After being sold on your style of writing 8 months ago (I was told by a friend to pick up Enders Game), I have read through the entire series since then (including the worthing saga). Thank you for the detailed characters and vivid memories.
That being said, I wanted to comment on the harsh critisism you have been getting from the press and from these boards. I do not understand the anger towards your views when all you ask for is the evidence to be brought out in the open, and for it to be evaluated. We are demonized and labeled if we even question the lefts views on the topic.
Whether gays / lesbians are brainwashed or born the way they are, we have to question the impact of allowing them to marry and adopt children may have on society. Like you mentioned, why the scientific method is not allowed to be used to solve this matter is not just puzzling, but downright asinine.
Anyway, I hope this mess clears up nicely. Kudos to you for sticking to your views, and not allowing the radical left to sway you.
PS - Is there ever a chance you might return to the Worthing Saga? I actually enjoyed that book more than *GASP* Enders Game.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
I'm glad you liked the Worthing Saga. It was my bestselling story series prior to Ender's Game, and I like to think it still has merit.
I heard from several people in New Zealand that they wish it were still possible to get Hot Sleep, my first novel and the earliest version of the Worthing story. I'm toying with the idea of simply putting that old version up online. I have to get clearance from the publisher of The Worthing Saga, because technically it would be a "competing version" - but I think that having my first novel out there again would enable writers to take encouragement from all the things I did wrong <grin> and also spark interest, perhaps, in the much better Worthing Saga version.
Meanwhile, the current attitude of hatred or disdain for people who simply want scientific and democratic processes to take place before making massive social experiments whose consequences may not be what we intend is unlikely to change any time soon. The Orthodox Left is as mindless as the Orthodox Right was when they controlled things back in the 1950s, and every bit as determined to use McCarthyist techniques to squelch opposition and cement their hold on power.
Fortunately, they expose the emptiness of their thinking every time they resort to invective or scorn instead of reasoned argument; unfortunately, our educational system is so bad that few Americans can tell the difference between name-calling and serious discussion any more. <sigh>
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
"you argue like a debater all you need to do is have a clever refutation" said Petra. Peter replies "and you argue like a 9 year old you stick your fingers in your ear and say "lalala" "and same to you"".
That reminds me of debates these days. Posted by Nomolos (Member # 7703) on :
Does Hot Sleep tell the same story of Lared and Jason or does it have different characters? Either way, I would very much like to read it if you put it online
Also, do you think you might ever continue the story where Lared and Jason leave on the boat?
[ April 03, 2005, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Nomolos ]
Posted by Soara (Member # 6729) on :
New Zealand. i am so jealous.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I do not understand the anger towards your views when all you ask for is the evidence to be brought out in the open, and for it to be evaluated.
I have avoided debating the gay marriage issue directly with Scott because a) I like the guy and b) I don't like having to deal with straw men. In fact, straw men frustrate me as much as they appear to frustrate him (based on the amount of time he spends complaining about the liberal use of straw men in the media and by politicians).
Unfortunately, I need to point out here that Scott is setting up a straw man, similar to his "dialogue" essay of a few years back. The opinion to which he's objecting here is hardly universally accepted by the groups he's demonizing.
Speaking for myself, here are my primary objections to waiting for the "evidence to be brought out into the open" and evaluated:
1) I believe that the homosexual marriage issue is largely one of societal acceptance, not marriage itself. There are some small subgroups that may well be worried about a legitimate effect on their own marriages -- say, a church afraid that they would be required by the federal government to hold religious marriages for gay couples -- but I consider this fear unfounded, since even to this day churches are permitted to discriminate against couples for far more frivolous reasons. Permitting civil marriage is not equivalent to requiring religious marriage. (I should point out that it's precisely to eliminate this confusion that I believe we should replace all civil marriages in this country with civil unions.)
Because it's a matter of social acceptance, second-class "compromises" are merely ways to continue to emphasize that homosexual unions are not equivalent relationships, to say that we as a society do not value them as much and will not support them as much.
I understand why some people, primarily for religious reasons, would hold this opinion. However -- and here's the kicker -- I do not believe that the people who hold this opinion will change their mind if statistics and data become available (and, by the way, what kind of data would you accept for this, and how would you control for societal variables) that demonstrate that homosexual couples are as good or better for society. No matter how the numbers fall, the people who don't want to have to consider homosexual couples worth societal recognition, to put it bluntly, still won't; no sociological study is going to trump their interpretation of the Bible.
So what does this mean? This means that any suggestion that we wait to "study" the "data" is for the vast majority of people opposed to same-sex marriage just a smokescreen, a delaying tactic, a way to drag things out. There isn't a data point in the world that would matter. There are still people out there who believe in a literal reading of Genesis, for God's sake. (Pun intended.)
2) I also tend to regard this -- again, as I consider this a matter of social acceptance of a racially-determined behavior with no obvious intrinsic harm (and note of course that these are premises of mine that many people will not accept) -- as a civil rights issue. I agree that in an ideal world, legislation should be liberal enough to ensure the liberties and social privileges of harmless minorities; however, ample historical evidence suggests that this has not been the case, and I don't think it's inappropriate for the judiciary to recognize Constitutional rights to certain societal benefits that the legislature and the majority society, for whatever reason, is unprepared to accept.
Consider that Congress voted almost unanimously to censure a federal judge's criticism of the presence of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Consider, too, that Congress did not vote to criticize obviously odious decisions like Dred Scott, or even Roe v. Wade. Clearly, Congress considers it important to pander to a religious majority in this country, whether that majority really needs or wants it. And the common perception among the legislature -- valid or not -- is that religion is opposed to recognizing the value of homosexual monogamy.
Now, that said, I agree that rushing things by slamming them through the courts will inevitably continue to politicize the courts. More than any other issue, even, I think this has the potential to tear apart the country: not same-sex marriage, but the perception that the courts exist to interpret and enforce party platforms, regardless of whether or not that's what they're actually doing.
Had Scott simply made that criticism, rather than digging at a largely hypothetical -- even imaginary -- liberal cabal of snarky, subversive "elites" -- I would even have agreed with him.
[ April 03, 2005, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Nomolos (Member # 7703) on :
It is not just the "fundamentalist" or religious quacks that want this banned. The MAJORITY of this country wants to ban gay marriage.
The problem with your argument, tom, is not that a few subgroups want this stopped. And to claim that skeptics only want data and information showing the consequences because they want to "stall" the issue is a hasty generalization.
Why are you so certain that the data will go in the favor of the gay-marriage advocates? Let’s reverse the situation and say that there is strong evidence of a social breakdown if gay marriages are allowed. Will that evidence change the mind of the advocates? Will they even care? Why are they so bent on not looking at the data, or act like it doesn't exist?
These are the questions you need to ask yourself. I, for one, would not like to see two fathers or mothers raising a kid. He or She will (most likely) get abused in school because of it, not to mention other side effects of not having a balanced family.
And as far as the Genesis "creation" remark, I have heard a lot sillier things than that. Spontaneous generation comes to mind. Oh yeah, whats that new theory they came up with recently, um, "Nothing exploded and created our galaxy." - Pure Genius.
Oh, and before you go and label me a creationist, think again. I learned how to do this rare thing called "critical thought" that sometimes leaves my in very uncomfortable positions which make me throw up my hands and not claim anything - how we all got here being one of them.
[ April 03, 2005, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: Nomolos ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Whether gays / lesbians are brainwashed or born the way they are, we have to question the impact of allowing them to marry and adopt children may have on society.
Unless the opportunity to form relationships with other consenting adults is a basic liberty that we would be wrong to infringe even if permitting it brings about negative social consequences. Hardly anyone denies that there are such rights, nor that the right to form heterosexual relationships is one of them.
Perhaps your opponents don't reject science. They merely think scientific facts about the social impact of an activity are irrelevant to the question of whether we have an inalienable right to take part in that activity.
quote:Meanwhile, the current attitude of hatred or disdain for people who simply want scientific and democratic processes to take place before making massive social experiments whose consequences may not be what we intend is unlikely to change any time soon.
Again, perhaps it's not about the consequences -- perhaps it's about protecting our rights (you're not a utilitarian, are you?). If there is a basic right being infringed by our current system of laws, there's no reason to undertake research to see what the consequences of protecting that right might be. The consequences don't bear on the question of whether it's ethical to protect our basic rights.
quote:And as far as the Genesis "creation" remark, I have heard a lot sillier things than that. Spontaneous generation comes to mind. Oh yeah, whats that new theory they came up with recently, um, "Nothing exploded and created our galaxy." - Pure Genius.
I would recommend that you take a closer look at inflation and the related theories of the universe's origin (perhaps learning the graduate-level physics required to understand the literature) before you presume to criticize them.
[ April 03, 2005, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
The thread seems to have gone in the "my prejudices are better than your prejudices" direction ... but to answer a question asked way back there ... No, Lared and Sala are not in Hot Sleep. It's more the straightforward tale of Jason Worthing and the founding of the colony.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I'm not sure I see how any of the above has much to do with prejudice, unless by 'prejudices' you mean opinions about how we ought to be governed by the law.
