I suppose a "pretty please reconsider" wouldn't change OSC's mind?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'd actually prefer that he stay on the NOM board, because now people can point to his ample quotes on the subject of homosexuality and use that as an example of what NOM represents.
In other words, he's helping 'fringe' the national organization of marriage; this is not helpful to NOM; it's just them painting themselves into a corner.
Example: NOM Board Member Orson Scott Card Desires For Homosexual Sex To Be Illegal
factual statement! not fun for NOM!
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I dont know how many times I can say that whatever two sober adults do behind closed doors, has not, can not, and will not affect your life or mine. If OSC really believes that two men who can find trust and happiness in each other is stealing his rights from his marriage, he would dissallow me from reading his books for what I used to do behind my high-school every morning.
Also, "The Gathering Storm" deserves every last joke and parody, due to the fact that the original seems to a parody of the people and beliefs the makers have self-appointed representitives themselves as.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The Gathering Storm was a public relations disaster and the worst part is that NOM is making a big show of pretending that they have no idea about this and that things are actually going swimmingly.
exa:
quote:"I've always thought Stephen Colbert was a double-agent, pretending to pretend to be a conservative, to pull one over Hollywood. Now I'm sure," said Maggie Gallagher, President of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).
"Thank you Stephen for playing our ad in full on national television--for free. HRC eat your heart out. Plus we all had a great chuckle, too!" said Brian Brown, NOM's Executive Director. "Where can I make a donation to the National Organization for Colbert?"
buh. i do not think she could have made a more clueless response unless she had tried. Him too: 'we all havin ourselves a great chuckle,' fo sho.
this is an absolute disaster for them from start to finish. What a great time for Orson Scott "Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books" Card to decide to join, I guess.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I am not surprised by this.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Maggie, GOOD FOR YOU for getting the joke. I bet Hollywood is going to be SO SURPRISED when they finally figure it out!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Joining the board and representing the LDS church is science fiction author and Mormon Times columnist Orson Scott Card.
No he doesn't.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
quote:We are not angry with those whose lives have been shaped by desires that most of us don't feel. Our opposition is to a specific action by a handful of judges ...
quote:I say this knowing that several of my friends have already entered into "gay marriages" ... These are good-hearted people. They cannot help having desires that most other people do not have, or lacking desires that might lead to happiness within traditional marriage. They look at our traditional marriage laws and see, as Ellen DeGeneres puts it, "we're being told to sit in the back of the bus."
I don't want to make any statement that would condemn these friends of mine or even hurt their feelings.
quote:I believe that they are mistaken in their hope that they will be happier, or our society will be better, because of this court-mandated change in our marriage laws. But I do not doubt either their honesty or their good will. They mean no harm. And neither do I.
Can we all please get off this kick of trying to paint Card as some fringe crank? He's a very intelligent, well-intentioned guy who disagrees with some people and says so. Calling him names is not an actual answer to anything he says, and it's not going to solve anything.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Hurm...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:He's a very intelligent, well-intentioned guy who disagrees with some people and says so.
And, depending on the audience to which he's writing, he often says so as if he were a fringe crank.
Dude reaps what he sows. I once angered him a great deal by pointing out the inevitability of this consequence. I don't see what good you'll do yourself by struggling to deny it.
I'm sure Card derives some sort of personal benefit from writing like Sean Hannity for the citizens of Greensboro. But since it's those essays that have the national stage and not his more measured, carefully moderated "I'm a good Mormon" pieces for the Mormon press, are you really surprised that people treat him like Sean Hannity?
I have always maintained that Card is wise enough to know how the nuances of his tone will be received. He deserves exactly the response he gets, for precisely that reason; I got tired of defending him four years ago, when I realized that to do so often meant directly contradicting the evidence of his own words.
(It's also worth noting that the article you quoted was one in which he promised to later present some arguments against same-sex marriage, but did not actually present any. The articles that did present some actually made the rounds a bit, too, not least because some of the arguments were exactly the "fringe crank" stuff one might hope he'd avoid.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Can we all please get off this kick of trying to paint Card as some fringe crank?
You will notice that I am not calling him a crank. I'm saying that if he joins NOM, he fringes NOM. This is not because of anything besides what Card himself has said and advocated.
It's a rep he has earned through his own words and deeds — deeds such as, say, joining NOM.
/ also, to note:
quote:I don't want to make any statement that would condemn these friends of mine or even hurt their feelings.
This is the trouble with playing the "but don't get me wrong, I have black/gay/muslim/democrat/atheist/republican/chinese/whatever friends" card — evidently he didn't want this very much. Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zotto!: Can we all please get off this kick of trying to paint Card as some fringe crank? He's a very intelligent, well-intentioned guy who disagrees with some people and says so. Calling him names is not an actual answer to anything he says, and it's not going to solve anything.
Come on. You can't think that this is an effective argument.
You are trying to prove the negative, and your argument is killed by a few fringy quotes, of which there are many.
Here's just one:
"Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down".
You want to argue that this is what intelligent, well-intentioned people write?
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Tom, if you predefine "fringe crank" as anyone who disagrees with your perspective, then of course that's all you'll see when you read OSC. Me, I see guys like Gene Ray as the fringe, but I guess your mileage may vary.
I'm certainly not "struggling to deny" anything, since I completely disagree with your characterization of Card's method of sowing in the first place.
You assume that Card is getting some personal benefit when he walks around Greensboro by assuming we all agree that it's blindingly obvious he's "writing like Sean Hannity".
You can't just isolate one column, disconnect it from his views on everything else, and point to a superficial similarity of a specific conclusion they both reached to prove they're secretly identical. I'm sure I could find nearly identical quotes from you and King of Men, but I have no trouble distinguishing between the two of you.
Why do Card's Rhinotimes columns merit more attention than his Mormon Times articles? Because you said so? They take exactly the same number of clicks on a mouse to get to. What possible shred of evidence do you have that even hints that his motive is merely to prove he's a good Mormon?
Personally, I find the articles you complain about to be exactly as measured and carefully moderated as the ones you think are less extreme. You just disagree with them more.
So no, I'm not surprised that people treat him like Hannity, since neither party has a monopoly on willful misreading in service to their higher-cause du jour. A monotonous predictability characterizes a great deal of Card's opponents anyway. But I certainly don't think they're correct in such indiscriminating treatment.
Samprimary, I have no idea how joining NOM can possibly be a "deed" that "fringes" NOM. Presumably they want some sort of membership. You're being more circular than Ouroboros.
You also have as little evidence as Tom does to back up your assertions of Card's secret motives. I've already provided evidence to the contrary from Card's own writing.
It is possible to care about someone's emotions and still tell them the truth as you see it even when that truth might cause hurt feelings. It is even possible to love those you disagree with, and have that love returned. Civilized adults do it every day.
swbarnes2, if you read the rest of the article you quoted, you'd see that Card is issuing a warning about the state of mind of other married people, who might be pushed into emotional violence if their concerns are callously ignored.
I've heard frustrated people talk about armed rebellion, about overthrowing the government. Those of you with itchy trigger fingers, put away your guns. We are committed to democracy, not to violence.
Please read a history of the French Revolution. And then the Russian Revolution. Armed rebellion does not restore constitutional government, it most likely replaces one dictatorship with a worse one.
And while you're at it, read a history of the U.S. Civil War and decide if you think that's a good idea. I don't.
quote: ... when it's about the perception of reproductive security, you can toss rationality out the window.
What the proponents of gay marriage take for granted is that everybody's going to be polite and abide by the decisions of the government.
What they can't seem to understand is that people do not behave rationally or in an orderly way when core issues are at stake. Whether they're conscious of them or not, many heterosexuals are going to have a deep emotional response that WILL find expression one way or another.
It is possible that even before gay marriage, our society has moved beyond the point where we can continue to command the allegiance of the people who create the next generation. Why would parents tolerate allowing their children to risk their lives to DEFEND a society that ATTACKS their reproductive security?
Minority rights persist only with the consent of the majority. right now, the proponents of gay marriage show NO regard for the LARGE majorities opposed to the idea. Don't they understand that the current level of tolerance of homosexuality is a RARE thing, and already causes seething resentment on the part of large numbers of people?
Don't they have any conception of history, of what happens when the majority gets fed up with what they perceive as a danger from a minority?
Don't they understand that what may be at stake here is NOT gay marriage per se - that may simply be impossible and, in a definitional sense, already is impossible. What is really at stake is the continued authority of our governments and courts if they try to enforce something that strikes at the heart of the reproductive security of the majority?
... Pushing for gay marriage now, undemocratically, is a recipe for social cataclysm. I don't want that cataclysm. I don't want to see homosexuals turned into scapegoats and victims of a violent puritanical reaction. But that is what overpushing NOW will quite likely lead to.
(Emphasis mine.)
You'd think that if you were so eager to seize any and every scrap of evidence to prove your own assumptions about Card you'd read him a little more carefully.
C'mon, guys. Reread Speaker for the Dead and remember that even those who disagree with you can be reasonable, good people.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't really feel like he's being reasonable in his arguments. In fact many of them are quite nakedly disgusting and prejudice and are making my respect of him wane.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why do Card's Rhinotimes columns merit more attention than his Mormon Times articles?
Well, for one thing, they're for a larger audience and are reprinted prominently on at least three of his general-audience (i.e. non-Mormon) websites. At least a couple of the more obnoxious have been picked up and read aloud on various nationally-syndicated radio shows.
quote:Personally, I find the articles you complain about to be exactly as measured and carefully moderated as the ones you think are less extreme.
Well, there's your problem, right there. You're wrong. I would be happy to explain to you why you're wrong, but you've already said that quoting the man doesn't prove anything to you. So I'm not sure what you would accept as evidence.
(BTW, if you read the thread you linked above, I think you'll see a whole heck of a lot of my not "imputing vile motives" to Card, and a lot of my defending Card to another Mormon. Funny, that. But you'll notice my response to Card's post in that thread was to ask about the obvious unfounded assumption in his post -- that same-sex marriage attacks the reproductive security of already-married heterosexuals -- rather than to accuse him of grandstanding. Having been presented with one of his arguments, I was perfectly willing to take it at face value and examine it more closely.)
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
You're right, Tom, I didn't mean to lump you in with Samprimary and swbarnes2. Careless slip-up, and I'm sorry for that. I remember being grateful for your response to mungagungadin the first time I read it.
(Still disagreein' with your assessment of Card's writing, tho!)
Edit: There wouldn't happen to be a subsection of Davidson's Law in which any poster admonishing others for not carefully rereading neglects to proofread his own hastily-written assertions? Not that it would ever apply to me, of course -- I'm merely curious on a purely intellectual level. >_>
[ April 23, 2009, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: Zotto! ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Samprimary, I have no idea how joining NOM can possibly be a "deed" that "fringes" NOM.
Try reading my first post, then?
quote:You also have as little evidence as Tom does to back up your assertions of Card's secret motives.
What are you talking about? Do you really think I'm engaging in mindreading, here? Where am I asserting that card has secret motives? Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
I did read your first post.
In your third post, you assert
1. that Card brings along a bad reputation when he joins NOM, and
2. one of the deeds you say earned him that bad reputation was joining NOM.
I'm really not sure how to reply to such circularity.
Then you do indeed go on to engage in a little mind-reading when you claim that he must not have wanted to avoid hurting his friends' feelings very much.
How do you know that? How can you possibly measure that? Where is your evidence?
You already rejected the motive I offered as a reasonable one; namely, that he was well-intentioned while still disagreeing with people. If he is not well-intentioned, what motive are you implying he has, and where is your evidence for that?
[ April 24, 2009, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: Zotto! ]
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zotto!: swbarnes2, if you read the rest of the article you quoted, you'd see that Card is issuing a warning about the state of mind of other married people, who might be pushed into emotional violence if their concerns are callously ignored.
I did read the article.
Did I say that OSC advocates violence?
OSC wants to change the government by whatever means necessary, which does mean a lot of things. He's talking about pepole getting dragged to jail for refusing to go along with the tyrannical government...and having people go Galt to protest.
You think that this isn't extreme?
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
You're being evasive.
You asserted that Card's arguments are "fringy", and that my view is "killed" by quotes such as the one you provided. You imply that the quote is a summation of Card's own position, and use that as the foundation from which to attack him for not being sufficiently intelligent and well-intentioned.
I refuted you directly with a quote from him that says exactly the opposite of the one you gave, and pointed out that the one you gave is not an example of Card's own position, but rather an encapsulation of his understanding of other groups' views.
Therefore, quoting that line deceptively out of context cannot be used as evidence of Card's supposed extremism.
Contrary to your spin, Card isn't advocating changing government by "whatever means necessary"; he's advocating very specific (and specifically non-violent) actions of civil noncompliance.
No, I don't think that's extreme.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
you're responding to more than one other member, Zotto, in case you don't realize it.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
?
swbarnes2 and Samprimary, right? Am I missing someone?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zotto!: 1. that Card brings along a bad reputation when he joins NOM, and
2. one of the deeds you say earned him that bad reputation was joining NOM.
I'm really not sure how to reply to such circularity.
Ahem. What I actually said was that it was deeds such as (ie: equivalent to or like) joining NOM that earn him a bad rep, as a way of saying that joining NOM is a perfect example of what not to do if you don't want to entrench a pre-existing reputation because it's more of the same.
The circularity of my argument is one of your own conflation. You didn't even start out with an understanding of my position. Card joins NOM. People can point to his ample quotes on the subject of homosexuality and use that as an example of what NOM represents. This is why when Card joins nom, he 'fringes' them. This is, in the end, not good for NOM, because he's said crazy things before. Plenty of them. And now you can point to NOM and note that they let boardmembers be people who seriously want to keep gay sex illegal and persecute homosexual acts themselves. I plan to actually do this. Since I dislike NOM, I am glad that Orson Scott Card joined NOM, as I can use his membership as ammunition against the group.
That's very straightforward. If you don't get that, or how that would work, what am I supposed to tell you? You probably won't be able to get it without pages of extremely patient explanation.
The second half has only to do with your charge about what we're labeling him as. It notes that if Card doesn't want to be seen as a (and keep in mind that this is your wording, not the wording of others) 'fringe crank,' joining the National Organization of Marriage is not the best way to go about doing this. It actually hurts your case.
The mistake you made was assuming that I was saying that the act of joining NOM itself earned him his reputation. It can't give him a reputation he already has, and that's what I was talking about. I said that acts such as joining NOM are the kind that earn you this sort of reputation, or, in this case, enhancing and entrenching one you already have.
quote:You already rejected the motive I offered as a reasonable one; namely, that he was well-intentioned while still disagreeing with people.
I'd ask to see where you could show me where I reject the notion that card is 'well-intentioned,' but it doesn't, in any real sense, exist. You're just reading it as my motivation, the same way you asserted the notion that apparently I cannot possibly know that people who disagree with me can be considered 'reasonable, good people.'
I'll do you one better than just pointing out that I'm not saying the things you're claiming I am. I'll say that Card is most certainly assured of his good intentions. I have no doubt that he has good intentions, in his own perception. I, in fact, see him paving a road with them.
You're just not doing a good job of being able to understand people's positions before you accuse them of what 'they think.' You've made plenty of assumptions about Tom's predefinitions, for instance, and if you can let that happen to someone who treads much more carefully and patiently with his language than I do, I have little hope of not being, similarly, misread.
quote: If he is not well-intentioned, what motive are you implying he has, and where is your evidence for that?
I could imply many motives, but haven't. I've noted wryly that while he states that he sure wouldn't like to offend his friends, he apparently didn't want to avoid this enough that he felt compelled to avoid becoming a voracious anti-homosexuality pundit who, among other things, said that he wants homosexual activity to be illegal. I have also not said anything to the effect that he couldn't have good intentions.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zotto!: You're being evasive.
You asserted that Card's arguments are "fringy", and that my view is "killed" by quotes such as the one you provided. You imply that the quote is a summation of Card's own position, and use that as the foundation from which to attack him for not being sufficiently intelligent and well-intentioned.
I refuted you directly with a quote from him that says exactly the opposite of the one you gave, and pointed out that the one you gave is not an example of Card's own position, but rather an encapsulation of his understanding of other groups' views.
Sorry, but I just don't see the huge difference between:
"Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people...have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary.
and
"Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn. Biological imperatives trump laws."
Do you really think that OSC does not count himself among the married people who would say the latter to the government? What actions would be included in the latter speech that fail to fall under "whatever means necessary" from the first quote?
quote:he's advocating very specific (and specifically non-violent) actions of civil noncompliance.
Cite the part where I claimed that OSC was inciting violence. It's a short thread, you should have no problem finding my exact words.
quote:No, I don't think that's extreme.
Fred Phelps says the most vile, disgusting things about gay people, and he doesn't get hauled off to jail for it. But OSC suggests that people do things that will get them hauled off to jail in the link you provided.
And you still think that stuff that is judged more disruptive that Fred Phelps isn't extreme?
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
swbarnes2, I've already provided a quote that specifically refutes your claim that Card counts himself among the people calling for armed (ie, violent) revolution.
Samprimary, you're right, I didn't understand your position fully, and I retract my statement about the circularity of your earlier assertion as well as my understanding of what I thought you were implying were his motives.
In my defense, let me point out that your original wording was in fact very unclear from the point of view of someone who disagrees with you, and I think my earlier reading was an understandable and valid one, lacking as I did your later clarification. Please don't get patronizing about what I will or will not understand without pages and pages of patient explanation. I think I'm doing you the same courtesy.
Let me also point out that you did start the "fringe" stuff. I guess I personally see the people on the fringe as cranks -- see my Gene Ray reference above -- and so thought I was being accurate in my restatement of your views. I didn't mean to get us sidetracked into a silly semantic argument about what degree of "fringe-iness" constitutes a crank on an empirical scale. In any case, Tom was perfectly fine with accepting it as a valid representation of what he believes to be true, and I suspect most people who agree with Tom would too.
What I'm trying to get across is that you guys are still judging him inaccurately. You just take it as a given that he says "crazy" things. You just take it as a given that anyone who disagrees with your views on NOM, or Card, or homosexual marriage, is at the fringe of decent society. I got into this whole mess trying to show, with quotes from Card, that he's not some Fred Phelps hater. He's not on the fringe. I see him as being far closer to the center, though of course like every centrist he can lean farther left or farther right on a given issue.
I assume you're basing your assertion that Card "desires" homosexual activity to be illegal on a couple of lines in the article The Hypocrites of Homosexuality, which was published in February 1990, and which you only quoted out of context.
At the time, the decision upheld in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick in Georgia was, with the increased attention on the AIDS epidemic and the homosexual community, still being hotly debated.
Because Card was writing to a predominantly conservative community, which would presumably have agreed with the recent decision in B v. H., he was basically saying: alright, if this is the standard of sexual mores we're going to set, let's at least use it only to regulate the most flagrant violators, not just enforce it indiscriminatingly against anyone and everyone.
In other words, he was intending to advocate the general non-enforcement of the law, conceding that it should remain on the books because society had so recently upheld a certain standard, just as societies always maintain some such degree of regulation of sexuality. I think it would be unreasonable for such a society to completely change its mind about something as volatile as the then-new idea of same-sex marriage so rapidly, but in the meantime, Card was saying that they didn't have to use it to start witch-hunts, etc. I'd call that moderation.
And nowhere does any of this speak of Card's supposed personal "desire" for homosexuality to be illegal.
Look, he's good friends with Janis Ian. He praises M. J. Engh's Arslan as one of the best books of all time (and I agree with him on that count). He writes deeply sympathetic gay characters and decries the horrific violence some have done to them. He presents, time and time again, evidence to support the idea that he's not on some sort of crusade to "persecute" homosexuals. He is so obviously not on the fringe that this whole argument is fundamentally silly. And yet all he gets in response is accusations that he and any organization that supports the same goals he does is "crazy" or "prejudiced".
He has only spoken of the hypocrisy of people in a specific faith community who wish to remain within that community while disbelieving one of the core tenets, or what he sees as the judicial over-reach in the courts, and the danger to democracy that he believes it raises.
Discounting a few quick asides in a few unrelated columns and a few posts here and there on Hatrack, he has presented, by my count, somewhere around eleven full-sized columns dealing mainly or tangentially with homosexuality. Eleven ... spread out among the literally hundreds of columns and numerous books he's written in the past nineteen years.
These are not rhetorical tricks to cover some imagined homophobia, they are honest disagreement in areas that people are going to have to address if they're going to counter his ideas.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
He writes gay characters, but marries some off to women, makes some stay celibate for life, and another ended up getting his genitals cut off. Sure he's friends with various gay people, but it doesn't stop him from comparing gays who want to live their lives to children playing dress up. Still he insists on viewing gays in the most stereotypical way possible. I can't defend that. He'd hate it if folks were speaking of Mormons that way, yet he does this to gays so much. It's irritating. How are people every supposed to learn about gay people and respect them as people as long as he keeps writing stuff like this to an audience that is already close minded towards gays and their rights regardless of how many gay friends they may have?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In other words, he was intending to advocate the general non-enforcement of the law, conceding that it should remain on the books because society had so recently upheld a certain standard...
