Pragmatic Stigmatizing Or Bullying

[go_utes01]

I said they loose the argument. Not that they don't prevail in courts of law and/or the electorate. Given that heterosexuals have long used law to punish homosexuals. At what point does calling attention to that punishment, and seeking a redress of grievances through the courts become bullying? I'm no lawyer but I see no legal reasoning that would allow for the discrimination of homosexuals as a function of law.

http://thinkprogress...n-relationship/

What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedsheets is no concern of mine. It is between them and their God.

Pretty sure this thread has nothing to do with legal reasoning allowing for discrimination of homosexuals as a function of law. It seems to me this thread is about using societal stigma to try to reduce objectively harmful behavior.

[USU78]

I said they loose the argument. Not that they don't prevail in courts of law and/or the electorate. Given that heterosexuals have long used law to punish homosexuals. At what point does calling attention to that punishment, and seeking a redress of grievances through the courts become bullying? I'm no lawyer but I see no legal reasoning that would allow for the discrimination of homosexuals as a function of law.

http://thinkprogress...n-relationship/

What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedsheets is no concern of mine. It is between them and their God.

Hmmmm.

Was it punishment or "reasonable measures for protection of the general public" when they used to put a sign up on houses where one or more occupant was infected with Typhus, not allowing ingress or egress until the disease had run its course?

Suddenly, however, in the '80s, it was "punishment" to shut down the festering cesspools that were the bathhouses, where the AIDS virus found such happy hunting grounds . . . so, naturally, there being no adults anywhere in sight, there were no signs on any houses, no protection of the general public from a general outbreak (which has happened and which we are still dealing with), and millenia of experience in disease management was ignored . . .

all because everybody's going out of their way to "punish" homosexuals.

Right.

Sure.

We're all just awful.

[go_utes01]

My personal feeling is that schools should try to stay as far away from discussion of homosexual vs heterosexual relationships as possible. I do favor the frank discussion of STDs, the risks, how they are caused, and to what extent various measures from condoms to abstinence are effective in preventing them. As to the mental health and suicide issues, the problem with that discussion is trying to sort out whether those are related to a person having SSA, or whether they are due to the social stigma (including parental reaction). Its kind of like marijuana usage -- the question there are the actual real problems associated with usage stemming from the usage, or from the fact that it is a crime. I am not sure where the line between stigmatization and bullying occurs. Bullying normally is associated with a person with more power and clout with the majority putting undue pressure on someone without power and clout. At the outset of this culture war, clearly the power and clout was on the side of the anti-gays -- now there may have been a shift in the amount of power and clout. I think the pivot point in that shift was the adoption of Prop 8 -- up until that point, I think that anti-gays had more power and clout -- however, the public relations disaster that followed in the wake of Prop 8, I believe switched the balance of power away from the anti-gays. So it now, in my estimation, depends on what the gay/lesbians next moves are after they win the culture war (assuming the present momentum continues and they do win it.) If a group tries to force the Church to change its doctrine and perform rituals against its will, then I would rush to the defense of the Church and say that the gay/lesbian crowd is engaging in bullying. So long as the situation is that we are trying to force them to behave according to standards that we set, their struggle doesn't seem like bullying. But the social standard which used to be enforced via stigma is changing -- whether we can somehow reverse that trend by the use of stigma is a legitimate question. And it is also a legitimate question as to whether it is appropriate for us to try to use stigma in this manner knowing that rhetorical stigma frequently gets taken to extremes that we may not feel comfortable with.

You want discussion about the effectiveness in stopping STDs of condoms vs. abstinence - I know that some children are not that bright, but I would hardly think it would be necessary to point out that you are not likely to contract a "sexually" transmitted disease if you do not engage in sex. Also, it wasn't clear to me from your post, but would you be ok with the teachers explaining that homosexual relationships lead to X-times more STD than heterosexual - so the kids can make an informed decision about what sort of risks they are opening themselves up to?

[go_utes01]

Oops - duplicate.

Edited May 20, 2013 by go_utes01

[thesometimesaint]

Pretty sure this thread has nothing to do with legal reasoning allowing for discrimination of homosexuals as a function of law. It seems to me this thread is about using societal stigma to try to reduce objectively harmful behavior.

Should we use stigmatizing behavior between two consenting adults as a social control? At what point is it a MYOB moment?

