Pragmatic Stigmatizing Or Bullying

[Stone holm]

I believe we are here to overcome our "natural" desires and become godlike. If that is silly, let it be so.

Nature may be the ultimate enforcer- we all die- but it does not have to be the best we aspire too. You know- the "carnal, natural man" and all of that.

I think that is fundamental to all religions.

Yeah, I think there is a lot of misunderstanding of the word "natural" in "natural man". I don't see "nature" as evil in anyway, and I don't see biological man as necessarily evil either. I do, however, think that religion is a part of nature and that we can get very close to an understanding of God and the Divine through the study of nature -- even "nature bloody in fang and claw". Most of the true evil in the world is artificial its where man tries in his arrogance to do better than nature. Also, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that we are nervously hardwired to believe, and that if God had not already existed we would have invented Him -- as we have an ingrained need for a higher being than ourselves. I don't know for sure about the deep ecological philosophy that pmccombs is toying with, but I believe there are some fundamental truths there which are consistent with Mormonism.

[USU78]

So you would favour the idea of letting girls get branded as "easy"?

You think this isn't already happening? Everywhere?

[USU78]

They bring with them poor nutrition, myriad stresses, pollution, disease, and whatever else Earth produces as She raises her immune system against the plague of humanity that begins to corrupt her.

Say what?

[rockpond]

Do we all agree that homosexuals have been stigmatized but are increasingly less so?

Because, I think the interesting question with respect to that is whether the stigmatization of homosexuals is necessary to try to curb unhealthy behaviors --or-- if the stigmatization has, in part, led to some of the unhealthy behaviors we see in that community.

[Garden Girl]

Also, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that we are nervously hardwired to believe, and that if God had not already existed we would have invented Him -- as we have an ingrained need for a higher being than ourselves. I don't know for sure about the deep ecological philosophy that pmccombs is toying with, but I believe there are some fundamental truths there which are consistent with Mormonism.

Hello Stone holm...

I believe you're right. Even most of the inhabitants of the darkest corners of the earth have been found to have some form of a "God," whether it be a rock set on a pedestal, etc., or some other symbol... they still felt the need for "worshipping" something higher... My own opinion is that this goes deep into us no matter who or where we are because in the very depths of our souls we remember... something deep within the psyche of man "remembers" our former home and we try and recreate it whether or not we can name or understand it.

GG

[Stone holm]

Hello Stone holm...

I believe you're right. Even most of the inhabitants of the darkest corners of the earth have been found to have some form of a "God," whether it be a rock set on a pedestal, etc., or some other symbol... they still felt the need for "worshipping" something higher... My own opinion is that this goes deep into us no matter who or where we are because in the very depths of our souls we remember... something deep within the psyche of man "remembers" our former home and we try and recreate it whether or not we can name or understand it.

GG

Perhaps, or perhaps it's some kind of natural survival mechanism, but the self loathing implicit in this antipathy against the natural order is disgusting, neurotic, and unhealthy IMNSHO.

[Garden Girl]

Perhaps, or perhaps it's some kind of natural survival mechanism, but the self loathing implicit in this antipathy against the natural order is disgusting, neurotic, and unhealthy IMNSHO.

Huh? I don't view self loathing as part of this... at least not in the narrow manner I was thinking and expressing in regard to a higher being...

GG

Edited May 10, 2013 by Garden Girl

[CV75]

But under a certain way of thinking, the use of slurs is an effective deterent -- the question is, is it ever justified?

I think that for mere mortals, once stigma or slurs cross the line from providing a general object lesson to not forgiving individuals, it is no longer pragmatic for the long-term. But Jesus used slurs, and I suppose He forgave (or will forgive) most but not some. For those that are not forgiven, the slur was not a lesson but a righteous condemnation.

[CV75]

Huh? I don't view self loathing as part of this... at least not in the narrow manner I was thinking and expressing in regard to a higher being...

GG

I agree-- I think self-loathing takes us away from God, and then if we are inclined to bully, we bully over the substitute we have for God, which is usually something we have a self-proclaimed strength in, and use this as the high standard to which others cannot measure up, and so bully them. It may be pragmatic in the short run, but not in the long run.

[wenglund]

I take it that pragmatic stigmatisation is your way of curbing homosexuality.

It is one of several ways, and seemingly the only effective way, to discourage homosexual behaviors that lead to the disproportionately high rate of STD's among homosexuals. Minimizing the high cost of STD's seems worth the relatively low level of discomfort of stigmas.

And that phrase means a form of public shaming and ostracization.

It means shaming of behaviors.

Of course recent Church policy would seem to suggest that approach would in itself constitute bad behaviour .

