While observing the partisan slugfests that take place in the forums "up above" one of the most constant themes is almost incessant back-and-forth (to a disproportionate degree) about homosexual rights and marriage. It seems that one of the stalwarts for people who oppose this idea is the notion that it represents the "degredation of society" and that "if we allow our moral standards to slip too far, there will be chaos and the downfall of America". Personally, I think that this is nonsense and not really worth discussing, but it led me to think about the subject in the title.

In America, homosexuality (I believe) has gone from something casual and not self-identifying, to a taboo, to an increasingly acceptable method of self identification. A similar progression has happened with certain minority populations, most notably and prominently, blacks. They made the journey from property to second class citizens to Americans with the full protection of the constitution. In fact, over the course of time, changes in attitude have taken place with regards to alcohol, "drugs", smoking, driving while drunk, the nature of the family, appropriate attire, gender relations, and countless other things. All of the aforementioned things (unlike certain fashion trends or other aspects of "pop" culture) have been regarded as purely ethical issues.

If we take a more broad view of the world, the changes are starker in constrast. Marriage throughout history has often been a business arrangement forced upon children - a practice which today would be reviled. Add to that the fact that it was not uncommon for siblings to marry, or grown men to marry little girls, and you have an even bigger disparity. In Spartan culture, it was the norm for men to take boys to war with them to alleviate their "needs" while away from their wives, and in modern society, this practice would earn you the most despicable label possible. Cannibalism, human sacrifice, and other such practices that were once common are now considered barbaric.

The question that I'm posing is, in both the short and the long term, what is it that drives this generally gradual (though sometimes sudden) shift in thinking and so completely changes our ethical landscape? Is it the actions of a few trendsetters bucking the system and bending the constraints of acceptability to their will? Is it the general attitude of people over the course of time shifting subtly? Is it a function of technology or ever-increasing knowledge and wisdom? Is it simply the fact that the status quo is impossible to maintain, and some sort of change must happen?

I realize that this is a very open-ended subject to consider, but I'm hoping that a discussion ensues that brings about more specifics or steers it in one direction or another. I also don't have a prepared answer - I'm curious to see what, if anything, people will say. I'm also curious to see if any "conservatives" who are real sticklers for the status quo participate, and to hear why they think the current status quo is good when older status quos were evil.

__________________
[b][SIZE=2]"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."[/b][/SIZE]

-Thomas Jefferson

I think you could argue that people just get used to strange and foreign ideas.

A mostly white company hires a black guy. Everyone suspects him at first, but then they get to see that he's a decent guy. He's hardworking and punctual, he can tell jokes. He gradually gets accepted and even though people were prejudiced against him, gradually they come to accept him more. For a while the people in the street gawk and stare at him, but after they see him everyday, they don't stare as much. It's not as amazing.

A generation later, little Billy goes to school and the kid in the next desk is a black guy. Since he's a kid and impressionable, he grows up with a lot less prejudice than his parents. Billy hangs out with his black friend all the time. They go to the movies together and shoot hoops.

Nowadays you have interracial marriages, and then you also have the acceptance and promotion of black figures by the media, entertainment and commercials. So we just get more and more used to each other and we get along. You could call it gradual diffusion and acceptance.

Could work the same way for gays.

The question then becomes (possibly) why is resistance to homosexuality greater than it is for racial tolerance?


WEB

P.S. Goodtrips, you mind if I flame this thread and make some personal and bigoted attacks here?


WEB

Not sure if I'M the stalwart you're referring too. I would only suggest reading my latest:

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/foru...postcount=1096

Anyways, my problem has little too do with "homosexual rights" and everything to do with leaving marriage between two specimens of the opposite sex. I see no sense in calling two things that are so obviously different the same thing.



Why is it that a sexual preference has become a method of self identification ? Do we not have enough to keep us BUSY in our society/culture ? Do I think of and identify myself in certain terms based on what gives ME a boner ? No, I don't





So, what are you saying here ? That someday WE will be veiwed as a barbaric and backwards and upsidedown people ? That, I think goes without saying no matter WHAT the present setting is.





It can and probably WILL be some immeasurable combination of these forces that will cause changes. Things that can hinder or slow changes are small groups trying to push issues to fast and/or aggressively. Which is what I'm referring to in the link I put above.


I think on SOME issues changes are easier to make acceptable. On others they're NOT so easy. Issue dependant. Different kinds of issues must be approached differently. Knowledge and wisdom may help in some areas.



This COULD be interesting.