Posted by Nomolos (Member # 7703) on :
quote:Again, perhaps it's not about the consequences -- perhaps it's about protecting our rights (you're not a utilitarian, are you?). If there is a basic right being infringed by our current system of laws, there's no reason to undertake research to see what the consequences of protecting that right might be. The consequences don't bear on the question of whether it's ethical to protect our basic rights.
I don't really see anyone infringing on the rights of anyone else here. Right now, gays do not have a right to marry. The argument here is whether or not they should be given the right to marry. And researching the consequence of giving citizens new rights should not thrown aside. And it sure as heck shouldn't be left up to a supreme court. Why not let the citizens vote?
quote:I would recommend that you take a closer look at inflation and the related theories of the universe's origin (perhaps learning the graduate-level physics required to understand the literature) before you presume to criticize them.
I like how you presume to criticize me in that I have not already read the material. In fact, I start my masters program in Computational Theory next semester. I have the Math background to realize the main gist of what Brian Greene, Michael Kaku, and even Steven Hawking theorize. I do not dispell quantum physics, or any other scientific theory of our origin.
What I do dispell, however, is when religion gets mixed up with science and things like macro-evolution are created. If that last sentance does not make sense to you, I recommend you read into the circular reasoning and data manipulation that goes on in the scientific community (Biology mainly) and the faith, not science, it takes to believe in it.
The good news is that you can understand the fallacies with much less than a high-school education.
quote:(you're not a utilitarian, are you?)
Absolutely not. And I fail to see the connection. It would seem to me that a society which bases it's values on pain and pleasure alone would be more prone to having gay marriages anyway [see: Holland]...
[ April 04, 2005, 01:16 AM: Message edited by: Nomolos ]
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote: gays do not have a right to marry
with mild affect:
well, actually same sex marriages are not allowed right now - a same sex marriage need not be about homoerotica, I suppose . . . what if two spinsters sisters or bachelor brothers (or best friends of either sex) wanted to marry to ensure that they have equal rights under the law, since "marriage" apparently admits the couple to the full responsibility and honors of society?
*hmmm - wanders off to play with that idea some more*
Posted by Nomolos (Member # 7703) on :
quote:It's more the straightforward tale of Jason Worthing and the founding of the colony.
That would be awsome if you could do an internet release.
[ April 04, 2005, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: Nomolos ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I don't really see anyone infringing on the rights of anyone here. Right now, gays do not have a right to marry. The argument here is whether or not they should be given the right to marry. And researching the consequence of giving citizens new rights should not thrown aside.
Gays don't have a legal right to marry right now, but I maintain that they have a natural, inalienable right to do so. Even if there were no US Constitution, it would be wrong for me to abridge your free speech or exercise of religion. This is how I feel about gay marriage as well.
By logic like yours, the consequences of giving blacks and women the right to vote should have been carefully researched before the relevant amendments to the Constitution were passed. I think that's clearly false. It's wrong for the law to withold an inalienable right from someone, regardless of the consequences.
quote:I have the Math background to realize the main gist of what Brian Greene, Michael Kaku, and even Steven Hawking theorize. I do not dispell quantum physics, or any other scientific theory of our origin.
Sorry for being presumptive, but all the same it sounded to me like you were criticizing theories about the universe emerging from nothing. To understand and criticize such things you need a very strong background in both quantum theory and relativity.
In any case, I don't like to debate evolution. I think physics and astronomy give sufficiently strong evidence against young-Earth creationism that we don't even need to discuss the "softer" science of biology to decide that particular issue.
Posted by Nomolos (Member # 7703) on :
Comparing voting rights, black decrimination, religion, and freedom of speech to gay marriage is not sensible.
We both disagree on the issue, and I am going to leave it at that. I believe that screwing around with the constructs of society could have serious reprocussions, but I guess we will have to leave it up to our courts to initiate the experiment for us.
quote:In any case, I don't like to debate evolution. I think physics and astronomy give sufficiently strong evidence against young-Earth creationism
The problem is, they give strong evidence for a young earth as well (although not creationism, which really isn't debatable anyway).
[ April 04, 2005, 01:58 AM: Message edited by: Nomolos ]
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Hmmm. So we're out of the closet on this one - it's religion that you regard as illegitimate in a discussion of political and moral decisions.
But of course, no one here has any prejudices. No one jumps to conclusions based on a priori reasoning. Who could possibly think such a thing, when right-thinking people base all their judgments on science?
[ April 04, 2005, 04:13 AM: Message edited by: Orson Scott Card ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why are you so certain that the data will go in the favor of the gay-marriage advocates? Let’s reverse the situation and say that there is strong evidence of a social breakdown if gay marriages are allowed. Will that evidence change the mind of the advocates?
You know, knowing the gay couples I do, I suspect that it would. If you were to convince my uncle, for example, that his marriage would bring about the destruction of American society, I think he'd probably live unmarried for the rest of his life.
quote:I, for one, would not like to see two fathers or mothers raising a kid. He or She will (most likely) get abused in school because of it, not to mention other side effects of not having a balanced family.
Ah. The kid would get teased, and therefore we shouldn't permit this. Your argument boils down to the fact that some people aren't decent human beings.
But you know what? Kids get teased for lots of things, and there are lots of side effects to lots of various parental choices. (See my earlier post for examples.) Statistically, a kid raised by anyone in Alabama is more likely to have serious problems than a kid raised by two men. Should we prevent anyone in Alabama from getting married, based on that "evidence?"
quote: it's religion that you regard as illegitimate in a discussion of political and moral decisions.
It's not that I regard religion as illegitimate; I recognize that people make decisions based on morality, and many people use religion as a moral guide. However, in a society in which religion is not universally shared, I do not think it's a particularly good basis for legislation. I should point out that you agree; you've actually said that you have occasionally struggled to find secular justifications for various Mormon doctrines, presumably because "my religion says so" was, at one level or another, not good enough.
In particular, I do not accept that your religion gives you sufficient cause to prevent me from doing something. I enjoy, for example, the occasional drink of alcohol -- and coffee, for that matter. Sometimes in the same drink. I recognize that, for religious reasons, you do not -- and that's fine; you can drink what you like. However, I would get rather upset if Mormons were to spearhead a movement to make not only alcohol but also all hot drinks unavailable in America. The alcohol thing succeeded once precisely because there are valid, observable reasons to ban alcohol; there are obvious and measurable negative effects of drinking it that could be argued to trump the positives. I don't see any such inherent harms in homosexual sex, however.
Posted by Nomolos (Member # 7703) on :
quote:Hmmm. So we're out of the closet on this one - it's religion that you regard as illegitimate in a discussion of political and moral decisions.
I hope that wasn't aimed at me.
Of course religion is legitimate when making moral and political decisions. I happen to agree most of the decisions GW makes. I was just pointing out that comparing the decision to give blacks voting rights and giving gays the right to marry each other are to separate things which aren't even related.
Contrasting the two creates a false dichotomy which has been the basis for liberal rhetoric for the last 20 years.
[ April 04, 2005, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: Nomolos ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I hope that wasn't aimed at me."
I'm almost entirely sure it wasn't.
And as I said, I think religion is a perfectly valid reason to hold an opinion. I think it produces poor legislation, however.
For that matter, I think most legislation "for the sake of society" results in poor legislation, which is why I'm almost but not quite a libertarian. I prefer legislators to stick to writing laws in response to obvious individual harms, as doing things for "society's" sake opens us up to the tyranny of the good-intentioned.
[ April 04, 2005, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Nomolos (Member # 7703) on :
One thing I have to admire about this board is the level of maturity I have seen so far from it's users.
This is the first time I have been able to debate a sensitive topic without loads of insecure puppets coming in and starting a flame war.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
Whoo! Open invitation.
Well OSC is so totally wrong because... well... er....
Okay, okay! Tom you are way out there you screwy left-winged... uh... lefty!!
Oh, man. I got nothin'.... Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Allrighty, here's the flamethrower!!!
(Just kidding.)
Does giving legal and social privileges to same-sex relationships legitimize those relationships? You betcha. And when a large group of people believe that type of behavior is contrary to both spiritual and natural law, it is against all reason to encourage it by providing legal rewards for such behavior.
We live in a society that allows women to "choose" to abort their babies yet will punish them if they drink alcohol while pregnant, where youth can serve in the military before they can vote, where Mary Kay LeTourneau can sleep with a 13-year-old boy, go to prison, then marry him later without a major public outcry. There are disparities all the time, and not every whim and lifestyle should be accorded equal rights before the law.
Opponents to same-sex marriages believe civil rights should not be granted to behavior that has a fundimental negative social impact. The big lie is that behavior in the bedroom has no impact in society at large––on the contrary, our core behaviors affect how we treat one another, how we vote, how we interact, what values are passed along to our children by those who are not their parents.
