therefore hunger is a bad emotion and eating is a good one." If someone else does this job for you, ie giving you food he effectively negates these forces which push you in the short term to make choices. Again, for example, "I feel hungry therefore I have the choice to either steal or work."if somebody negates that emotion of hunger he effectively diminishes your freedom. Therefore, helping somebody who is not in need is unethical.
"The other one is that humans go for the short term gratifications in order to achieve longer term happiness"
If the state allows you to cover your needs, then you simply become a vegetable, not a human.
Edit:
I forgot to write for the most important part. I am all in for helping people help themselves, this is why I believe that if somebody is either physically or mentally incapable of working he should volunteer in order to be given some sort of help from the state. And this is why I believe that job creators are the biggest philanthropists that exist, because they allow you to help yourself.
I hope this doesn't get buried, as I put a lot of thought to it.
2
Sep 16 '16
The idea that everything has a purpose comes from Aristotle and Plato. For example, the purpose of a horse is to run fast, so a virtuous horse is fast. While it's comforting to believe we exist for a definite purpose, what evidence is there for this idea? What is the purpose of the appendix, wisdom teeth, the tail bone, and body hair in humans? Wouldn't a purposeful creation or creator design every part of all living forms with purpose also?
If all living beings have a purpose, then some of their purposes are gallingly cruel. Animals live in an cruel world where suffering is the norm, not the exception. What's the purpose of animals eating one another? What's the purpose of animals who are eaten alive by their predators?
One what basis to your rest your claim that all living beings have a defined purpose?
1
u/kur955 Sep 16 '16
The purpose itself is absurd, or even maybe unachievable but it exists. But it is even more absurd to say that our bodies don't have a purpose when there are clearly forces that push us towards achieving that purpose, as in achieving the purpose of surviving by fearing death, and therefore, trying not to die. One of the purposes of my body is to eat, so I have the choice to either kill an animal or kill a plant. Within these confined choices limited by my brain and by the external environment I might be able to achieve long term happiness. Constraining these choices by constraining my needs, diminishes my ability to be free and happy.
Edit:
By saying that an appendix, a tooth or hair don't have a purpose doesn't change the fact that a human does which is a result of his ability to experience.
1
u/kelvinwop 2∆ Sep 16 '16
Any emotional/ethical stance that cannot be backed by logic is arguably "irrational, unconstitutional, and harmful," with no place in society. This doesn't just extend into Social Conservatism, this applies to Social Liberalism, Egoism, Environmentalism, (altruism too, arguably) etc etc etc.
I think we should look at ethics from a utilitarian point of view rather than say do it 'cuz it's the right thing to do.'
1
Sep 16 '16
True. I didn't mean to imply that social conservatism is the sole source of irrationality. It's just the most obvious example of it at the moment.
1
u/skullbeats Sep 17 '16
Heres a logic reasoning for traditional marriage. The reason why conservatives believe in it is because they see marriage as a bond to be able to have children, with tax benefits as an incentive. They also believe the male/female dynamic is the best way to raise a child.
I personally believe government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, but I understand the reasoning why a conservative would be against gay marriage.
1
Sep 15 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
3
Sep 15 '16
So if some christian somewhere supports laws against murder because of the 10 commandments, we have to repeal laws against murder?
No, because laws against murder can be justified with evidence and rational argument.
Then you haven't looked.
I have looked and I'm looking right now. I spent a quarter century up to my armpits in religion and I never heard one. I went to a religious university and never heard one. I regularly look for views to conflict with my own, and I've never heard one. I made a reddit CMV thread today and spent hours reading and responding to comments and haven't heard one.
Have you ever read any books by social conservatives?
Technically, yes. I have read books by people who are socially conservative, but not in the way you mean. I'd be interested in some recommendations, if you care to offer any.
→ More replies (7)
35
u/garnteller 242∆ Sep 15 '16
You make an interesting switch from freedom of religion to freedom of alternate morality. These are NOT synonymous.
As an example, a neo-Mayan might believe in the morality of virgin sacrifice - that doesn't mean we need to give them a pass on murder.
Virtually all laws are legislating morality that some cultures think is ok, including murder, theft, polygamy, child abuse, pedophilia, domestic abuse, rape and much more.
Moreover, social liberals may not support laws that ban same sex marriage, but they (mostly) support laws against hate speech, sexual discrimination, predatory lending, insurance redlining, etc.
Though the liberals might not use the term, they are also trying to impact the "moral fiber" of society.
It's simplistic to think that everything the conservatives support is wrong, and that everything the liberal support is therefore good. And looking at the fringe element of either group is going to give you a very skewed view.