It may constitute tough love, but in no rational way would it constitute bad behavior--at least not as I understand stigmas.

I just wonder how that type of behaviour might reflect on Christians in general, or rather how that behaviour is already reflecting on Christians in general and exactly how The Lord might feel about that type of behaviour being linked with His Church?

I am more concerned with saving lives and preventing the spread of disease than I am being unwarrantably stigmatized as a Christian for behaving with tough love.

I guess the question is how much of that type of behaviour is tolerable in trying to force people to live according to our standards.

The stigma I have in mind uses public/peer pressure, not force, and the intent is to prevent demonstrably harmful behaviors, rather than enfource "our standards."

Now the Missourians were willing to go quite far in making Mormons uncomfortable, I assume we wouldn't go quite that far.

It would be ridiculous to compare the two.

Now that you have been corrected on nearly every point, are you starting to see things differently?

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

[wenglund]

Do we all agree that homosexuals have been stigmatized but are increasingly less so?

Yes, there has been a significant increase in public acceptance of homosexuality, and a marked decline in stigma.

Because, I think the interesting question with respect to that is whether the stigmatization of homosexuals is necessary to try to curb unhealthy behaviors --or-- if the stigmatization has, in part, led to some of the unhealthy behaviors we see in that community.

From what I can tell from my research, statistically, the relationship is inverse. As the stigma has declined, there has been an increase or maintenance in the disproportionately high rates of suicides and suicide attempts, STD's, violence (mostly homosexual on homosexual), infidelity, promiscuity, etc.

These statistic ought to be alarming and give considerable pause in countenancing and embracing homosexual behaviors, let alone stamping them with the government's seal of approval and promoting them through legalizing SSM. But, this is just wishful thinking on my part. People these days are more concerned with not offending homosexuals and catering to their whims than they are in doing what is best for them and the rest of society.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 10, 2013 by wenglund

[Stone holm]

Yes, there has been a significant increase in public acceptance of homosexuality, and a marked decline in stigma.

From what I can tell from my research, statistically, the relationship is inverse. As the stigma has declined, there has been an increase or maintenance in the disproportionately high rates of suicides and suicide attempts, STD's, violence (mostly homosexual on homosexual), infidelity, promiscuity, etc.

These statistic ought to be alarming and give considerable pause in countenancing and embracing homosexual behaviors, let alone stamping them with the government's seal of approval and promoting them through legalizing SSM. But, this is just wishful thinking on my part. People these days are more concerned with not offending homosexuals and catering to their whims than they are in doing what is best for them and the rest of society.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree that the decline of stimatization has caused more homosexuals to come out of the closet. Since more are coming out of the closet in cultures which are extremely hostile to them, I would expect that there might be an increase in suicides. I think the attempt to link the drop in stigma to an increase in STDs seems a little problematic -- my guess is that all forms of promiscuity are on the rise which is probably the true cause of the issue.

[pmccombs1]

Say what?

Hey, it's not such an outrageous idea--that the earth is an organism that responds to pathology in a similar way that the human immune system does. And what if people could go wrong, like cells in a body that are typically very beneficial but become cancerous? Could it be that our urbanization and consumerism is unhealthy for the earth? But I didn't realize the idea would be so unpopular! It's not unprecedented, however. We have scriptures that tell of a time when humanity became so wicked that God had to wipe them from the earth. I've made the suggestion that disease and sterility (even homosexuality) might be natural responses to a stressed environment; like the earth is trying to say, "back off." This is a practical interpretation--I think a very good hypothesis--since things like disease and homosexuality aren't usually voluntary. So stigmatization is really not the right response. We need to look deeper.

[wenglund]

I agree that the decline of stimatization has caused more homosexuals to come out of the closet. Since more are coming out of the closet in cultures which are extremely hostile to them, I would expect that there might be an increase in suicides. I think the attempt to link the drop in stigma to an increase in STDs seems a little problematic -- my guess is that all forms of promiscuity are on the rise which is probably the true cause of the issue.

I understand your need to try and twist the obvious implications of the statistics in order to maintain your position in good conscience. But, the reality is, the world outside the closet has become increasingly welcoming to homosexual, to the point that it would be absurd to consider it these day, on balances, as hostile. The marked decline in and virtual absence of hostility, and the continued rise in suicides and other serious health issues, clearly suggests that the problem lay with homosexuals, themselves, and homosexual behavior, even if you bury your head in the sand and don't want to see it. We do homosexuals a disservice, and ourselves, if we ignore this correlative relationship. It would be like ignoring the correlation between swamps and malaria.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 10, 2013 by wenglund

[Tacenda]

I understand your need to try and twist the obvious implications of the statistics in order to maintain your position in good conscience. But, the reality is, the world outside the closet has become increasingly welcoming to homosexual, to the point that it would be absurd to consider it these day, on balances, as hostile. The marked decline in and virtual absence of hostility, and the continued rise in suicides and other serious health issues, clearly suggests that the problem lay with homosexuals, themselves, and homosexual behavior, even if you bury your head in the sand and don't want to see it. We do homosexuals a disservice, and ourselves, if we ignore this correlative relationship. It would be like ignoring the correlation between swamps and malaria.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

CFR?