[Stone holm]

You want discussion about the effectiveness in stopping STDs of condoms vs. abstinence - I know that some children are not that bright, but I would hardly think it would be necessary to point out that you are not likely to contract a "sexually" transmitted disease if you do not engage in sex. Also, it wasn't clear to me from your post, but would you be ok with the teachers explaining that homosexual relationships lead to X-times more STD than heterosexual - so the kids can make an informed decision about what sort of risks they are opening themselves up to?

The reason I included the spectrum from condom to abstinence is the fact that in States which relied on abstinence only sex education the number of teenage pregnancies soared into the stratosphere. I would not have a problem with their using legitimate studies which showed a disproportionate risk of STDs in certain types of sexual activity, nor would I be opposed to indicating to youth at the appropriate age that increasing the number of partners with whom an individual has sexual activity also increases the risk of STDs.

Should we use stigmatizing behavior between two consenting adults as a social control? At what point is it a MYOB moment?

Well that is really part of the question as to be effective stigma cannot just be talked about in the abstract, it has to be applied and, although Wenglund is going to disagree, that is going to mean applying it to certain adults. "Those two people are gay" said in a fairly not nice way. Or using as an adverse comment on something, "That's so gay!" etc. Because that is how effective stigma used as social control works.

[go_utes01]

Well that is really part of the question as to be effective stigma cannot just be talked about in the abstract, it has to be applied and, although Wenglund is going to disagree, that is going to mean applying it to certain adults. "Those two people are gay" said in a fairly not nice way. Or using as an adverse comment on something, "That's so gay!" etc. Because that is how effective stigma used as social control works.

Do we say things like "that guy is a smoker" in a fairly not nice tone (perhaps) or "that is so smoker!" (haven't heard that) to stigmatize smokers? My point is, I think there are more appropriate ways to discourage undesirable (if a culture determines it to be so) behavior. For example, just like you do not see smoking portrayed as cool or hip in much pop culture these days, you could see the same thing with other possibly detrimental behaviors.

[thesometimesaint]

Hmmmm.

Was it punishment or "reasonable measures for protection of the general public" when they used to put a sign up on houses where one or more occupant was infected with Typhus, not allowing ingress or egress until the disease had run its course?

Suddenly, however, in the '80s, it was "punishment" to shut down the festering cesspools that were the bathhouses, where the AIDS virus found such happy hunting grounds . . . so, naturally, there being no adults anywhere in sight, there were no signs on any houses, no protection of the general public from a general outbreak (which has happened and which we are still dealing with), and millenia of experience in disease management was ignored . . .

all because everybody's going out of their way to "punish" homosexuals.

Right.

Sure.

We're all just awful.

Typhus is a disease carried by lice, generally associated with cramped, overcrowded, filthy conditions. Simply putting up a sign did/does nothing to change that. Prisons are known to harbor the lice that carry typhus. We sure haven't closed the prisons, and there are plenty of signs that say it is a prison. Does stigmatizing prisoners, with moral censure, do anything to control typhus?

Putting up a sign did little to no good in controlling the spread of the Spanish Flu epidemic of the early 20th Century. By the time you show signs of the illness, you're already contagious. Did putting up a sign control the spread of the Spanish Flu? Did stigmatizing, with moral censure, the victims of that disease limit its spread?

The AIDS virus doesn't care if your heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or what have you. It doesn't care if you're skin pigmentation is white, black, brown, red, yellow, or green with purple poky dots. All closing the bathhouses did was drive AIDS further into the closet, and allow politicians the grandstand to claim they were "doing something" about the AIDS epidemic. There are but two "cures" for AIDS. The first cost 10's of thousands of dollars per month to buy, and the second while costing nothing in terms of money is more of a pipe dream than it is in practice. Strict abstinence from illicit IV drug use and any sexual contact before marriage; strict abstinence from illicit IV drug use, and strict fidelity after the ceremony.

If you can't separate the disease from its vector, in this case human vector. Then I can't help you.

[USU78]

Typhus is a disease carried by lice, generally associated with cramped, overcrowded, filthy conditions. Simply putting up a sign did/does nothing to change that. Prisons are known to harbor the lice that carry typhus. We sure haven't closed the prisons, and there are plenty of signs that say it is a prison. Does stigmatizing prisoners, with moral censure, do anything to control typhus?

Putting up a sign did little to no good in controlling the spread of the Spanish Flu epidemic of the early 20th Century. By the time you show signs of the illness, you're already contagious. Did putting up a sign control the spread of the Spanish Flu? Did stigmatizing, with moral censure, the victims of that disease limit its spread?

