Thread: If It's All The Same To You, Why Deny Others?

I think the main reason why a traditional heterosexual monogamous relationship works, is a lack of information or possibilities to compare.
Even if you skip the monogamous and just stick to heterosexual, you're usually all on your own. In other words: guys know different girls and may be able to compare or girls know different guys etc.
What you don't know is how you compare to people of the same gender.

Nowadays we (at least in europe) live in a society that seems almost addicted to determinations in that field. Like: "I'm an active homosexual male" or else. That stands against the classic isolation policy.

Personally I think that a great deal of that is group pressure determined, none of my concern and doesn't have a pathological background at all. But some people just feel unhappy with partners of the opposite sex and those are the ones who should have the chance to live the life they have to live.

I'm all for intergenetical same sex marriages cause I love my cats, hehehe

@VeeDubb65:

All I said is that there are people who think this way. Isn't that true? I am not interested in defending these opinions, only to put them on the table. No need to make it personal.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

All I said is that there are people who think this way. Isn't that true? I am not interested in defending these opinions, only to put them on the table. No need to make it personal.

I see now how I misread your comment. I stick to my comments with regards to the people who hold and loudly spread the views you referenced.

Originally Posted by icedog

What I wanted this thread to be about is why some people tend to want to control the freedoms of others.

OK, lets keep this 100% generic. Let's discuss institutions.

Institutions are structures and mechanisms of social order and cooperation governing the behavior of a set of individuals. Institutions are identified with a social purpose and permanence, transcending individual human lives and intentions, and with the making and enforcing of rules governing cooperative human behavior. The term, institution, is commonly applied to customs and behavior patterns important to a society, as well as to particular formal organizations of government and public service.

Some people enter into these institutions. They get the rights and privileges associated with following the rules.

Other people choose not to enter into these institutions, and don't get the benefits.

However, a third group are more problematic. "Hey," they say, "I don't want to follow the rules, but I want the benefits, and I demand the right to join in without following the rules."

Now it is important to remember something. These benefits are not necessarily something granted by law or any authority. Mainly they are offered by society, because society feels (rightly or wrongly) that the benefits are deserved by people entering those institutions.

The benefit most relevant to our discussion is respect. Respect is not given to people who join various institutions simply because they become members. It is given to them because of what being a member involves, and how society feels about it. Some examples (nothing more, please don't overanalyze them):

• A doctor is respected because he saves lives. Somebody with an honorary PhD can call himself a doctor, but he will not get the same respect as a practicing medical doctor.
• A soldier is respected because he risks his life to protect his country's interests. If a soldier refuses to act because he gets scared, he loses that respect.

Now. Bearing in mind that honorary membership of an institution does not earn you respect automatically, what does that tell you about that third group above who demand membership so they can get the associated respect?

• They simply will not get that respect just by being allowed to join. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!
• They will have nominal membership, nothing more.
• They are deluding themselves.
• They will annoy people who enter into the institution fully and willingly.

Originally Posted by xman

Well, that solved that in a hurry now didn't it? Anybody for some scones? I bake them fresh myself.

X

yeah, sounding better and better all the time.

That's four of us then, I'm gonna start baking. If anybody else wants in let me know. Will somebody please start the tea?

Originally Posted by xman

That's four of us then, I'm gonna start baking. If anybody else wants in let me know. Will somebody please start the tea?

Well, I can do workmans tea as well as any other Brit but if you want the posh stuff

Jam and cream?

Originally Posted by gregs656

Jam and cream?

Mais bien sur!

Originally Posted by gregs656

Well, I can do workmans tea as well as any other Brit but if you want the posh stuff

Jam and cream?

I know it might be a little unconventional, but can I have a dollop of honey in my tea?

Originally Posted by Rajagra

OK, lets keep this 100% generic. Let's discuss institutions.
Some people enter into these institutions. They get the rights and privileges associated with following the rules.

Other people choose not to enter into these institutions, and don't get the benefits.

However, a third group are more problematic. "Hey," they say, "I don't want to follow the rules, but I want the benefits, and I demand the right to join in without following the rules."

Now it is important to remember something. These benefits are not necessarily something granted by law or any authority. Mainly they are offered by society, because society feels (rightly or wrongly) that the benefits are deserved by people entering those institutions.

The benefit most relevant to our discussion is respect. Respect is not given to people who join various institutions simply because they become members. It is given to them because of what being a member involves, and how society feels about it.
...
what does that tell you about that third group above who demand membership so they can get the associated respect?

• They simply will not get that respect just by being allowed to join. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!
• They will have nominal membership, nothing more.
• They are deluding themselves.
• They will annoy people who enter into the institution fully and willingly.

I think you're missing one entry on that last list: The case in which the societal rules for the institution are unreasonable and/or unfair.

(Keeping it 100% generic) Let's use a hypothetical institution, which has certain rules for membership. If a person looks at those rules and thinks, "Hmm, I think I really should, in all fairness, be allowed to be a member of this institution and deserve the full respect thereof, but the rules don't quite fit," they could well be deluding themselves, true. However, there is the possibility that society has changed since the rules were established. I'd argue that all of us, as members of society, have an obligation to recognize when new information or societal shifts challenge the rules of our existing institutions, and to respond appropriately.

How about some examples:

• Suppose we have an institution which only allows people who chew with their mouth closed and with proper posture. At some point opinions begin to change and some people start to think, "Hey, proper posture's really not necessary; chewing with your mouth closed is all that's necessary for me to respect the institution."
  
• An institution which only allows members who are at least 6 feet tall. Perhaps, as our average height grows, the members of this institution begin to look more and more average. We might decide this is a bad thing, and so maybe we'll consider the rule to be more like 2 meters (also because the metric system just makes more sense).
  
• The soldier who declines risking his life could do so due to rational risk assessment, and decide he would be more valuable to his country if he doesn't go on a suicide mission. Should he still be worthy of the respect that comes along with the institution of being a soldier? (This one is arguable, but that's the point)
  
• Getting more concrete: The institution of the right to vote in America (keeping it to the US so I can deal with only recent history) was originally pretty much just for white, male landowners. The requirements were gradually loosened as society's opinions changed and people began to consider various rules unreasonable.

My point is this: When enforcing the rules for membership in an institution, one must (at least periodically) evaluate those same rules to see if they're still reasonable. They often are, and we can go on with our lives. When they're not reasonable, though, is the topic of this thread.

Some people insist on enforcing rules for institutions while refusing to look at whether the rules make sense. Enforcing a rule simply because it's a rule is, in my opinion, a bad thing.