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/health/suicide-rate-rises-sharply-in-us.html

[Tacenda]

http://www.nytimes.c...rply-in-us.html

Are you answering for Wade? Because if you are, it doesn't mention homosexual suicide. TSS, I'm a teeny, tiny bit disappointed if you were answering the CFR with this.

ETA: But my CFR for WADE still stands.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Tacenda

[pmccombs1]

I believe we are here to overcome our "natural" desires and become godlike. If that is silly, let it be so.

Nature may be the ultimate enforcer- we all die- but it does not have to be the best we aspire too. You know- the "carnal, natural man" and all of that.

I think that is fundamental to all religions.

Ok, ok, I'm thinking about that argument. I think there is something to it--I'm trying to figure how it fits with what I'm observing.

Is God the sort of fellow who holds our heads under water and commands, "now, be like me and breathe!," or is it something else?

I mean, I see two ways to overcome the natural man. One is futile. It's learning to breath underwater. Although, sometimes it's not that way. Sometimes it's like climbing a mountain and pushing against things and getting stronger. I'm throwing out metaphors and being all confusing, I know.

I'm trying to mean this: occasionally resisting the natural man is right, and it makes you stronger. But, occasionally resisting the natural man is wrong, and it kills you. You have to be careful about what kind of "overcoming" you want to employ. Yes, there is another kind of "overcoming" that isn't futile in cases where repression can be fatal. It's about shaping culture and getting into an environment where it's actually possible to become godlike. I really hope that God isn't going to hold it over these poor people who didn't choose homosexuality for themselves, and heaven knows they couldn't beat it. Rather than stigmatizing them, let's help overcome this "natural man" by creating an environment where they aren't in over their heads. I'm sure God doesn't appreciate that we've made a place where becoming like Him is more impossible every day, and I'm sorry, I just don't see room for stigma anywhere.

There was this brilliant article in the Other Journal some time ago, and I wish I could find it now. It talked about making culture vs. making subculture. So many churches are into the subculture thing these days; let's be in the world but not "of it". And it's nonsense. We're all looking to work out some sort of "personal" salvation, thinking that we can do it in the midst of this hellscape. I say that's insanity. We need to start making a culture where people can actually grow and develop, rather than stigmatizing the culture at the same time we're immersed in it.

[USU78]

We need to look deeper.

Who's the "we" in that there sentence?

[Stone holm]

I understand your need to try and twist the obvious implications of the statistics in order to maintain your position in good conscience. But, the reality is, the world outside the closet has become increasingly welcoming to homosexual, to the point that it would be absurd to consider it these day, on balances, as hostile. The marked decline in and virtual absence of hostility, and the continued rise in suicides and other serious health issues, clearly suggests that the problem lay with homosexuals, themselves, and homosexual behavior, even if you bury your head in the sand and don't want to see it. We do homosexuals a disservice, and ourselves, if we ignore this correlative relationship. It would be like ignoring the correlation between swamps and malaria.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well yes and no. It is correct that in the overall the homosexual community is winning the culture war -- however, while previously homosexuals tended to be politely ignored or joked about, now as they win the cultural war, some are coming out in very hostile environments including their homes. While we would as Mormons expect for parents to deal with a child who came out in a loving manner perhaps with some gentle acts at trying to dissuade the child from pursuing that road in life, I am not sure that is the universal approach -- a parent may well choose denial of the situation where the child stays in the closet, but may react very badly if the child comes out and tries to force the parent out of denial. So the fact that the cultural war is being won, doesn't necessarily mean that the hostility a person encounters has decreased, normally some of the most vicious fighting in a war comes near its conclusion. By the way, there have been many civilizations where homosexuality has not been considered any big deal and the society continued to thrive. I don't condone homosexuality, but I don't think we are necessarily handling it correctly or that the use of stigma to keep it in the closet was necessarily the right approach.

[pmccombs1]

Who's the "we" in that there sentence?

Oh, I don't know. Making me qualify my language, eh?

I mean, "we," as in we who belong to organized groups that have the power to move and change our world. Some of us are stigmatizing homosexuals when we might do better changing the world that produces them without their consent. Precious few of them asked to be how they are, just like precious few blind people asked to be blind. Some defects are involuntary.