The AIDS virus doesn't care if your heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or what have you. It doesn't care if you're skin pigmentation is white, black, brown, red, yellow, or green with purple poky dots. All closing the bathhouses did was drive AIDS further into the closet, and allow politicians the grandstand to claim they were "doing something" about the AIDS epidemic. There are but two "cures" for AIDS. The first cost 10's of thousands of dollars per month to buy, and the second while costing nothing in terms of money is more of a pipe dream than it is in practice. Strict abstinence from illicit IV drug use and any sexual contact before marriage; strict abstinence from illicit IV drug use, and strict fidelity after the ceremony.

If you can't separate the disease from its vector, in this case human vector. Then I can't help you.

So . . . keep the bathhouses open and ignore the experience of centuries, since quarantines NEVER worked.

Are you listening to what you're saying? Human vectors very much should be isolated, and likely infectees checked out.

But, since you missed my point, I'll make it again:

Nobody's beating up on homosexuals. They weren't even quarantined when it might have been a good idea. This is not the act of a society beating up on a helpless minority. Such assertions, which was my major point, are absurd in the face of history from the '70s.

[Stone holm]

Do we say things like "that guy is a smoker" in a fairly not nice tone (perhaps) or "that is so smoker!" (haven't heard that) to stigmatize smokers? My point is, I think there are more appropriate ways to discourage undesirable (if a culture determines it to be so) behavior. For example, just like you do not see smoking portrayed as cool or hip in much pop culture these days, you could see the same thing with other possibly detrimental behaviors.

What you are proposing is not "stigma" -- stigma is actively branding something as socially innappropriate or inferior. Let me suggest another approach. That is we just try to minimize stigma as much as possible. We simply state that Mormons do not engage in homosexual activity and Mormons do not become involved in SSM, we simply disagree with what others may believe to the contrary, but we respect their right to act on their own beliefs, just as we want them to respect our beliefs. If other Chartered Organizations want to elevate Gay Scouts to Eagle, fine if other Chartered Organizations want to call Gays and Lesbians as Scout Leaders, fine we simply won't -- we respect their position and expect them to respect ours. We teach our fellow Mormons the law of chastity and we discipline violations, but if a girl has a child out of wedlock we still treat her as a fellow Saint and try to help her through the mess she created for herself. Stigma on the other hand is a metaphorical slap in the face, it is in essence indicating to someone that because they engage in certain activities that they are inferior as persons -- its telling people that do not believe the same way as we do and therefore behave differently than we do that they are inferior and are not entitled to our respect.

[Stone holm]

So . . . keep the bathhouses open and ignore the experience of centuries, since quarantines NEVER worked.

Are you listening to what you're saying? Human vectors very much should be isolated, and likely infectees checked out.

But, since you missed my point, I'll make it again:

Nobody's beating up on homosexuals. They weren't even quarantined when it might have been a good idea. This is not the act of a society beating up on a helpless minority. Such assertions, which was my major point, are absurd in the face of history from the '70s.

Ah, not sure that I can agree with the assertion that "Nobody's beating up on homosexuals." We may have got our members under control -- I don't know if they are still having trouble with the so-called youth Danite gangs out in Utah taking baseball bats to gays -- but i don't think you can really make that across the board assertion.

[go_utes01]

What you are proposing is not "stigma" -- stigma is actively branding something as socially innappropriate or inferior. Let me suggest another approach. That is we just try to minimize stigma as much as possible. We simply state that Mormons do not engage in homosexual activity and Mormons do not become involved in SSM, we simply disagree with what others may believe to the contrary, but we respect their right to act on their own beliefs, just as we want them to respect our beliefs. If other Chartered Organizations want to elevate Gay Scouts to Eagle, fine if other Chartered Organizations want to call Gays and Lesbians as Scout Leaders, fine we simply won't -- we respect their position and expect them to respect ours. We teach our fellow Mormons the law of chastity and we discipline violations, but if a girl has a child out of wedlock we still treat her as a fellow Saint and try to help her through the mess she created for herself. Stigma on the other hand is a metaphorical slap in the face, it is in essence indicating to someone that because they engage in certain activities that they are inferior as persons -- its telling people that do not believe the same way as we do and therefore behave differently than we do that they are inferior and are not entitled to our respect.

Do you feel the same way about social stigmatization of dangerous habits like smoking as well? Live and let live? O,r do you believe that the social stigmatization of smoking and the literally thousands of lives saved has been a good thing? Just curious if you are against all stigmatization or just some.