Card would do his reputation a serious good deed, then, if he'd write an article calling for the removal of anti-sodomy laws and explaining why they're antiquated and harmful and insulting.
quote:Look, he's good friends with Janis Ian. He praises M. J. Engh's Arslan as one of the best books of all time (and I agree with him on that count).
Janis Ian has written on this topic. And the answer, basically, is that Card has been to her house, invites her and her partner to his house, has congratulated her on family milestones, etc. In other words: he treats her as a person, something that you'd expect of someone you know in person. As I've said before, it's far easier to exhibit bigotry in aggregate than on an individual level; I have difficulty imagining that Card would ever, to her face, accuse Janis of "playing house" or cheapening his marriage, even though he has publicly said that exactly the sort of thing she does happens to do both.
I think a better question is: if Card is such close friends with Janis Ian, why does he still think Janis' long-term relationship is "playing house?"
quote:He writes deeply sympathetic gay characters and decries the horrific violence some have done to them.
And, as Syne notes, marries them off to women, enforces celibacy on others, and basically does whatever necessary to ensure that they never actually engage in homosexual sex.
Now, like you, I once thought that Card's willingness to write the occasionally sympathetic homosexual character meant that he was not likely to be homophobic. But then I realized that Card's standout skill, as an author, is his portrayal of sympathetic monsters; he's good at making things he thinks are evil sound pretty reasonable, even if he usually throws in some obviously double-edged asides to make it clear that we're looking at the bad guy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:What I'm trying to get across is that you guys are still judging him inaccurately. You just take it as a given that he says "crazy" things.
I don't take any of this as a given, actually; I read what he writes and I judge him based on statements he has made and will not retract. They do not come off as being rational. They come off as offensive hardliner attempts to perpetuate discrimination against gays that are so far reaching in their intent, and derogatory in their tone, as to constitute a hostile preaching of oppressiveness.
He says that judges giving legal recognition to gay marriage marks "the end of democracy in America." He concludes that a government that would dare give gays the right to marry is his "mortal enemy" and that he will act to destroy and replace it. He very, VERY clearly states that homosexual acts should be illegal; furthermore, he states that the explicit reason for this is to ensure that our society — through our government — ensures that gay people "cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."
Think about the definition of oppression. Think about how it is entirely fair to conclude that he desires for no government to exist here except a kind that will legally oppress gays and forbid them from being acceptable, equal citizens. This is a level beyond legislating morality. It's a clear desire to insist that the role of government includes that the government use law to oppress homosexuals.
Furthermore, he spins a wildly hyperbolic argument to defend these which comes off as "secular dressing" the issue; one which says very strange things and makes strange claims about the apparent fragility of families and the institution of marriage, to the extent that he is actually saying that allowing gays to marry will pretty much destroy our civilization.
These are just the cream of the crop, though, the part which leads to derogatory assessments that he frankly should have anticipated. The larger assessment of his complete articles is that he claims to have compelling, rational, and secular arguments against homosexual rights, but when the articles are analyzed (and they have been, here) they are fallacious, error-filled, and secular in name only.
people repeatedly warned him that tone matters and he went ahead anyway. He's not stupid, he has the capacity to understand where this would have gone, and he did it anyway.
quote:And nowhere does any of this speak of Card's supposed personal "desire" for homosexuality to be illegal.
If you mean what we're speaking of, you mean his desire for homosexual acts to be illegal.
Something which very clearly exists unless Card is lying to us.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, thinking about the Janis Ian thing, I'm driven to elaborate a bit.
Card wrote that famous "playing house" bit not six months after he attended Janis' same-sex wedding. If you read the article, he lays out quite firmly his feelings on the subject: that same-sex couples who get married are not getting really married, in the way Card and his wife are really married, and that if they insist on being considered really married that they will actually be striking a blow against the stability of his own marriage and the institution of marriage in general.
Again, this was published six months after he went to a good friend's gay wedding.
Janis Ian is an extraordinarily understanding person. I wouldn't give Card the credit for that.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
If a friend of mine spoke of my spouse that way, I would ***t in his hat.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Janis Ian is super cool to be so open minded like that. She rocks. I think I will hunt around for her music.
I think if I was her I'd be eye glowing red pissed, but she's so... neet.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I'm starting to be of the opinion that OSC really is only anti-gay males, not anti-lesbian. Where are his gay male friends? I mean, he doesn't talk about any, that I have read.
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
I'm not sure where Tom gets his information. So I'm only entering this thread to be sure the facts are correct. I doubt I'll be back
Scott was neither invited to nor attended Janis Ian's wedding. She has been a guest in our home recently and we love her dearly. Fortunately for both Janis and Scott, neither of them insists that all their friends agree with everything they think nor approve of everything they do. Makes for a very nice world full of great friends.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Scott was neither invited to nor attended Janis Ian's wedding.
I'm sorry. My information from this came from a thread on Janis Ian's website in which Janis explained why she liked your husband. I'm actually relieved to learn the truth, as it is much less offensive (to me, at least) than what I'd been told; it makes far more sense to write a screed against gay marriage after a famous friend of yours gets gay-married (and you don't attend) than to write it after you signal your approval by attending. It's a relief to be corrected.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
steven wrote:
quote:Where are his gay male friends? I mean, he doesn't talk about any, that I have read.
M. Shayne Bell is one I could think of right off the top of my head. Note the Card quote in his bio on Wikipedia. Also: linkity link Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I have a feeling that OSC may have made that quote before he found out Mr. Bell is gay. Either that, or I don't understand what is going on around here.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I'm voting for the latter.
I mean, it goes the other way. I know a raving liberal on another board who has done work for OSC and dined with him, and likes the guy personally, and has nice things to say about him, while vehemently disagreeing with pretty much every political opinion OSC publishes.
It's not hard for me to believe that OSC admires and respects Bell while also making his arguments against increased social acceptance of homosexuality.
(It IS hard for me to figure out why Card seems to deliberately alienate and inflame political opposition. )
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I'm voting for the latter."
Heck, me too, I think.
Anybody want to explain? LOL
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kacard: Fortunately for both Janis and Scott, neither of them insists that all their friends agree with everything they think nor approve of everything they do. Makes for a very nice world full of great friends.
:blank stare:
Ok.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: He writes gay characters, but marries some off to women, makes some stay celibate for life, and another ended up getting his genitals cut off. Sure he's friends with various gay people, but it doesn't stop him from comparing gays who want to live their lives to children playing dress up. Still he insists on viewing gays in the most stereotypical way possible. I can't defend that. He'd hate it if folks were speaking of Mormons that way, yet he does this to gays so much. It's irritating. How are people every supposed to learn about gay people and respect them as people as long as he keeps writing stuff like this to an audience that is already close minded towards gays and their rights regardless of how many gay friends they may have?
To start with I think one of the gay characters in question I didn't even notice WAS gay, y'know much like in real life.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
I don't understand Orincoro's response. Please elucidate...why the "blank stare"? I, too, have friends who think quite differently than I on many things big and small and who act on their beliefs. Even if I don't agree with them, nor they with me, we can be good friends.
I come from a family that is very conservative, and their positions are a lot like Card's. In other words, while they personally don't approve of gay marriage on religious and moral grounds, they aren't going to let that get in the way of having friendships with someone who happens to be gay.
I'm sure that if OSC's friends are troubled by what he writes, they can discuss their differences in person. It's not very kind to drag someone's personal life into a discussion just because they are famous and known. This thread seems to be turning more into gossip than truly trying to understand someone's position on an issue. If you do not share the perspective, it is not always easy to allow for another's differences. However, it isn't necessary to demonize someone just because his or her political views differ from your own. It is indeed possible, and even quite plausible that someone can simultaneously disagree with another's choices and still consider them a dear friend.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:However, it isn't necessary to demonize someone just because his or her political views differ from your own.
I agree wholeheartedly. Of course, that's also been my biggest complaint.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Tom, it looks like you may have been thinking of the occasion when Janis and her partner were invited to MY wedding. I believe that we have them to thank for a lovely set of CD shelves (which, oddly enough, feature several signed Janis Ian albums) ...
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I, too, am curious about Orincoro's blank stare. My mother didn't seem to be describing anything particularly incredible or foreign in the quoted section of her post ...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, it looks like you may have been thinking of the occasion when Janis and her partner were invited to MY wedding.
Like I said, there was a thread on Janis' site in which she was asked by a handful of people about her relationship with Card, and specifically how she'd felt about having Card at her wedding. To be fair, I could have parsed her response more narrowly; when she replied, I suppose she didn't say explicitly that Card did attend her wedding, and instead only explained why she was perfectly comfortable with the idea. (I imagine that she was trying to maintain some level of privacy here by not giving greater detail or correcting misapprehensions; I can certainly respect that.)
For my part, I wasn't thinking about any particular occasion at all; I know even less about Janis Ian's personal life than I know about the Card family's. All I know's what I stumble across in the papers, so to speak. (I only found the thread in question by Googling Ian in combination with Card a few years ago, based on his recommendation of her work; I figured I'd look into her stuff. And her reply only stuck with me because it struck me at the time as a remarkably generous and heartwarming sentiment.)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I, too, am curious about Orincoro's blank stare. My mother didn't seem to be describing anything particularly incredible or foreign in the quoted section of her post ...
I choose not to explain. I think you know what I meant by it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jenny Gardener: I don't understand Orincoro's response. Please elucidate...why the "blank stare"?
I would assume its a laconic response to a statement he perceives as being passive-aggressive.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Give the man 76 silver dollars!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I can get along with a lot of people who think differently than me. Like in college I'd hang out with the intravarsity group even though I wasn't a Christian. They were nice cool people.
But I think OSC is a bit too HARSH with his opinions about gays, gay marriage. It's sort of painful to my stomach and the rest of me to read, which is why I am trying to ignore it because it makes me too angry.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
All I know is that I have more than enough problems getting along with people in my own life without bashing their lifestyles/beliefs publicly, on the internet. The heck with it, I just don't need the extra complications. I can't imagine wanting to add that extra level of rancorous intensity to my relationships IRL. Who knows, though? Maybe I should start bashing lifestyles that I don't like, online.
Oh wait.
I tried that already, here.
It didn't go so well. I think everyone agrees on THAT.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I have no doubt OSC thinks he's fighting the good fight here against all those marriage-defiling homos.
I also don't think he's ever going to do anything else as shameful as this, and my only hope is that he one day realizes it and makes amends.
Posted by Grinwell (Member # 12030) on :
I agree with steven, OSC is either pretty damn brave or insane to add these kinds of complications to his life (internet essays, joining NOM board, etc.). Why would he do this?
The evidence behind his actions is all over his novels. The central question that preoccupies OSC is what leads to solid, functioning communities and what leads to their downfall? Communities are built from families, which are built from a man and a woman deciding that they will contribute to the community by reproducing and raising the next generation with moral values. Related to this theme is how do we protect our community from the forces that would destroy it?
Like Ender, Bean, Alvin Maker, etc. OSC is fighting for what he truly believes will ensure the survival and long-term happiness of his community. OSC believes, as all Christians do, that homosexual marriage will weaken traditional marriage, which will weaken families, which will weaken society. He is doing everything in his power to strengthen society. Yes, sometimes his words incite strong feelings on both sides, but that is his gift. That's why we love his characters as if they were part of our own family and hang around this site endlessly talking about him.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grinwell: OSC believes, as all Christians do, that homosexual marriage will weaken traditional marriage, which will weaken families, which will weaken society.
Lots of people who call themselves Christian, who believe that Jesus was the son of God, who rose from the dead, whose death and resurrection redeemed humanity from its sins strongly support marriage equality, believe that gay couples and the children they raise are families, and that supporting them will only be benefical to society
Are you calling them liars?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grinwell: OSC believes, as all Christians do, that homosexual marriage will weaken traditional marriage, which will weaken families, which will weaken society.
Really, really, not so much. Some Christians are offended by the notion that gay marriage should be considered anything less than straight marriage. And I, personally, am offended at being lumped into such a vile statement. You really, really do not speak for me. Stop pretending that you do.
[ May 06, 2009, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:OSC believes, as all Christians do, that homosexual marriage will weaken traditional marriage, which will weaken families, which will weaken society.
There is so much here in this single sentence that individually deserves to be torn apart but it is most important to savage the first part because there's a huge contingent of christians who are being lumped into this belief despite the fact that they actually find this line of thought deluded and/or objectionable.
I mean, what are you supposed to tell them? That they just didn't get the memo? Oops, they had no idea what they actually believed?
quote:Yes, sometimes his words incite strong feelings on both sides, but that is his gift.
I do not consider his choice to devolve into incendiary, extremist rhetoric to be the product of a 'gift,' considering by all rights it seems to have been a profound mistake. He has demonstrated the 'gift' to devolve into pseudo-scientific pandering as well, but that's only a 'gift' to agitate and disseminate a blatant misappropriation of the facts. It's little different here!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grinwell:
Like Ender, Bean, Alvin Maker, etc. OSC is fighting for what he truly believes will ensure the survival and long-term happiness of his community. OSC believes, as all Christians do, that homosexual marriage will weaken traditional marriage, which will weaken families, which will weaken society. He is doing everything in his power to strengthen society. Yes, sometimes his words incite strong feelings on both sides, but that is his gift. That's why we love his characters as if they were part of our own family and hang around this site endlessly talking about him.
Here's the thing. Do people who are against gay marriage for that reason ever look at the REAL things that destroy marriage and society? These things destroy it from the inside, abuse, infidelity, often the very conservative ideas these folks support can put a strain on marriages as well with gender stereotypes and generalizations that aren't helpful to real people. You really do not see any of these anti-gay marriage people tackling issues like domestic abuse. Some may even support a subtle form of it, claiming that men are innately like that, dominate, which is rather insulting to men I think. Families and marriage has been changing for thousands of years. Of all the things that weaken so-called traditional marriage, gay marriage isn't one of those things! None of these folks can give solid logical evidence stating just how gay marriage will destroy heterosexual marriages and families that isn't something dippy like sex roles when sex rules have also changed and expanded for people, which is a good thing if you ask me.
Posted by Grinwell (Member # 12030) on :
You're right, there is a difference of opinion about what marriage means, even among Christians. Sorry for lumping all Christians into the same batch. I posted too quickly and really didn't mean to offend anyone. Sorry, I'm new. However, it is true that MANY Christians believe in marriage as being defined by God as between a man and a woman.
If you'll notice, I didn't side with anyone in this thread. I was simply attempting to explain why OSC and NOM seek to protect traditional marriage. I'm certainly not the one to tell you what to think.
Yes, Synesthesia, of course there are many forces which influence marriage and by extension society. Gay marriage is certainly not the only thing that people are concerned about. But it is the hot topic right now.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well Syn, I think the characterization of men as "dominant" is useless in that it is a loaded statement with really far too much meaning to be of use to anyone. Men clearly function a little differently from women, and that difference is appreciable to any person who has men or women in the family, which is most of us.
I was talking to one of my private students today about this difference- we ended up using the example of cooking. She pointed out that her husband was a good cook, and I remembered that my father was a good cook, but that when these two guys cooked, it consumed all their concentration. Was this because "women are better at multi-tasking?" I hardly think so. Men gain a greater sense of satisfaction from achieving goals and presenting them as accomplishments- thus my father tends the barbecue, and my mother doesn't mind making the salad and the pasta, and talking while she does it. If my father talks while he's at the barbecue, he is clearly in charge, usually talking about a meat-related issue with great interest. Does he do this because he is "more dominant?" No, he does it because it is important to his sense of accomplishment that others be aware of his ability to cook the meat well. Why would my mother never do this? Because she gains satisfaction from the act of providing food and conversation to others- the outcome is pretty much the same.
Are the two sets of values that different? They interlock so perfectly, and with such give and take and symmetry, to recognize them and like that they exist seems natural to me. Why we ever arrived at the notion that one way of thinking about your role was better is a mystery to me- I am heartened by the fact that men gain a unique satisfaction, and women gain a unique satisfaction, from essentially the same activities. That shows that we can love each other and still manage to live our own lives according to our own needs, while still providing and caring about each other.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
At least he didn't join the NMA board. THOSE guys are CRAZY.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Folks never seem to look at the differences between individuals instead of lumping them by gender. It kind of bugs me, because I just don't fit neatly into those sort of stereotypes and don't really want to. I just want to be myself.
hehehehe. No mutants
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:You really do not see any of these anti-gay marriage people tackling issues like domestic abuse.
Speak for yourself.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:You really do not see any of these anti-gay marriage people tackling issues like domestic abuse.
What's with accusations like this? Seriously — do you follow your opponents after a debate to see everything else they do?
I think most people agree about domestic abuse — it's bad. Thus, no big, obvious public debate about it. I doubt your opponents have clear memories of seeing you tackling the issue either. Does that mean you don't care?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I just dont' see any of these pro-marriage mainstream groups focusing on domestic violence as much as they focus on gay marriage.
But they might be, I try to avoid their sites these days. But just a quick glace at Focus on the Family http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/marriage_and_family.aspx and their site about marriage and family. There's no mention of domestic violence, just marriage is good for society and that's why we are against gay marriage. There's not even much of a mention of it in their FAQ page except to say that it's more likely in couples that live together without being married. Domestic violence isn't as much of a hot button issue as gay marriage. Gay marriage is what gets folks in flamed and ready to fight, but domestic violence isn't a simple issue and can happen in just about any couple gay or straight, even in conservative or liberal circles.
i do not like going on that website.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
A quick* check of the NOM site brought up nothing on domestic abuse and only this about divorce:
"Isn’t divorce the real threat to marriage?
A: “High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”
It was in the section about how to respond to the very question you are asking, Syn. Nothing else.
*Quick because it felt shameful even reading that evil.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grinwell: However, it is true that MANY Christians believe in marriage as being defined by God as between a man and a woman.
The easy thing to do here is to note that a secular nation cannot use a religious test to determine what the definition of marriage is. The difficult part is to note that nobody should be trying anyway, even if they like the idea of reserving marriage for only those who they think desire a God Approved™ marriage.
Now, beyond this, the major problem with the "secular" arguments that people like NOM are bringing to the table is that they are 'secular dressing,' a front of justifications used to cover the real motivations. They are faulty ideas developed using preconclusive bias and strongly selective input, with the expected results. In that sense, most all of them (Including OSC's essays) are as "secular" — and, ultimately, as logically valid — as Intelligent Design could be considered.
Posted by Grinwell (Member # 12030) on :
Those who vote to protect traditional marriage and support organizations like NOM don't have a "front of justifications used to cover the real motivations". Their motivations are clear: marriage is already defined. I believe they try to present marriage and family research as a way to find common ground, not "dress up" their beliefs. If you care to know their personal beliefs, they will be happy to tell you.
Unfortunately, there is not a lot of studies being done with homosexual families, so there is not much to rely on. If the idea that gay marriage will weaken traditional marriage seems biased and "faulty", so does the idea that gay marriage will not affect traditional marriage. Neither side will fully convince the other, so every state will have to settle this issue by the voice of the people. The people will vote their conscience and then the judges will decide what they actually meant.
I applaud OSC for getting involved in something that means so much to him. Just keep those books coming!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's just when folks like Focus on the Family focus on other issues affecting family they act like violence, alcoholism and drug abuse are things that started in this day and age. They ignore the fact that it's existed for centuries and can happen within some (NOT ALL!) families. Plus I resent them for claiming that men need to get married to tame them. I don't want to tame a man. I want a mature partner to help me raise future kids.
Quotes like this from that irritating page-
quote: it is the unmarried male who is the most "out-of-pocket" socially. He is far more likely than unmarried females to be an alcoholic, a drug user, a convicted criminal, or a general ne'er-do-well. Landlords don't want to rent an apartment to him, insurance companies don't like to underwrite him, and loan companies are reluctant to loan him money. He drives too fast, he is more hot-tempered, and he tends to be impulsive.
Are kind of insulting to men and it's not exactly healthy for a woman to be put in that you must tame this guy role along with raising the kids.
I need to get off of this page. It's making me annoyed and that means a stomach ache.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And, as Syne notes, marries them off to women, enforces celibacy on others, and basically does whatever necessary to ensure that they never actually engage in homosexual sex.
Tom, I'm curious: do you think this means Card condones or suggests that treatment of homosexuals?
Because I'm thinking back, and I can remember two homosexual characters specifically, the ones you're talking about. In Songbird, the enforced celibacy is presented - in my view - as a terribly evil thing to do, on both ends. To Ansett, the Songhouse-created celibacy is awful. To...the other guy, the husband of the girl from Songhouse who shared a brief homosexual encounter with Ansett, the mutilation is not only presented as an incredibly evil thing, but Ansett takes some very serious vengeance for it.
The other homosexual character is another whose name I don't remember, from one of the Homecoming books. The first one, I believe. In that story, in that society, the homosexual man marrying the woman was at least as much necessity as it was anything else.
---
Orincoro, for someone complaining about kacard being passive aggressive, your complaint was itself remarkably passive-aggressive:)
And, of course, I can't imagine why she might be driven to passive-aggressiveness in this thread. The mind boggles.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Orincoro, for someone complaining about kacard being passive aggressive, your complaint was itself remarkably passive-aggressive:)
And, of course, I can't imagine why she might be driven to passive-aggressiveness in this thread. The mind boggles.
