YES EQUALITY FOR ALL - But understand Ireland why you have had to vote at all and the reason you have still remains in the Public Square - Slovenia revokes gay marriage law
"Conflict theory suggests that men, as the dominant gender, subordinate women in order to maintain power and privilege in society. Conflict theory asserts that social problems occur when dominant groups mistreat subordinate ones, and thus advocates for a balance of power between genders."
Source: Boundless. “The Conflict Perspective.” Boundless Sociology. Boundless, 28 May. 2015. Retrieved 30 May. 2015
A view: Why homosexuality is determined as ‘evil’ in religious codex and able despite the prevalence of a view held even possibly within culture as to the unjustifiable nature of such a cultural view informs iniquity and harm against homosexuals.
Firstly the reason homosexuality is determined as ‘evil’ in religious texts is contradictions are not allowed in cultural codex (a). Secondly despite even a supposed majority claiming a 'good' view, culture set the boundaries and nature of our behavioral variance, despite a view to the contrary as individuals we can achieve self-actualization independent of cultural constructs.
"Tradition is an amazing chain of solid links well soldered. In theory it expands, but in practice seldom breaks. The liberating impulse is foiled before the rapier thrust. ....
One of the most highly educated and advanced men I met in many months' wanderings in India was bringing up his daughters hemmed in by all the old Hindu traditions. He didn't approve of them and honestly said so. In fact he talked wisely about expansion and wider vision. BUT he dared not break away from tradition. Thaldom of cast, fear of religion, kept him hide bound, and he married his daughters just as the Chinaman does his-as a chattel to be brought and sold. Oh, the thaldom of circumstance. The chain of tradition."
"An Adventurous Journey Russia-Siberia-China", Mrs Alec-Tweedie, 1926
“The prosecution say that her parents embarked upon a campaign of domestic violence and abuse designed to force her to conform so that she would behave in the way they expected.”
A Pakistani born couple living in England has gone on trial, accused of murdering their teenage daughter because she had become 'too westernised'. By Nigel Bunyan The Telegraph 22 May 2012
"A court in the north Italian city of Brescia has begun hearing the case against a Pakistani immigrant accused of having killed his own daughter. It is alleged he did so because she had become too Western in her dress and manners. It could be the first case of "honour killing" in modern Italy."
Pakistanis in Italy murder trial By Mark Duff BBC News, Milan 28 June 07 16:48 GMT
"MORTALLY wounded and bleeding profusely, Pela Atroshi covered her head with her hands, pleading "please don't shoot me, please don't shoot me"...
The bullet went through one of her fingers and into her brain.
The decision to kill her was made by a council of male relatives, led by Pela's grandfather, Abdulmajid Atroshi - a Kurd who lived in Australia.
"There is huge pressure on girls to take their own lives. They don't have the right to their own bodies, because their bodies are owned by the clan."
Australian links in honour killing of Pela Atroshi Nine News APRIL 26, 2008
Cultural codex the underwriter of 'Tradition'/culture, religious ideology in Pela Atroshi's case gives the clan Males the ownership of Pela Atroshi's body and the justification and authority to murder Pela Atroshi. This religious codex able to be analogised as such into reality allowed to flourish within the Western Public Squares of Liberty and Equality will not inform conflict?
"..the intelligence officer of Army Group South, Major Rudolf Langhauser, heard of plans to shoot 180 Polish civilians in a camp just turned over to the SS. He promptly returned the camp to military control. ... "The troops (German) are especially vexed over the fact that young men, instead of fighting at the front, test their courage on defenseless people."
'The German army's commander in chief, Walter von Braunchitsch confronted Himmler's deputy Reinhard Hydrich to be told "in no uncertain terms the role of the SS in Poland: "Fundamental cleansing [Flurbereinigung] (of Polish) Jews, intelligentsia, clergy, nobles." Wagner counted with the demand that this "cleansing" take place only "after the withdrawal of the army". '
Source: "The Origins of the Final Solution", Christopher R. Browning 2004
The individuals Major Rudolf Langhauser, German army's commander in chief, Walter von Braunchitsch and the German troops had already given their oath of allegiance to what Man, to what cultural codex construct of Other that Man had laid down clearly in the Nazi textual codex Mein Kampf, what justification and authorisation based on this codex construct of Other did they have for stopping the genocide?
"The analysts emphasized that most Sunnis do not support the Islamic State’s harsh interpretation of Islam, or its brutality, but that some were becoming more susceptible to its political talk about protecting oppressed Sunnis."
