I really appreciated the author's writing and goals, even if I don't agree with everything he says.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I didn't read the whole article, but I read the part about OSC, and am pleased to hear that is he is personable and open hearted a teacher.
Posted by Graeme (Member # 12543) on :
Enjoyed the article; thanks for the link. The author, Kevin Mims, expresses a view of OSC that I have sometimes shared: that he's a decent human being who faithfully supports his religion's views on gay marriage, even though such views are "on the wrong side of history." Mims makes an important distinction between a person who is a hate-monger and a person who adheres to a doctrine, wrong though it may be to many of us.
On the other hand... I recall reading OSC voice the theological opinion that morality isn't moral because God decrees it to be so, but rather that morality is moral because of the nature of morality itself, and God simply recognizes it to be so. If that is the case, then OSC must believe that gay marriage is immoral in and of itself, rather than simply a practice that is disallowed by his church and must therefore be censured by him, however he might personally feel about it. If my chain of reasoning is correct, then the fact that OSC is "merely" following his religious beliefs should not be a mitigating factor against our judgment of the man, as Mims seems to suggest it should.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the author might have lost me when he described Speaker for the Dead as young adult fiction. EG? Okay, sure, but the three that follow it? Not even kind of close.
But I enjoyed the nice things he had to say about OSC. My own brief interaction with OSC left me with the impression that he's an incredibly warm, nice guy.
Posted by Kelly1101 (Member # 12562) on :
"The whole literature of Earth is full of condemnation of people who hate others just for being strange and different," said Rigg. "Their histories are full of self-congratulations about how they've left such base impulses behind them. The worst thing their biographers and historians can say about a person is that he judges people on the basis of differences in their physical attributes, their languages, their cultures. How can they possibly come here and violate everything they believe?" Loaf only laughed. "Rigg, you're still so young. What would your father have said?"... Rigg sighed. "Yes, I know. The very fact that they condemn xenophobia so harshly is proof that they hadn't overcome it at all." "An aspirational virtue, not an achievement," said Olivenko.
Posted by Kelly1101 (Member # 12562) on :
Just read that bit, and thought of the current discussions here, and it made me "hmmm."
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think the author might have lost me when he described Speaker for the Dead as young adult fiction. EG? Okay, sure, but the three that follow it? Not even kind of close.
But I enjoyed the nice things he had to say about OSC. My own brief interaction with OSC left me with the impression that he's an incredibly warm, nice guy.
I think it is. At least Speaker. As a young adult who grew up with a disfunctional family, it struck a chord and resonated with me on a personal level. One of the characters from my teens I felt I could relate best with was Miro (ignoring the ela thing). In Xenocide the path and Jane subplots have a coming of age element to them, and in terms of accessible prose and use of language, they're pretty young adult in my opinion.
They're not exceptionally focused coming of age stories, if thats how we're defining it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
They're far too heavy on philosophy, especially in Xenocide and Children of the Mind for a YA book. I think they're books some young adults would enjoy. I certainly did when I first read them. But I wouldn't classify them as young adult fiction.
Not every bildungsroman is YA fiction.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Xenocide certainly doesn't qualify as bildungsroman. It's a real stretch to say that Jane and Gloriously Bright come of age in the book.
Posted by Kelly1101 (Member # 12562) on :
quote: It's a real stretch to say that Jane and Gloriously Bright come of age in the book. [/QB]
Really? Especially Qing Jao quite literally does go from childhood to adulthood during the course of the story, including her coming-of-age task.
So... ??? Why do you say it's a real stretch?