Seriously. I wonder if OSC's counterparts on the opposite end of the political spectrum have much appreciation for what his opinions have cost him. From what I can tell, most of them manage to have websites devoted to their fans, which are NOT filled with people railing angrily against them every single day for their political views, but rather, are filled almost exclusively with celebration and support.
I understand that OSC is more outspoken than most. But still ... the fact that he keeps this forum going in the face of all the hate he gets day in and day out is a testament, I think, to his belief in free speech and civilized discourse, and his respect for your opinions, even when, at times, some of you show very little respect for his.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I understand that OSC is more outspoken than most. But still ... the fact that he keeps this forum going in the face of all the hate he gets day in and day out is a testament, I think, to his belief in free speech and civilized discourse, and his respect for your opinions, even when, at times, some of you show very little respect for his.
It's strange. Even if for the sake of argument I accepted that OSC's politics were as thoroughly vile and beyond most redemption as many appear to...his wife gets her chops busted because she's supposedly 'passive-aggressive' in response to a thread talking about how vile and irredeemable her husband is?
Even if you accept that she was being passive-aggressive, which is far from a given, c'mon.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't hate him. I just really wish he was not so harsh against gays. But I don't hate him for that. It just frustrates me deeply.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grinwell: Their motivations are clear: marriage is already defined.
That's their attempt at a secular justification. It is not their motivation.
quote: the fact that he keeps this forum going in the face of all the hate he gets day in and day out
I see an extraordinarily small amount of hate for him here and a large but completely expectable amount of frustration and vehement disagreement.
I see a whole community of people here who have disagreed with him in rational ways and made fair points against his arguments, and they invariably seem to end up lumped with the vilest assaults on his person. Then, the arguments of those who have been patient and even kind are pretty much ignored in favor of pointing to the hateful arguments as though they constitute his only substantial opposition.
If he was to personally interpret what was going on in this thread, for instance, as 'hate day in and day out' then, well, that's just being unable to tell disagreement from hate, with a tendency to compulsively label the former as the latter.
[ May 07, 2009, 06:19 AM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, I'm curious: do you think this means Card condones or suggests that treatment of homosexuals?
No. I think, though, that he thinks of homosexuality as something unnatural enough that it should only be used as a plot point and never as a perfectly ordinary background behavior. (That he criticized another writer for treating homosexuality in precisely this way suggests that he disapproves of the approach.)
----------
quote:the fact that he keeps this forum going in the face of all the hate he gets day in and day out is a testament, I think, to his belief in free speech and civilized discourse, and his respect for your opinions
I actually admire your dad a great deal for sticking to his guns and keeping this forum open, although I'm not sure how much actual "hate" he gets. He clearly places a very high value on, as you said, free speech and civilized discourse. I would not willingly extend that to assume respect for my opinions, however. I'm not going to get into individual details on this one, but I think your dad has demonstrated a tendency to cherry-pick his experiences on this forum (and perhaps elsewhere on the Internet) and only winds up remembering the ones he can marginalize.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I see an extraordinarily small amount of hate for him here and a large but completely expectable amount of frustration and vehement disagreement.
A reasonable person could construe some of what has gone on in this very thread as hate, Samprimary.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:although I'm not sure how much actual "hate" he gets.
He can no longer hold signings in the Pacific Northwest.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:He can no longer hold signings in the Pacific Northwest.
Really? What prompted that decision? Protests?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
From what I understand, yes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Are we assuming that protest = hate?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Not generally, no.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Are we assuming that protest = hate?
Protest to the point where one fears for their safety?
I think it'd be ridiculous not to assume there was at least some hate in there, Tom. Though I don't know if fear for physical well-being was what motivated the decision not to do signings in the Pac NW.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think it'd be ridiculous not to assume there was at least some hate in there, Tom.
Sure. But there are some people who hate me. I think it's ridiculous to assume that you can make it through your life without being hated. Saying that protests in the PacNW or threads here are "hate-filled," though, based on weird little outliers of hate, is ridiculous; it'd be like my saying that Galactic Cactus is "hate-filled," when clearly the opposite is true.
There are things OSC can do -- without changing his positions one whit -- that would reduce the anger against him. Dismissing his opposition as a bunch of ranting, hate-filled idiots is not one of them, and he will actually make it harder for himself to operate normally as an author the more he does it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Sure. But there are some people who hate me. I think it's ridiculous to assume that you can make it through your life without being hated. Saying that protests in the PacNW or threads here are "hate-filled," though, based on weird little outliers of hate, is ridiculous; it'd be like my saying that Galactic Cactus is "hate-filled," when clearly the opposite is true.
How many people you've never met hate you sufficiently to spend their own free time organizing protests that make you fear for your physical well being, Tom?
I suspect the answer is somewhere between zip and zilch.
Also, I do wonder who exactly is saying Hatrack, or those protests, are 'hate-filled'. I'm certainly not saying that. I'm saying there's hate there. Your blithe dismissal of the obvious is as silly as suggesting that HR is hate-filled.
quote:Dismissing his opposition as a bunch of ranting, hate-filled idiots is not one of them, and he will actually make it harder for himself to operate normally as an author the more he does it.
Granted. I can only imagine, though, that if I were in his shoes I'd get irritated at rejoinders, "There's not any real hate around here."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Seriously. I wonder if OSC's counterparts on the opposite end of the political spectrum have much appreciation for what his opinions have cost him. From what I can tell, most of them manage to have websites devoted to their fans, which are NOT filled with people railing angrily against them every single day for their political views, but rather, are filled almost exclusively with celebration and support.
Puppy, I am reasonably sure that if Mr. Card wanted this website to be just about celebration and support for him and he made it clear that the website was only for that purpose, almost everyone would comply with those wishes.
I certainly would.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Puppy, I am reasonably sure that if Mr. Card wanted this website to be just about celebration and support for him and he made it clear that the website was only for that purpose, almost everyone would comply with those wishes.
I certainly would.
That's not the point.
If someone believes in free speech and community to the point that they're willing to actually pay for speech that, more often than not when it involves them and politics is adversarial at best and deeply, personally insulting at worst, they ought to get at least a little more respect than, "That's what you signed up for, dude."
At least I think so.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How many people you've never met hate you sufficiently to spend their own free time organizing protests that make you fear for your physical well being, Tom?
The same number of people whose relationships I've belittled in national syndication using terms carefully calculated to offend.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The same number of people whose relationships I've belittled in national syndication using terms carefully calculated to offend.
I dare you to be more relevant and less contradictory to the points you were making earlier.
On the one hand, you say it's impossible not to be hated by someone somewhere. Fair enough-though that has nothing to do with this.
On the other hand, you also said, "There's not really much hate at all." Which is it, exactly?
And of course there's the problem of responding to hate to the point of danger with, "He's got it coming."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:On the other hand, you also said, "There's not really much hate at all." Which is it, exactly?
Both. There's not really much hate. Certainly more hate is perceived than exists. There is, however, surely some hate, and OSC is acting in ways that will manifestly produce more hate.
Where are you getting the whole "danger" thing, by the way? For my part, I would stop doing signings in an area where I was heavily protested long before I feared for my physical person; the instant the signings stopped being financially worth the emotional drain, I'd be out of there.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:There's not really much hate. Certainly more hate is perceived than exists.
How do you know?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
He's come up with some beautiful lines in books, however, if he's stating things I find rude and wrong in a rude way, I'm not going to be silent about it because that stereotyping of gays is just wrong and highly annoying. I don't really like any group being stereotyped, including Mormons and the like. I don't think that the way he presents his point of view does much good to gays or anyone. I won't drop kick the guy, but I will politely point out that I don't agree with him at all. But when he pushes his point of view like that, I've got to admit it makes me pretty angry and frustrated, and I don't think I'm the only one who feels like that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I don't really like any group being stereotyped.
Eh, that's just what I would expect from you flaky anti-stereotypers.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Puppy, I am reasonably sure that if Mr. Card wanted this website to be just about celebration and support for him and he made it clear that the website was only for that purpose, almost everyone would comply with those wishes.
I certainly would.
That's not the point.
If someone believes in free speech and community to the point that they're willing to actually pay for speech that, more often than not when it involves them and politics is adversarial at best and deeply, personally insulting at worst, they ought to get at least a little more respect than, "That's what you signed up for, dude."
At least I think so.
Not a particularly fair or accurate reading of what I wrote, Rakeesh. Try reading what I actually wrote.
Posted by Grinwell (Member # 12030) on :
Anton is a favorite character in the Shadow series. Even though heterosexual marriage is not his preference, he gives Bean life-changing advice. A few snippets:
"Here is the meaning of life: for a man to find a woman, for a woman to find a man, the creature most unlike you, and then to make babies...so that when you die you know you are permanently a part of the great web of life. That you are not a loose thread, snipped off."
"It's hardwired into all of us. Not just sexual desire--that can be twisted any which way, and it often is. And not just a desire to have children...No, it's a deep hunger to find a person from that strange, terrifyingly other sex and make a life together. Even old people beyond marrying, even people who know they can't have children, there's still a hunger for this. For actual marriage, two unlike creatures becoming as best they can, one."
"The thing that makes us neither herd animals nor solitaries, but something in between. The thing that makes us civilized or civilizable."
This rings very true to me. Thanks Mr. Card.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I guess the question is whether it rings true to anyone who identifies as gay. Whether they have a non-sexual urge to find an opposite sex partner to have children with. Anton asserts they do. I kind of doubt it. I'm het and I don't think I even had that urge prior to actually having kids I was responsible for.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It doesn't ring true to me. I'm sorry, but I do not view men as a strange terrifyingly other sex but rather interesting and appealing. I totally don't buy that at all. Plus a person can't be gay and still be apart of that web? It's not as if people in gay relationships get along with each other perfectly because they are the same sex. They have their share of difficulties, they have some difficulties straight couples may not have just because they are gay. No, I am not exactly sure if that is a healthy point of view when it comes to marriage but this could also be due to my oddness and the fact that I talk to cocoons and chrysalises and if gender was a party where the men were watching football and the women were in the kitchen talking about shoes, I'd be hiding upstairs reading.
Plus it's not totally healthy to be a gay guy and force yourself to marry a heterosexual woman. I think I'd be very cross with a guy for marrying me when he really wants to man, that's kind of wrong.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It doesn't ring true; it rings insulting. I am not a "loose thread". Bleh.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Not a particularly fair or accurate reading of what I wrote, Rakeesh. Try reading what I actually wrote.
I wasn't responding to you-not exactly. Your post made me think of what others have to say on the subject, that's all. No need to seek offense where it isn't given.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. I was misled by the fact that you quoted me in your response.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:No, it's a deep hunger to find a person from that strange, terrifyingly other sex and make a life together.
I think it is very true that we, as social creatures, have a deep-seated hunger to make a life among other people. I don't think a hunger to pop out babies is universal, however.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I guess the question is whether it rings true to anyone who identifies as gay.
I don't think a definition of family and marriage that completely ignores the importance of love rings true for most straight people either.
It seems to be all biological imperatives and urges for OSC. Marry because you hunger for that kind of relationship, not because you love that individual. Have children because you need to stay in the evolution game, not because you want to increase the number of deeply loving bonds in your family.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I guess the question is whether it rings true to anyone who identifies as gay.
I don't think a definition of family and marriage that completely ignores the importance of love rings true for most straight people either.
It seems to be all biological imperatives and urges for OSC. Marry because you hunger for that kind of relationship, not because you love that individual. Have children because you need to stay in the evolution game, not because you want to increase the number of deeply loving bonds in your family.
That has bugged me for years, because that won't always create a healthy family. It's way more important to have for kids to grow up in a healthy family even if it's not a man and a woman but a variation. It makes me think that OSC and other folks who share his view think that a so-called traditional family that is dysfunctional is better than a family that is nontraditional yet healthier which has gotten under my skin like some itchy leech for years.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grinwell: "Here is the meaning of life: for a man to find a woman, for a woman to find a man, the creature most unlike you, and then to make babies...so that when you die you know you are permanently a part of the great web of life. That you are not a loose thread, snipped off."
"It's hardwired into all of us. Not just sexual desire--that can be twisted any which way, and it often is. And not just a desire to have children...No, it's a deep hunger to find a person from that strange, terrifyingly other sex and make a life together.
I can find no reason to suggest that this is a universal desire. My married friends view the sentiment curiously, as if to say 'well, that sure as hell ain't why we got married.' It resonates not an inch within me. It also is patently disproven by gays unless one is so brash as to suggest, in the place of the psychological sciences, that it is naught but a correctable error that should merely only temporarily cloud their obvious and universal desire to pair up het style.
It doesn't exist. And I would find asserting this as a 'universal desire' that, in and of itself, makes us civilized to be in bafflingly poor taste. Because it kind of suggests rather openly that civilization relies on het pairings in a way which makes equal rights crusades by and for homosexuals an unacceptable imperilment of civilization, and that you're essentially uncivilized if you just wanna live the single life.
Anton is also a very straightforward example of a "sympathetic" gay character, with "sympathetic" in gigantic caveat quotes. The 'no, don't get me wrong, I'm gay, but the meaning of life is heterosexual relationships, that's civilized' type.
This is rambling. Too many words. The point can be concise: what anton is suggesting is convenient fiction in an invented universe. It is not really true. Like the counterpart to syn, I do not view women as a strange terrifyingly other sex and if someone had that much of a huge apprehension of the 'alien' other sex, I'd honestly assume that they must have grown up in an environment that specifically cultured it. Anton's advice is something that I don't consider universal, or even real. Just the wayward aphoristic notions of an upbringing of yesteryear.
It's not my world. I am SO glad I grew up in an environment which completely avoids this and I can see and interact with girls without finding them "the creature most unlike me."
quote:A reasonable person could construe some of what has gone on in this very thread as hate, Samprimary.
Not that I said there was no hate anyway, but let's look at the 'hate' here. How much of it goes beyond well-explained distaste? And can one expect to write some of the things that Card has and just hope to avoid it altogether?
If I were being as aggressive in my pursuit of any similarly incendiary topic, I would not use the tone that has been used in the World Watch article without the resignation that it is the kind of thing that would spark literal protests at my book signings. I would not do so without that anticipation. Posted by Grinwell (Member # 12030) on :
quote:What anton is suggesting is convenient fiction in an invented universe. It is not really true.
To you it may not be true, but other people find truth in fiction and sometimes even agree with an author's views. I know, crazy!
I'm beginning to understand why OSC cherry-picks his involvement with this forum. The "lack of hate" for his work must be really heartening.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:To you it may not be true, but other people find truth in fiction and sometimes even agree with an author's views.
It's worth noting that someone might be perfectly capable of agreeing with some of an author's views or finding truth in some fiction. OSC isn't universally wrong. But I am pretty sure he's wrong about this one; I've met very, very few people who share his stated opinion of marriage -- so while I'm not confident saying that his opinion is representative of a vanishingly small minority, I'm very confident saying that it by no means describes a universal impulse.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grinwell:
quote:What anton is suggesting is convenient fiction in an invented universe. It is not really true.
To you it may not be true, but other people find truth in fiction and sometimes even agree with an author's views. I know, crazy!
... And, dude, that's precisely what's wrong with his claim for universality of the principle.
He's calling it a universal impulse. If 'to me' it is not true, that already breaks it! This is why I explicitly said that the problem was that I can find no reason to suggest that this is a universal desire.
Universal.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Please tell me that some of you noticed the correlation between Anton's statement and Ender's relationships to the Hive Queen, Jane, and Novinha.
If you didn't, I've got all these pies, here...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I can't actually see any correlation there. Where do you find similarities?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:"Here is the meaning of life: for a man to find a woman, for a woman to find a man, the creature most unlike you, and then to make babies...so that when you die you know you are permanently a part of the great web of life. That you are not a loose thread, snipped off."
Where did Ender's Children come from? Not Novinha, his wife; but Jane. Quite possibly the strangest creature in the universe (we haven't seen the creators of the descolada yet). And Jane is literally a great web of life.
The words 'loose thread, snipped off' conjure images of rogue male Buggers, which the Hive Queen mentions in Xenocide. These are males who have independent minds and spirits, who do not serve the hive queen. When the Buggers first found Ender's mind via Jane and the Fantasy Game, they tried to drive him insane-- the way they would treat a rogue male.
quote:"It's hardwired into all of us. Not just sexual desire--that can be twisted any which way, and it often is. And not just a desire to have children...No, it's a deep hunger to find a person from that strange, terrifyingly other sex and make a life together.
This is a good summation of some of the plots of Speaker for the Dead and Xenocide. Ender roams the universe for 3000 years, and can't relate to anyone except someone else who has suffered on an equal level as he has-- Novinha. (Yeah, there's Valentine, but she is part of Ender-- as seen by the creation of young Val.)
Only, when he finally gets to Novinha, they're beyond childbearing. In order to join the 'web of life' it takes the sacrifice of his marital (and sexual) relationship with Novinha, and his own death to provide souls for Young Val and New Peter.
Neat-o!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
So he's not in the web having re-raised some of Novinha's damaged and traumatized children?
Plus I never did buy him and Novinha marrying. It bothered me. They only had about one conversation together, but it's been maybe a few months since I last read that book.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:So he's not in the web having re-raised some of Novinha's damaged and traumatized children?
Novinha and Ender made a life together for 30 years before Young Val and New Peter came along. But they didn't make children together; Ender healed her kids, but not really with her help as far as I can see.
(Take the way that Ela and Quara view Novinha in Xenocide as evidence for that statement.)
Novinha wasn't much of a mother-- she was too busy sheltering secrets. Ender was father and mother both, but his parenting, as far as I can tell, was a solitary endeavor. None of the kids had as strong a relationship with Novinha as they did with Ender (maybe Esteban is the exception; he's the only child in Xenocide who Novinha frets over).
Ender isn't in the web until Novinha lets him die to create his children-- though I guess it can be argued that the Buggers are just as much his children as Young Val and New Peter. Hmm...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ender was a failure as a husband to Novinha. What he accomplished, he accomplished without her. So it's not really a successful marriage that produced children, but rather an individual who wasn't brave enough to stand up to his wife who then ran away from the marriage to do more interesting things.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Oh, and I'm marrying my fiancee because of how well we fit together - in both our differences and our sameness. If I was terrified of her otherness, I wouldn't be doing it.
But then I relate to her as a human being first. Our big differences to me come from the fact that we're different human beings who come from different experiences. In a way I can't really articulate, it seems to rob people of this human beingness to treat them as if gender is the biggest difference between people.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Only, when he finally gets to Novinha, they're beyond childbearing. In order to join the 'web of life' it takes the sacrifice of his marital (and sexual) relationship with Novinha, and his own death to provide souls for Young Val and New Peter.
That's an interesting way to look at it, but I hope it's not actually what the author's trying to do, there. Mainly because it seems to me to be a profoundly and tragically broken worldview.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Mainly because it seems to me to be a profoundly and tragically broken worldview.
Do you think "trying to do" equals "trying to promote?"
And hello! Ender is a profoundly tragic figure FROM THE GET GO.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: In a way I can't really articulate, it seems to rob people of this human beingness to treat them as if gender is the biggest difference between people.
Gender is a huge contributor to the differences between individuals.
I don't see how acknowledging that makes the other gender any less human.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, I don't know what that has to do with what I said.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Okay.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
quote:Orincoro, for someone complaining about kacard being passive aggressive, your complaint was itself remarkably passive-aggressive:)
And, of course, I can't imagine why she might be driven to passive-aggressiveness in this thread. The mind boggles.
Seriously. I wonder if OSC's counterparts on the opposite end of the political spectrum have much appreciation for what his opinions have cost him. From what I can tell, most of them manage to have websites devoted to their fans, which are NOT filled with people railing angrily against them every single day for their political views, but rather, are filled almost exclusively with celebration and support.
I understand that OSC is more outspoken than most. But still ... the fact that he keeps this forum going in the face of all the hate he gets day in and day out is a testament, I think, to his belief in free speech and civilized discourse, and his respect for your opinions, even when, at times, some of you show very little respect for his.
In answer to the OP question, yes, what I said was in kind with what kacard was trying to do- I find the implication that OSC is more civilized than his opponents because he has gay acquaintances whom he manages not to scream at silly. Passive aggression is designed to invite the opponent or the recipient of that aggression to feel foolish, by characterizing the writer of the passive aggressive statement as more reasonable and inviting of dissent than is actually the case. To call this to the floor as what it actually is is meant to appear overly aggressive and bull-headed, and to respond with contrition is to give the writer a pass on the statement as well as to tacitly agree with their points. There are no strong points made, but rather the nonchalance and superiority of the speaker is asserted by a passive reference to how strong the argument they have really is- so strong that it goes without saying, and if it must be said, it should be given by the opposition, as a sign of how preeminent and basically reasonable and universal it really is.
OSC does his screaming where he doesn't have to see the direct reactions, and he can comfortably distance himself from the actual people he is talking about, and invite only the most extreme reactions from the people he disagrees with, so that he can look at them and say, "ahah! This is the opposition."