People have the right to draw a line in the sand, to say this is right and this is not. That the great freedom of our society, to defend and fight for our beliefs, and have the right, no matter what side we're on. I'd love to see the ten commandments in my local courthouse, but others have already drawn that line in the sand, haven't they?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Opponents to same-sex marriages believe civil rights should not be granted to behavior that has a fundimental negative social impact."
Great. So prove that same-sex marriage has this impact, and I'd be right with you on that one.
Until then, I'd say that the burden of proof is yours, if you're going to ostracize a group based on theoretical harm.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I went back and reread OSC's essay Homosexual "Marriage" and Civilization and I believe the puzzled disbelief that someone as empathic as OSC could write such a bigoted thing is misguided. You cannot read any of OSC's works without encountering his emphasis on family, on community, on the responsibilities of the individual to control personal impulses and desires to build a better family, a better neighborhood, a better country. I would suggest, in fact, that it is the compelling theme underlying all of his works (along with "put your characters in the worst place they'll ever be," of course). When you realize that OSC sees the acceptance of homosexual marriage (as opposed to homosexualtiy per se, an opinion that doesn't enter these essays) as a threat to the basis of marriage and civilization itself, another in a string of triumphs of personal selfishness over personal duty, his language and his fervor are clear and perfectly understandable. His reaction is similar to a reaction I might have if people were petitioning the legislature to have children's games of playing house recognized as legally binding marriages.
I cannot fault him for his efforts. I see no reason to castigate the man for his concern or his conclusions. I can question his assumptions, though.
I believe that providing a social structure for homosexuals would ultimately strengthen society by providing a social structure for gays to aspire to. KarlEd's excellent post on the problems of growing up gay illustrates the lack of direction offered. I suggest that gay marriage would result in lessened promiscuity and stronger family ties as homosexuals seek to do the same thing their straight friends and family do: raise a family.
However, I would also work to remove "no fault" divorce laws and fight to emphasize the importance of commitment in a marriage. You want to get married? Fine, but be aware of what it means, how important it is, and how much you'll be expected to do to keep it going, happy, and productive. No quitting because the spark is gone or because you kinda like that girl in the office or just because times get tough. I favor letting gays marry but I want the marriage bar to be raised higher for gays and straights to hit. Take it away from being something that any straight couple, casual, drunken, or seriously committed, can do, and move it to something that only seriously committed couples of whatever gender can do. And emphasize that that's the highest achievement a person can make.
The question is not why we should legislate to allow whims, but why we should legislate to allow some people's whims while ignoring other people's commitments. I see absolutely no reason why Britney's 52-hour stupidity should be considered a "marriage" while a couple together for ten years, twenty years, are considered a drain on society because they're the same sex. My suggestion would work towards a society where marriage was considered a privilege and an honor, whatever your gender.
An aside: In fact, I thought Mary Kay LeTourneau's desire to marry the boy was a mark in her favor. Had she never touched him but waited patiently until he was of age and then they got married, it would be a love story. She didn't, but she paid her dues for breaking the law and then married him anyway.
"I'd love to see the ten commandments in my local courthouse, but others have already drawn that line in the sand, haven't they?" Yup. Hang the Ten Commandments in the courtroom along with other displays of the sources of law (as the friezes in the Supreme Court do) and I'll be right there holding the ladder for you. Try and hang them by themselves or stick a ten-ton monument to them in the front yard of the courthouse and I'll be one of the ones holding the picket sign against you. My line isn't that they can't be there, it's that they can't be the only ones displayed. What confuses me is why that position is difficult to understand.
[ April 04, 2005, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Chris: You nailed it on the head when it comes to marriage in general; the very concept has become so watered down by a long list of moving the line further, and further, and further away.
This is exactly my point.
Tom's assertion of proof is patently false––seeing that homosexuality is an inconsistent trait in circles of theology, evolution and social behavior, it is the abberation that bears the burden of proof.
Obviously one can rarely convince the other. For those fueled by spiritual motives, it probably requires conversion to that ethic before one fully understands one's point-of-view. But I am of the opinion that traditional marriage, properly followed and held sacred, is the best means for the long-term health of future generations. That belief is based both on what I know as well as eternal truth above and beyond what might be readily visible to scientific study. To those who do not believe, I can understand why that seems like a poor explanation. It's a basic difference of seeing the world.
There are so-called "primitive" tribes in Indonesia even today where the men sodomize their boys as a passage of manhood. It happened all the time among the so-called "enlightened" Greeks and Romans. To them, it is "harmless" and "natural" for balance in their society. To them, this is their "pursuit of happiness." The boys might actually feel it is important to them, too.
Would it be acceptable to legislate rights to not only allow such behavior––but reward them for it? When does the line stand firm? Who has the ultimate right to make such a decision?
(For me, I believe it's the vote of the people, not judges.)
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
By the way, in the original spirit of the thread:
Thanks OSC for the new Shadow Novel. My wife has promised to let me read it next week. (Novel Hog )
But, its all good!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Thing is, for many of us that proof has been made in individual cases. We've seen gay couples thrive, we've seen straight couples falter (and vice versa). And we start wondering how much of the stress and difficulties of keeping a gay marriage going is due to the inherent instability of such a thing, or because society is so overwhelmingly against it. And when this seems unjust, some of us speak out about it.
No suggestion has been made to allow sex below the age of consent, gay or straight. I'm not even suggesting that everything is "normal" somewhere. Only that I think allowing and encouraging committed couples to marry and become productive members of society is ultimately better for us than denying acceptance to gay couples seeking stability while looking the other way as straight couples mock the whole deal.
[ April 04, 2005, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
My thoughts on same sex marraiges is what does it do to those of us who aren't homosexual? If we(the general populace) let them marry it doesn't turn the rest of us gay or send us all to hell. Its a victim less crime as they say. And my thoughts on those who say that two men/women raising a child messes the kid up are this; does it mess them up any more than abusive parents of opposite sexes and just because their not "married" meens they can't raise a child? Hasn't any one seen the "Birdcage" with Robin Williams? I'm not gay but I personally don't see how having same sex marraiges hurts anyone.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Let me boil it down, if I can post something under 500 words for once:
I am not against gay marriages, nor am I especially for them. I am against frivolous marriages, and I'm willing to respect serious commitments of any type.
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
Oh, also Mr. Card I think it would be great if you put out Hot Sleep, but why not go all the way and include Capital aswell. Eventually you could post all your out of print books...
Sorry,us fans are never satisfied are we? Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You know, Fictionwise is doing very well at presenting out-of-print books in e-formats, hint, hint...
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
Chris, I don't think the problem is so much frivouluss marraiges as just frivouluss relationships in general. I know way to many people that treat relationships like a joke. One minute someone is in love with this person and next week their in love with that person. The marraiges you hear of lasting fifty years are mostly from the days where the only person they have ever slept with is their wife and they maybe had a girlfreind here or their. I know more freshman here at my highschool who aren't virgins than in any other grade. Theirs more Senior virgins than Freshman! It seems to be getting worse every year.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Personally I suspect the only real difference is that finally, after all these years, women can fool around with almost as few consequences as men have all throughout history.
Few physical consequences, anyway.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tom's assertion of proof is patently false––seeing that homosexuality is an inconsistent trait in circles of theology, evolution and social behavior, it is the abberation that bears the burden of proof."
Why, exactly, does merely being an "aberration" require proof? If you ask me, what requires proof is the decision to censure a behavior or ostracize a group, not merely being in a minority group. Two men marrying has no obvious negative consequence; preventing two men from marrying, however, does.
Would you require that someone who plays roleplaying games -- a vanishingly small minority -- prove to you that this behavior is not harmful before you permit it or choose to accept such players as equals? No.
Why, then, do you require that homosexuals prove to your satisfaction that their behavior is not harmful before you agree to grant it social sanction?
-------
quote: The marraiges you hear of lasting fifty years are mostly from the days where the only person they have ever slept with is their wife and they maybe had a girlfreind here or their.
As Dave Barry once observed, you can tell that the Great Depression must have been really stressful, since the people who lived through it all look really old.
[ April 04, 2005, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Hmmm. So we're out of the closet on this one - it's religion that you regard as illegitimate in a discussion of political and moral decisions.
I believe this was in fact aimed at me.
Of course religion is legitimate in discussion of political and moral decisions. All matters of fact are important to politics and morality -- so if there is in fact a God, that ought to be quite important. I don't believe in God myself. What I'm trying to do is explain why, if you agree with me, you won't agree that the social consequences of gay marriage should be studied before the ban on it is lifted. Thus the refusal of gay rights groups to study the social consequences of gay marriage before trying to lift the ban is understandable and correct, from my point of view.
Now, you might disagree with me that the right of two consenting adults to form a relationship is a basic, inalienable right. If so, it makes sense that you think the consequences of gay marriage should be carefully considered before it is permitted. What I was trying to do in my original post is point out that, for those of us who view this as a basic right, the consequences don't matter to whether gay marriage should be permitted. It must be permitted, because our right to form relationships as we please should be respected.