Using Violence and Persuasion, ISIS Makes Political Gains NYT By ANNE BARNARD and TIM ARANGO JUNE 3, 2015
Even if true "most Sunnis do not support the Islamic State’s harsh interpretation of Islam" the fact is the Islamic/Muslim cultural codex contains the construct of Other which enables such an interpretation and importantly it is historically consistent within the resultant Muslim behavioral variance. Therefore the Muslim terrorists hold the Islamic 'rational' model higher ground whose foundations are the Islamic/Muslim codex itself. This is the tragedy of the Is-Not Islamic paradigm which gives no such excuse to the other genocide construct of the Nazi where determining Is-Not Nazism would be rightly viewed as totally obscene.
Who I ask were the 'many' who were the 'few'? Does one, two or even the 'many' proclaiming being 'especially vexed', even when they hold overwhelming military power in their hands, make any difference to the derived outcomes of a culture whose codex informs 'evil' against Other, of which they the 'many' and the 'few' are self-proclaimed adherents?
"Communities (cultures) tend to be guided less than individuals by conscience and a sense of responsibility. How much misery does this fact cause mankind! It is the source of wars and every kind of oppression, which fill the earth with pain, sighs and bitterness." (Albert Einstein, 1934)
"Against Soviets as Soviets one has nothing to say. Against the result of their rule in Russia and interference elsewhere one cannot protest to strongly. They are the world's terror to-day." Mrs. Alec-Tweedie, An Adventurous Journey. Russia-Siberia-China.1926
As Albert Einstein and Mrs. Alec-Tweedie have by tragic circumstance observed individuals are not cultures, to claim an individual from a culture is 'good' from an Others perspective of beliefs, ethics, values and therefore determine that individual nor their culture should be held to account for the 'worlds terror' ignores a truth this individual is an integral part of support network for a cultural codex continuing existence.
How 'few' are the 'few' in reality.
"500-1,000 British Muslims don’t join ISIL in a vacuum. There’s an ideological current among Muslims globally generating sympathy for the same aims as ISIL: Enforcing a view of Sharia as law. I call this ideology Islamism." - Maajid Nawaz Chair of Quilliam, a counter-extremist think tank; former member of Hizb ut-Tahrir
This means a culture holding such a cultural codex derived view against homosexuality will enforce it in the Public Square no matter how enlightened or numerous individual adherents may be within the culture or be perceived to be by external Other. Because those adherents are subject to the relative independence of thought, behavior set by the cultural codex imperative and associated categorization which determine homosexuals a contradiction, an 'evil', diametrically opposed to the religious imperative of Mans subjugation of women to Mans 'Leadership' and complete control of women's sexuality.
“Culture is not only what people think, it is also what they do. Ideally, cultural explanations would also strive to be mutually non-contradictory with relevant approaches from the social and natural sciences. This means taking into account both the nature of the individual mind as well as the dynamics of social interaction. Thus, ‘cultures’ should be understood as historically accumulated collections of beliefs and practices which are socially produced and aimed at meeting psychological needs. .....
Culture, although it cannot ‘do’ anything on its own, provides a framework through which people are motivated to act. Subsequently, incidents of violence are individually and socially understood through narrative, that is, through the stories which are developed by participants, observers and the institutions which deal with them (such as the courts and media). These narratives, in turn, can express motivations or justifications for further violence or, alternatively, for its avoidance or suppression.”
Wood, J. Carter (2007). Conceptualizing cultures of violence and cultural change. In: Carroll, Stuart ed. Cultures of Violence: Interpersonal Violence in Historical Perspective. Palgrave Macmillan.
"Without the ceaseless pulsating heartbeat of our "categorization engine, we would understand nothing around us, could not reason in any form whatever, could not communicate to anyone else, and would have no basis on which to take any action.
"every culture constantly, although tacitly, reinforces the impression that words are simply automatic labels that come naturally to mind and that belong intrinsically to things and entities"?
SURFACES AND ESSENCES, ANALOGY AS THE FUEL AND FIRE OF THINKING, Douglass Hofstadter, Emmanuel Sander, 2013
"Culture uses artifacts, rituals and text to develop and reinforce a shared sense of identity among members. It is the filter through which we see and understand our current reality (Edgar, 1980). These are the structures of identity that help people organise and make sense of everyday life (Wark, 1997). They also establish boundaries between groups (Oyserman & Lee, 2007)"
Psychology Burton, Western, Kowalski, 2012
"Culture, of course, is related to violence in general and not only to structural violence. For example, culture influences the determination of "thresholds" which pressure on a person must overcome in order to move that person from being controllable, or even positive, to being negative (that is, into violence)."