[Stone holm]

Do you feel the same way about social stigmatization of dangerous habits like smoking as well? Live and let live? O,r do you believe that the social stigmatization of smoking and the literally thousands of lives saved has been a good thing? Just curious if you are against all stigmatization or just some.

Well I used to actually stigmatize a lot of people that didn't quite fit our mold, until an AA old-timer reemed me out about all the social pressure being put on alcoholics to quit smoking -- so they quit smoking and wound up falling off the wagon. If somebody wants to smoke, and its not in the same room as me -- I let em smoke. If they are a really good friend, and there is a golden moment I may point out to them that if they want to be around their grandkids longer perhaps they should think about kicking that habit. But do I look down on them, nope. And lets face it, for stigma to be effective the person who is being subjected to the stigma or the group that is being subjected to the stigma -- they have to feel it or you might as well forget it. There is this other weird thing about stigma -- it can actually create communities of people who have been subjected to the stigma which then grow and proliferate. In other words, stigma either conquers the targeted social evil, or it winds up making it stronger. Its kind of like the overuse of pesticides and antibiotics in that way.

[go_utes01]

Well I used to actually stigmatize a lot of people that didn't quite fit our mold, until an AA old-timer reemed me out about all the social pressure being put on alcoholics to quit smoking -- so they quit smoking and wound up falling off the wagon. If somebody wants to smoke, and its not in the same room as me -- I let em smoke. If they are a really good friend, and there is a golden moment I may point out to them that if they want to be around their grandkids longer perhaps they should think about kicking that habit. But do I look down on them, nope. And lets face it, for stigma to be effective the person who is being subjected to the stigma or the group that is being subjected to the stigma -- they have to feel it or you might as well forget it. There is this other weird thing about stigma -- it can actually create communities of people who have been subjected to the stigma which then grow and proliferate. In other words, stigma either conquers the targeted social evil, or it winds up making it stronger. Its kind of like the overuse of pesticides and antibiotics in that way.

So, you disagree with social shaming or stigmatization placed on smokers then? I don't feel like you gave a very direct answer (didn't want to say straight). You seem to have agreed that social stigmatization is effective. Would you agree that thousands of lives have been saved due to the change in society's view of smoking? Just curious if you think that is a bad thing or a good thing? I tend to agree with your libertarian idea that consenting adults should be allowed to participate in any activities they choose to (so long as they are not injuring or endangering others), but that does not mean that society has to look upon all choices as equal.

[Calm]

the so-called youth Danite gangs out in Utah taking baseball bats to gays

CFR please

[USU78]

Ah, not sure that I can agree with the assertion that "Nobody's beating up on homosexuals." We may have got our members under control -- I don't know if they are still having trouble with the so-called youth Danite gangs out in Utah taking baseball bats to gays -- but i don't think you can really make that across the board assertion.

Pick a demographic. Any demographic. Make sure it's a demographic that is clannish and has gathering/watering holes that are quite visible.

Then run the numbers on violence against persons and things.

Compare those numbers to those for gay people and gay bars/community centers.

See if there's a substantial difference.

If there is, I can still find a better way to account for it than endemic antipathy leading to systematic violence. Maybe, just maybe, a highly political and annoying demographic becomes a target for those it annoys.

USU "That's what your typical anti says of the Missouri Mormons, isn't it?" 78

[Stone holm]

CFR please

Will do some googling tonight to see if I can find the article I read about the youth gangs in SLC bashing gays. The article I read said they called themselves "Danites" -- not referring to the mythical group that anti's accuse us of, am referring to modern youth gang. I believe they are what are sometimes referred to as Straight Edgers

http://updsl.org/divisions/metro_gang_unit/local_gangs

but this is not the article that I remember.

[Stone holm]

Pick a demographic. Any demographic. Make sure it's a demographic that is clannish and has gathering/watering holes that are quite visible.

Then run the numbers on violence against persons and things.

Compare those numbers to those for gay people and gay bars/community centers.

See if there's a substantial difference.

If there is, I can still find a better way to account for it than endemic antipathy leading to systematic violence. Maybe, just maybe, a highly political and annoying demographic becomes a target for those it annoys.

USU "That's what your typical anti says of the Missouri Mormons, isn't it?" 78

Not sure I understand what you are saying, you really don't want to go too far with statistics there. If you look for systematic violence outside urban areas, you are primarily looking at the former Confederacy. Not all urban areas are created equal either with regards to violence.

