Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Sat Dec 27, 2014 6:12 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 5:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Posts: 5991
Location: Taiwan
Malcolm wrote:
There is no justifiable argument that can be produced which can show that gay marriage is disadvantageous to society as a whole.


At least nothing we can discern at the moment. The future will tell.

As I said, recognizing gay marriage sets a legal precedent for any other unrecognized group seeking legal sanction for their presently unrecognized activities. This means advocates for child marriage amongst some minorities in the west will have another precedent to refer to as far as legal matters go. One could say gay marriage is a separate issue as it concerns consenting adults, but it is a human rights issue and child marriage proponents could likewise argue their own human rights are being infringed upon in a similar fashion.

Quote:
Have you checked the divorce rate lately?


There are many factors at work behind this trend. Consumerism, popular feminist values and lack of community expectations are all contributing to divorce rates being so high in the US and elsewhere.

In stabler social arrangements of past times divorce was not such an issue. This is observable in plenty of places in the world where divorce is not so common even when women and men alike have the right to initiate divorce, though in my estimation social norms and community expectations likely often force many families to stay together, which is in the long-term healthier for children.

Actually popular feminist values likely prompted the increase in divorce over the last few decades. This was perhaps another unforeseen consequence of rapid reforms. This is why a cautious albeit generally tolerant, conservative approach has many advantages rather than rushing through changes and attempting to stamp out disagreement.

_________________
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog) Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog) Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog) Dharma Depository (Site)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12740
Indrajala wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no justifiable argument that can be produced which can show that gay marriage is disadvantageous to society as a whole.


At least nothing we can discern at the moment. The future will tell.

As I said, recognizing gay marriage sets a legal precedent for any other unrecognized group seeking legal sanction for their presently unrecognized activities. This means advocates for child marriage amongst some minorities in the west will have another precedent to refer to as far as legal matters go.


Nonsense.



Quote:
Have you checked the divorce rate lately?


Quote:
Actually popular feminist values likely prompted the increase in divorce over the last few decades. This was perhaps another unforeseen consequence of rapid reforms. This is why a cautious albeit generally tolerant, conservative approach has many advantages rather than rushing through changes and attempting to stamp out disagreement.


Again, nonsense. The divorce rate rose in the seventies because most people married in the 60's in their early 20's. This set a precedent that continues unabated. Divorce, once scandalous, became increasingly acceptable as celebrities were marrying an divorcing at dizzying rates in the fifties and sixties.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Posts: 5991
Location: Taiwan
No, popular feminist values often hint at or outright suggest the disposability of males. You sometimes see expressions like the need to "domesticate males" as if we're untamed animals.

Even in less antagonistic strains of thought, family values are still undermined by feminism. Women are encouraged to compete with males. This is at odds with the older, more stable values of previous generations. The idea of devoting yourself to your children and household while forgoing career is often discouraged by feminists and their sympathizers, at least as I've seen in Canada. These are not conducive to a healthy family and were largely introduced in the 60s and 70s.

Liberal values have their unforeseen consequences in the real world regardless of what one's ideals might be.

Regardless, for the first time in human history we are seeing gay marriage and children reared in such arrangements. For believers in perpetual progress, this is just another indication of just moral progress towards true equality and mutual respect among all people, though I fear these trends will result in very undesirable developments in future decades.

_________________
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog) Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog) Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog) Dharma Depository (Site)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12740
Indrajala wrote:
I fear these trends will result in very undesirable developments in future decades.



Ok, Chicken Little.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:15 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Posts: 5787
Indrajala wrote:
No, popular feminist values often hint at or outright suggest the disposability of males.


Can you cite a few plausible examples of this phenomenon?

Quote:
You sometimes see expressions like the need to "domesticate males" as if we're untamed animals


Examples, not counting those said in jest?

Quote:
Even in less antagonistic strains of thought, family values are still undermined by feminism. Women are encouraged to compete with males. This is at odds with the older, more stable values of previous generations. The idea of devoting yourself to your children and household while forgoing career is often discouraged by feminists and their sympathizers, at least as I've seen in Canada. These are not conducive to a healthy family and were largely introduced in the 60s and 70s.


You have several unsupported claims here as well. First, you assume that women entering the workforce is attributable to a change in values, and not to changes in economic structures. You assume that the pattern of women forgoing a career to rear children is something that persisted for generations--can you specify how many generations this persisted, and how prevalent this pattern may have been? I ask because there is little evidence for the stay-at-home mother as a stable institution for the majority of working-class families in North America (particularly with regard to farm communities). You assume but do not demonstrate that women in the workforce are not conducive to family health, and that this change was introduced in the mid-20th century, when there is substantial evidence to rebut this claim. Finally, your in the absence of your demonstration of these assumptions you assert, your claim that "family values are undermined by feminism" is an empty, fatuous one.