Thus it is not a trivial or obvious point to say that the consequences of gay marriage should be carefully weighed before we choose to permit it. You can't say off the bat that people are foolish not to consider the consequences of gay marriage, not if they believe (as I do) that the consequences don't matter to whether gay marriage is right.
quote:But of course, no one here has any prejudices. No one jumps to conclusions based on a priori reasoning. Who could possibly think such a thing, when right-thinking people base all their judgments on science?
It's not clear how the definition of 'prejudice' being used here differs from 'considered opinion.' Until I know how the word is being used, I can't answer the accusation.
As for a priori reasoning, that does often lead us to the truth. How else do I know that 1+1=2?
quote:Comparing voting rights, black decrimination, religion, and freedom of speech to gay marriage is not sensible.
The only comparison I made is that they're both inalienable rights, on my view. I was explaining why discussion of the social consequences of gay marriage just doesn't enter into the decision process, just like the consequences of free speech have no bearing on whether we should allow free speech. We must allow it, good consequences or bad, because we can't rightly prevent people from exercising their liberties.
[ April 04, 2005, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Opponents to same-sex marriages believe civil rights should not be granted to behavior that has a fundimental negative social impact.
Is that so? Do you think that the KKK has the right to free speech?
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
1 + 1 = 10 Man, learn your binary.
I really don't want to comment on this but I believe that they have the right to marry because it is their to do so because the Charter of Canadian Rights and Freedoms garuantees it. It is simply a believe in their right as Canadian citizens, not whethor or not that if it is wrong. It is irrelevent what the morals or ethics are if it is their right to do so then they can do it within a reasonable degree allowed by the law. Plain and simple, for us crazy conucks at least. Posted by FormerlyEmpty (Member # 7717) on :
*Sticks fingies in ears* LaLaLaLa Also: People who saw the Matrix (mankind) heard the little spiel about human beings being a virus for not developing a natural equilibrium with the environment. Regardless of my views which I will not state here is it possible that gays/lesbians/people who choose not to produce offspring are in fact nature's way of forcing population control? 6 billion people can't spiral into 8 billion if half of them are homosexual/childless. Just a thought.
Posted by DavidR (Member # 7473) on :
I have been following this topic on and off on this and the Ornery site for some time now and I would like to put my two cents in.
The proper process for instituting changes in the law of the land, as I understand it is as follows. A new law, or change to an existing law is proposed. Sometimes this change is proposed by a member of the legislature and sometimes by constituents, special interest groups, or even the Executive branch. The proposal gets put into the form of a bill and is discussed in conferences and the feedback from this process is used to refine the bill if it needs refining. Sometimes a bill will be killed in this process, but if the idea is worthy it can always be introduced again. Once this discussion has happened it moves to the general assembly of the legislature for more discussion and eventually a vote. If the new or changed law passes it goes to the Exectutive branch to either be signed into law or vetoed and if it does not pass it goes away unless the idea is proposed again in another bill in which case the process starts over. In bicammeral legislatures like the United States Legislature this needs to happen in both parts of the legislature, either serially or in parallel, and a reconcilliation of the resulting bills may need to happen requiring more deliberation. All of this deliberating allows for a discussion of the concerns of different groups and at least a chance to try to reconcile the differences between different groups who see things differently with regard to the bill. If the bill is passed by the legislature and signed into law by the Executive branch, or the veto of the Executive branch overridden by the legislature, then it becomes law. Once it is a law it may be challenged in the judiciary and the judiciary may decide that it violates part of the Constitution as written and strike part or all of the law down. It could also uphold the law against such challenges as well.
When a Judge decides to create new laws from the bench, as opposed to simply striking down bad laws, and such decisions get upheld by the Supreme Court the only recourse that the Legislature has is to push for a Constitutional ammendment which overrules the decision of the Supreme Court. The reason for this is that while the Legislature can revisit the original idea and craft a new bill which avoids the flaws that a struck down law contained making for a better law, there is no way to rewrite a law "written" by the Supreme Court. The only ways in which such decisions can be reversed is if the Supreme Court reverses itself in a future case or the Constitution is ammended. There is also no opportunity for prolonged discussion and deliberation which can craft a sensible law in these kinds of Judicial declarations. The Legislature can go through the process of crafting bills to support these decrees from the Supreme Court in a manner that reduces the turmoil from their implementation. By doing so they have the opportunity to discuss the merits of the decree and reconcile differing points of view, but if that discussion results in a rejection of the decree there is nothing that they can do about it. They cannot override the decree except by crafting an ammendment to the Constitution.
To sum up my rambling here, I feel that ammendments should be few and far between because they are litteraly the highest law of the land and can only be overridden by another ammendment. Using the ammendment process to pass laws which should be implemented in the United States Code via normal legislation is bad policy in my opinion. Since the only way for the Legislature to override a decree from the Supreme Court is by passing an ammendment to the Constitution which makes the Supreme Court decision unconstitutional, I feel that activist Judicial decisions, Judicial decisions which create new laws as opposed to interpreting existing laws, have no place in our legal system. In fact I find them to be downright reckless. If the issue which a Judge feels merits a new law has merit, then puting such a new law through the process of the legistature is better for our society in the long run than decreeing the new law from the bench. Is there a channel by which the Supreme Court can introduce a bill for consideration by the Legislature? Would it be desireable for such a channel to be added as possible alternative to creating laws from the bench?
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Though we've hammered out these issues on previous threads, it's always a hoot. There's so much to address, but I'll only pick a few chestnuts...
quote:Would you require that someone who plays roleplaying games -- a vanishingly small minority -- prove to you that this behavior is not harmful before you permit it or choose to accept such players as equals? No.
When there's a chance it might do harm? You betcha. I was in Junior High when Dungeons & Dragons first came out, and parents groups worked very hard to stop the school from allowing the creation of a club based on reports that the game led to suicide and satanism. Pretty silly, obviously, but if we believe there is an intrinsic harm in it, then YES, we have a right to oppose it.
The problem, obviously, is the definition of "harm."
BTW, this has nothing to do with free speech. I have no problem with homosexuals living together or practicing their lifestyle. I have many gay friends and associates and I agree with their lifestyle as much as they agree with my religion. But we're still great friends. It has everything to do with granting rights to lifestyle choices that may not deserve them, especially when other choices are denied such rights without question.
quote: Regardless of my views which I will not state here is it possible that gays/lesbians/people who choose not to produce offspring are in fact nature's way of forcing population control? 6 billion people can't spiral into 8 billion if half of them are homosexual/childless. Just a thought.
I've heard this before, from a very angry homosexual opposed to those opposed to his views. There is zero proof of this, and it would certainly make Darwin spin in his grave, I think. Homosexuality (a committed, same-gender sexual relationship) is almost impossible to find in nature. It's clearly a human invention.
(And please, no links to the gay penguins at the zoo. Such things happen in prisons too, but you don't see THOSE kind of relationships considered proof for the normality of homosexuality! )
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Don't particularly care if it's a choice. Don't care if it's genetic. Don't care if it's a mix of the two, or if some are born that way and some choose it, or what. Don't see how proving the actual root cause would make a difference.
I stand by my statement. I am not against gay marriages, nor am I especially for them. I am against frivolous marriages, and I'm willing to respect serious commitments of any type.
Most of the arguments that don't invoke scripture seem to speak against upsetting the fabric of society for the sake of a few outspoken, whimsical firebrands. I'm waiting to hear why achieving my preferred goal would be a bad move. "Serious commitments," in my view, require over-the-age-of-consent status, by the way.
Posted by FormerlyEmpty (Member # 7717) on :
It was just an idea mr. angry man and even if homosexuality is a human invention (not pro or con here im just being mr. neutral) this could be a new reaction to human population overload by god/nature/magic or whatever the heck you and everyone else believes in.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:BTW, this has nothing to do with free speech.
Gay marriage and free speech are definitely distinct rights, sure. But earlier you said "civil rights should not be granted to behavior that has a fundimental negative social impact." This is incompatible with the opinion that all people have a right to free speech, since some people (racists, perhaps communists) will have a negative impact on society simply by expressing their views.
Posted by Jonathan K. (Member # 7720) on :
I realize it may not seem right for someone to join in the middle of a conversation but I just want to say that maybe Chris is right, maybe people shouldn't just marry for some odd reason, and it could be a holy agreement, but I really don't want to say to a gay couple or any couple that they can't get married.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Formerly Empty: You're reading waaaaaay too much emotion into people's posts. I ain't angry at all...but the guy who first proposed that silly theory...yikes! It's amazing that some people who want the most acceptance are the least likely to allow any one else to have an opinion.
As for the free speech issue, I don't think it's the same. Free speech is a right for all, young and old, regardless of any conditions. The legal rewards of marriage, however, are a privilege. Before marriage was simply a contract before "God, men and these witnesses," but in time the government provided benefits to encourage/discourage certain behavior.