[USU78]

Will do some googling tonight to see if I can find the article I read about the youth gangs in SLC bashing gays. The article I read said they called themselves "Danites" -- not referring to the mythical group that anti's accuse us of, am referring to modern youth gang. I believe they are what are sometimes referred to as Straight Edgers

http://updsl.org/div...nit/local_gangs

but this is not the article that I remember.

Why is that relevant? Our society does not beat up on gays. They are a preferred demographic, are, on the whole, more wealthy than their neighbors, and it's never been demonstrated that they've suffered since ca. 1975 by any measure in their employment, housing, health care, or credit.

This is the kind of metaphorical "beating up" I'm talking about. Infrequent and isolated gang or numbskull violence is not the same thing as systematic violence or oppression. That's even if the straight-edgers, which are not Mormon by any stretch or approved of by "society," were targeting homosexuals.

Given the numbers I've seen, homosexuals have far more to fear from one another than from such incidents. That is systematic and frighteningly common.

[Stone holm]

Why is that relevant? Our society does not beat up on gays. They are a preferred demographic, are, on the whole, more wealthy than their neighbors, and it's never been demonstrated that they've suffered since ca. 1975 by any measure in their employment, housing, health care, or credit.

This is the kind of metaphorical "beating up" I'm talking about. Infrequent and isolated gang or numbskull violence is not the same thing as systematic violence or oppression. That's even if the straight-edgers, which are not Mormon by any stretch or approved of by "society," were targeting homosexuals.

Given the numbers I've seen, homosexuals have far more to fear from one another than from such incidents. That is systematic and frighteningly common.

As I was trying to find the article I had read for Calmoriah, I came across a CNN article which was about a study of the "gayest" cities in America and was shocked that SLC was ranked no, 1 -- how could that be, surely that can't be true. If it was true, it would look like either we are not doing a good job with the stigma, or that stigma is having the backlash effect that I noted. Does SLC have a huge gay community?

[Stone holm]

CFR please

Calmoriah spent some time trying to find the article, I think it was a Time Magazine article of about 1999 or 2000, but don't have an online subscription so couldn't open it. Sorry.

[Tacenda]

As I was trying to find the article I had read for Calmoriah, I came across a CNN article which was about a study of the "gayest" cities in America and was shocked that SLC was ranked no, 1 -- how could that be, surely that can't be true. If it was true, it would look like either we are not doing a good job with the stigma, or that stigma is having the backlash effect that I noted. Does SLC have a huge gay community?

I saw that too. The first thing I thought was is Utahns are very nice people, and make great neighbors. But I wonder if LDS have a lot of SSA, greater than average.

[Calm]

I saw that too. The first thing I thought was is Utahns are very nice people, and make great neighbors. But I wonder if LDS have a lot of SSA, greater than average.

My ex brother in law who was gay and hung out in SLC prior to his death of AIDS claimed that gays came to SLC attracted by the reputation of the clean, cut and innocent young men. Purely anecdotal, of course. My understanding is that SLC has had a significant gay population since the 70s at least. The Gay Pride parade (under another name) started in 77. And apparently according to one source I will not be linking to, SLCity has the highest gay per capita rate of any US city.

I highly doubt that LDS are more prone themselves to SSA. SLC is only around 37% LDS according to wiki.

Edited May 21, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

My ex brother in law who was gay and hung out in SLC prior to his death of AIDS claimed that gays came to SLC attracted by the reputation of the clean, cut and innocent young men. Purely anecdotal, of course. My understanding is that SLC has had a significant gay population since the 70s at least. The Gay Pride parade (under another name) started in 77. And apparently according to one source I will not be linking to, SLCity has the highest gay per capita rate of any US city.

I highly doubt that LDS are more prone themselves to SSA. SLC is only around 37% LDS according to wiki.

If this is true, what does it say about stigma,does this mean that st

[Stone holm]

My ex brother in law who was gay and hung out in SLC prior to his death of AIDS claimed that gays came to SLC attracted by the reputation of the clean, cut and innocent young men. Purely anecdotal, of course. My understanding is that SLC has had a significant gay population since the 70s at least. The Gay Pride parade (under another name) started in 77. And apparently according to one source I will not be linking to, SLCity has the highest gay per capita rate of any US city.

I highly doubt that LDS are more prone themselves to SSA. SLC is only around 37% LDS according to wiki.

If this is true, what does it say about stigma,does this mean that st