I do appreciate what his opinions have cost him, and I think frankly that they should cost him exactly what he is willing to invest in them. If that is everything, then he gets what he deserves. But puppy, I do not hate him. I don't believe that he hates gays or liberals or most of the other people he rails against day in and day out on his forum. But when he uses this place, as he most assuredly has, to pile scorn and derision on so many people, I'm surprised that *you're* surprised it fosters a negative attitude.
I think the fact that people continue to post here despite the hate that OSC projects through this site, day in and day out, as you say, is a testament to how much people here respect him, despite how little respect he may show for them and their kind, and to many other people they may respect or agree with.
You see, we both get to characterize the relationship in essentially the opposite way, because there is really no denying that "vitriolic" and "truculent," are words that could be used to describe OSC as readily as his detractors. I don't see any innocent victims here, and I'd be troubled if I thought you really saw one- I just don't think you do.
[ May 08, 2009, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote: In a way I can't really articulate, it seems to rob people of this human beingness to treat them as if gender is the biggest difference between people.
Gender is a huge contributor to the differences between individuals.
I don't see how acknowledging that makes the other gender any less human.
We're not THAT different. Some men can even breast feed and stuff. It's not as if individual men have nothing in common with individual women. We eat the same food, watch the same clothes and a lot of later studies don't find significant differences in how our brains work. Obviously our bodies are different, but men have nipples and women have clitorises. And fetuses sort of start off female. I don't feel like we are on opposite plains and I hate those men are from mars books anyway as they are rather silly and don't fit chicks like ME.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I don't think we're on opposite plains, I just don't know why it's often women precisely like you who think their different from other women in some fundamental way. How can you know- is what wonder? I mean, I think I'm fundamentally different from most other men, but do I have any frame of reference for what it's like to be a woman? From all the stories I've heard of people who have suddenly had testosterone replaced with estrogen, or the other way around, the change in the mode of thought is striking.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Well, I do want babies, but I don't feel totally girlie. It's sort of like having both gender traits and some not at all. Like i do not care about clothes, fashion, shoes, any of that stuff and I like bugs and non-stinging insects, but I do love Love Spell scented victoria Secret spray because it smells good and I get all weepy and the end of some movies, but I just don't feel like I fit the stereotype 100% and I do not want to. Like if I am reading that dumb Mars and Venus book I do not feel particularly marsy or Venusy. I just feel like myself. I feel I am very weird and that there's nothing really wrong with that. I think ultimately everyone is an individual before just male or female and that individual differences are overlooked in favour of lumping people up.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Orincoro,
quote:...I find the implication that OSC is more civilized than his opponents because he has gay acquaintances whom he manages not to scream at silly.
You're welcome at your leisure to show where exactly kacard was trying to do this, of course. Which is much of what made your own response pretty passive-aggressive too.
quote: OSC does his screaming where he doesn't have to see the direct reactions, and he can comfortably distance himself from the actual people he is talking about, and invite only the most extreme reactions from the people he disagrees with, so that he can look at them and say, "ahah! This is the opposition."
I don't know that I ever recall him doing any 'screaming'-but he has said some very objectionable things, IMO, things that are wrong, hurtful, and at odds with other aspects of his stated beliefs.
It's curious, though, that you seem to think that by putting his 'screaming' up online he's somehow distancing himself from it. Do you imagine he doesn't see any direct reactions from it? Delayed reactions can still be a direct reaction. And in an Internet forum context, he certainly sees plenty of direct reaction, that is if he reads.
quote: I think the fact that people continue to post here despite the hate that OSC projects through this site, day in and day out, as you say, is a testament to how much people here respect him, despite how little respect he may show for them and their kind, and to many other people they may respect or agree with.
I can't help but wonder in what way fostering and paying for a community that quite often lashes out at him, and less often but not uncommonly in very personal terms, equates to 'showing little respect' for 'them'.
Posted by Grinwell (Member # 12030) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary; He's calling it a universal impulse. If 'to me' it is not true, that already breaks it! This is why I explicitly said that the problem was that I can find no reason to suggest that this is a universal desire.
Are you saying you have no desire to find a mate? You have no desire to leave a part of yourself in this world after you die? That seems like a sad existence. You mention that you like interacting with girls. Could this be an outward indication of unconscious impulses or is it just a way to kill time?
I think the national uproar over marriage is evidence that there is a universal impulse, a civilizing influence that people willingly choose for themselves. I think OSC is on to something. Everyone I know wants to be part of the web of life. Maybe not at certain points in their life, but certainly before they die. They desire community and legacy. If not, they feel unfulfilled and unhappy. That's what Anton is saying. Bean sees the truth in his words and chooses to marry Petra.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You are making the assumption that the only way to connect with other people is to pick one and mate. There are many ways to be part of people's lives and have them be part of yours.
You are also assuming that the only thing of value we leave behind is our genes.
And how dare you judge someone else's existence as "sad".
A doctor who never has her own children but saves many of them through her work does not have a "sad existence". She has a rich life.
A philanthropist who endows a center of learning does not have a "sad existence".
A priest who devotes himself to God and to help his fellow human beings does not have a "sad existence".
What naive arrogance you have.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Gay people have children, their biological ones and adopted ones, just as straight people do. Gay people influence other young people in their lives, just as straight people do. Gay people contribute to their society as much (or as little) as straight people.
They ARE in the web of life, as much as anyone else. What's changing is how welcome they're made to feel.
Posted by Grinwell (Member # 12030) on :
There are lots of ways to connect with people and lots of ways to leave a legacy behind. I completely agree with you. I was just discussing the marriage impulse, specifically Samprimary's response to Anton's quotes.
Sorry if I seem naive to you, but I have known sadness in my life and the lives of my friends. I know what it's like to feel unconnected and I also know the joy of marriage and children. I was just trying to make a point. If you think I'm judging unfairly, maybe you should refrain from doing the same.
Posted by Grinwell (Member # 12030) on :
I agree Chris, my gay acquaintances have children and raise them with great love and devotion. They have definitely joined the web of life.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grinwell: There are lots of ways to connect with people and lots of ways to leave a legacy behind. I completely agree with you. I was just discussing the marriage impulse, specifically Samprimary's response to Anton's quotes.
Sorry if I seem naive to you, but I have known sadness in my life and the lives of my friends. I know what it's like to feel unconnected and I also know the joy of marriage and children. I was just trying to make a point. If you think I'm judging unfairly, maybe you should refrain from doing the same.
I am judging your words.
How do you reconcile what you posted here with, "Are you saying you have no desire to find a mate? You have no desire to leave a part of yourself in this world after you die? That seems like a sad existence"?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Which is worse, kmboots? He called someone sad, and you called someone naive?
How about we leave off the personal insults entirely? We all feel strongly about this, yaddah, yaddah...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Clearly, I think that calling someone's whole existence sad is worse than calling someone's arrogance naive. I commented on one particular trait that was demonstrated my Grinwell's words.
Grinwell's posts have been insulting from the beginning of his or her participation in this thread.
Posted by Grinwell (Member # 12030) on :
quote:How do you reconcile what you posted here with, "Are you saying you have no desire to find a mate? You have no desire to leave a part of yourself in this world after you die? That seems like a sad existence"?
I was legitimately wondering what Samprimary meant by stating that a universal impulse to marry and have children does not exist.
I have no idea if anyone on this thread is happy or sad. I sincerely apologize if I offended anyone.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thank you.
I imagine that she meant that the impulse to marry and have children is not universal. Lots of people don't have one or the other or both of those impulses and they are just as likely as anyone else to live happy, fulfilled lives and to be well connected to the "web of life" and, more importantly, to each other and to, if they choose, God. Passing on one's DNA is not the only way to make a meaningful contribution in this world or to leave an honourable, beloved legacy.
I would appreciate it if you kept that in mind and I accept your apology.
Posted by Grinwell (Member # 12030) on :
Thank you for the clarification. I like how you said that people do not have to have those impulses to live happy lives, connect with others, and make a meaningful contribution to the world. That's totally valid.
What I'm trying to communicate is that Anton/OSC believe that the desire to do these things is precisely what is hardwired into all of us. Whether it comes from the soul, God, a biological impulse, environment, or whatever, there is something that drives us to connect with the Other and create something meaningful. For many couples this results in children. Maybe this is just random human behavior, but I like OSC's view that there is something deeper. That's all I was trying to discuss with Samprimary, but I like your response.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Grinwell, I very much agree that sexual and procreative urges* have their roots in a profound desire to connect with each other and with the Divine. I don't believe, as Anton/OSC seen to suggest in what you quoted, that that sexual and procreative urges are the only or even best impulses that share those roots or the only valid, joyful way to fulfill that desire. That is the attitude I find offensive.
ETA: If you don't share that attitude, we don't have a problem.
*though there is great overlap, they are not identical.
[ May 08, 2009, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I like how you said that people do not have to have those impulses to live happy lives, connect with others, and make a meaningful contribution to the world. That's totally valid.
What I'm trying to communicate is that Anton/OSC believe that the desire to do these things is precisely what is hardwired into all of us. Whether it comes from the soul, God, a biological impulse, environment, or whatever, there is something that drives us to connect with the Other and create something meaningful. For many couples this results in children. Maybe this is just random human behavior, but I like OSC's view that there is something deeper. That's all I was trying to discuss with Samprimary, but I like your response.
What OSC had to say was a lot more specific (and, in my opinion, a lot more negative and off base) than that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Do you imagine he doesn't see any direct reactions from it? Delayed reactions can still be a direct reaction. And in an Internet forum context, he certainly sees plenty of direct reaction, that is if he reads.
I think a delayed reaction, or a reaction he can avoid by simply not reading, is about as indirect a reaction as one can get.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think a delayed reaction, or a reaction he can avoid by simply not reading, is about as indirect a reaction as one can get.
So you imagine the reactions he gets online are the reactions he gets, then?
Strange that he would stop signings in an entire segment of the country if all he had to avoid bad reactions was not read online forums.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I can't help but wonder in what way fostering and paying for a community that quite often lashes out at him, and less often but not uncommonly in very personal terms, equates to 'showing little respect' for 'them'.
Jsut keeping something alive implies nothing about your attitude towards it. OSC wants his views to be heard, and he wants to appear to be open and willing to hear the views of others. Those are his stated beliefs. I'm not at all sure he doesn't regret the existence of this site at times, and especially this board, but having used it continually for his own purposes, he would look rather foolish and mean to take it down now or censor it in any active way.
Besides, I said that to show that I think he *has* respect, I just don't think he *shows* respect. I meant to show that there was a parallel in that- both sides do seem to have respect, I know I have it, even when I fail or refuse to show it. I believe he also respects this community, even when he shows it disrespect. Respect for this community is not implicit in paying for or maintaining it- but OSC is allowed his mixed feelings, as am I.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I think a delayed reaction, or a reaction he can avoid by simply not reading, is about as indirect a reaction as one can get.
So you imagine the reactions he gets online are the reactions he gets, then?
Strange that he would stop signings in an entire segment of the country if all he had to avoid bad reactions was not read online forums.
That equation doesn't really work for me. I didn't realize he stopped signings, but the fact that he had to stop signings, or that he chose to (I don't have the particulars on that), could suggest that he is more comfortable with being responsible for his opinions only online, not in person- that would add weight to my point, not yours, that he wants to avoid direct reactions in favor of the ones he can more easily distance himself from and control.
I never meant to imply that he ONLY gets reactions online, just that I imagine he prefers them here, where he can steadfastly ignore them, as he has at least appeared to do on Hatrack. Here is family members post in his stead (or for other reasons), and that is itself a simpler proposition because no one is really that interested in arguing with them about his opinions- proxies have a de facto form of diplomatic immunity most of the time. (not, imo, in the case I myself sited, when they present their own opinions to be responded to).
So why did he stop the signings? Because he felt he was in danger? Because he didn't like the reactions he was getting? What's the story there?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Signings aren't supposed to be negative publicity for an author. They're supposed to be positive publicity and help the sales of the book.
If your signings in an area become predominantly negative, then continuing to go there is a terrible idea and an exercise in frustration. You don't need an emotional reason to stop going — the fact that you're doing something difficult and stressful and getting largely negative results out of it should be reason enough.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Sir Isaac Newton seems to have accomplished a lot of good. He never married.
For Ornerians only--I'd love to put Richard Dey and OSC in a small house together for a day or three, and video the results. LOL
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Sir Isaac Newton seems to have accomplished a lot of good. He never married.
What does that have to do with anything?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I'm not at all sure he doesn't regret the existence of this site at times, and especially this board, but having used it continually for his own purposes, he would look rather foolish and mean to take it down now or censor it in any active way.
Seriously? Saying "I no longer wish to continue to pay money every month for the privilege of having people badmouth me" would be foolish and mean?
I am very grateful that the Cards keep this place running, at both financial and emotional expense, and despite the fact that some posters seem determined to put the absolute worst spin on everything they say and do -- and DON'T say or do!
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"For Ornerians only--I'd love to put Richard Dey and OSC in a small house together for a day or three, and video the results. LOL"
You must like watching dudes talk about their food.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I'm not at all sure he doesn't regret the existence of this site at times, and especially this board, but having used it continually for his own purposes, he would look rather foolish and mean to take it down now or censor it in any active way.
Seriously? Saying "I no longer wish to continue to pay money every month for the privilege of having people badmouth me" would be foolish and mean?
I am very grateful that the Cards keep this place running, at both financial and emotional expense, and despite the fact that some posters seem determined to put the absolute worst spin on everything they say and do -- and DON'T say or do!
Urm. I don't feel like I'm putting a bad spin on things, the articles speak for themselves. They are stomach-liningly upsetting. He's got the right to write them, but I've got the right to disagree. It's called America. It's called the right to disagree with someone even if you respect them and I haven't even resorted to name calling either.
But it's really, really, really harsh doing things like comparing gays to children playing dress up. That is not nice. You write articles with a certain tone and the result is having a lot of angry irritable people being angry and irritable.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I'm not at all sure he doesn't regret the existence of this site at times, and especially this board, but having used it continually for his own purposes, he would look rather foolish and mean to take it down now or censor it in any active way.
Seriously? Saying "I no longer wish to continue to pay money every month for the privilege of having people badmouth me" would be foolish and mean?
Rivka- stop. Breath. Turn your brain back on. Now read what I said again:
me: "...would look foolish and mean"
"Would look foolish and mean."
Would LOOK foolish and mean.
Now repeat after me: "I will stop misreading the most basic meanings of the statements of others."
Now, do I personally think it would be foolish? Yes- politically. Do I think it would be mean? Maybe, but not really. There. That does not in any way constitute a retraction of the above statement.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: If your signings in an area become predominantly negative, then continuing to go there is a terrible idea and an exercise in frustration. You don't need an emotional reason to stop going — the fact that you're doing something difficult and stressful and getting largely negative results out of it should be reason enough.
So you don't need an emotional reason... you just need a reason which is tied to emotions... is what I'm getting out of that statement.
The business angle answers my question adequately though- if book sales tank because your interactions with the public become negative (I phrase this not to assign blame), then it's a good idea to stop interacting.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Sir Isaac Newton seems to have accomplished a lot of good. He never married.
Ever read anything biographical on Newton? He was by most accounts one of the most miserable, hateful and objectionable people you could imagine. No wonder he never got married.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Now repeat after me: "I will stop misreading the most basic meanings of the statements of others."
Another fine example of completely over-the-top uncalled for sneering and scorning. I have a sneaking suspicion that if you didn't approach rivka in the manner of a major jackass, you might have discovered that her question did in fact have some nuance to it.
For example: she might have been saying,
quote:Seriously? Saying "I no longer wish to continue to pay money every month for the privilege of having people badmouth me" would be foolish and mean?
Wouldn't even look foolish or mean to some people.
And of course there's no need to go into the gray area involved when someone says, "Wow, that guy looks like a real fool," is in many cases a way of saying, "That guy's a real fool."
You can cram as much into that one word - look - as you like, but the truth is a reasonable person could read your post and think that you would indeed think Card would be mean and foolish to do such a thing.
quote:The business angle answers my question adequately though- if book sales tank because your interactions with the public become negative (I phrase this not to assign blame), then it's a good idea to stop interacting.
Who said anything about 'tanking'? As for Puppy's post, all he's really saying is, "It's not an 'emotional response' to stop doing something which becomes a negative burden. It's just normal."
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
rivka sounded perfectly reasonable in her last post, Orincoro, and doesn't deserve to be condescended to like that.
Edit: erm, it appears Rakeesh beat me to it.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Ever read anything biographical on Newton? He was by most accounts one of the most miserable, hateful and objectionable people you could imagine. No wonder he never got married."
I have known (and known of) some real jerks who stayed married for decades. I'm sure we all have. I also guess that the huge difference in intelligence between Newton and the other people around him made it harder for him to be nice and get along with people, maybe.
"What does that have to do with anything?"
Beethoven never married. Mozart had no kids. The list goes on, and on, and on. Their legacies will outlast the bloodlines of many people who had dozens of kids. As an example, J.S. Bach had 20 kids, 10 of which lived (to be adults). However, he has no living descendants today. I sure enjoy his music, though.
The point is that you have to ignore a boatload of fact (anecdotal, but still fact) to believe the bullhockey that you have to marry and/or procreate to accomplish something real and/or lasting. That is, BTW, the line that OSC is preaching, and I am refuting that very line. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Uh, dude, Mozart had kids.... Mozart had 6 kids, 4 who died in childbirth and the two that survived did not marry or have kids.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: The point is that you have to ignore a boatload of fact (anecdotal, but still fact) to believe the bullhockey that you have to marry and/or procreate to accomplish something real and/or lasting. That is, BTW, the line that OSC is preaching, and I am refuting that very line. [Smile]
Where exactly does he preach that line? I may be mistaken, because I don't read and re-read Card like I used to, but I don't recall him ever 'preaching' that procreation was the only way to accomplish something real and lasting.
(Also, how exactly do you know Bach has no living descendants? You can't possibly know that:))
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote: The point is that you have to ignore a boatload of fact (anecdotal, but still fact) to believe the bullhockey that you have to marry and/or procreate to accomplish something real and/or lasting. That is, BTW, the line that OSC is preaching, and I am refuting that very line. [Smile]
Where exactly does he preach that line? I may be mistaken, because I don't read and re-read Card like I used to, but I don't recall him ever 'preaching' that procreation was the only way to accomplish something real and lasting.
(Also, how exactly do you know Bach has no living descendants? You can't possibly know that:))
He hammers that line constantly in the Shadow series at least, and a bit in the original Ender series... The whole Shadow series after Ender's Shadow should be called, Stop Reading this Book and Have Babies, in which I would reply, send me an interesting, kind, nice man who doesn't believe in punitive discipline and has nice eyes and tattoos and is quite smart and passionate and I'D PROBABLY DO JUST THAT! if I can... And we'd also adopt! But there's no need to nag because before I didn't want kids and now I seem to want them and moth and butterfly pupae.
A quick search online states that Bach's descendants that are living are in the US.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grinwell: Are you saying you have no desire to find a mate? You have no desire to leave a part of yourself in this world after you die? That seems like a sad existence.
quote:Everyone I know wants to be part of the web of life. Maybe not at certain points in their life, but certainly before they die. They desire community and legacy. If not, they feel unfulfilled and unhappy.
Ack, oh god. I'll start by saying that this has drifted mostly away from the author and has more to do with the notions you have taken from his book. It resonates with you, I'm sure. Bad way to confirm its universality. Even worse to assume that it must be universal to the extent that someone must have a sad existence if they "deny" it. It does not resonate within me. I know plenty of ways to desire 'community and legacy' that have nothing to do with het marriage, especially this whole 'you profoundly desire to marry those space aliens called the opposite sex' part.
I know gay dudes who are essentially married at this point and NONE of their desire for community and legacy — absolutely NONE OF IT — is left unfulfilled by the fact that they are attracted romantically to their own gender and they won't biologically have children.
I know two asexual people who themselves feel no sexual desire for anything and have no desire for romantic or sexual associations of any kind and they do not feel like they've been 'snipped' from fulfillment. They just lack that desire.
And myself. I'm pretty het. I'm sexually active. I have girlfriends, platonic and otherwise. I may, may be friends with more girls than guys. It's pretty close, about 50/50. Do I feel like I've "lost anything" by not 'confronting' the terrifying apparition of the alien Woman to get married and start popping out babies? Like it is ultimately relevant to my sense of fulfillment whether or not I biologically reproduce inside the institution of marriage? No. Do sterile couples also seem to be trapped in having a 'sad existence' like mine? No.
But the most important part, the part that absolutely does not ring true to me, so much so that it overshadows all of this, is the part about women being these foreboding, alien creatures.
It has zero relevance to my life.
I feel no desire to shack up with a girl because she is a 'strange terrifyingly other sex.' I don't find myself in relationships with women, sexual or otherwise, because they are 'strange, terrifying others' or the creatures 'most unlike me.' If I describe this concept to my friends who have married (I took the opportunity to, as well) they confirm that it has absolutely nothing to do with the way people our age in our little corner of the universe fall in love with each other. The best and most fulfilling marriages I know of are the ones that grew out of relationships that, minus the sexual part, would still have been Best Friendships. The worst and least fulfilling marriages I know of are the ones that grew out of senses of obligation and social order, especially the often explicit instructions of serious religious types that we are to go forth, pair up, and be fruitful, full quiver style.