It could also turn to shit rather quickly. I HOPE it doesn't go to the land of caca though:-)

__________________
[I]They exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator. . . . Therefore, God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature.[/I] - Romans 1:25-26

Use liberals artistic manipulation of logic and language against them.

I love changes for the better and I think the human race has some major changes to make. I think Dr, that all of your reasons for changes are true and I can't think of others. I think that sometimes fast changes happen as in during the 60s and other times like WEB described, changes happen really slowly. I am a progressive liberal and I love change, the status quo is not good enough to try to keep. I think in the issue of gay marriage, that it's an equal rights issue. Gays are being prevented from marrying the person they love. Really good thread. You have a great mind. Interesting topic.

I look forward to the day when we progress beyond war and look back at that barbaric thing humans used to do to eachother.

Excellent question.

I'd venture to suggest that there are several 'complementary' factors at work here.

1. Trendsetters. Humans do seem to like to follow leaders. Not absolutely, or always, but often enough for naturally charismatic or systemic leaders to have some interest and influence upon 'changes' in social mores.

2. Knowledge. Humans do build up knowledge over time - old notions are discarded as new information or new knowledge changes our way of looking at things. For example, with drinking/driving, it took publication/dissemination of the 'facts' of drunk drivers killing innocent people. Previously, no one collected that data and thus, 'we' were ignorant of the damage being caused by this action. With knowledge of the damage came the change in social mores. I think this particular argument can be applied to many such changes as you have described.

3. Human nature. It would appear that humans have some inherent drive to improve/manipulate our own material conditions. Irrigation, sanitation, hygene and mass production, to name just three, have caused enormous changes upon human social mores and the human condition. Indeed, as I've often remarked, if humans didn't possess some inexplicable 'drive' to change/improve things, we'd probably still be swinging in trees making fun of that idiot ape trying to walk on two feet (and probably falling over in the process).

4. Survival/evolution/adaption. Mutability appears to be a key element in human species survival over many millenia. In many ways, humans seem to like experimentation and variety for its own sake (for good or ill). I link this argument to the neototeny theory from paleoanthropology - the theory that suggests that one of the key elements in human evolutionary development is our 'prolonging of adolescence' (in extremis).

P.S. It was only with the utmost of self-control that I have passed over your statement about the Spartans. Indeed, I was into my third or fourth paragraph composed in reply before I decided that my comments would be entirely pedantic and totally off-topic - so I deleted it all. But the opportunity to discuss my beloved Spartans is a hard one to pass up.

__________________
[I]Remember what the dormouse said, 'feed your head'. [/I]

Damn fine post..though you took my thunder abit.

IRT humankind having a basic drive to improve our lot - I agree 100% with what you say.

I was also thinking of womens role in society, particularily changes in sexual and marital behavior. As women increased their place in society, not speaking so much of rights of citizenship, but equality in the minds of society, where their concerns and thoughts are considered equally with men. I believe this is the force that changed these things.

On the flip side, feminism has a detrimental effect on society, in fact a disasterous effect. Feminism increases crime rates, divorce rates, decreased living conditions, increased stress levels and more than all else - leaves children out in the cold.

If you agree 100% that mankind has an innate drive to better its lot, why would you not extend this property to women ? Feminism was necessary when it emerged. The situation of women around 1890 was that of slaves, un-people with barely any legal rights.

Movements like feminism do not emerge from the blue. they emerge from necessity. It's the same with socialism, which was necessary to better the living conditions of the workers in the 19th century, or with the civil rights movement in the USA or even with the environmentalist movement of the 70's till now. They all were/are necessary for the betterment of the conditions of humans as a group.

That these movements rendered the position of the white, rich alpha male less predominant, is true. But so what ? Should this innate drive towards betterment be exclusive to that group ? I think not.

How feminism could be responsible for so many perceived ills, I cannot see. Please elaborate ?

__________________
It is often said that anarchists live in a world of dreams and do not see the things which happen today. We see them only too well, and in their true colors, and that is what makes us carry the hatchet into the forest of prejudices that besets us.
[I]P.Kropotkin; Anarchism: Its philosophy and ideal.[/I]

Thanks for the replies, all. It's a bit late, so I'll address some things here tomorrow when I get a chance

__________________
[b][SIZE=2]"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."[/b][/SIZE]

-Thomas Jefferson

You are confusing women's equality to feminism.
VERY different, women's equality had many benefits -as previously mentioned especially marital and sexual practices prior to that accomplishment.

Feminism is quite different, all you have to do is look at the past feminist leaders; lesbians and man-haters.
I could write a whole book about the detrimental effects of feminism on society, which I will here abit later (I am at work)