(Obviously what constitutes "appropriate behavior" will never be decided on. It changes every year.)
Homosexuals have the right to do whatever they want. But why should they have access to every privilege, simply because they want them? If they can marry, then why can't I "marry" my brother, so we both save on taxes and can get a loan together? If I can "marry" my brother, then does "marriage" exist at all?
It's like Syndrome on "The Incredibles" says: "And once everyone is super...then no one will be."
Posted by Jonathan K. (Member # 7720) on :
I really don't think it's right to assume that the purposes of gay marriages are to get the privelages of being married. Even if all gay marriages are made to get certain privelages, if straight people are allowed to do it, why not homosexuals.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:As for the free speech issue, I don't think it's the same. Free speech is a right for all, young and old, regardless of any conditions. The legal rewards of marriage, however, are a privilege.
If that's how you see it, then I understand why you have the opinion that you do. I tend to think that the opportunity to join with someone else to form a household is a pretty fundamental right, rather than a privilege. Or (a weaker claim) that we have a right to lifestyle choice which makes it wrong for the government to use something like marriage to "encourage" one sexual orientation over another.
quote:It's like Syndrome on "The Incredibles" says: "And once everyone is super...then no one will be."
A line that well-nigh ruined an otherwise wonderful movie. The things you have don't become any more special just because the guy down the street lacks them.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Everyone is special. Just like you! Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Pretty silly, obviously, but if we believe there is an intrinsic harm in it, then YES, we have a right to oppose it."
Oh, absolutely. Oppose away. But as in the case of roleplaying, you're silly to oppose it, and we're right to oppose your opposition. I also submit -- and I think you'll agree -- that marriage is a fundamentally more important "right" than the right to play roleplaying games, and bans of marriage should consequently be based on considerably more obvious proofs of harm.
Let's face it: what you're afraid of is that society will say it's okay for homosexuals to live together in loving relationships. I, on the other hand, say that this could only be a good thing.
[ April 04, 2005, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Chris, the point you brought in about giving homosexuals something positive to strive for is an excellent one. I've got some initial thoughts about it that aren't fully-formed yet, but I wanted to toss them out here ... (So people who disagree with me, please be gentle. I'm still working this out )
I think that a similar strategy is working very well right now in my own Mormon community. Successful, eternal marriage and family is held up as THE ultimate aspiration for LDS youth, and I think as a result, we not only have more stable families than some other communities, but we also have young people with a stronger sense of positive ambition. Instead of adolescence and early adulthood being a directionless void for Mormon kids, it is a time of training and maturation with a specific, positive, common end goal in mind.
It is much easier to make positive, mature choices if your entire society is built around promoting such choices.
Within the Mormon community, however, support for gay marriage can never work quite the same way. Our focus on traditional marriage is supported and fueled by our belief that gender, marriage, and family in this world are reflections of a larger eternal truth. By engaging in eternal marriage and family now, we are preparing for what we will find in the afterlife.
But as we understand it right now, homosexual desire and marriage is a phenomenon of mortality, and doesn't have an eternal analogy. It would feel disingenuous and wrong for a Mormon to promote a form of marriage within his community that lacks that eternal potential. If an individual does have a choice in this matter, then there is a clear right choice to make, and so our society strongly promotes that choice.
Outside the Mormon community, we have a different situation. Mormons don't try to prohibit other people from drinking coffee, or force them to devote ten percent of their income to the work of God. Those are choices that we make as a result of our faith, and we try not to enforce such things on others. So what about marriage? Are we somehow concerned that a change on the national scale will affect Mormons' own decisions within the faith?
Personally, I think that members of my religious community will be a bit more insulated than most others against changes in the larger society. We already do a rather good job of creating a sense that we're unique, and that we do things our own way, no matter what anybody says.
But still, there will be some effect. While we were slow to catch up, our divorce rate is now pretty much equal to that of the rest of America, despite the fact that we believe marriage to be binding and eternal. With that in mind, it can be difficult to justify supporting a policy that could encourage some Mormons to shun eternal marriage in favor of an alternative. Much of the strength of our community and our youth comes from our attitudes about eternal marriage and family. Were that attitude to slip much further than it already has, we could lose much of what makes our society so unique and successful.
If homosexual marriage emerges as a well-promoted and attractive alternative to traditional marriage, that will probably offer a positive boon to homosexuals. But it will also mean that as all kids are growing up and thinking about their future, every kid will have to think, "Am I gay? I don't know. When I hit puberty, will I like boys or girls? Am I going to marry a member of the opposite gender and have my own kids? Marry the same gender and adopt?" As adolescence hits, every feeling has to be weighed. "I got a little turned on by that sexy scene in that movie. Was I turned on by the guy or the girl? I like that picture of a half-naked person of my own gender. Does that mean I'm gay?"
Right now, our society offers a clear set of future expectations that promote positive ambition for most of the population. Grow up, get married, have kids. People expect it, and subcultures (like my own) that promote it have a lot of success with it. Standards and expectations like these make choices — particularly positive choices — much easier to make.
Meanwhile, those individuals who feel very strongly that these expectations are wrong for them are free separate themselves from those expectations and go and do something else. That transition can be very difficult, depending on an individual's circumstances, but we are moving much closer to general tolerance and understanding of choices that diverge from the majority's model.
If, rather than having a single primary model with several possible divergences that cater to some individuals' needs, we switch to a system of multiple competing models that every individual needs to compare and consider, the institution of marriage loses some of its motivational power. Instead of being a standard and an expectation for most of the population, it becomes a toss-up question.
If we create an institution that the homosexual minority can use to promote positive ambition among homosexuals, that is awesome. Civil unions, full legal protections, etc — none of that will get any argument from me.
But I don't think that our current model, in which most people grow up unthinkingly assuming they will be heterosexual, and looking forward to eventual marriage and family, while some individuals discover that they feel different and end up deciding to find an alternative ... I don't think that this is a bad thing, or that it needs to change. I think it really is okay to have a "mainstream" culture with "mainstream" expectations, as long as members of that mainstream are taught to respect and tolerate choices that deviate from the mainstream.
I personally am quite proud that I belong to a unique minority religion. It makes me distinctive, and helps give me an identity. I don't need Mormonism to be some kind of officially-recognized and -promoted national institution. In fact, that would kind of take the fun out of it.
Similarly, I don't think that gay marriage needs to be made a mainstream institution. Should homosexuals be treated as well as everyone else? Absolutely. Should the institutions and needs of the gay subculture (life partners, civil unions) be respected and given credence by businesses and by our government? I think they should, even though they don't fit with my own culture and beliefs, or the beliefs of the majority religion of the country.
However, I think that it should be okay for homosexuality and homosexual unions to remain an alternative choice in our culture, rather than becoming part of (and changing the nature of) the mainstream institution. While traditional marriage has suffered some pretty severe blows in recent decades, it still maintains its power for a lot of people, and is starting to make a comeback. It is a tool that we can use to promote a clear positive ambition among mainstream kids, and I think it could be a mistake to turn such a strong, motivating expectation into yet another wide-open choice for immature kids to try to make with little guidance.
[ April 04, 2005, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Interesting. Very well thought-out.
Do you really think the government can do anything to control what the culture recognizes as mainstream? Seems like whether gayness is an "alternative choice" depends on how many people are into it, and whether most people see it as normal.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
The mainstream, I think, has a natural inertia that is difficult to overcome. Whatever society defines as mainstream now will stay defined that way unless someone puts a lot of effort into changing it.
Right now, many people feel that the only solution to intolerance towards homosexuals, and uneven treatment of homosexual unions, is to redefine mainstream marriage to include such unions, and then enforce that inclusion by the rule of law.
I personally suspect (as you read in my preceding post) that this is not the best solution. I think that we can achieve tolerance and equality for alternative choices without defining our mainstream expectations to include all possible options. There is a definite value to offering a clear and compelling sense of what a young person can expect of themselves as they mature, and a definite negative to presenting the same a young person with dozens of alternatives from the outset, with little guidance or preference to help them make good decisions for themselves.
It is much easier for a person who is different to recognize his own differences and seek unique solutions than it is for a vast crowd of individuals to find a positive direction and purpose amidst an endless sea of equal-seeming alternatives.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
The last couple of posts had some interesting ideas to chew on. On the other hand...
quote:Let's face it: what you're afraid of is that society will say it's okay for homosexuals to live together in loving relationships.
I tried to come up with a witty, sarcastic reply, but I'm dead tired. Got a laugh out of me, though, so that's good. I figure if someone starts claiming I'm "afraid," it's good to know at least people are reading my posts!
(And that the Right doesn't hold a monopoly on bombastic presumptions against those who oppose their views.)
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I'm really confused why someone would want to read into a post opposing gay marriage that the writer is opposed to homosexuals loving each other. It happens in just about every thread, and it's weird. I try very hard to actually address people's stated arguments and give credence to the feelings and opinions they express, rather than making up bizarre idealogies for them to have. Is that really so hard to do?