_________________
Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...

viewtopic.php?f=114&t=13727


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 9:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:44 pm
Posts: 12
Indrajala wrote:
Liberal reforms of the 20th century produced unforeseen consequences. For instance, when many mothers entered the workforce in the 60s and 70s, crime rates subsequently increased.
I would be very interested to see statistics to support that assertion.

Indrajala wrote:
No, popular feminist values often hint at or outright suggest the disposability of males. You sometimes see expressions like the need to "domesticate males" as if we're untamed animals.
This presumes there aren't male feminists! As HH Dalai Lama has said: "I call myself a feminist. Isn't that what you call someone who fights for women's rights?"

Indrajala wrote:
I would actually agree that denying homosexuals the right to marry is a human rights infringement, but I don't believe in human rights. Human rights are used as justification for ghoulish levels of violence which nowadays tends to hurt civilians the most.
Pardon? And out of interest, what do you believe in?

And back to the original post, well done Scotland!! :applause:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 9:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am
Posts: 1961
Seems odd to me that you, Indrajala, have become more contentious on this board than upasaka Jeffrey. What about 'leaving home' has induced you to pay so much attention to the samsaric 'home' you renounced?

_________________
Only consider helping others and forget yourself. Master Hsuan Hua


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:03 am
Posts: 933
Malcom, 'ok, Chicken Little' Well I think Indrajala has made a few good points. You may not agree with them but I think they are worthy of consideration.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12740
greentara wrote:
Malcom, 'ok, Chicken Little' Well I think Indrajala has made a few good points. You may not agree with them but I think they are worthy of consideration.


Yes, I don't agree. I think they are utterly worthless for consideration and should be dismissed out of hand as pure bigotry, something you might hear on a fundamentalist Christian television station.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:58 pm
Posts: 33
Location: Sheffield, United Kingdom
Indrajala wrote:
WASW wrote:
Indrajala wrote:
If you have a cognitively-challenged underclass, as every large nation has, you need some anchoring institutions for them to aspire to; and those institutions should have some continuity and stability. Heterosexual marriage is a key such institution. In a society in which nobody had an IQ below 120, homosexual marriage might be plausible. In the actual societies we have, other considerations kick in.[/i]


Is this person seriously suggesting that heterosexual marriage exists to protect "stupid" people against themselves? I find this notion to be very offensive, both in terms of its attitudes towards homosexuality and that it veers very closely to some pretty dodgy eugenicist territory.


No, the author is suggesting that a stable institution like heterosexual marriage (which is condoned and supported by religion) lends support to the unintelligent masses.


Yes- but I am questioning the idea that there are "unintelligent masses" who require the (quite cynical and manipulative, in this view) existence of institutions that are sanctioned by religions to keep them stable? I think that idea is quite patronising and doesn't really reflect the historic realities for the rise of marriage-contracts, that being the control of property and inheritance (not that I think this is the rationale of how marriages need to be conceived of now and in the future, though obviously equal marriage laws do provide homosexual couples with not inconsiderable benefits in terms of protecting bereaved spouses_.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12740
WASW wrote:

Yes- but I am questioning the idea that there are "unintelligent masses" who require the (quite cynical and manipulative, in this view) existence of institutions that are sanctioned by religions to keep them stable? I think that idea is quite patronising and doesn't really reflect the historic realities for the rise of marriage-contracts, that being the control of property and inheritance (not that I think this is the rationale of how marriages need to be conceived of now and in the future, though obviously equal marriage laws do provide homosexual couples with not inconsiderable benefits in terms of protecting bereaved spouses_.


Yes, but you must consider all those "child marriage" advocates out there who will insist that their right to wed six year olds is being infringed upon, you know, because it is all the fault of the feminazis.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:29 am
Posts: 761
Location: Oregon
Malcolm wrote:
WASW wrote:

Yes- but I am questioning the idea that there are "unintelligent masses" who require the (quite cynical and manipulative, in this view) existence of institutions that are sanctioned by religions to keep them stable? I think that idea is quite patronising and doesn't really reflect the historic realities for the rise of marriage-contracts, that being the control of property and inheritance (not that I think this is the rationale of how marriages need to be conceived of now and in the future, though obviously equal marriage laws do provide homosexual couples with not inconsiderable benefits in terms of protecting bereaved spouses_.


Yes, but you must consider all those "child marriage" advocates out there who will insist that their right to wed six year olds is being infringed upon, you know, because it is all the fault of the feminazis.


