tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post7493311806235141515..comments2024-02-29T03:57:00.088-05:00Comments on The Mermaid's Tale: Harem-scare 'em? Is polygamy next? Why not?Anne Buchananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-27493319390923285472013-12-21T06:58:36.110-05:002013-12-21T06:58:36.110-05:00You are completely wrong to suggest that we have o...You are completely wrong to suggest that we have or were voicing homophobic feelings or views, and we don't really see where that interpretation came from. We raised uncomfortable issues because we think they are important to think about.<br /><br />We wrote this in April and I'm writing in late December, when your comment was posted. So I re-read what we wrote and I don't see any sense that we are doing what you say, so perhaps you should read more carefully.<br /><br />Our point was that we are dealing here with cultural issues and they are changeable and not tied to Darwinian or biological laws. In fact, only 6 months after we wrote this post, there are indications that bans on polygamy may be lifted by the courts (there was such a story earlier this week, if I recall accurately).<br /><br />Whatever you or anyone else may personally think about polygamy, and no matter whether the polygamist cultures you mention are also homophobic, the issue is a legitimate one to raise. If polygamists tend to be homophobic, that is a separate problem.<br /><br />Finally, I don't see anything 'smug' about our tone, and none was intended.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-49359347472880407582013-12-20T22:45:36.934-05:002013-12-20T22:45:36.934-05:00Wow...you managed to denounce scientists for being...Wow...you managed to denounce scientists for being pro-gay while at the same time giving legitimacy to right wing talking points about slippery slopes - polygamy and bestiality! It's reminiscent of the AAA objection to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a form of western imperialism. <br />You seem to know very little about gay rights so let me offer another perspective. Obviously, the naturalistic fallacy is correct and in a perfect world, the fact/value distinction would be clear to everyone. However, the religious right doesn't play by the same rules so in practice, the only time I have seen science invoked in the debate is to refute the right's false claims of gays as unnatural, perverts, etc. Along the same lines, science has been useful to refute other slanders like gays as child molesters. or victims of child molestation, or the ridiculous Freudian oedipal just so stories, etc. <br />So, I guess my main objection to your piece is the smug tone that has a slight ring of homophobia to it.<br />Additionally, you don't seem to grasp the way slippery slope arguments are deployed against gay rights, especially in the context of our legal system. When people bring up polygamy and bestiality, it is meant to trigger a disgust reaction. Slippery slopes are not logically consistent and are based on a simplistic theory of causality. Politically, there is vary little support for polygamy outside of fundamentalist Mormons and maybe some traditional Muslims, which groups are diametrically opposed to gay rights. The progressive coalition pushing for gay marriage values egalitarianism and feminism so would be strongly opposed to polygamy because empirically it is correlated with patriarchy. Technically, it is possible to distinguish polyamory for polygamy but latter are outnumbered by former significantly.<br />My point is that just because a law or norm is changed does not result in anarchy - laws and cultural norms are constantly in flux and trying to prove strong causal claims is folly.<br />etseqnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-87579533521859677042013-04-05T10:15:28.463-04:002013-04-05T10:15:28.463-04:00Of course, I couldn't agree with you more! Fo...Of course, I couldn't agree with you more! For those who think God made us this way or that, or who argue that various sexual behaviors aren't 'natural', comparative biology is a valid and telling counter argument.<br /><br />The Darwinians cross the line, for me, when they try to argue that what is (as they see it) 'natural' is also right. Thus they confound do and should (your point), and arrogate to themselves the qualifications for making such judgments, among other errors of scientific transgression. It is multiply tragic that we already learned that lesson the very hardest possible way via the eugenics era and the Frankenstein it calved (Hitler).<br /><br />But if we want to take the nature-for-guidance principle as 'right' (rather than, as you say, kindness and empathy), then I have a great idea for reducing the budget deficit: close all the hospitals and clinics!<br /><br />Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-15994763736131985422013-04-05T10:07:01.632-04:002013-04-05T10:07:01.632-04:00Ken, these might just be musings, but I like them....Ken, these might just be musings, but I like them. I think the point that we must separate the 'do' from the 'should' is particularly important because looking to nature for guidance is not always the best way to go. Darwin knew this when he discussed the suffering in the natural world, such as that caused by wasps parasitizing caterpillars, cats torturing half-dead mice, or infections. <br /><br />The existence of variation in sexuality in other species should make us think, but it shouldn't stop there. I would hope most people would emphasize simple kindness and empathy, and minimizing suffering. Patrick Clarkinhttp://kevishere.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com