[Stone holm]

Oh, I don't know. Making me qualify my language, eh?

I mean, "we," as in we who belong to organized groups that have the power to move and change our world. Some of us are stigmatizing homosexuals when we might do better changing the world that produces them without their consent. Precious few of them asked to be how they are, just like precious few blind people asked to be blind. Some defects are involuntary.

What in your opinion would we do to change the world which produces them? The "them" have been around for a very, very long time, so that I don't necessarily see it linked to the way we moderns may have screwed up the planet. Many cultures had a very different approach to homosexuality than we do. So curious what would this Brave New World look like?

[USU78]

Oh, I don't know. Making me qualify my language, eh?

I mean, "we," as in we who belong to organized groups that have the power to move and change our world. Some of us are stigmatizing homosexuals when we might do better changing the world that produces them without their consent. Precious few of them asked to be how they are, just like precious few blind people asked to be blind. Some defects are involuntary.

So many problems. So little time to address them. And in so short an assertion.

1. CFR that there is no choice involved in practicing homosexual lifestyle. The identical twin studies, as Elder Oaks so wisely pointed out, show that the homosexuality of both, raised apart, turns on the toss of a coin. Yes, the incidence is larger than the general population by a fair bit. No, it is not inevitable: environment and one's response to that environment make one a practicing homosexual.

2. One can do just so much in adjusting people's behaviors, especially when those behaviors serve survival and/or evolutionary ends. The chickens in the barnyard will peck that speckled pullet to death because it's speckled, probably because (sez science) speckled looks a whole lot like disease and chickens are at least smart enough to run away from or ameliorate a threat of disease wiping out the flock. It's, moreover, not a new notion that one must stick up to bullies, and that bullies deserve getting pulled down a peg or two by somebody brave enough to risk injury to do so. If adults always intervene, how is the craven to learn finally to be brave? It's bad policy, infantilizes the young, and, ultimately, doesn't do much good: if I always must rely on somebody else to solve my problems, I cannot be of any use to anybody else. Whatever the configuration of the person being bullied, either that person or a peer must be the one to stand up. The playground should be a little bit dangerous, though not life-threatening. Hysterical dogoodniki do a whole lot of mischief.

3. Not all "progress" is good -- indeed, most of what passes for "social progress" is horrible. Does anybody, for example, really think we're better off today with 1/2 of kids living in broken homes? Really?

[rockpond]

Yes, there has been a significant increase in public acceptance of homosexuality, and a marked decline in stigma.

From what I can tell from my research, statistically, the relationship is inverse. As the stigma has declined, there has been an increase or maintenance in the disproportionately high rates of suicides and suicide attempts, STD's, violence (mostly homosexual on homosexual), infidelity, promiscuity, etc.

These statistic ought to be alarming and give considerable pause in countenancing and embracing homosexual behaviors, let alone stamping them with the government's seal of approval and promoting them through legalizing SSM. But, this is just wishful thinking on my part. People these days are more concerned with not offending homosexuals and catering to their whims than they are in doing what is best for them and the rest of society.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I understand your need to try and twist the obvious implications of the statistics in order to maintain your position in good conscience. But, the reality is, the world outside the closet has become increasingly welcoming to homosexual, to the point that it would be absurd to consider it these day, on balances, as hostile. The marked decline in and virtual absence of hostility, and the continued rise in suicides and other serious health issues, clearly suggests that the problem lay with homosexuals, themselves, and homosexual behavior, even if you bury your head in the sand and don't want to see it. We do homosexuals a disservice, and ourselves, if we ignore this correlative relationship. It would be like ignoring the correlation between swamps and malaria.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

While I agree that the world in general has become more accepting, there is still plenty of hostility. When a 19 year old LDS young man comes out to his family and is told that he needs to be celibate the rest of his life and that his future spouse will not be welcome at family functions -- that comes across as hostile to the individual (this is a real example, not hypothetical). It has the effect of pushing them out of the church and into a community where multiple sexual partners are common.

So I guess the concern that I am getting at is how to stigmatize the bad behaviors but also cultivate a space where the desire to live a chaste life can be grown. As I see it, in previous decades we did a good job of stigmatizing but now I see a desire by, at least some, in the homosexual community to live lives of monogamy, commitment, and family.

[pmccombs1]

What in your opinion would we do to change the world which produces them? The "them" have been around for a very, very long time, so that I don't necessarily see it linked to the way we moderns may have screwed up the planet. Many cultures had a very different approach to homosexuality than we do. So curious what would this Brave New World look like?

Less urban. Less crowded.