What right does anyone have telling other people who they can and cannot marry? Especially the government. Why does the government have to issue license for marriage? When I think about it, it seems very odd having State authority tell adults who they can marry. In the past religious authority had power to tell people how to live their lives, now it is the State, it almost as if we are slaves owned by the state. I don't mind marriage contracts to protect property (that includes children). But keep the State out of my private life and property!

_________________
Mind and mental events are concepts, mere postulations within the three realms of samsara Longchenpa .... A link to my Garden, Art and Foodie blog Scratch Living


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:04 am
Posts: 833
greentara wrote:
Malcom, 'ok, Chicken Little' Well I think Indrajala has made a few good points. You may not agree with them but I think they are worthy of consideration.

I agree with him as well. Mainly on the point that feminism is to blame for the high divorce rate in western countries. Truth can be hard to swallow sometimes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm
Posts: 2297
Jikan wrote:
Indrajala wrote:
No, popular feminist values often hint at or outright suggest the disposability of males.

Can you cite a few plausible examples of this phenomenon?

Haven't read this but a quick search turned it up:
http://www.amazon.com/Are-Men-Necessary-Sexes-Collide/dp/042521236X

_________________
Through Dzogchen we can really understand what God is and we don’t have to worry if there is a God or not. God always exists as our real nature, the base, for everybody. - Chögyal Namkhai Norbu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:24 pm
Posts: 641
Location: Delaware
Nighthawk wrote:
... Mainly on the point that feminism is to blame for the high divorce rate in western countries. Truth can be hard to swallow sometimes.


Something here is hard to swallow, for sure.

Of course, the high divorce rate has nothing to do with men who can't keep it in their pants, and leave their wives of 20-30-40 years for young floozies. No, or course not. It's them damn uppity women.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:03 am
Posts: 933
justsit, I had to laugh "Leave their wives of 20-30-40 years for young floozies" of course it does happen. Women also leave husbands for younger lovers or someone richer or more exciting. Its the gender game. What do they say? All is fair in love and war'
I say live and let live but when it comes to children I'm far more mindful, careful, more conservative in my concerns and outlook.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm
Posts: 2297
Floozies? Do they still exist?

_________________
Through Dzogchen we can really understand what God is and we don’t have to worry if there is a God or not. God always exists as our real nature, the base, for everybody. - Chögyal Namkhai Norbu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:24 pm
Posts: 641
Location: Delaware
Oh yeah, they're out there, just called by a different name. I was being polite.

Seriously, though, where does this disdain for women come from? Traumatic potty training? Overbearing mommies? Stood up by a date for the senior prom? No "sex on demand?" I'd really like to know - it makes no sense to me. Do men really feel threatened??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12740
Nighthawk wrote:
greentara wrote:
Malcom, 'ok, Chicken Little' Well I think Indrajala has made a few good points. You may not agree with them but I think they are worthy of consideration.

I agree with him as well. Mainly on the point that feminism is to blame for the high divorce rate in western countries. Truth can be hard to swallow sometimes.


Utter nonsense.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:29 am
Posts: 761
Location: Oregon
greentara wrote:
justsit, I had to laugh "Leave their wives of 20-30-40 years for young floozies" of course it does happen. Women also leave husbands for younger lovers or someone richer or more exciting. Its the gender game. What do they say? All is fair in love and war'
I say live and let live but when it comes to children I'm far more mindful, careful, more conservative in my concerns and outlook.


Divorce also may be related economic stresses and a rapidly changing Environment. Our court systems play partners off each other for profit, it's just heart breaking to be in family law and see how the system makes money off of peoples misery. The family is under a lot of stress for so many reasons. Feminism has been used along with race, religion, gender preference and wealth to keep us all divided and fighting with each other politically while our world is changing so rapidly we can't find our balance and figure out how to get along and make a healthy life.

I remember reading an American native man's remark to the white man's life style saying how stupid it was. He said something like, "You white men work so hard and your woman is so mean. My women does all the work and during the winter all I have to do is sleep, eat, and cuddle with my wife or wives." I can't remember exactly how many wives or just one wife. Cultures are so different regarding what age people get married, how they marry, like who arranges the marriages, and how long they stay married and how they break up.

I can't figure out why we put up with the state telling us who we can marry, what kind of healthcare we can get, who we can see in a hospital (regarding same sex relationships)...I mean the list is endless regarding the State regulating our lives and we don't ever complain about that. What right does an insurance company have telling us what kind of family they will insure and not insure? Seriously this is why I don't want insurance or state regulated insurance, they hold too much power over my choices regarding how I want to take care of myself and my family.

_________________
Mind and mental events are concepts, mere postulations within the three realms of samsara Longchenpa .... A link to my Garden, Art and Foodie blog Scratch Living


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group