Like I mentioned: I do not view women as a 'strange terrifyingly other sex.' I am profoundly thankful for this. I grew up in an environment which completely avoids this and I can see and interact with girls without finding them "the creature most unlike me." I consider myself better off for it.
I do not feel cursed to a life less prone to 'fulfillment.' I feel like overall it has generated more fulfillment. I also feel it can, as it has in the case of my friends, result in better sexual relationships, better sexual fulfillment, and better marriages, engaged upon for more of the right reasons and way, way less of the wrong ones.
Anton is making his statement inside a fictional universe where the statement is probably true. It was probably penned from the conclusions someone came to immersed in a culture that my parents left behind well before they had me. My world is different. It shares similarities, but the notion of a compulsion to pair up and mate with women for virtue of their alien unworldliness is not one of them. To me, Anton may as well be a character written by a Scientologist who is explaining to someone that we desire to pair up in heterosexual couples because of the impressions left on us by Body Thetans.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zotto!: rivka sounded perfectly reasonable in her last post, Orincoro, and doesn't deserve to be condescended to like that.
Edit: erm, it appears Rakeesh beat me to it.
I'm not of that opinion, clearly. I don't appreciate having the words I choose carefully ignored. I meant what I said- "look," which is why I wrote it. And in the context of what I said, which was about how OSC appeared to others, it meant just that.
"That guy looks like an idiot," fails totally as an analogy. This is about something that might make a person look foolish in the future. How could I be calling someone foolish for something they haven't done yet? I might as well say, "you might fail this test if you don't study... you're therefore an idiot."
I'm not interested in debating this. I said what I said, and now you should know pretty damn well what it means.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
"(Also, how exactly do you know Bach has no living descendants? You can't possibly know that:)) "
There have been some biographers who claimed Bach had no living descendants. More appropriately, he has no *known* living descendants. The chances of there remaining no one alive from his bloodline would seem a little slim to me, but considering that many of his children and extended family were famous persons with well documented lives, I think it's quite possible that this is true. No one now has a credible claim as his descendant, although the existence of at least a handful of people is possible.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm not of that opinion, clearly. I don't appreciate having the words I choose carefully ignored. I meant what I said- "look," which is why I wrote it. And in the context of what I said, which was about how OSC appeared to others, it meant just that.
Yeah, well, your opinion is wrong. Just because you think your 'carefully chosen' words were ignored doesn't automatically give you carte blanche to be a jackass.
Though yes, by now it's obvious you aren't of that opinion. It's as though you wait sometimes for someone to make a misstep around you, and WHAM! Out comes the massive overreaction. That's a pretty crappy way to conduct one's self. Your holding a different opinion hardly changes that.
Also, of course, 'look' is hardly a word with just one definition, so perhaps you should choose your words more carefully in the future.
quote:
"That guy looks like an idiot," fails totally as an analogy. This is about something that might make a person look foolish in the future. How could I be calling someone foolish for something they haven't done yet? I might as well say, "you might fail this test if you don't study... you're therefore an idiot."
And this fails completely as a response to what I said. It's not a matter of calling someone foolish for something they haven't done yet. It's a matter of saying they would be foolish if they do something that's being discussed. Or would be mean. Or even appear to be foolish or mean, which I suspect was one of rivka's points: that many people wouldn't think it foolish or mean for OSC to stop paying for speech that is not uncommonly against him in personal terms.
quote:I'm not interested in debating this. I said what I said, and now you should know pretty damn well what it means.
Wow, that's a very tough, stick-to-your-guns attitude. So cool! I don't really care if you're not interested in debating this (which didn't stop you from doing just that, briefly). Your reaction was unfair and wrong, and you shouldn't make such a habit of it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
mmm... whatever, Rakeesh. You constantly harp on me for doing exactly what you like doing here. See your last paragraph.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
sorry to break up some high quality nonce but
quote:Originally posted by Grinwell: Those who vote to protect traditional marriage and support organizations like NOM don't have a "front of justifications used to cover the real motivations". Their motivations are clear: marriage is already defined. I believe they try to present marriage and family research as a way to find common ground, not "dress up" their beliefs.
To go back to this: unsurprisingly, evidence is coming out that NOM is a front group, and NOM has already been caught illegally concealing their 990 forms.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:mmm... whatever, Rakeesh. You constantly harp on me for doing exactly what you like doing here. See your last paragraph.
What I did in that paragraph - responding rudely to you - bore very little resemblance to what you did to rivka.
For one thing, my last paragraph wasn't nearly as sneering and sarcastic as yours was to rivka-that 'nearly' is a matter of opinion, of course, but that it was less sarcastic and sneering is pretty clear.
For another thing, I was sarcastic towards you after a pretty BS (not interested in debating it indeed) response of yours, and this entire discussion started because you went way over the top towards someone who hadn't said anything objectionable.
So, yeah, not so much.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Who would they be a front group for, and to what purpose? I'm assuming this refers to a religious group or coalition?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Who would they be a front group for, and to what purpose? I'm assuming this refers to a religious group or coalition?
Though it doesn't appear to have hit the big news websites yet, the Church is who is suggested, I think. It seems clear, at least, that some shenanigans are afoot-why else specifically resist lawful behavior like disclosing the 990s?
Edit: I haven't been able to find any comment from the NOM itself on the matter, though, and those that are making the claims are that I can see entirely groups very much opposed to NOM-so I'm taking this business with a grain of salt for the time being.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Who would they be a front group for, and to what purpose? I'm assuming this refers to a religious group or coalition?
Apparently, NOM's style is consistent with the LDS's prior strategies for front groups, based off of uncovered documents about how they ran a similar anti-SSM front organization in Hawaii, so they're fingering the Mormon church.
Nothing conclusive yet; all we know is that NOM is attempting to hide its financiers! it will be exciting to see how this all turns out!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Apparently, NOM's style is consistent with the LDS's prior strategies for front groups, based off of uncovered documents about how they ran a similar anti-SSM front organization in Hawaii, so they're fingering the Mormon church.
Again, though, it should be said: the only evidence we actually have for this is the word of NOM's chief rival, Californians Against Hate Karger.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Regarding the descendants, or lack thereof, of Papa Bach--
"Although Bach fathered twenty children, only ten survived infancy. He has no known descendants living today. His great-granddaughter—Frau Carolina Augusta Wilhelmine Ritter, who died May 13, 1871—was his last known descendant."
That's from the Wiki. It's at the very, very end of the Wiki.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Regarding the descendants, or lack thereof, of Papa Bach--
"Although Bach fathered twenty children, only ten survived infancy. He has no known descendants living today. His great-granddaughter—Frau Carolina Augusta Wilhelmine Ritter, who died May 13, 1871—was his last known descendant."
That's from the Wiki. It's at the very, very end of the Wiki.
Another site said he had some decedents in the US. I'll look it up later. I agree with Samprimary long post. I definitely don't want to end up with a man who is alien and opposite of me. He'd probably believe in hitting and would insist that my sons by circumscribed when I don't want them to be. He'd probably think my place is in the home and I'll have to obey him! No, I'll rather be single and live in a cave instead.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Regarding the descendants, or lack thereof, of Papa Bach--
"Although Bach fathered twenty children, only ten survived infancy. He has no known descendants living today. His great-granddaughter—Frau Carolina Augusta Wilhelmine Ritter, who died May 13, 1871—was his last known descendant."
That's from the Wiki. It's at the very, very end of the Wiki.
Wikipedia is ok for general outlines, but on details like this, on a topic like this one, the sourcing of that statement is likely to be sketchy at best. I don't deny it, I just don't credit it as being particularly trustworthy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Syne, the word's "circumcised," by the way. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Syne, the word's "circumcised," by the way.
Dang it. I forgot to check that with my Foxfire spell check thingy. Grrr.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I agree with Samprimary long post. I definitely don't want to end up with a man who is alien and opposite of me. He'd probably believe in hitting and would insist that my sons by circumscribed when I don't want them to be. He'd probably think my place is in the home and I'll have to obey him! No, I'll rather be single and live in a cave instead.
First: 'circumscribed' had me thinking of the wounded stig scene from Armed and Dangerous.
Secondly, I was always confused about how someone could have stuff resembling (or even exceeding) that sort of apprehensive 'otherness' notion of the other sex, but it sort of makes sense for some upbringings, you know? I mean, grow up with parents that have you attending a school like this and women are sectioned off nigh-onto forbidden fruit 'till you're supposed to marry one.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But wouldn't that just make it hard for a woman and a man to get along with each other if they think they are alien and other?
Then again, historically some marriages have been like that, and even today in various place men and women have difference spheres, but that doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun to me.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Wikipedia is ok for general outlines, but on details like this, on a topic like this one, the sourcing of that statement is likely to be sketchy at best. I don't deny it, I just don't credit it as being particularly trustworthy."
The point being, even if you HAVE 10 kids, it's quite possible that, 200 years later, your descendants are hard to locate, which means that are almost certainly few in number.
The larger point is that one's accomplishments can far outlast one's descendants.
Only for Ormerians----Man, I'd love to see a point/counterpoint between Richard Dey and OSC---Mr. "Gays did everything great, ever!" versus Mr. "Gays are useful only when closeted and married, with bunches of kids".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: But wouldn't that just make it hard for a woman and a man to get along with each other if they think they are alien and other?
From my vantage point, yes. And according to historians that studied the history of marriage in the united states, it's likely that we're better off living in a society where people are not held into loveless marriages by an overbearing divorce stigma, and better off without a duty-based (rather than compatability based) obligation to marry that leads to many of those ill-fit marriages in the first place, and men and women are better off being able to relate to each other interpersonally in a way that's made impossible by cultures that try to turn the opposite sex into a hands-off taboo.
Prolly also better for gender fairness in the long run too since it short-circuits the whole "women are to be servile" element that thrives on cordoning off the opposite sex and keeping them in their separate corners.
Posted by Scooter (Member # 6915) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: From my vantage point, yes. And according to historians that studied the history of marriage in the united states, it's likely that we're better off living in a society where people are not held into loveless marriages by an overbearing divorce stigma, and better off without a duty-based (rather than compatability based) obligation to marry that leads to many of those ill-fit marriages in the first place, and men and women are better off being able to relate to each other interpersonally in a way that's made impossible by cultures that try to turn the opposite sex into a hands-off taboo.
Talk about focusing on fringe absolutes to make a case--I'd like to see some substance to any of this statement--even if it is based in actual people's observations who have any business making them, they would only be speculative at best. Provocative for sure, but way too black and white for real life.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Provocative? Well, once upon a time the notion that people should be allowed to divorce was provocative.
And I don't need to focus on extremes; varied versions and 'strengths' of this sort of culture exist all over religious America, which intend to keep any kind of sexual activity outside of marriage taboo and inaccessible, with methods that drive a wedge between the ability of girls and boys to interact with each other the way I was thankfully able to.
It's especially hard to deny that over the last few generations we've made the wonderful wonderful transition towards marrying for love rather than marrying for social obligation. The parts of marriage that I am happy to leave behind — and which have dominated marriage through known history — include marriage that is held together only through the stigma of divorce. I know that there are plenty of people who want to preserve the rapidly aging notion that marriage is an obligation, but the second they take that notion and try to work laws around it, I feel it's important to step in and work to halt that influence, especially given the motivation behind that influence.
And no matter my sociological musings on the nature of gender relations, that's what this comes down to.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:So you don't need an emotional reason... you just need a reason which is tied to emotions... is what I'm getting out of that statement.
You suggested in your post that the explanations you could come up with were fear and insecurity (ie, disliking hearing opposing views). I was saying that those kinds of base emotional reactions weren't the only — or even the best — explanations. Performing at a signing is a stressful, draining experience that is supposed to have a positive outcome. If that positive outcome is removed, then it's a perfectly wise and reasonable decision to stop doing the stressful, draining thing. We don't require an explanation with pejorative connotations (however minor).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* To be honest, that was my expectation, and why I was confused when Rakeesh was talking about physical safety. Card's said he dislikes traveling far from family for signings for years now, and I can't imagine that a signing that was both unprofitable and actively unpleasant due to the presence of protesters -- even completely non-violent, polite protesters -- would be worth the trouble.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:
Scott was neither invited to nor attended Janis Ian's wedding.
I'm sorry. My information from this came from a thread on Janis Ian's website in which Janis explained why she liked your husband. I'm actually relieved to learn the truth, as it is much less offensive (to me, at least) than what I'd been told
I was curious to see what Ms. Ian herself wrote, so I did the same Google search that TD did, and found the following post by Janis Ian, on her own forum, as the first result:
Okay, I give up. I'm sick of people sending me links to a year-old blog by Scott ranting about gay marriage, and demanding to know why I don't at the least stop reading/visiting/talking to him, or at the most don't burn all his books and take a public stance against him. For the record, most of the people who send me those links don't know how to spell, or use grammar. Meanwhile, here is my standard response, in an exchange that took place over a year ago with an ostensible "fan" who won't give their name. Please, if someone asks you why I'm friends with him or still read him, feel free to pass this on instead of sending it to me...
snip...
quote:Let me say first that I consider Scott a close friend; the time we don't have together physically, we make up through the heart. If I had to lean on someone, or needed an ear, I would think of him. And if you've read my autobiography, you'll know that in a time of great trouble, he was very, very, good to me. By the way, the gay community was nowhere to be seen when I was at my lowest. Scott does get very passionate about things. Sometimes you have to read his words pretty carefully to get the whole drift. And on this subject, he's been misquoted and mis-read a lot. But I can't personally recall seeing anything nasty that he's written about being gay per se, and I'd want to know he wrote it, rather than taking the chance on a misquote. Given that he's a devout Mormon, of course he doesn't think gay marriage is a good thing. Let's face it - a lot of people feel that way! His article - your URL below - speaks more to the courts and the separation of church and state than my own relationship with my partner - or for that matter, Scott's other gay friends. And speaking of my partner... Scott has never treated my relationship, or my partner, with anything but the utmost respect. We've been welcomed into his home, invited to his childrens' weddings, sent announcements of births and deaths - all to both of us, as a family unit. His children regard us as a family unit, and I've never heard or felt the slightest breath of censure from any one of them. Scott's also a Republican, while I'm a Democrat - and we manage to discuss our differences over the table without ever getting loud or crazy. Personally, I think if more people did that, the world would be a better place. I'm sorry you appear ready to discount or avoid a writer of Card's stature, because I consider Scott one of the finest writers of my generation, period. His short stories about musicians and music are the best I've ever read. What a pity, to deny yourself and your friends the illumination that level of artistry can provide!
If you want to read the whole thread in context, it's here. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I read that. She makes cool points.
But isn't OSC a Democrat? A really conservative one?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I can't officially speak for OSC regarding his party designation, but here's what I've observed from my perspective:
His opinions are split between the two parties, and I think he's stated publically that one of the reasons he's remained a Democrat is because of some really ugly stuff he saw going on among Republicans in North Carolina.
He disagrees strongly with most things that the modern Democratic party does, but is very positive and nostalgic about the party in earlier decades, and still believes in a lot of its original purposes.
His main disagreements with the Republican party are over the hard-liners' unquestioning religious faith in and promotion of the free market, which he believes leads to a great deal of suffering in the world at large.
But to talk to him about a lot of the more visible controversial issues in American politics today, you would definitely presume that he is a Republican because of his positions in favor of the Iraq War, approving of George W. Bush's legacy, against gay marriage, etc. I assume that this is how Janis Ian got the impression that he is a Republican.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I know a lot of older people in Wisconsin who are that way about the Repbulican party. They still think it is the party of Bob LaFollette.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Interesting point of view he has Puppy. I was reading one of OSC's articles on the Mormon Times, and most of them are nice and snuzzly, but it bothers me that it seems like he doesn't want gays to have a piece of that warm happy family pie on their own gay terms. Do folks who are against gay marriage want gay folks to go back to closets, back alleys or parks and the like? To lead conflicted lives? I don't get it...Perhaps it's more the religious point of view that I don't totally understand, but from a secular standpoint...
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Interesting point of view he has Puppy. I was reading one of OSC's articles on the Mormon Times, and most of them are nice and snuzzly, but it bothers me that it seems like he doesn't want gays to have a piece of that warm happy family pie on their own gay terms. Do folks who are against gay marriage want gay folks to go back to closets, back alleys or parks and the like? To lead conflicted lives? I don't get it...Perhaps it's more the religious point of view that I don't totally understand, but from a secular standpoint...
That's the disconnect that makes the stated position difficult to understand. If it is as Ian proclaims it, and OSC is perfectly willing and capable and actually *wants* to treat gays the way he has treated her, then what exactly is his beef with gay marriage? You have all the elements there already in practice, but the name isn't the same.
But OSC clearly doesn't support gay marriage, so obviously he feels there is something about it which is negative, which means that he ultimately feels that treating gays in *every single* way like ordinary married people is not acceptable. The question then becomes: where is the line drawn? Is it acceptable to treat these people in every way like a married couple, but simply deny them the legal or official recognition of the state? If so, this begs the question of why that restriction remains necessary. If he believes the restriction remains necessary, then of course we are compelled to wonder, for what purpose? On this point, the entire anti-SSM movement, but most particularly the anti-SSM movement that is not outspokenly anti-gay, is a tad inarticulate. We are given to believe that the granting of same sex marriage somehow changes or fundamentally alters the status of straight marriages. That would be an understandable position from someone who was also bigoted towards gays- but it breaks down when faced with someone who claims not to be bigoted.
It is not a "black and white," interpretation of someone's positions and attitudes to apply this set of questions to anybody who fights gay marriages, especially with such vehemence. These are real, as yet quite mysteriously unresolved questions that have been posed. If such respect and admiration and mutual understanding as Ian describes is real, which I have no reason to doubt, then why does it not extend to a belief in, or even a diplomatic silence on gay rights? OSC could have, at any time in the past twenty years, chosen to remain absolutely silent on the issue. Star Trek and Rick Berman managed to do so with very few people even taking notice. But instead he used his voice, and the words his spoke, I think anybody can appreciate, are difficult to rectify with stories like Ian's.
On this issue, I believe that OSC wishes to benefit from, but not himself extend the courtesy of the benefit of the doubt. We as readers are meant to believe that OSC's character, as he portrays himself and as he prompts or persuades or simply causes others (like Ian) to portray him, is beyond question- his most public detractors are subject to bitter and ruthless denunciation. And so I feel we are meant to take the very best of his actions, as they can be presented, along with the most extreme of his political positions, and we are meant to work out by these pieces of evidence that he works to some greater purpose beyond our understanding. To deny that purpose is unquestionably above the level of simple xenophobia or homophobia or bigotry remains totally unacceptable- even as the actions he takes toward these purposes remain indistinguishable from those of people suffering from the above afflictions. Yet I feel there remains a need for caution in taking the word of someone who speaks so strongly on any point of basic moral principles, that his intentions are indeed pure. And in the face of so many sundry accusations and recriminations against half a world of people, many of them far from comprehensible in their aims or grievances, I remain totally unconvinced of the source those motivations. In fact I find the idea of the author as a rebel and iconoclast; a point of light and intelligence against a world of darkness -the image he so loves to employ himself- as more than enough, infinitely more than enough, to motivate this entire campaign, beyond the barest of actual ideological misgivings.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
The entire reason I started posting here, under the alt "blunt sword", many moons ago, was because I wanted to sow seeds of discord and make this place unpleasant to post in. Why? The existence of Ornery really angered me beyond belief. An entire website devoted to conservative political ideals? There was no way I could eject OSC from my area (he moved to about 40 minutes away from me back in the early 80s, here in NC), and that aggravated me to no end. I could at least mess up his website, though.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
That this man is my favorite author is one of the biggest contradictions of my life.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The entire reason I started posting here, under the alt "blunt sword", many moons ago, was because I wanted to sow seeds of discord and make this place unpleasant to post in. Why? The existence of Ornery really angered me beyond belief. An entire website devoted to conservative political ideals? There was no way I could eject OSC from my area (he moved to about 40 minutes away from me back in the early 80s, here in NC), and that aggravated me to no end. I could at least mess up his website, though.
Boy, that's something!
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
steven, what aspect of your non-conservative ideals makes you feel that ejecting people from communities and messing up their websites is the right response to disagreeing with their opinions?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara: That this man is my favorite author is one of the biggest contradictions of my life.
Life is filled with contradictions, in fact that's what makes it up. But it's nice when folks ADMIT that though.
(I lean more towards NG. But OSC is not low on the ever changing list.)
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: steven, what aspect of your non-conservative ideals makes you feel that ejecting people from communities and messing up their websites is the right response to disagreeing with their opinions?
Yeah, that's not exactly polite....
Posted by Grinwell (Member # 12030) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: If such respect and admiration and mutual understanding as Ian describes is real, which I have no reason to doubt, then why does it not extend to a belief in, or even a diplomatic silence on gay rights?