The Culture of Violence, Chp 3. On the relationship between violence and culture - Galtung's concept
A key indicator of the existence of an inherent cultural genocide codex construct justifying and authorizing revolutionary-genocide, as cultural political and resource thresholds are reached, to send into your streets the inevitable cultural altruistic enforcers to carry out the revolutionary-genocide necessarily required to violently enforce internal alignment and external acceptance of the cultures beliefs, ethics and values diametrically opposed to Other cultures is the degree to which the cultural codex constructs seek to control the most intimate of human relationships sex.
This is a function of the cultures (Mans) determination to maximise their genetic reflection into next generations but one suspects really this if it is an underlying subconscious imperative, the conscious drive is much more of a self-serving force in delivering to man the pleasure of sex with the least effort to do so.
As cultural codex cannot broach contradictions, as such contradictions bring the whole codex into question for if the logic is not valid in one part why should it for any of the other codex constructs.
The cultural categorisation engine therefore needs to identify, characterise precisely who are to benefit and lose. As it is religious Mans control over women’s sexuality, Man dominant-women subject partnership/marriage, the existence of a homosexual relations women equal-women equal partnership/marriage and man equal-man equal partnership/marriage determines an equality within the latter two and not in the first. A significant contradiction in the same space. For how long can the imposition of dominant-subject relationship be maintained diametrically opposed to the 'rational' of equal-equal relationship?
It therefore has nothing to do with homosexuality being intrinsically evil it is because to determine valid within a codex construct the two relationships of equality Benefit Women-Benefit-Woman and Benefit Man-Benefit Man means the religious inequality of the first, Benefit-Man, Lose-Women becomes manifest, a contradiction and therefore cannot exist within the codex.
This is what drives a real phobia against homosexuals for those who determine women, subject to Mans ‘Leadership’ which really means Mans control over women’s sexuality cannot have their own relationship construct contradicted in their presence. For it means Man will lose power and Women will gain power.
I would argue the degree any cultural codex attempts to subjugate women to Mans determination will indicate the degree one could expect this culture presents a threat to you as an out-group as such iniquitous constructs necessarily require an iniquitous means of enforcing the construct internally and acceptance externally relative to the iniquity of the construct.
So for me the measure of any culture or society is the relative degree they subjugate women to Mans will and with them inevitably homosexuals for my view dictates the construct of women and homosexuals are integrally linked. So if we can remove from the Public Square such codex determining women as less we will not only achieve equality in time for women, but at the same time have homosexuals determined rightly as the norm and gosh did you just notice terror has somewhat diminished?
I could be wrong.
Vote yes for equality by all means but my view is unless the acceptance of iniquity of women is completely swept aside, not only in law but in reality. the need of Man to have homosexuals deemed as an out-group will remain relative to the iniquity suffered by women.
YES EQUALITY FOR ALL. The fight alas never finishes as the cultural codex informing these iniquitous constructs are 'Free' to flourish in our Public Squares do not ever think what has been gained over centuries cannot be swept aside in a matter of months.
Slovenia revokes gay marriage law, Sky news, Monday, 21 December 2015
(a) Although this is idea of cultural opposition to contradiction may be challenged to a degree by Peng, Kaiping, U California, Dept of Psychology, Berkeley, CA, US research "Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction." - "Chinese ways of dealing with seeming contradictions result in a dialectical or compromise approach—retaining basic elements of opposing perspectives by seeking a "middle way."
One would on reflection have to in my view seriously question the validity of these findings as an inherent Chinese cultural trait given the violent history of China and its current politic. It may be there is another explanation summed up in Mrs Alec-Tweedie's "An Adventurous Journey Russia-Siberia-China", 1926. "...They never dare say No. They positively funk it. They promise the moon rather than say No in a manly, upright fashion, and then will invent any fabrication to put off the final negative."
In other words however crudely put in 1926 the inherent Chinese quality may not be one of coming to a final determination as to their actual view but avoiding to make one for fear possibly of offending, an admirable quality, but as Mrs Alec-Tweedie determined 'evasive and elusive' would be more suitable terms than a "dialectical or compromise approach." for this determines an actual position held which clearly 'evasive and elusive' and "any fabrication to put off the final negative." (to reveal their true position.) which informs a significantly different reality on the ground does not support. Of course one would expect culturally such an interpretation of oneself would be quite nice but is it really true of an adherent of any culture when push comes to shove?