Posted by Scooter (Member # 6915) on :
That was interesting. Too bad so many people have no understanding of nuance. In this case, those who think opposition to same sex marriage is homophobia or hate. It is for some, probably many. However, for many, it is motivated by love and fairness--an effort to support a traditional institution that helps ensure children are born to and raised by their committed, biological mother and father, as an ideal. Exceptions happen, but that's different than changing the rules outright. Smart and compassionate people can disagree on this. Stop the name calling and character assassination. It works, but its slimy, no matter who does it.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I would honestly shift Speaker for the Dead and the rest of em' to Young Adult fiction at this point; things change over time and this is one of those things.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Love and fairness? Really? So it's love and fairness for a person who FINALLY has the right to fight in the military as an open gay person but they can't even have the same marriage rights? You do realize that some gay people have children, right? And allowing gays to marry doesn't change the rules. It just lets gays have the same marriage rights straight people enjoy. Like being able to make decisions for your sick partner or having the right to see them in the hospital.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
I'm reminded of this. Posted by Marcoudesept (Member # 12981) on :
I support OSC's right to have his views. I also find male-male homosexual kissing quite disgusting when i see it. However, marriage is not something to be "controled" by any religion. It is a state union. If he wishes to ban same sex "weddings" in a Christian church then I'll support his cause, But to attempt to control the "choice" of others in some legal capacity is far to close to Hitler's idealogy. Marrige is a legal issue. Churches cannot issue a "marriage" license. Church and state are separate for good historical reasons. At one time the same logic was issued to blacks and whites being married. Hell in some micro cultures its was just as much of an abomination for Italians and irish to marry. You may think its semantics but the same semantics can be used to call my jewish wife an "antichrist" and by association myself a satin worshiper.
Point of fact: What then wil be the fate of a hermaphrodite? By law then then could never legally marry anyone! You dont have to be a "torch" to see where this slippery slope will lead. Religious based "laws" are nothing short of an impending future repeat of the crusades
Posted by Marcoudesept (Member # 12981) on :
Honestly. Orson Scott Card being my favorite author, knowing he is an intelligent "big picture" seeing person by his writings, and almost having a hero type status for myself. Seeing him influenced by religious views at this capacity without understanding the oppression caused by the laws he is proprosing is starting to make me agree with the scientific atheist community that religion is a primitive vestigial restriction to human evolution.
In short, Scott's lack of understanding makes me question my kwn christian faith and inspires me to become an atheist.
Posted by Marcoudesept (Member # 12981) on :
Just think, any law banning same sex marriage is made mote by the fact that anyone can have a sex change operation. So either you require people to have an operation to adhere to the law or you also make sex change operations illegal. Its a lose-lose slope that just leads to increasing pointlessness and conflict. By no means does this law stop same sex marrige unless we give government control of every aspect of our bedroom practices and medical rights. In any aspect this is wrong. Just as atheism is a different religious view so is it to have a different religious veiw of God if you are a homosexual. In essence, your limiting religion in this country to chistian beliefs only. And lets also ban the polygamy of other mormon churches. Where does it end. If the gay rights groups attempt to force churches to marry same sexes then there is a cause to fight to the death for but to fight over same sex marrige is a premature panic born of illogical fear.!
Posted by Marcoudesept (Member # 12981) on :
See even im guilty of doing it. I ment to say... If gay rights groups attempt to force churches to preform sam sex "weddings" then there is a cause to fight to the death over... Marrige is not equal to weddings. A judge, ship's captain or mayor can marry you but only a religious representative can preform the "wedding" rites
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Fight to the death over? Really? And chances are there are gay friendly churches willing to perform gay marriages so they wouldn't have to force the gay unfriendly churches to do so. Dang. Deal with the gay swans already.
Posted by Marcoudesept (Member # 12981) on :
If anyone wants to make it illegal to preform "wedding rites" at a same sex marrige then here here! I will support you as will the majority of the public. But to ban same sex marrige by law is just government and secular religious oppression
Posted by Marcoudesept (Member # 12981) on :
Explaning "fight to the death over" it is wrong to force people to do something. If gay rights try to force christian churches to do something against there belief I would defend the church as if it was the American Revolution all over again. Likewise it is wrong to force a group to follow a religious belief to obtain a legal marriage.