I really like your thoughts on the matter. Other posters have made reference to this 2004 article, but in re-reading it, I found some answers to your questions. OSC discusses many threats to marriage (abuse, divorce, teenage sexual activity, etc.) that previous posts wondered about. He expresses why his gay friends' sexual lives are not his business while simultaneously explaining why he believes gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage and the nation. It's a pretty clear summary of his views. He accepts gay people but doesn't believe that gay marriage is the right choice for America. Like you said, it's a very difficult line to walk.
He especially doesn't want a relatively small number of judges to make the decision for millions of Americans.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But what about millions of Americans not wanting a handful of religious folks making these decisions? Everyone should get a slice of the warm pie of family and love and all of that good stuff.
And no, that's not a dirty metaphor. Folks need to share the cake, the pie instead of keeping it for themselves and not even letting anyone get a crumb.
Arg. That article annoys me so much! Does he realize, once again, that NOT EVERY MAN AND WOMAN THINKS THE SAME JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE MALE OR FEMALE! If two people think simularly, of course they can understand each other, despite beign members of the opposite sex because that's how it goes. Folks can understand each other if they explain things and communicate without expecting the other person to READ THEIR MINDS. Plus there's no mention of civilizations that have different concepts of marriage and family and how those thrive in their own way. OK. I will stop reading that article now because I am going on an irritable tangent and I didn't want to do that. But could folks PLEASE for the love of milk stop acting like everything fell apart and went bad after the 50s? That's not very realistic at all. These same sort of problems existed on the same level, or maybe worse to a certain extent. And he makes no mention of domestic violence and controlling relationships. Now that can REALLY damage a family.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:steven, what aspect of your non-conservative ideals makes you feel that ejecting people from communities and messing up their websites is the right response to disagreeing with their opinions?
Apparently the part that says proponents of conservative politics should be sabotaged.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The entire reason I started posting here, under the alt "blunt sword", many moons ago, was because I wanted to sow seeds of discord and make this place unpleasant to post in. Why? The existence of Ornery really angered me beyond belief.
Man, steven. That's really low.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I just don't understand why someone would be angered at the EXISTENCE of an opposing camp. I might get angry at some of the things they say. But I really value the fact that opposing viewpoints are allowed to flourish and get into open dialogue with one another in our society. I wouldn't trade that for the world.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's part of what makes America AMERICA.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: The entire reason I started posting here, under the alt "blunt sword", many moons ago, was because I wanted to sow seeds of discord and make this place unpleasant to post in. Why? The existence of Ornery really angered me beyond belief. An entire website devoted to conservative political ideals? There was no way I could eject OSC from my area (he moved to about 40 minutes away from me back in the early 80s, here in NC), and that aggravated me to no end. I could at least mess up his website, though.
Steven, you continue to impress me! Well, I mean, not in a good way.
EDIT: CAN THIS THREAD BE MADE TO POOF
[ May 12, 2009, 05:07 AM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, look, I think it was a really crappy thing to do-however, it was a long time ago.
I don't think it's exactly cricket to bust his chops about it if he regrets it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
An expressed notion of regret could cause my posts to vanish in a puff of burnt pixels!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grinwell: He especially doesn't want a relatively small number of judges to make the decision for millions of Americans.
And as I believe I pointed out when he wrote the article, or more probably when the California decision was made, the democratic process extends further than the simple majority. We have a series of roadblocks to constitutional amendment, and a certain amount of power vested in our courts and legislatures so that the public cannot rule unchecked. The actions of the Mormon church in that particular case were, if not anti-democratic, then at least counter to the spirit of real democracy. The religious groups who clustered around that issue preferred gross misrepresentation of the issues to a public that had too little access to or understanding of the consequences of the rulings that were made. Basically, what the Mormons and others said mostly by proxy), that those rulings meant was highly arguable at best, and genuinely misleading. OSC didn't parrot a lot of the nonsense, but he still stoked the fire of the idea of a miscarriage of the democratic process, which represented a fundamental misapprehension or misrepresentation of that process.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: The entire reason I started posting here, under the alt "blunt sword", many moons ago, was because I wanted to sow seeds of discord and make this place unpleasant to post in. Why? The existence of Ornery really angered me beyond belief. An entire website devoted to conservative political ideals? There was no way I could eject OSC from my area (he moved to about 40 minutes away from me back in the early 80s, here in NC), and that aggravated me to no end. I could at least mess up his website, though.
In retrospect, how do you feel about what you attempted to do?
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:The entire reason I started posting here, under the alt "blunt sword", many moons ago, was because I wanted to sow seeds of discord and make this place unpleasant to post in.
So, when you agreed to uphold the forum rules when you registered, you were lying. Classy...
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
The biggest problem I have with OSC's essays against gay marriage is that I have never once seen him mention simple love. He repeatedly claims that the only legitimate marriage is one that produces children and grandchildren -- he doesn't seem to lay any value on marriages that exist simply because two people are in love with each other.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara: The biggest problem I have with OSC's essays against gay marriage is that I have never once seen him mention simple love. He repeatedly claims that the only legitimate marriage is one that produces children and grandchildren -- he doesn't seem to lay any value on marriages that exist simply because two people are in love with each other.
So true. That tends to frustrate me in his books at times too. Except for Lost Boys and Alvin because they had some nice marriages.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara: The biggest problem I have with OSC's essays against gay marriage is that I have never once seen him mention simple love. He repeatedly claims that the only legitimate marriage is one that produces children and grandchildren -- he doesn't seem to lay any value on marriages that exist simply because two people are in love with each other.
IIRC Shedemei and Zdorab in the Homecoming series are in love with each other's personality, and intellectuality, but Zdorab is not physically attracted to her at all as he is a homosexual. They do talk about trying for children but Zdorab warns Shedemei that he might have to fantasize about former lovers in order to cooperate. Ultimately I was under the impression that their love was no less real than anyone else but that Zdorab never stopped being gay.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
My own impression was that they were not in love at all, but formed a reasonable platonic friendship; then they 'married' - and I put that in scare quotes because this is not what a marriage should be - essentially because of peer pressure to produce children.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
Thanks for that connection, BlackBlade. I haven't read Homecoming, but that's interesting. In my experiene, it seems as though no amount of 'platonic friendliness' can equal the love you feel for someone that you are emotionally, romantically, and sexually attracted to. Hence the immense difference between lovers and just friends... What is OSC getting at?
The kind of marriage I would think would come closest to causing OSC's fabeled 'downfall of civilization' would be the ones based solely on the desire to reproduce and no actual love whatsoever -- and that includes sexual love. A child raised in that household would have emotional scars for sure.
Children know when their parents are not in love, and no amount of "good role models" and structure in the household is going to make up for that. A same sex marriage in which both parents are completely in love is an infinitely better place to raise a child than one in which one parent is struggling to overcome homosexuality. OSC, of all people, should not underestimate what children can understand.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yeah, I agree with you on that Tara. It's like that Divorce book I read. I felt she underestimated children and how much they understand about the world around them. For example, not noticing how abusive their parent's relationship is. Kids need healthy parents who love and care about each other.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Honestly, I think you are both overestimating the fragility of children, there. People have grown up in some pretty nasty circumstances without apparently taking serious psychological damage of it; mere loveless marriages aren't so bad as all that. Human are not hothouse flowers that die with the slightest adverse change in environment.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Honestly, I think you are both overestimating the fragility of children, there. People have grown up in some pretty nasty circumstances without apparently taking serious psychological damage of it; mere loveless marriages aren't so bad as all that. Human are not hothouse flowers that die with the slightest adverse change in environment.
I reckon, but to say that stuff doesn't affect a person though... I kind of does. There should be a bit of middle ground though in between Children are fragile! Put them in a bubble and children are resilient. Bouncing them up and down won't hurt them.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:In my experiene, it seems as though no amount of 'platonic friendliness' can equal the love you feel for someone that you are emotionally, romantically, and sexually attracted to. Hence the immense difference between lovers and just friends... What is OSC getting at?
The problem with placing high importance on sexual attractiveness in a relationship is that a person's level of sexual attractiveness almost inevitably declines with time and/or chance. If you believe that a marriage relationship should be a permanent commitment to love and care for a spouse and children, then it would be a poor choice to have that "love" depend on something as transitory as the spouse's hotness. What happens when you get old and wrinkly, or get cancer, or lose your hair? Sex is nice* and all that, but you gotta have something deeper than that to base a relationship on.
*as the mother of a newborn and an extremely active toddler, most of my bedroom fantasies involve not sex but an unbroken six hours of sleep. Followed by another twelve.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Sex is nice* and all that, but you gotta have something deeper than that to base a relationship on.
Well, who said sexual attraction was the basis? It was only mentioned as a component.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yozhik:
quote:In my experiene, it seems as though no amount of 'platonic friendliness' can equal the love you feel for someone that you are emotionally, romantically, and sexually attracted to. Hence the immense difference between lovers and just friends... What is OSC getting at?
The problem with placing high importance on sexual attractiveness in a relationship is that a person's level of sexual attractiveness almost inevitably declines with time and/or chance. If you believe that a marriage relationship should be a permanent commitment to love and care for a spouse and children, then it would be a poor choice to have that "love" depend on something as transitory as the spouse's hotness. What happens when you get old and wrinkly, or get cancer, or lose your hair? Sex is nice* and all that, but you gotta have something deeper than that to base a relationship on.
*as the mother of a newborn and an extremely active toddler, most of my bedroom fantasies involve not sex but an unbroken six hours of sleep. Followed by another twelve.
Well, that is true, but suppose there were things that made a person sexy like their intelligence and not their long luscious hair or hips or something? Sexual attraction isn't everything, but it's sort of like eating food that tastes good. You know, not just ice cream and stuff but sweet nice fruit. It's part of it, not the whole thing, but without it things would be so bland and boring and mundane so it's sort of a combination of what you are saying and what Rakeesh and others are saying. The problem is also idealizing the past, let's face it, it wasn't perfect, marriage is probably a lot better now even with divorce and stuff because at least marriages are more equal, more about both partners instead of serving one. Kids probably get more attention, less physical punishment, that's always good. Heck, maybe even the sex is better, I wouldn't know. I've never lived in the past, but it's good that the attitudes have changed and the family has gotten better. I feel like these conservative groups don't realize the damage they are doing to families by trying to set back the clock. Maybe we're fine the way we are even if gay marriage was allowed. Plus people are STILL getting married too, even the folks that shack up eventually do that. Sometimes. More freedom is always a good thing, I think. And less strict gender roles mean more men spending time with their kids instead of children's fathers being distant and intimidating. Yes, they need to look at the good things about nowadays instead of thinking it's all bad. Even a lot of single parents do well, and it's better than various alternatives in most cases like adoption or fostercare. In most cases.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yozhik: as the mother of a newborn
Hey, congrats!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Yozhik: as the mother of a newborn
Hey, congrats!
Yeah. I can't even wait to have babies! Which makes me sound all OSC-Y But they are soooooooo cute! with those little toes and fingernails
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
Thanks for the congratulations!
And it's funny -- when I had the first baby, dealing with an infant felt quite difficult. Now this new baby seems rather easy -- it's the toddler that's a handful. I don't know if this is because I now have more experience with infants, whereas the toddler stage is new and I'm still trying to figure it out -- or whether child #1 is just plain higher-maintenance. Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:And less strict gender roles mean more men spending time with their kids instead of children's fathers being distant and intimidating.
The stereotypical father spending little time with his kids is a relatively modern phenomenon. Back when most folks were farmers, craftsmen, etc., there WAS no home-work divide, so you'd be working and still have the children with you all day. As soon as they were old enough, the kiddos would be helping daddy take care of the livestock or harvest vegetables or helping mommy churn the butter or card wool or feed the chickens or whatever.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
What I'd really like to see is information about how many Mormons (or nonMormons) would actually support OSC's essays. I mean I know most of them are against gay marriage, how many of them would actually support him on statements such as:
quote: In my church and many other churches, people still cling fiercely to civilized values and struggle to raise civilized children despite the barbarians who now rule us through the courts.
The barbarians think that if they grab hold of the trunk of the tree, they've caught the birds in the branches. But the birds can fly to another tree.
And I don't mean that civilized Americans will move. I mean that they'll simply stop regarding the authority of the government as having any legitimacy.
Does anyone besides OSC, however vehemently they oppose it, actually think gay marriage will cause the downfall of civilized society?
I'm sorry to keep bringing up different issues, but I have so many issues with OSC at this point that I don't really know where to begin.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Does anyone besides OSC, however vehemently they oppose it, actually think gay marriage will cause the downfall of civilized society?
I've met several people who say they do, for a variety of reasons. For some Mormons to whom I've spoken (for example), they see it as the "last straw" that will cause God to remove His protections from America, thus leading to the destruction of the country.
----------
quote:Back when most folks were farmers, craftsmen, etc., there WAS no home-work divide, so you'd be working and still have the children with you all day.
Even by the 1860s, that way of life was vanishing.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Does anyone besides OSC, however vehemently they oppose it, actually think gay marriage will cause the downfall of civilized society?
I've met several people who say they do, for a variety of reasons. For some Mormons to whom I've spoken (for example), they see it as the "last straw" that will cause God to remove His protections from America, thus leading to the destruction of the country.
So, is it the fact that OSC is aware of how silly and rhetorically flimsy that argument is that either a) doesn't believe in it, or b) doesn't claim to believe in it publicly? Because his stated objections at least make claims on being reasonable and falsifiable theories. That particular theory is not reasonable or falsifiable- and its invocation interests no one other than the believers.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:Does anyone besides OSC, however vehemently they oppose it, actually think gay marriage will cause the downfall of civilized society?
I think you're misunderstanding OSC's position by not reading carefully enough. I read his position as being that the "downfall of civilized society" will be caused not by gay marriage per se, but by the courts usurping the powers that belong to the legislatures and/or the people.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:Even by the 1860s, that way of life was vanishing.
The 1860s ARE relatively modern, from a historical perspective. And when it vanished depended on where one lived (rural vs. urban).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yozhik:
quote:Does anyone besides OSC, however vehemently they oppose it, actually think gay marriage will cause the downfall of civilized society?
I think you're misunderstanding OSC's position by not reading carefully enough. I read his position as being that the "downfall of civilized society" will be caused not by gay marriage per se, but by the courts usurping the powers that belong to the legislatures and/or the people.
No, Orson Scott Card has stated very plainly that civilization itself is rooted in 'reproductive security' and that gay marriage upsets this reproductive security and itself threatens civilization. He asserts that marriage is necessary for civilization and that gay marriage will harm that and furthermore accuses the "fanatical Left" of attempting to drive it in through 'propaganda' in a way which will grievously unseat civilization. That a culture that reinforces heterosexual marriage and denies homosexual marriage is what keeps civilization in America alive, and that if you change this to allow homos to get married, the civilization present will be lost, broken down, collapsed.
Fittingly, he calls the people who advance this agenda "barbarians."
Literally his argument is that if we can't stop gay marriage, then "lacking the strong family structure on which civilization depends, our civilization will collapse or fade away."
It's very clear. It's very straightforward.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yozhik:
quote:Does anyone besides OSC, however vehemently they oppose it, actually think gay marriage will cause the downfall of civilized society?
I think you're misunderstanding OSC's position by not reading carefully enough. I read his position as being that the "downfall of civilized society" will be caused not by gay marriage per se, but by the courts usurping the powers that belong to the legislatures and/or the people.
That would almost make sense.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It's also the surface complaint that sometimes acts as a kind of buffer for the fundamental beliefs that are actually guiding his thinking. First it's "the left is not representative of MY society, the courts have unfair influence," then it's simply "MY society is the only way that humanity will not perish from this Earth."
In a way OSC sometimes sounds a bit like a scientologist. It's a lot of "the only person capable of solving this situation is me," stuff.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:For some Mormons to whom I've spoken (for example), they see it as the "last straw" that will cause God to remove His protections from America, thus leading to the destruction of the country.
Tom, I used to suspect that the Mormon associates you reference from time to time might be made up.
Now I'm guessing that your cadre of Mormons is probably a real group of three or four people hand-picked principally for the fact that they reinforce the stereotype you have of Mormons. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
How would you handpick a group for that purpose?
Heck, when discussing anecdotal wacky Mormon beliefs in particular, I always buzz Nauvoo to see if I can find the same opinion expressed there. If I can, I figure it's suitably mainstream to mention. In this case, nearly half the people on Nauvoo appear to agree.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:How would you handpick a group for that purpose?
Quite easily. As long as we're speaking metaphorically. Literally, and some might respond poorly to your grabby hands.
quote:I always buzz Nauvoo to see if I can find the same opinion expressed there.
Of course, someone mentioning something doesn't necessarily make it mainstream. That said, a lot of mainstream ideas are rigidly if unofficially ensconced there, which is why I stopped posting a year or two ago. <murmurs something about "kicking" and "pricks">
I'm just noting that Mormons are less monolithic than you might think. Feel free to hit me up for an anarchist/pacifist/LDS viewpoint anytime.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Quite easily. As long as we're speaking metaphorically.
I think you'd need a fairly large pool of Mormon acquaintances.
quote:I'm just noting that Mormons are less monolithic than you might think.
Hey, I never said they were monolithic. I just offered that viewpoint up as one example of people who do in fact believe that same-sex marriage somehow threatens the very fabric of the nation. Mormons made a good example only because the uniqueness of America is doctrinal for them, so you don't need to reach as far as you might for, say, Baptists.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
I just looked at Nauvoo -- OSC is all OVER that place! Also, the forum looks JUST like Hatrack. Weird.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
OSC owns Nauvoo.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
*musically* DOT COM!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara: Also, the forum looks JUST like Hatrack. Weird.
Both use UBB.classic, which is abandonware and hasn't been supported since 2006, so it's vulnerable to scripting attacks these days. It's why, for the most part, you don't see it anywhere else.
Posted by Grinwell (Member # 12030) on :
I think the core of OSC's beliefs is something many people can agree on. Here's another attempt to summarize: A. The family is the basic unit of civilization B. Healthy families lead to healthy societies. Weak families lead to weak societies. C. Behavior which strengthens families should be encouraged. Behavior which weakens families should not be encouraged. D. The strongest families are headed by partners who love each other, respect each other as equals, and have made commitments to do so. E. Abuse of any kind, infidelity, broken covenants, divorce, and out-of-wedlock births weaken families. F. Unhealthy and unsafe marriages should be dissolved.
If you agree with these points, you have a lot of common ground with OSC.
Where opinions seem to differ is in this question: Is the strongest family for the health and continuation of society one with a mother and father or is the gender of parents irrelevant?
We may not know how mainstream acceptance of gay marriage will affect our families and society until it happens. Like OSC says, it's an experiment. In the face of uncertainty, people fall back on their own experiences and beliefs. Both sides are talking from very personal places, so there is a great need for patience and tolerance.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yeah, those are true, but he mostly seems to think gender roles matter. I'm not sure if they do. They've changed and explanded so much, and that's a good thing because so-called traditional gender roles are a bit too limiting. Plus, as I said before, I haven't seen him do a whole entire column about the evils of emotional and physically abusive relationships, just mostly about gay marriage and its affect on society. Even in Children of the mind there was that obnoxious line that took me years to notice that irritated me deeply. Plus it's not just the family that is the basic unit of society, I think, but the individual. But how people are raised can affect society, especially when you read a book like The Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog which talks about children and trauma and how it affects them and the rest of the world. Folks of his ilk definitely overlook how things like child abuse and spousal abuse are really destroying society. (and you can't tell me most of the stuff Dobson, a primary anti-gay marriage leader(?)advocates for raising children isn't abusive. I mean, come on, disciplining a child is one thing, but hitting a child until they totally submit to parental authority, doesn't that strike anyone else, as, well, wrong? Not to mention harsh? Why can't a parent just PUT a kid back in bed without hitting them? I don't understand this whole hitting kids thing.) They'd rather focus their attention on gay marriage, because again, it's easier to target. All sorts of respectable seeming people with heterosexual nuclear families could be dysfunctional behind the scenes, but no one would notice because on the surface they look "normal" and healthy just by being hegemonic. That doesn't mean that a family with a single parent isn't healthier JUST because there's a single parent. They could be just as attentive and kind towards their children as a straight couple...
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:F. Unhealthy and unsafe marriages should be dissolved.
... By force. That's got to be part of OSC's view, because he sees it as a given that the government can regulate who is allowed to marry who.
When you put it that way, I wonder how many people would agree?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Put another way, there are two readings of F. The first one, which I agree with, is that people in unhealthy and unsafe marriages should choose to dissolve their marriages. I agree with that.
Another reading of F, which I disagree with, is that its our business to forcibly dissolve unhealthy marriages if the married couples don't want that to happen. That seems absurd.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grinwell: I think the core of OSC's beliefs is something many people can agree on. Here's another attempt to summarize: A. The family is the basic unit of civilization
You are gliding over the major difference between a major point of contention: are gay couples and the children they raise families? The LDS church position is quite clear: they are not, and I'm pretty sure that OSC agrees with them.