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Apparently so. (Pat pat) Don't get discouraged; eventually someone will emulate your good example.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
[raises eyebrow] Sorry if that came across as self-serving ... wasn't my intention.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I'm really confused why someone would want to read into a post opposing gay marriage that the writer is opposed to homosexuals loving each other."
Because, Geoff, that's what marriage is: recognition that your monogamous love is valuable to society. Creating a second-class form of marriage, or in fact refusing to recognize the union at all, is done to deliberately maintain a separation between the "valuable" sorts of love and, by inference, the "homosexual" sorts of love, which we don't want to encourage.
After all, what is a "homosexual union," to those who support it, but a way of saying, "Okay, yeah, you can have all the legal benefits, but don't go giving kids the idea that sticking tab A into slot B is something we want them to be doing?"
And as you've said as much in your recent posts, I don't see why you're baffled by this.
[ April 05, 2005, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Rat - on the face of it, I don't have much problem with your views. And I suspect that civil unions will remain the most homosexual activists can reasonably hope for, and that if they had never used the word "marriage" there would not have been so massive an outcry. I'm all for civil unions.
The drawback, I think, and it might be moot, is that not calling it marriage makes it less binding, somehow. A civil union is a business contract, a legal agreement that can be made and unmade with the stroke of a pen. No permanence assumed.
However, since I don't expect the majority of America to welcome gay marriage with open arms, I think work should be done to legitimize civil unions. Not because I think that hmosexuals deserve less, but because they need to know how to pick their battles, and because if civil unions became the law of the land and people took them seriously, treated them with reverence and honor, within a few generations the language will adapt and we'll consider those folks "married" anyway.
Posted by Jonathan K. (Member # 7720) on :
That's a possibility Chris, but another possibility is that the separation between gay people and straight people will just continue to grow. Personally I prefer your outlook Chris.
Posted by Danny (Member # 7404) on :
By far the most intelligent conversation I've ever read on homosexual marriage.
I seriously doubt that incorporating gay marriage as a legal civil union will broaden the gap between gays and straights, at least not more than it is right now, where gay marriage has NO recognition under the law. Fine, call it something other than marriage; at least we'd be calling it something, not ignoring it.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:The mainstream, I think, has a natural inertia that is difficult to overcome. Whatever society defines as mainstream now will stay defined that way unless someone puts a lot of effort into changing it.
I tend to agree, but let's look deeper at the analogy here. Inertia doesn't only mean that a body at rest will stay at rest -- it also means that a moving body will remain in motion. And I don't think the American mainstream is at rest in a cultural sense. It's moving steadily in the direction of blurring the strong divide between genders and gender roles that you see as fundamental.
(Footnote: I don't see gender as a very fundamental fact at all. Witness the phenomenon of biological transsexuals and such. My own hope is that the future attitude towards gender will be much like that of Iain Banks's "Culture," in which people switch back and forth according to their whims.)
Anyway, I agree with your general plan, civil unions and such, but not because I think it will achieve your goals. I think it'll end up achieving my goals. If the culture is determined to stagnate, it will do so regardless of government interference. Likewise, if the culture is determined to move on (and I think it is) then the government can do very little to stop it.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Really, Tom, I didn't think you the type to go for straw-man arguments.
quote:Because, Geoff, that's what marriage is: recognition that your monogamous love is valuable to society.
That's what you think marriage is? Really? I thought it had a lot more to do with recognizing that your monogamous faithfulness and permanence are valuable to society. Love is a motivation to enter into marriage, but it isn't the reason that society supports it.
quote:Creating a second-class form of marriage, or in fact refusing to recognize the union at all, is done to deliberately maintain a separation between the "valuable" sorts of love and, by inference, the "homosexual" sorts of love, which we don't want to encourage.
No, again, it's not about love at all. In fact, I've never heard of any government institution that tried to regulate love. The government can regulate how people behave toward one another, but rarely has it pretended that it can regulate our feelings toward one another.
And it disappoints me that you make accusations about what people in this debate are "deliberately" trying to do, while these same people emphatically deny that they have any such desire. I mean, look at me. I think that redefining marriage to include homosexual unions is a bad idea. But I'm emphatically against the idea of sodomy laws, and want them stricken from the books. So, what is it about for me? Am I trying to criminalize love? Or sex? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, I'm trying to accomplish exactly what I describe in my posts, and not your little straw man?
quote:After all, what is a "homosexual union," to those who support it, but a way of saying, "Okay, yeah, you can have all the legal benefits, but don't go giving kids the idea that sticking tab A into slot B is something we want them to be doing?"
I'd like to compliment you on your mind-reading abilities, but unfortunately, they suck.
[ April 05, 2005, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Personally I think Chris's outcome is prophetic; such a heated debate (like abortion) will creep its way into acceptance until many will wonder "what was the big deal?"
Of course, when the long-term effects of such behavior crop up, people wag their heads and raise their fists to the sky and wonder what happened. On "Dr. Phil" recently a 13-year-old girl who is sexually active explained she wasn't afraid of getting pregnant because "(she) can get an abortion, if necessary." Of course she can. Why would her sexually-active single mother teach her anything different?
People can assert that opponents to same-sex marriage don't want people to be recognized for their "love." That's simplistic propaganda by those who can't come up with a decent rebuttal. If you study the history of marriage, love was rarely an initial factor. People aren't rewarded because they "love" each other, but because they create a unit of society that can rear children in the healthiest possible way. The idea that people should be rewarded with civic rights just because they "love" each other is a self-centered form of entitlement.
Again, the question has never been answered––where do we draw the line? When are we going too far? Why is homosexual behavior considered acceptable, while other forms are not? If a father and daughter have sexual feelings for one another, and they're both consenting adults, should that be okay? Can they get "married"?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"That's what you think marriage is? Really? I thought it had a lot more to do with recognizing that your monogamous faithfulness and permanence are valuable to society."
Yes, okay, fine. If you would rather, people who oppose homosexual marriage do not believe that homosexual faithfulness and permanence are valuable to society. They might well believe that homosexual love is valuable, but don't see why faithfulness is essential for anything.
I'm not reading your mind, Geoff, or putting words in your mouth. You just said that the reason you oppose homosexual marriage but support homosexual unions is that you don't want society to start thinking that homosexual relationships are a decent life choice. This is not a distortion of your argument in any way: quite literally, you support a second-class status for homosexual unions specifically because you want to make sure that society does not accept their partnerships as equal to marriage.
------
"Again, the question has never been answered––where do we draw the line? When are we going too far? Why is homosexual behavior considered acceptable, while other forms are not? If a father and daughter have sexual feelings for one another, and they're both consenting adults, should that be okay?"
People who oppose homosexual marriage bring this up all the time, making me wonder whether they really don't see anything different about incest and homosexuality.
But, seriously, the reason we can't permit incest as a society -- at least not within the immediate family -- is that there's no way for us to actually verify free and unencumbered consent. There is no presumption of a "consenting adult" when we're talking about a father and daughter, even if the daughter is 18.
It's an issue that simply doesn't exist with homosexuality. And given that incest affects a person's ability to marry one given individual, rather than -- in the case of banning homosexual marriage -- removing the ability to marry anyone to whom someone might be attracted, it's a potential cost that's easier to bear.
[ April 05, 2005, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Quotes would be helpful. I'd like to see which statements you are interpreting this way.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I agree with the point estavares raised. Where does it end? What is marriage really? Do both people have to be human? Can I marry my cat? Ok, that is a bit of a stretch.... In the military for example, you get paid a lot more if you are married. Would this extend to civil unions as well? Can I just enter into a civil union or marriage with someone to reap all the benefits (housing/food allowances, on base housing, etc)? I do agree that homosexuals would be better off taking the civil union route. Once they got the same rights under a civil union as a marriage, I am sure most people would just call it a marriage and that would be the end of it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Where does it end? What is marriage really? Do both people have to be human? Can I marry my cat? Ok, that is a bit of a stretch...."
I'm cool with consenting adults. But you'd better be pretty clear on what consent is.
"In the military for example, you get paid a lot more if you are married. Would this extend to civil unions as well?"
I don't see why not. Already, two people of a different sex can marry each other without love in order to receive financial benefits, if they want to game the system.
-----
Geoff, most of your last post on the first page makes this point, but I'll use this paragraph in particular:
quote: However, I think that it should be okay for homosexuality and homosexual unions to remain an alternative choice in our culture, rather than becoming part of (and changing the nature of) the mainstream institution. While traditional marriage has suffered some pretty severe blows in recent decades, it still maintains its power for a lot of people, and is starting to make a comeback. It is a tool that we can use to promote a clear positive ambition among mainstream kids, and I think it could be a mistake to turn such a strong, motivating expectation into yet another wide-open choice for immature kids to try to make with little guidance.
