|
Gay Unions Shed Light on Gender in Marriage (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Silky Johnson |
Omg Hal is gay!
*points and dances* |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Halcyon, out of curiosity - what do you think a study like this indicates more than anything else, specifically as it relates to the very general notion that heterosexual couples seemed less egalitarian, and in general let's say "less happy", than the homosexual ones? |
That notion *is* quite "general", as I would argue with the depth of its questioning. That is to say, how is happiness defined? That's an argument I do not wish to venture into, as it is one that most assuredly will never end, but still questions must remain such as "what is pronounced happiness" and what is actual happiness?".
I don't know, perhaps my mind equates overt and egocentric heterosexuality with overcompensation and justification of majority logic. People are often at far more ease when they follow the crowd, but that is not to say that heterosexuality is only popular because it's "the logical thing to do" nor that homosexuality is unpopular because it "doesn't make sense" on a survival level. Sorry, Jamie. Survival has never been enough for humans, so why should lifestyles that exist only to cater to what could very well be social-born needs be excluded from the paradigm of human consent? Drug addiction, anyone?
| quote: | | I myself definitely was not surprised at the findings of the study cited. |
I wasn't surprised, either. Nor do I expect that anyone should be; the study looked for exactly what it was probably looking for, Its only failure lies in the consideration of variables which could easily negate its findings, as with any scientific endeavor. I'm not saying it's worthless information; I am saying the study is incomplete as is... most likely because it is presented as a news article rather than an actual case, likely the fault of its author. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
Omg Hal is gay!
*points and dances* |
"I don't have a girlfriend. But I do know a woman who'd be mad at me for saying that." -Mitch Hedburg |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
"I don't have a girlfriend. But I do know a woman who'd be mad at me for saying that." -Mitch Hedburg |
Oh, so that's where this quote is from! I saw it on Bash.org and bursted out laughing :p |
|
|
| RJT |
Yeah - apologies for the vagueness of the line of questioning, I thought for a while on what the best way to phrase that was going to be and I just couldn't come up with anything better than the notion of "happiness", but admittedly "egalitarian" =/= happy, nor do any of the traits they discussed as differences between straight and gay relationships.
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
I wasn't surprised, either. Nor do I expect that anyone should be; the study looked for exactly what it was probably looking for, Its only failure lies in the consideration of variables which could easily negate its findings, as with any scientific endeavor. I'm not saying it's worthless information; I am saying the study is incomplete as is... most likely because it is presented as a news article rather than an actual case, likely the fault of its author. |
I'll agree with this entirely, and really I guess the only reason I perhaps found it a bit more intriguing was just that it got me to think about how "traditional" (for lack of a better term) gender roles affect a persons general happiness or satisfaction within a relationship as opposed to the roles individuals take on in homosexual relationships.
I guess what I found "unsurprising" was the notion that the continued embracing of traditional gender roles without question of how relevant they actually are in the society we live in would lead people to be dissatisfied in their relationships. With centuries of religious and social institution dictating what is expected of many straight couples (at least as I see and experience them in the Western world), it seems like the very same dogma that is attached to something like religion has (to some degree) attached itself to the institution of marriage/relationships, and that because of this many people don't question what they want to be happy in a relationship, and rather just do they're supposed to do to be in what is considered a "good" relationship.
It just occurred to me that by virtue of the only relatively recent rise of tolerance for homosexuality that one benefit homosexual couples may have is not to have to deal with centuries of tradition dictating how their relationships should be, and are in turn free to pursue more mutually satisfying relationships than straight couples think they are (of course straight couples can have the same kinds of satisfying relationships, but it doesn't seem far fetched to me to think the impact of tradition can at least impede that in some way).
In any event, it's at least an interesting topic to me. Interesting enough for me to ramble far too long, that's for sure. :p
Edit: Also, this needed to make it here....
I'm sure at least some of you can agree. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| How does applied psychology = sociology? |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
How does applied psychology = sociology? |
Yeah seriously :o |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
"I don't have a girlfriend. But I do know a woman who'd be mad at me for saying that." -Mitch Hedburg |
As long as you know I'll always be there pointing and laughing. :) |
|
|
| biznology |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
How does applied psychology = sociology? |
isnt applying psychology just being a psychologist? lol
soc using various societal concepts to study large groups of people doesnt make it inferior to psychology in my book, just inferior in terms of being able to extract money from individuals.
?| |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by biznology
isnt applying psychology just being a psychologist? lol
soc using various societal concepts to study large groups of people doesnt make it inferior to psychology in my book, just inferior in terms of being able to extract money from individuals.
?| |
Interesting way of looking at it :p
I'm probably rather biased in my views on Psychology vs. Sociology (I have a Psych degree) but generally I would consider Sociology to be somewhat of a 'lesser science', in comparison.
My reasoning is that Psych relies heavily on quantitative data (hard numbers, perhaps rated on a scale, or some similar form of measurement), that is rigorously tested through experimental design and statistical analysis (in most streams of Psych, anyway).
Sociology on the other hand (from my understanding, some one correct me if I'm wrong) relies more on qualitative data (for example, a question asked would receive a written or spoken answer). While these answers can be graded by the Sociologist for statistical use, I feel that the outcome of any stat testing would be somewhat invalid, due to the lack of any experimental design, to allow for potential skewing of the results.
Maybe biased though, like I said. :p |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
How does applied psychology = sociology? |
It's just a misconception. Because psychology studies human behaviour, and sociology studies society, it seems reasonable to argue that it just studies collective human behaviour.
It would be just as accurate to say that economics is applied sociology :p |
|
|
|
|