So to say we all agree on that point is completely misleading.
quote:B. Healthy families lead to healthy societies. Weak families lead to weak societies. C. Behavior which strengthens families should be encouraged. Behavior which weakens families should not be encouraged.
How does one define "weak"? Or "strong"? Is a family where a father can exile or kill his kids for disobedience a weak family, or a strong one? Is a family where a gay child is deathly afraid of being found out and rejected for wanting to live his life honestly a strong family or a weak one?
quote:D. The strongest families are headed by partners who love each other, respect each other as equals, and have made commitments to do so.
I think you are going to have to show some evidence for the "love each other" part, becuase romantic love is awfully hard to find in OSC's essays. What I see a lot of is evolutionary imperatives, and social duty. No love.
quote:F. Unhealthy and unsafe marriages should be dissolved.
I'm going to have to see some OSC quotes for this too, because I don't get this from OSC at all.
quote:Where opinions seem to differ is in this question: Is the strongest family for the health and continuation of society one with a mother and father or is the gender of parents irrelevant?
I don't think that's quite the issue. The issue is "Is it okay for people to form families that fail to match up to OSC's definition of strongest? Or should we put legal roadblocks in their way to discourage that and punish people who do it anyway?"
quote:We may not know how mainstream acceptance of gay marriage will affect our families and society until it happens.
I think you've got a hard argument to make if you think that the outcome is that difficult to predict. Gay people are already coupling up, and already sharing their lives to the extent that the laws allow, and already raising children, with the legal protections that the laws currently allow. It's not going to be drastically different once the full suite of legal family protections are in force.
quote:Both sides are talking from very personal places, so there is a great need for patience and tolerance.
I completely see why a gay person whose family is being concretely and directly harmed by current laws is talking from a personal place. I fail to see why a person who wants those laws to stay as they are, and who will suffer no harm at all from them being changed has a right to take things just as personally.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
And should a marriage be illegal just because it isn't optimal? Do all marriages have to be perfect? Or is there a point where, in our struggle to create perfect family situations for every child, we encroach on peoples' rights?
I have a prediction for the future: soon those who support gay marriage will be commonly called "anti-family" and those who oppose it will be "pro-family." But the idea that someone is anti-family just because they support gay marriage is ridiculous. A family, to me, is a group of people who live together, love each other, support each other, and (most of all) sacrifice for each other. And I don't see why the word "family" has to have a tighter definition than that -- even when we're dealing with raising children.
As I believe has been said before, I don't believe children are so fragile that they're going to grow up emotionally destroyed because they didn't have a proper mother role model or a proper father role model. People are smarter than that. Your father and your mother are not the ONLY men and women you see in the world.
I strongly suspect that gay marriage has been singled out for condemnation by OSC and many others -- for reasons that they do NOT admit to, whether they be personal or religious -- and they are now scrabbling frantically for as many arguments as possible to support their views. You can come up with as many arguments as you want for anything. I wish those who oppose gay marriage would sit down and ask themselves, "Would I still oppose gay marriage if I wasn't religious? If a 1000+-year-old document written by ancient and backward societies said homosexuality was bad? Or if I wasn't afraid of change and people different from myself? Or if I wasn't struggling with the legitimacy of my OWN marriage?"
I find that OSC makes statements in his arguments against gay marriage that he would NOT make in other situations. Like that no one except a mom, a dad, and children is a proper family. But hasn't he himself said that the reason we like Firefly and Serenity so much is because of the FAMILY? (Granted, the crew of Serenity is not trying to raise a child -- but if they were, would it be such a terrible thing?) Does he really think that less than 10% of the population being allowed to remain in the same relationships they are in already, only with different legal status, going to mess up a generation of kids so much that civilization will be seriously harmed? I don't want to make any accusations, but the cynic inside me is rearing its head.
Oh dear, I went to edit this for typos and then just started adding more. Sorry.
[ May 18, 2009, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: Tara ]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I wish those who oppose gay marriage would sit down and ask themselves, "Would I still oppose gay marriage if I wasn't religious? If a 1000+-year-old document written by ancient and backward societies said homosexuality was bad? Or if I wasn't afraid of change and people different from myself? Or if I wasn't struggling with the legitimacy of my OWN marriage?"
Do you regularly sit down and accuse yourself of a bunch of laughable or nefarious motives you don't have?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Every Tuesday.
Doesn't everyone?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grinwell: I think the core of OSC's beliefs is something many people can agree on. Here's another attempt to summarize:
I'm completely confused on F and I don't know how it fits into any of this. People should be at liberty to dissolve marriages, particularly when the couple no longer loves each other. F suggests By Force in a way which would necessarily apply to het marriage and uh I do not see it suggested anywhere so.
In addition, yeah, like has been said, A through F tries to breeze past the α through ω of the whole argument; we could agree on all points rendered and still find someone violently wrong with the idea that people who support and are attempting to make gay marriage real in America are barbarians.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara: I have a prediction for the future: soon those who support gay marriage will be commonly called "anti-family" and those who oppose it will be "pro-family."
Already happened. Read the LDS statements on gay marriage. They are quite specific...all relationshps that aren't man-woman marriage undermine families. And the LDS church claims they are willing to support civil rights...so long as those don't undermine families.
I bet you can find other such statements in other places, but I know that the LDS statemetns are phrased like that.
And there were plenty of bumper stickers reading "Yes on 8: Protect Families"
quote:I strongly suspect that gay marriage has been singled out for condemnation by OSC and many others -- for reasons that they do NOT admit to, whether they be personal or religious -- and they are now scrabbling frantically for as many arguments as possible to support their views.
My guess is that it's not religious...the Bible is plenty specific about divorce, and no one seems to think that spending millions of dolalrs passing anti-divorce legislation is what's called for. Gay marraige calls traditional gender roles into question, and more broadly, any time a slightly different lifestype is considered legitimate and okay, it becomes that much more likely that people won't automatically hold the prevailing way of life as unquestionable and innately superior.
As for frantic arguments, the latest conservative argument I read...someone saying that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed if there's even a chance that straight black men will be less likely to marry because of it.
quote:But hasn't he himself said that the reason we like Firefly and Serenity so much is because of the FAMILY? (Granted, the crew of Serenity is not trying to raise a child -- but if they were, would it be such a terrible thing?)
I thought I read something of his where OSC was saying that biological families are different and better, and the constructed family of friends that you see on TV and movies often presented as a substitute really aren't the same. But I don't have the quote now.
quote:Does he really think that less than 10% of the population being allowed to remain in the same relationships they are in already, only with different legal status, going to mess up a generation of kids so much that civilization will be seriously harmed?
I think he sees it as the last stand between selfish hedonism and the society/family first moral duty that he thinks should be primary. Apparently, OSC doubts that enough people genuinely want to marry people they love and have children that they look forward to raising to keep civilization afloat. Therefore, we need a lot of stick and a lot of carrot to make it happen.
Posted by Grinwell (Member # 12030) on :
The quote I was referring to in F. above was from an essay that touched on the negative influences of divorce. OSC mentions that some marriages should be dissolved, for example in cases of abuse and where children are not safe. I don't think he meant dissolved forcibly by a third party, but by the married couple's own choice. Sorry if I confused anyone.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
quote:I wish those who oppose gay marriage would sit down and ask themselves, "Would I still oppose gay marriage if I wasn't religious? If a 1000+-year-old document written by ancient and backward societies said homosexuality was bad? Or if I wasn't afraid of change and people different from myself? Or if I wasn't struggling with the legitimacy of my OWN marriage?"
Do you regularly sit down and accuse yourself of a bunch of laughable or nefarious motives you don't have?
Does religion effect people's social beliefs? Maybe yes or maybe no, but the question certainly isn't "laughable or nefarious".
Are people afraid of change and others different from themselves? Umm... yes. I know I am, although I try not to be. I'm pretty sure most people are to a degree, some more than others.
My last point was simply referring to couples who are maybe considering a divorce, or homosexuals who chose to marry heterosexually. Which certainly happens.
So I don't really get your point.
EDIT: Oh and Puppy, I apologize for the part about the Bible -- in retrospect, that was too extreme and I would remove it. I don't mean to show disrespect to any religion -- I'm simply trying to gauge the different influences at work here. The rest, I still stand by.
[ May 18, 2009, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: Tara ]
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:Originally posted by Tara: I have a prediction for the future: soon those who support gay marriage will be commonly called "anti-family" and those who oppose it will be "pro-family."
Already happened. Read the LDS statements on gay marriage. They are quite specific...all relationshps that aren't man-woman marriage undermine families. And the LDS church claims they are willing to support civil rights...so long as those don't undermine families.
I bet you can find other such statements in other places, but I know that the LDS statemetns are phrased like that.
And there were plenty of bumper stickers reading "Yes on 8: Protect Families"
I had a feeling it had already happened, but I hope it doesn't become as common as "pro-life"/"pro-choice".
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:I strongly suspect that gay marriage has been singled out for condemnation by OSC and many others -- for reasons that they do NOT admit to, whether they be personal or religious -- and they are now scrabbling frantically for as many arguments as possible to support their views.
My guess is that it's not religious...the Bible is plenty specific about divorce, and no one seems to think that spending millions of dolalrs passing anti-divorce legislation is what's called for. Gay marraige calls traditional gender roles into question, and more broadly, any time a slightly different lifestype is considered legitimate and okay, it becomes that much more likely that people won't automatically hold the prevailing way of life as unquestionable and innately superior.
Traditional gender roles is a good way to put it -- I guess that's what I meant by "personal".
The infinite sensitivity (in any species) regarding the differences between male and female is surely a lot of what is fueling this argument.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Oh and Puppy, I apologize for the part about the Bible -- in retrospect, that was too extreme and I would remove it. I don't mean to show disrespect to any religion -- I'm simply trying to gauge the different influences at work here.
This is pretty curious as apologies go.
"I didn't mean to show disrespect...but I still stand by the other stuff I said." That seems to read, "I didn't mean to express the disrespect I feel."
quote:Maybe yes or maybe no, but the question certainly isn't "laughable or nefarious".
The questions you wished opponents of SSM would ask themselves certainly are laughable or nefarious, or in some cases both. I'll `splain.
'If I weren't religious'. Well, since in most cases (IMO) religion is the foundation of opposition to SSM, what you're really asking is, "If I didn't believe I should be opposed to this, would I still be opposed to it?" That's a silly question.
'Ancient and backwards societies'. This is silly as well, since religious opposition to SSM goes quite a bit futher than, "These old dead dudes say it's bad." Seriously, Tara, that's pretty much a textbook example of a straw man.
'Afraid of change and people different from me'. This is nefarious, insofar as it's generally considered bad to be afraid of change for its own sake, and for people different from one's self-even though pretty much everyone is afraid of just those things, it's only the flavors and intensities and how much we allow those things to dominate us that change.
'Struggling with my own marriage'. This is both laughable and nefarious, or at least a bad-faith argument. For one thing, "Well your marriage is probably a sham too!" is laughable as an argument...and insinuating that legitimacy concerns with one's own marriage is a component of opposition to SSM, that's a bad-faith argument.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I have a prediction for the future: soon those who support gay marriage will be commonly called "anti-family" and those who oppose it will be "pro-family."
That's not so much a prediction of the future as it's a postdiction of the last ten years or so. James Dobson's made a mint with that strategy.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: This is pretty curious as apologies go.
"I didn't mean to show disrespect...but I still stand by the other stuff I said." That seems to read, "I didn't mean to express the disrespect I feel."
I'm sorry, but I really don't consider the other things I said to be disrespectful.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The questions you wished opponents of SSM would ask themselves certainly are laughable or nefarious, or in some cases both. I'll `splain.
'If I weren't religious'. Well, since in most cases (IMO) religion is the foundation of opposition to SSM, what you're really asking is, "If I didn't believe I should be opposed to this, would I still be opposed to it?" That's a silly question.
But is it appropriate for religion to interfere in such issues as SSM? Especially when not all of the people effected are of said religion?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: 'Ancient and backwards societies'. This is silly as well, since religious opposition to SSM goes quite a bit futher than, "These old dead dudes say it's bad." Seriously, Tara, that's pretty much a textbook example of a straw man.
Again, I apologize. I got carried away. Is it worse to leave the offensive thing IN the post, or edit it out so later posts don't make sense?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
'Afraid of change and people different from me'. This is nefarious, insofar as it's generally considered bad to be afraid of change for its own sake, and for people different from one's self-even though pretty much everyone is afraid of just those things, it's only the flavors and intensities and how much we allow those things to dominate us that change.
But the fear still...exists.... I don't understand... I'm not saying this is one of the arguments.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
'Struggling with my own marriage'. This is both laughable and nefarious, or at least a bad-faith argument. For one thing, "Well your marriage is probably a sham too!" is laughable as an argument...and insinuating that legitimacy concerns with one's own marriage is a component of opposition to SSM, that's a bad-faith argument.
I was suggesting it as a subconscious influence rather than a good-faith argument.
And if you'd like to sikow-analyze me back, be my guest.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tara,
quote:I'm sorry, but I really don't consider the other things I said to be disrespectful.
Clearly-doesn't change that they were, though.
quote:But is it appropriate for religion to interfere in such issues as SSM? Especially when not all of the people effected are of said religion?
Ahh, now that's a different question. Not the one you originally asked, I might add. Speaking for myself, no, I don't think it's appropriate for religion to interfere in secular practices such as SSM.
quote:Again, I apologize. [Roll Eyes] I got carried away. Is it worse to leave the offensive thing IN the post, or edit it out so later posts don't make sense?
I'm not saying you should (or shouldn't) have edited it out. I'm just saying it's a strange apology: "I'm sorry I said this stuff. I still believe it all and stand by it, though." Just seems strange to me. What exactly were you sorry for? An open expression of your opinion? Having the opinion at all? Or just telling people who didn't agree about it?
quote:But the fear still...exists.... I don't understand... I'm not saying this is one of the arguments.
It certainly seemed to me that you were suggesting that this is one of the arguments, or at least reasons, people opposed are opposed. I don't see how that changes the question being nefarious and laughable.
quote:I was suggesting it as a subconscious influence rather than a good-faith argument.
That's still both laughable and bad-faith, and your suggestion that it is a reason some folks are opposed to SSM is an argument, an argument you're making.
I'm not psychoanalyzing you back. You started that, remember?
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:But is it appropriate for religion to interfere in such issues as SSM? Especially when not all of the people effected are of said religion?
Ahh, now that's a different question. Not the one you originally asked, I might add. Speaking for myself, no, I don't think it's appropriate for religion to interfere in secular practices such as SSM.
It is the same question. I was requesting that people try to look at their opinions of SSM out of the context of religion.
As for the rest of the post, I can't quite sort out what we don't understand about each other, and frankly, I don't feel like it. If that means you win, than so be it.
I was suggesting various things that might influence opposition to SSM besides what people are conscious of. That's all.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:Ahh, now that's a different question. Not the one you originally asked, I might add. Speaking for myself, no, I don't think it's appropriate for religion to interfere in secular practices such as SSM.
Does that mean a religious person is supposed to deny the core of their being when forming an opinion about "secular practices"?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Welcome to Hatrack, Adena. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Does that mean a religious person is supposed to deny the core of their being when forming an opinion about "secular practices"?
Does the core of your being tell you what to legislate for other people?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
My only point, really, was that Tara's descriptions of the "real motivations" that she thinks her opponents ought to find within themselves seem very, very wrong from the perspective of the actual people she's talking about.
It's easy, when you don't understand your opposition, to presume a whole lot of "secret motivations" that allow you to explain them away without questioning your own assumptions. Suggesting that opponents of same-sex marriage are ashamed of their secretly-shammy marriages, or that they are afraid of things that are different and new (evoking images of primitive cavemen freaking out about fire), or that they take the most simplistic possible view of scripture ... that's easy to do when you're alone or surrounded by likeminded people, and none of those opponents are present to tell you how ridiculous and insulting your assumptions are.
It's also much easier than asking yourself, "If thoughtful, intelligent people can have this opinion ... what motivations might they actually have?" Asking yourself THIS question isn't as easy a shortcut to feeling superior to your opponents. But it could bring you one step closer to actually understanding them, and perhaps as a result, working out a solution that you both can live with.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Does the core of your being tell you what to legislate for other people?
Doesn't yours? Whatever opinion you have about the law and how it applies to other people, it eventually comes down to what you feel, in your gut, is the right approach. There aren't any provable standards for "right" and "wrong" beyond "what humans feel strongly ought to be the case".
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Back to the original question, though:
quote:Does that mean a religious person is supposed to deny the core of their being when forming an opinion about "secular practices"?
I'm not the person you were actually asking this question of, but here's MY answer.
One thing I like about America (at or around the core of my being) is that it is a pluralistic society where people from many vastly different cultures can live together under a shared set of ideals. I think there is room for Americans to disagree about subjects like this, and live in very different ways, while still living under a common set of laws and practices.
Personally, I'll be a little annoyed if EITHER side in this argument wins a crushing victory, because either way, I think it will mean the loss of something worth holding onto.
So while, at the core of my being, I believe in a religion into which SSM clearly does not fit (and for much better reasons than Tara cites), I don't feel particularly threatened by the idea of living alongside a subculture where same-sex marriage is considered normal — provided that both cultures are afforded all the tools required to perpetuate themselves, without having to "knuckle under" to the other.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Personally, I'll be a little annoyed if EITHER side in this argument wins a crushing victory, because either way, I think it will mean the loss of something worth holding onto.
Shame, regret, self-hatred, enmity... what exactly?
I never get where you're coming from with this line of reasoning puppy. You come into it going "hey man, God bless America where we can all disagree and live together in harmony except gays shouldn't get to marry, haha ok we're best friends." It strikes a false note with me.
I feel the need to point out also that what you hope for in your last post would demand that you be politically in favor of SSM being a recognized right, in the same way that your religion is a recognized right. The law affords that protection to you, and as long as it fails to afford equal protection to others, they will never live beside you in any kind of lasting peace.
I don't believe that parents should indoctrinate their children into religion. But I want to live peacefully with those who do- so I support their right to do so. If I spent my time lobbying to have the establishment clause abolished, I think you could forgive my neighbors for not liking me- and working in the opposite direction is no different. Your religious views should not impinge the rights of others.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:One thing I like about America (at or around the core of my being) is that it is a pluralistic society where people from many vastly different cultures can live together under a shared set of ideals. I think there is room for Americans to disagree about subjects like this, and live in very different ways, while still living under a common set of laws and practices.
This, though, is logic that should be tortured. Disagreement is fine, living in different ways is fine, but many on the anti-ssm side would consider a conclusion where we are 'still living under a common set of laws and practices' to be A Crushing Victory for the other side, if that common set of laws includes the availability of gay marriage across the States.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: would demand that you be politically in favor of SSM being a recognized right
I could be misremembering, but I thought that was Geoff's stance?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, I think it is perfectly fine to apologize for expressing something you believe while still believing it. There are plenty of things that I am right to think but that would be unkind to write.
Puppy, I think that the impulse to find hidden or subconscious motivations for people who oppose SSM is because, even after many years of hashing over and over the arguments with thoughtful, intelligent people, their arguments still fail to make any sense. We look at these otherwise thoughtful intelligent people and can't understand how they would take such an unreasonable stance unless there was something else going on.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I never get where you're coming from with this line of reasoning puppy. You come into it going "hey man, God bless America where we can all disagree and live together in harmony except gays shouldn't get to marry, haha ok we're best friends." It strikes a false note with me.
Perhaps the reason you don't get where I'm coming from is related to the fact that you're not reading my posts
I thought the one I just wrote was pretty clear that I have no problem with gay couples being allowed all the same legal rights and privileges as straight couples. I just think that the word "marriage" ought to be taken out of the equation, so that both cultures can define it as they see fit, and use it to perpetuate their traditions, without the laws of the land giving one side a trump card over the other.
It seems like a small thing, but honestly, if this were all that same-sex couples were going for, I think they would get it very easily. There are SSM opponents who really are in it to obstruct gay relationships as much as they can because they see it as a sin that needs to be stamped out at all costs — but those people don't add up to a majority of the country. Not even close.
I think most opponents of same-sex marriage are simply concerned that the traditions that they believe in and care about are going to be redefined and wiped away within the next generation. Gay marriage isn't the only factor in this, by any means, but it's a very visible and important one. If people could be reassured that the continuation of their way of life is up to them, and that the government isn't undermining them by redefining the terms that they use to pass on their beliefs, then I think the opposition to SSM would slacken, and the law could change.
It's the insistence on a crushing victory that is turning this into a war of attrition, and I'm sick of it. I come out in defense of SSM opponents (or the "pro-family" camp, if that's the PC term) because they're bearing the brunt of the ill will in this fight, and very few of you seem at all willing to understand them. Much easier to demonize them, lump them in with the Big Bad guys of the past, and treat them like inhuman enemies. It's stupid, it hurts us all in the end, and it turns your noble quest for justice into little more than bullying.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It seems like a small thing, but honestly, if this were all that same-sex couples were going for, I think they would get it very easily.
Here's the problem: how would you, as a SSM-advocate, sell the removal of the word "marriage" from the law without opening yourself up to accusations that you want to destroy marriage?