The obvious implication here is that you don't consider homosexual marriage to be a lifestyle as worthy as heterosexual marriage, and that you feel that elevating it to the status of heterosexual marriage would merely confuse "immature kids" who're trying to decide where they stand. While your take on it -- that kids just need to have their moral choices simplified for them -- is not exactly the typical one, it amounts to much the same thing: because homosexual marriage isn't considered an "optimal" choice, it should be suppressed and kept out of the mainstream to avoid polluting -- or cheapening, or complicating -- the mainstream.
[ April 05, 2005, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Danny (Member # 7404) on :
My favorite one is: "Oh so I can marry my dog if I wanted to? I can marry whoever I want, right?" Don't you think we should wait to concern ourselves with fathers marrying daughters until that trend becomes an actual reality in our culture, if it ever does? To say that homosexual marriage is a "gateway law" into other much more radical forms of partnership is a little preemptive, I think. If this issue really opens the floodgates (which I seriously doubt will happen), we'll deal with it then. Let gay marriage be the focus right now. Marriage can be a slippery slope sometimes.
And what exactly are mainstream kids? Heterosexual ones? Please specify. Last time I checked, kids were much more attuned with mainstream culture than they were with new laws that get passed. In other words, if heterosexuality is still the "default" mainstream sexuality, how much do you think they're going to notice the change? Is your fear that homosexuality will become more popular? If so, I can't say that anyone I've known ever decided not to be gay because they just didn't get enough marriage rights.
[ April 05, 2005, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Danny ]
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
quote: Because, Geoff, that's what marriage is: recognition that your monogamous love is valuable to society.
Wait, wait, wait! Now people are getting into homosexual love which can be seen as completely different. First off; What is love? I love my brother, my father, my best freind but I am not gay and I don't want to have sexual relations with any of those people. Are any of you really against homosexual love or is homosexual sex that bothers you? Because love happens whether people authorize it or not. I think love is when you strongly miss someone, the more you miss them when they are away the more you love them. That is why people cry over loved ones when they die. Its because they miss them so much becuase they no that they cannot see them again.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
I agree allowing homosexual marriage won't open the gates to my being able to marry my cat (though we'd divorce in a week, that needy deadbeat), I do think we are seeing a trend that will lead to a greater emotional and mental dysfunction within our society as a whole.
We let the mouse into the kitchen then we wonder why the cheese is all gone.
People seem to think they can keep moving the line back and back because it involves "love" and "fairness" and nice, sweet people who mean nobody no harm. If this was an issue of basic rights to act, I could see the point. But it's not. It's about getting a share of the wealth because "someone else gets it and I can't."
I should be able to go exercise at my local "Curves," right, despite the fact I'm male? I should be able to get the Ladies Night discount, regardless? Oh, and I'd better get my Senior's discount at the movies (even though I'm in my 30s), because everyone should have everything everyone else has, right? And they'd BETTER allow me to be president of the NAACP, (though technically I'm half Portugese and half Danish). I should be able to marry three or four consenting women all at once, right?
Oh, THAT's immoral/unfair/made to repair past wrongs/inappropriate/doesn't apply/insert your own answer here.
At least today.
[ April 05, 2005, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: estavares ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I should be able to go exercise at my local "Curves," right, despite the fact I'm male? I should be able to get the Ladies Night discount, regardless? Oh, and I'd better get my Senior's discount at the movies (even though I'm in my 30s), because everyone should have everything everyone else has, right? And they'd BETTER allow me to be president of the NAACP, (though technically I'm half Portugese and half Danish). I should be able to marry three or four consenting women all at once, right?
So there are some cases in which being a certain kind of person should disqualify you from participating in some activity. There are also some in which disqualifying someone for being a certain kind of person is wrongful discrimination and/or a breach of liberty. I don't see any argument here about which category gay marriage falls into. You need to give some reason why marriage is more like a Seniors discount than (for instance) which school you're allowed to attend.
As for the polygamy thing, that's never been too compelling an objection for me. I think you should be able to marry multiple women if everyone involved is cool with it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It's about getting a share of the wealth because 'someone else gets it and I can't.'"
Hm. Do you really believe this? Perhaps this is why you have difficulty seeing the other perspective.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
That's right Tom, I (duhhh) just don't get it.
And here you go presuming yet again, without knowing my mind in the least. I understand all too well the other side's feelings, and frankly, it's all boils down to entitlement. Like it or not. I've had far too many gays tell me, friends and strangers alike, "we want what you have."
If it wasn't true, then civil unions would suffice, but they don't. The fact is opponents DO indeed see there is a valid and compelling reason gays should be disqualified, that homosexuality is NOT the same as race and gender. But seeing you'd rather just make personal assumptons instead...
I mean, come on! At least try to come up with something more interesting.
"I'ma Toydarian. Jedi mind-tricks no work on me."
[ April 06, 2005, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: estavares ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
All right, Tom, note that the more you are forced to stick to my original statements, the less inflammatory your paraphrases get. In three posts, you went from "You want to deny and illegitimatize homosexual love!" to "You don't want society to start thinking that homosexual relationships are a decent life choice!" to "You want homosexual unions to be secondary to traditional marriages."
Think of the time we might have saved if we'd just jumped straight to step 3.
You know, my position here is a bit like my position in the semi-recent thread about cursing. Now, the analogy isn't perfect, so don't go taking this the wrong way. (I've noted that in the past, comparing a homosexual issue to anything that has even the slightest pejorative connotation gets you instantly branded. I'd like to avoid that if I can.)
In the thread I'm thinking of, someone came in and basically said that the taboo against cursing is stupid. Curse words are not substantially different from any other words. They're just sounds that represent ideas that can just as easily be expressed non-offensively. So there is no particular reason why a certain set of words should be treated as wrong and offensive, while other words with the exact same meanings are not. This person thought that the taboo should be lifted, and that curse words should be used freely, with no particular stigma one way or the other.
I agreed with this person's analysis, to a degree. There IS nothing intrinsically wrong with curse words. There is certainly nothing "dirty" or "evil" about them. They don't offend me personally all that much (depending on context, of course). And there is no particular reason why, at this particular time, in this particular language, we have singled out this particular list of words as offensive.
But curse words serve a valuable purpose in our language. The taboo doesn't make them evil, but it does give them the unique ability to express strong emotion that other words can't. If we somehow magically changed the rules and made those words inoffensive, our language would suffer for it, and we would probably end up coming up with a new list within a few decades to fill the emotional gaps that the original list left behind.
Again, let me remind you that this analogy is not meant to be perfect and direct. I'm not saying that homosexuality should be treated as "offensive".
What I am saying is that giving a particular societal institution its own distinctive value does not automatically make that institution "better" or "worse" than the others. It really is okay for some institutions — be they marriage practices, religions, hobbies, careers, or what have you — to carry with them a sense of "differentness" or "edginess" that makes them stand out from the mainstream. In fact, in many cases, that "differentness" is a big part of what gives an institution its value.
I think that it is a very good thing, for instance, that Mormons are a misunderstood minority in virtually every society we inhabit. Seeing that clear line between "us" and "the world" forces us to fish or cut bait — either devote ourselves to the religion with all our hearts and cling to that unique identity, or drop out entirely. As a result, our active members are unusually hardworking and devoted and willing to sacrifice for their faith, they are unusually adherent to their beliefs, and the church actually succeeds in a lot of its most ambitious goals. If Mormonism were considered simply ho-hum and mainstream, it would lose quite a bit of what makes it great.
I'm not saying that homosexual unions should work in exactly the same way, but I am saying that simply making an institution mainstream isn't always the best way to go. Distinctiveness has its own value, and I think that our quest for tolerance and acceptance has the potential to blind us to the positive value of recognizing differences and using them to enlighten and define ourselves in positive ways.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I understand all too well the other side's feelings, and frankly, it's all boils down to entitlement."
No, see, I'm afraid this sentence is oxymoronic. If you understood "all too well" the other side's feelings, you would not think it all boiled down to entitlement. The mere fact that you think so implies that you lack a certain amount of understanding.
--------
quote: All right, Tom, note that the more you are forced to stick to my original statements, the less inflammatory your paraphrases get. In three posts, you went from "You want to deny and illegitimatize homosexual love!" to "You don't want society to start thinking that homosexual relationships are a decent life choice!" to "You want homosexual unions to be secondary to traditional marriages."
Not quite. I'm actually stuck on the second one, from which the other two quite naturally flow. You don't want society to start thinking that homosexual relationships are a decent life choice. Therefore, you believe that homosexual unions should be secondary to traditional marriages, which has the effect of illegitimizing homosexual love.
See how that works?
quote: I'm not saying that homosexual unions should work in exactly the same way, but I am saying that simply making an institution mainstream isn't always the best way to go.
I recognize the value of what you're saying here, Geoff; it's certainly true that merely being a perceived minority brings with it certain cultural differences as a direct consequence of that minority status. Some of these are extremely beneficial.