Bear in mind that I, too, think the word "marriage" should be removed from the law. I just have no idea how anyone would sell that to the opposition.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But, Puppy, how can you not see that wanting to "be reassured that the continuation of their way of life is up to them" is exactly the same motivation that people had to oppose civil rights for blacks. Those people, most of them, weren't evil Klansman burning crosses; they were normal people who cherished their traditions and didn't want the government "undermining them by redefining the terms that they use[d] to pass on their beliefs".
And they were right. Their way of life did change. Their cherished traditions were destroyed - wiped away. They no longer had the privilege of special recognition under the law. And some good things were lost.
But it was a way of life that, although cherished by many, was ultimately unjust.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I think most opponents of same-sex marriage are simply concerned that the traditions that they believe in and care about are going to be redefined and wiped away within the next generation.
I think that is an unrealistically optimistic assessment. There's a lot of bad stuff in the anti-ssm crowd.
I think one of the reasons that the anti-ssm crowd as a whole is and in the future will be regarded as so bad is because they refuse to acknowledge this pretty obvious bad stuff and, in a lot of cases, seem to consciously ally themselves with it (I mean, come on, we're on a thread talking about NOM).
Without the bigots, gay baiters, fear mongers, etc., I don't think the anti-ssm crowd would have been able to accomplish many of their goals. The anti-ssm crowd is going to lose in a generation or two at most, likely sooner. They way they are behaving now, they are going to go down as typified by these nasty groups that they excuse and ally with. You are going to look like the anti-interracial marriage people whose arguments you so often recapitulate.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
kmb, Remember what I said about "lumping them in with the Big Bad guys of the past"? You're practically Godwinning the argument by behaving this way, and making the chance of a successful resolution much, much smaller. Nice job.
If your goal is to obliterate any culture or religion into which gay marriage does not fit, then you're waging a cruel and destructive war, and you're the aggressor.
If your goal (like mine) is to obtain equal rights for all, then you're doing it wrong, and inadvertently causing more harm than good.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Without the bigots, gay baiters, fear mongers, etc., I don't think the anti-ssm crowd would have been able to accomplish many of their goals.
Face it, bigots are the big guns on both sides. Usually are, in arguments like this. I'm saying that reasonable people should frame a compromise that a majority can live with, make it work, and shut the bigots up.
In any case, "Hey, you've got some bigots over there!" isn't a compelling argument against a position in a debate.
[ May 19, 2009, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If your goal is to obliterate any culture or religion into which gay marriage does not fit, then you're waging a cruel and destructive war, and you're the aggressor.
If you're not willing to turn against the bad people on the anti-ssm side and make the distinction between you and them, why should your opponents?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
What are you talking about? Can you name a "bad person" in this thread that I can oppose for you, to "prove" I make that distinction? Or can we discuss this in good faith, and avoid unfair generalizations altogether?
(You'd think that officially endorsing legal same-sex unions might have counted in that regard.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Geoff, The major organizations (Focus on the Family, for example, or hey the National Organization for Marriage) on the anti-ssm side are, at least to me, clearly full of bigots and hate mongers. The push led by LDS members in California was dishonest fear mongering.
Without this sort of stuff, the anti-ssm people don't win.
I don't accept your description of the anti-ssm people as mostly simply concerned that the traditions that they believe in and care about are going to be redefined and wiped away within the next generation. That may be how you really see it, but, to me at least, it is exceedingly obvious that this is not the case.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Puppy, I don't think that most of the people who opposed civil rights in the 1960s were "Big Bad guys". I tried to make that clear in my post. A generation later, most of us recognize that they were wrong, but at the time I think they were just people who were afraid.
If you don't agree, tell me where they differ.
I do want to obliterate a culture where one group gets to deny their special privileges to others because of their sexual orientation.
And how is calling me an aggressor in a cruel and destructive war an example of the gentle words you recommend?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Geoff, Do you believe that acceptance of ssm is, unless things change drastically, pretty much inevitable?
---
edit: To me, it looks that way and the main reason for this is that upcoming generations look to have far fewer anti-gay bigots in them. The big change is coming when the bigots die off.
If that's the case, why should the pro-ssm people be the ones who should be looking for a compromise. Because, and maybe I'm just not seeing this, I don't see anything like this coming from the big anti-ssm groups. I don't see the big anti-ssm groups (or even a large number of anti-ssm individuals) disassociating themselves from the bigots and fear mongers. The only time I see these people becoming willing to compromise is when they realize that they're on the verge of losing.
edit 2: I'm disappointed in how most of the pro-ssm people seem to be taking a more antagonistic bent then I think they need to. I think this style delays their achievement of their goals while increasingly the likelihood of a more crushing defeat of their opponents in terms of many people's opinion of them. And while I think that those who turn a blind eye to the many, many "bad" people on the anti-ssm side and even more so to those who consciously ally with them deserve some negative regard, I don't think what I see coming for them is justified.
There's good people on both sides and there is bad people on both sides. It might not be fair that the good people on the losing side are going to be seen by many to be the same as the bad people on that side while the bad people on the winning side are going mix in with the good people, but that's how I see it happening.
But, ultimately, I think that the view that many have and will come to have of them and their cultures and religions and institutions is most strongly influenced by their own behavior.
[ May 19, 2009, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Squick, when you're opposed to something, it's easy to see all its members in the worst possible light. I actually know and associate with a lot of these people. In my experience, some have bigoted attitudes, but more of them are in it to protect something they value, not to hurt something they fear. That's a very different motivation, and it's unfair to characterize the members of an entire movement based on the attitudes of some.
In any case, at the moment, the pro-SSM side doesn't think it can win without demonizing decent people and hurling accusations of bigotry. Dishonest fear mongering, in other words. I think they're wrong, and that they can win this peacefully. But it's very hard to pull people away from a behavior as cathartic as smacking down people they don't understand.
kmb, if you aren't aware that "bigot" and "racist" are pretty much the worst things that can be said about a person in modern America — somewhere between "mobster" and "child molestor" — then I'm not sure where you're living However forgiving you might suddenly be towards 1960's racists, you can't pretend that you don't know what you're saying when you point in their direction and say to people, "You're just like them!"
quote:I do want to obliterate a culture where one group gets to deny their special privileges to others because of their sexual orientation.
When you declare war on a culture, and state as your goal that they should be, not lived with and tolerated, but utterly wiped out, then you need to expect decent people to lash back in self-defense. People will go to any lengths to defend something that they consider vital to their identity, as long as they are under that kind of threat.
If your goal was not obliteration, but simply fairness, then you wouldn't draw that kind of backlash.
But that doesn't really serve your purposes, does it? Drawing people out into a bitter war, where their self-defense can be cast as aggression allows you to destroy them all the more thoroughly in the end.
I don't treat either side in the debate this way. My friends who favor SSM, and my friends who oppose it, are all my friends, and they won't hear harsh words from me.
It's people who behave like you, on both sides, who draw my ire. You are the enemy to everyone involved, whether they understand it or not. If this is your attitude, and your goals, then you don't deserve any more "gentle words" than Fred Phelps, and you're silly to ask for them.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Squick, I do think SSM is inevitable, and I'd like to get there without destroying something valuable in the process. For some, this debate looks like an opportunity to cause as much destruction as possible to religion and conservativism on the way to the inevitable acceptance of SSM, and I think that is despicable.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I do think SSM is inevitable
Why? Do you disagree with my assessment above?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I don't follow you.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Why do you think acceptance of SSM is inevitable? I said above (in an edit, so maybe you didn't see it) that I believed that it primarily because the bigots would be dying off and were not going to be replaced by upcoming generations.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
The problem is, marriage isn't going to be destroyed, society won't fall apart. None of that stuff will really happen. Marriage, family, the roles of men and women have changed for ages, that's how society goes. It's a good thing for things to change and evolve and attitudes to change. But I don't buy that marriage will crumble and fall apart if gays are allowed to, well, call their marriages marriage.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
I have little to add except that 1) I neither support nor oppose SSM and 2) I agree with nearly everything Geoff has said about posturing, stances, motivations, bigotry, etc.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In any case, at the moment, the pro-SSM side doesn't think it can win without demonizing decent people and hurling accusations of bigotry. Dishonest fear mongering, in other words.
In all fairness, I think the dishonest fear mongering and demonization is a favored tactic of pretty much everyone involved.
That said, I'd still like an answer to my question: how should a pro-SSM person suggest removing the word "marriage" from the law without being accused of wanting to destroy marriage?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Puppy, I did not use the words "bigot" or "racist". In fact, I used your words to describe them. That those same words can be used to describe the motivations of people who resisted another kind of change (something you have yet to refute) does not mean I am demonizing them.
The only thing I am interested in "obliterating" is the unfairness of denying some people the preferential treatment under the law that the majority enjoys. If that unfairness is a vital part of their identity, that is where the problem lies.
And, my goodness, are you really equating me to Fred Phelps now?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Sorry I didn't answer you at first, Tom. Triage Here's an approximation of what I would say:
"Marriage is a sacred institution that should be protected and reserved for individual faiths to define and perform as they see fit. While the government absolutely must provide equal privileges to all its citizens, it has no desire to redefine anyone's closely-held beliefs and traditions. Therefore, the legal contracts involved with joining a couple into a single unit will hereafter be called 'civil unions', and will be available to blah blah blah ..."
I think it can be done.
kmb, I may have misread your intentions. If you want to obliterate the LEGAL practice of restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, that's not nearly as worrisome to me as if you wanted to obliterate, for example, a religion with esoteric beliefs about the eternal significance of gender which make performing same-sex marriage within that religion impossible.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Why do you think acceptance of SSM is inevitable? I said above (in an edit, so maybe you didn't see it) that I believed that it primarily because the bigots would be dying off and were not going to be replaced by upcoming generations.
While I certainly wouldn't use the terms you did, I have observed, like you, that acceptance of homosexual couples does vary inversely with age. And it's just not in the character of America to clamp down and restrict something after it has started to become legal and accepted. At least, such measures never last for very long, and never really have the intended effects (see Prohibition). With individual states already popping up in favor of SSM here and there, I just don't see a future where it doesn't become universally legal, without some serious cataclysmic change happening first to prevent it. And I don't really like cataclysms, so I prefer to discard those branches of the future timeline Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Puppy, that is all I am talking about. I think that religious discrimination against gays and SSM is wrong, but I will take that up with my own religion. As long as it isn't spilling over into legal discrimination, I have no business trying to change your religion.*
*Though discussing it can be fun.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: would demand that you be politically in favor of SSM being a recognized right
I could be misremembering, but I thought that was Geoff's stance?
I apologize if I conflate his view with his father's view. If so, that is clearly unfair- but merely an assumption I held.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
quote:I never get where you're coming from with this line of reasoning puppy. You come into it going "hey man, God bless America where we can all disagree and live together in harmony except gays shouldn't get to marry, haha ok we're best friends." It strikes a false note with me.
Perhaps the reason you don't get where I'm coming from is related to the fact that you're not reading my posts
Point of fact, I DO read your posts. You did not specifically talk about legal recognition, and even your idea of legal recognition is not satisfactory to me. What I said above holds for me.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: kmb, I may have misread your intentions. If you want to obliterate the LEGAL practice of restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, that's not nearly as worrisome to me as if you wanted to obliterate, for example, a religion with esoteric beliefs about the eternal significance of gender which make performing same-sex marriage within that religion impossible.
One of these things is against the establishment clause. The other is not. Problem solved.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
kmb, do you think that a distinction can be made between a religion that discriminates against gays for reasons of prejudice, and a religion that simply cannot perform gay marriages because they believe that gender distinctions hold some eternal significance that is important to the ritual and practice of marriage within their faith?
Basically, I guess I'm wondering if you personally think it's okay for a religion's doctrine to address and assign meaning to gender, or if doing so is inherently wrong?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yes, I think there is a distinction. I do not think that distinction is relevant when it comes to advocating a position of legal discrimination beyond their co-religionists.
Puppy, it depends on what you mean by "wrong". If you are asking if I agree with the doctrine, I do not. Good thing I am not Mormon. If you are asking if I think you have the right to believe it - as long as you don't try to push that doctrine outside of the sphere of your religion, of course you do. It isn't any of my business what consenting adults believe within their own churches.
Goodness knows, there is enough silliness in my own Church to deal with.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Basically, I guess I'm wondering if you personally think it's okay for a religion's doctrine to address and assign meaning to gender, or if doing so is inherently wrong?
This is an interesting question in general.
It's tough, and obviously I'd never want to force anyone to go along with me, but I do think it's morally mistaken for religions to teach that the distinction between male and female is something "correct" or intended by God, rather than a contingent accident of evolution. It might be a very beneficial accident of evolution that it would be fun or helpful to hold onto, but the idea that it's intrinsically good to hold onto the male/female distinction seems wrong to me.
I mean that biologically as well as culturally. I think a LeGuin-style civilization where people physically switch sex could be just as worthwhile as ours.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I think the fact that she states that it is wrong clearly demonstrates her belief that it is wrong. Is it unacceptable to you that others believe your religion is harming society? Because I do. But I also believe that the tools your religion needs to damage society's institutions would only be available if those institutions became too closely involved in your practices. I have also concluded that your beliefs are a natural outcome of human society, and though I do not share them, they are unavoidably attractive to many. I am not of the opinion that this will ever change, or that humans are capable of existing within one belief system at all. (Unless you consider that we currently live within one belief system consisting of all the creeds and religions and philosophies on Earth, that only appear to be different to those involved).
The inherent problem in the world's major religions is the insistence upon an objective morality they are left completely unable to account for, or live up to, let alone define.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: kmb, do you think that a distinction can be made between a religion that discriminates against gays for reasons of prejudice, and a religion that simply cannot perform gay marriages because they believe that gender distinctions hold some eternal significance that is important to the ritual and practice of marriage within their faith?
Basically, I guess I'm wondering if you personally think it's okay for a religion's doctrine to address and assign meaning to gender, or if doing so is inherently wrong?
What does that even mean? Suppose an individual is born into a certain religion and doesn't fit into the religious idea of their gender role due to their personality, then what do they do?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: "Marriage is a sacred institution that should be protected and reserved for individual faiths to define and perform as they see fit. While the government absolutely must provide equal privileges to all its citizens, it has no desire to redefine anyone's closely-held beliefs and traditions. Therefore, the legal contracts involved with joining a couple into a single unit will hereafter be called 'civil unions', and will be available to blah blah blah ..."
This makes sense because the law can't hold the word 'marriage' to a religious test. If the defense of keeping marriage for heterosexuals is strictly that law should protect and reserve the word because of its sacred status, it does not fly.
As a result, the removal of marriage from law is actually the best result that the current anti-ssm side could ever hope for, but what we will probably get is marriage for hets and homos alike, because it is not something they know to compromise for now.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: kmb, do you think that a distinction can be made between a religion that discriminates against gays for reasons of prejudice, and a religion that simply cannot perform gay marriages because they believe that gender distinctions hold some eternal significance that is important to the ritual and practice of marriage within their faith?
Basically, I guess I'm wondering if you personally think it's okay for a religion's doctrine to address and assign meaning to gender, or if doing so is inherently wrong?
What does that even mean? Suppose an individual is born into a certain religion and doesn't fit into the religious idea of their gender role due to their personality, then what do they do?
I assume it means they either have to come to some personal accomodation with the doctrine, challenge the doctrine, or leave the religion.
In any case, assuming they are adults and have chosen this religion and aren't trying to make anyone else live by it, it is their business.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Orincoro:
quote:Is it unacceptable to you that others believe your religion is harming society? Because I do.
Go ahead and believe what you want. I'm just hoping we can devise a legal system that doesn't let either of us punish the other one for their beliefs.
*
Destineer, I'm glad you liked the question I think that this is actually one of the core disagreements underlying this debate, but it rarely actually comes up in any discussions.
There is a philosophy that holds that men and women ought to be treated as though they are precisely similar in every way — and certainly, from a legal perspective, for most situations, I agree with it.
(There are times when physical differences force the law's hand — such as when the question of pregnancy or paternity comes up. In those cases, there is a real difference between what is going on with the mother, and what is going on with the father, and those have to be taken into account. And there are some inherent unfairnesses that are difficult to navigate. But speaking for most cases, precise equality is the only way to go.)
But I think this philosophy can be taken too far, and forcefit into situations where it doesn't work. The idea, for instance, that all psychological gender distinctions are socialized, and never inherent, and that boys can be socialized into girls, and vice versa — I think it strains credulity. What, we're the ONLY mammal in the world that doesn't have gender-distinctive instincts? What made us so special? This is a case where I think idealism causes people to forcefit their philosophy onto a situation where the facts don't line up.
(I DO believe that the differences between individual humans tend to be greater than the differences between broad classes of humans — such that you can't apply broad generalizations to individuals. IE, you can't say that "Suzy is a girl, and girls love dolls, and therefore, Suzy will love dolls." The broad classes still exist, and you can still make observations about them — as long as you recognize that those observations are only useful at a certain scale.)
Anyway, because I believe that men and women ARE actually different, on a broad scale, I think that it's perfectly legitimate for a religion or a culture to assign meaning to those differences, so long as they're ready to account for and support outliers (like doll-hating Suzy). I'd actually think it strange if they DIDN'T do so — it would be hard, I imagine, for such a society to come about without seeming very forced and awkward.
Gender is a very important part of an individual's identity, and I think people want to find meaning in, and expand upon, that aspect of their identity. Some turn to religion for those kinds of answers, and I think it's perfectly legitimate for religion to provide them.
It's typically a bad thing when the law comes in and tries to make those distinctions, but someone needs to. They matter to people. Culture and religion, in my mind, are the places where people ought to be able to turn for that sort of thing.
Anyway. Not going anywhere in particular with this. Just thought I'd explain my point of view because you explained yours Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
By the way, kmb, I hope there are no hard feelings about the fact that I pretty much opened a can on you back there I think I read your intentions differently than you meant them, and though I was surprised by what I read, I had a lot of built-up frustration to express
I presume that we still disagree, of course, but in a friendlier sort of way.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The inherent problem in the world's major religions is the insistence upon an objective morality they are left completely unable to account for, or live up to, let alone define.
You're missing three important 'to me' qualifiers here.
Normally I wouldn't point that out, because the 'IMO' is implicit in most everything on HR, but here it's important, because you're factually incorrect. Believers in those religions are able to account for, live up to, and define their 'objective moralities'.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I think the "account for" part is debatable. Neither of you have elaborated on your positions so the following is preemptive, but perhaps you two are using different definitions? I suspect that what Orincoro meant by "account for" was not just that religions have a source for their morality but that the validity of that source has been established. That's not the only way the phrase can be used but I think it's reasonable.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:The inherent problem in the world's major religions is the insistence upon an objective morality they are left completely unable to account for, or live up to, let alone define.
You're missing three important 'to me' qualifiers here.
Normally I wouldn't point that out, because the 'IMO' is implicit in most everything on HR, but here it's important, because you're factually incorrect. Believers in those religions are able to account for, live up to, and define their 'objective moralities'.
I see no evidence of that. But then, I suppose I wouldn't.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You see no evidence of any of those three things?
I can certainly see someone not seeing the part about being unable to account for it. I mean, that's a given-if you felt they could account for it, you'd belong to their religion, right?
But you can't see evidence that they can define or live up to their own objective moralities? That just doesn't follow at all, especially the first one. Obviously they can define them-helps keep religious bookstores in business, after all. And live up to them? Well, I suppose if you define 'live up to them' as 'perfect adherence', you'd be right-but I can't think of a single religion and certainly none we're talking about here that demands that level of compliance in order to be a member.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I guess technically, you could say that there is no "objective morality", because even assuming the existence of God, you could simply say that, in your opinion, He is wrong. Poof, it's subjective
In the end, with morality, I think you always end up having to say, "Yes, this is subjective, but what else can I do? I think this is right, and I hope I can persuade you." No matter what the source of your beliefs.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: By the way, kmb, I hope there are no hard feelings about the fact that I pretty much opened a can on you back there I think I read your intentions differently than you meant them, and though I was surprised by what I read, I had a lot of built-up frustration to express
I presume that we still disagree, of course, but in a friendlier sort of way.
No problem. Of course, no hard feelings. I'm not sure we even disagree all that much on SSM although I agree with Tom that selling civil unions for everybody is not going to happen even though it would be the best solution.
My point in comparing anti-SSM arguments today to anti-civil rights arguments is not to demonize anybody or even to deny that those fears are valid. It is to make the point that those arguments and fears are no more a reason to stop pushing for equality now than they were 40 years ago and no more reason to settle for less than equality.
I'm sure we do disagree on LDS doctrine, but I'm sure we disagree on Catholic doctrine, too. I'm not particularly fussed about that.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
You write articles with a certain tone and the result is having a lot of angry irritable people being angry and irritable.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
If two people think simularly, of course they can understand each other, despite beign members of the opposite sex because that's how it goes. Folks can understand each other if they explain things and communicate without expecting the other person to READ THEIR MINDS.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I got carried away. Is it worse to leave the offensive thing IN the post, or edit it out so later posts don't make sense? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)