However, it's worth noting that few minority groups wish to remain a disenfranchished minority; the LDS church, for example, relies heavily on political majorities in a handful of regions for a great deal of its cultural cohesiveness, and is one of the most active recruiters in the world. In the same way, gays often flock to cities considered "gay-friendly." And so forth. But while this kind of self-segregation can produce a valuable culture, it's my argument -- and the argument of several gay people I know -- that this segregation coupled with external discrimination is not a wholesome thing. It's my thesis, for example, that most of the negative cultural aspects of homosexual society (especially the promiscuity) are a direct consequence of a lack of social acceptance. For that matter, I believe a lot of the paranoid insularity of "Utah Mormon" culture comes from their early persecution, from which they haven't yet recovered.
What you're saying, Geoff, is that we should keep a given class down for their own good. Would that argument have worked on, say, the Mormons?
[ April 06, 2005, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Personally I think Chris's outcome is prophetic; such a heated debate (like abortion) will creep its way into acceptance until many will wonder "what was the big deal?"
Actually it's more that I think a larger percentage of people will begin to accept it under those circumstances. I don't for a second think that all people, or even a majority, will ever accept it no matter what laws are passed. You might notice that abortion is still far from being a "what's the big deal" topic.
Of course, when the long-term effects of such behavior crop up, people wag their heads and raise their fists to the sky and wonder what happened. On "Dr. Phil" recently a 13-year-old girl who is sexually active explained she wasn't afraid of getting pregnant because "(she) can get an abortion, if necessary." Of course she can. Why would her sexually-active single mother teach her anything different?
Which is why my suggestion emphasizes commitment. Marriage should mean something, and I want to include people determined and eager to make a life and a family out of it.
People aren't rewarded because they "love" each other, but because they create a unit of society that can rear children in the healthiest possible way. The idea that people should be rewarded with civic rights just because they "love" each other is a self-centered form of entitlement.
How about the notion that people should be rewarded with civic rights because they are committed to a long life together, accept the responsibility to raise their children as well as they can, speak for each other in legal and medical situations, agree not to stray and cause destabilizing effects in other marriages or relationships as well as their own, and, oh yes, love each other? With or without condescending quotes around the word.
That would be marriage to me. I recognize that for many people it would and could never be considered marriage if mixed genders aren't a part of the definition, so I'm decided to throw my opinion towards making civil unions legal, respectable, and desired. Wouldn't it be interesting if, after a few generations, the number of civil union dissolutionments was lower than the number of divorces?
Maybe homosexuals shouldn't try to get married. Maybe that's setting the bar too low.
[ April 06, 2005, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
If it ain't entitlement-based, bottom-line, I'd love a solid rebuttal.
A couple's "love" (quote used for emphasis, not condensencion, geez) can be affirmed with any ring-ceremony in a number of churches today, and civil unions where any two people can have certain legal and civil rights have been offered as an alternative. But it's not enough for advocates to have right-to-life decisons and child-custody issues handled via those protections.
They want all of it. Why?
Where has it been shown homosexual unions, committed or not, are as healthy and socially viable as traditional unions? Especially when it goes contrary to the majority of faiths and historical social models?
If it's simply a matter of rewarding any two people who live together who create a stable environment, then "marriage" can be defined as between any two people, regardless of their gender or sexual lifestyle, right? So a son and mother can get "married" if they want to co-raise a grandchild, or two sisters want to adopt and raise a child together or a man wants to have first-choice right-to-life decisions for his terminally-ill best friend, even if they're not gay?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"If it ain't entitlement-based, bottom-line, I'd love a solid rebuttal."
Pretty sure I've given you one already. Which part of my argument didn't seem solid to you?
-------
"If it's simply a matter of rewarding any two people who live together who create a stable environment, then 'marriage' can be defined as between any two people, regardless of their gender or sexual lifestyle, right?"
Well, I'd prefer to reserve "marriage," as long as we're going to use the word, for something including lifelong romantic love in its definition. But I agree that there's no reason to restrict "civil unions" in the same way.
[ April 06, 2005, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
As far as entitlement goes, I've re-read this entire thread and I'm not seeing anything showing otherwise. The thread's beginning to feel like the snake biting its own tail, anyway.
If it was simply wanting social acceptance or civic privileges, why do advocates dismiss civil unions? Because they do see it as being second-class because, to the majority, it is. Because the majority do not see homosexuality as healthy and as beneficial to society.
I wouldn't be surprised if we see a system eventually like in France, where all marriages are not recognized unless done at the courthouse. They're secularized it to the point that religious ceremonies do not count in and of themselves; I imagine if the concept of civil unions becomes popular, and any two people can have legal benefits (regardless of gender or sexual relationship) then marriage as a civil experience will vanish. It will become the realm of the churches and back-lawn ring-ceremonies, as much a statement of faith as a particular mode of baptism.
[ April 06, 2005, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: estavares ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"If it was simply wanting social acceptance or civic privileges, why do advocates dismiss civil unions?"
Because, as I've said, it's about social acceptance.
Unless ALL legal marriages are called civil unions (a proposition, mind you, that both Chris Bridges and I think is a good idea), having a separate legal status for "marriage" means that a "civil union" will always be a second-class arrangement.
Both you and Geoff have, on this very thread, admitted and acknowledged this. In fact, Geoff has explained that this is his intent.
The whole reason people want to "compromise" on "civil unions" is to avoid the social acceptance of homosexuality. Do you disagree?
[ April 06, 2005, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Not at all.
It's true that opponents discourage giving equal rewards across the board because it legitimizes behavior they believe to be inconsistent with a healthy society. Society has a right to reward certain behaviors they deem in the best interest for that society. And that definition is where is all comes apart...
Denial of full marriage benefits to homosexuals do not infringe on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." There are options for those essential issues like right-to-life, child-custody and common property for all people, regardless of orientation. I think there we agree on the concept of civil unions, which I too think should be available to any two or more people pledged to certain legal rights.
But it's not enough. They want it all.
There's this "Sally Field" syndrome where they need the reward in order to feel liked. I sure wish I could enjoy every reward available out there, but it's not going to happen. I won't be accepted (and I'll be denied certain rewards) because I'm not black, I'm not Jewish, I'm not gay, I'm not female, I'm not single, I'm not 65-or-older, I'm not making $100K a year. And I can live with that.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
That's why I've decided civil unions are the way to go, completely.
Not because they're almost as good as marriage, or because they're an alternative, but because "marriage" has become so devalued at this point -- and, for the record, I think no-fault divorces and the FOX network have done more for that than gays ever have -- that I think civil unions, with the right PR from the very beginning, could be better.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
On a civic standpoint, that may be where things are headed. LDS theology, for example, recommendes a temple wedding to faithful members as it provides certain blessings unavailable anywhere else. Since religion and other groups have the right to include/exclude membership based on behavior, that may be the inevitable compromise.
Of course, then the debate will be calling it marriage. It's like wearing white at a wedding when the woman is most clearly not a virgin. A tradition, but not really accurate to its origins.
On a side note...Desmond Morris, author of "The Human Animal" did a world-wide study of marriage forms and found the format most empowering to women (in their capacity to realize their full social and emotional potential) was in a consenting polygamous relationship.
One man's poison is another man's tea, I suppose.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
On the subject of harm, could I point out that the Scandinavian nations have had gay marriage for 15-20 years (depending on the nation) and are showing no signs of imminent collapse?
Actually, that raises an interesting question. What would be the status of those marriages in the United States, if you came across as a tourist, or whatever? Or if an American couple went to Sweden to get married?
[ April 06, 2005, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
These are, of course, countries where naked women stand at street corners with advertising signs.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Are you saying that this is better or worse than America? Because I'm getting mixed signals. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Of course, then the debate will be calling it marriage. It's like wearing white at a wedding when the woman is most clearly not a virgin. A tradition, but not really accurate to its origins.
This makes me curious... what did women wear back in the day when their husbands died and they remarried? Anyone know?
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
That's an interesting question.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Those poor Norweigian sandwich-board girls. It's gets mighty brisk between September and April, and they do tend to shiver so...
But, having come from a career in advertising, it's said "Never assume you've found every available channel."
Hmmmm....
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:You might notice that abortion is still far from being a "what's the big deal" topic.
Up here in the Great White North, abortion actually is a "what's the big deal?" topic. At the recent Conservative party convention, the membership wouldn't even entertain the idea of any legislative change to our current abortion laws, were they to be elected. The party does, however, want to preserve marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution, and have been quite voiciferous about it (with the result that they lost any support that they may have had in, for instance, Quebec).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Come on people, it was only the once, and anyway they weren't naked. Those raincoats weren't so transparent as all that. And they were advertising for a porn mag.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
And how, praytell, would youuuu know, Mr. Sneaky-a-Peeky?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Because I saw it on the news. Wasn't done in Bergen, alas, only in Oslo.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Ah yes, the old chesnut "I saw it on the news," you sneaky devil.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
)![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)