Posted by Marcoudesept (Member # 12981) on :
Synesthesia, if your only going to pick at my obviously theatrical dramatic phrasing to discredit the logic you can not otherwise find any fault with you only add to its certainty of absoltion. Furthermore you should not mock someones post only to hypocritically do the same thing yourself by saying equally dramatic things like your "deal with gay swans" comment.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:if your only going to pick at my obviously theatrical dramatic phrasing to discredit the logic you can not otherwise find any fault with
Man. All idiots who post like you do should be skinned alive and fed to ferrets.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marcoudesept: A judge, ship's captain or mayor can marry you but only a religious representative can preform the "wedding" rites
I can perform rites. I am also in no way a religious representative.
Posted by Marcoudesept (Member # 12981) on :
You cannot perform christian church rights if your not recognized by the church. If you disagree then you have already disregarded any "religious sanctity" and have zero argument except for your proud desire to force your own will and beliefs on others like some tyrant dictator.
Furthermore, your "rights" would not be a legally recognized marriage since you cannot provide the license so it is seperate from religious beliefs. Thats why wiccans, atheists and even satan worshipers can get married. If the church wins against gays and all marriage is controlled by religious beliefs then which religion gets to dictate? Since jewish predates christian then can they dictate that all vows be spoken in hebrew and receptions eat Kosher? If you think that would be wrong to force on you then you will understand. That is where religious laws lead.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm telling you I can perform a wedding, including the rites which are part of a wedding. Where two people are married. I can do this while not being recognized by any church. At all.
I can also perform christian marriage rites. I am sorry if this is inconvenient to whatever you are trying to argue. It is up to the religious sects themselves to decide whether or not they want to consider this marriage valid in their eyes. Most do.
quote:Furthermore, your "rights" would not be a legally recognized marriage since you cannot provide the license so it is seperate from religious beliefs.
Yeah, and .. what?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I mean I know exactly what I can and can't do. 30 bucks and some signed forms and I can make two adults (or two people 16 and older with parental consent) legally married. Official with the state and everything.
Posted by Marcoudesept (Member # 12981) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I mean I know exactly what I can and can't do. 30 bucks and some signed forms and I can make two adults (or two people 16 and older with parental consent) legally married. Official with the state and everything.
And according to the law. You will be committing a crime if those people are not the "correct" paring according to the church (currently male and female but once you create the premise that church controls it it could be a crime to marry a Lutheran and catholic) That is what makes this law wrong, church and state should remain seperate. And just FYI you must be a preist to preform catholic rites. If you go through the motions and say the correct words then you doung the ceremony but its not true "catholic" unless you are ordained as a priest with years of dedication and faith.
Posted by Marcoudesept (Member # 12981) on :
So is the fear of corruption of the law by the church illogical? (afraid it may evolve to make a Catholic and Lutheran coupling illegal) YES it is. But it is an equal comparison to the fear of corrupting the "sanctity of marriage" so for the sake of debate and conflict all marriage laws should be left to the state and whether it's gay, interracial, interfaith or even interspecies (post 1st contact or if animals can gain citizenship) it should be a clinical legal decision by the state devoid of religious beliefs and restrictions or requirements.
Posted by Marcoudesept (Member # 12981) on :
The final religious point is that God created hermaphrodites, so you cannot make any law that can include them: 2 hermaphrodites would be a same sex marrige. A maph an a male would be a same sex marrige A maph and a female would be a same sex marrige. So unless you make an exclusion bastardizing the whole basus of the law, you will be oppressing a group and guilty of sexual discrimination.
If you think your judgment should overrule what is a natural sexual mutation (aka hemophilia caused by God) then you are equally guilty and as proud as lucifer before the fall. Let gays marry, listen to the teaching of Jesus and let God judge them and this who married them later.
[ April 10, 2013, 08:16 AM: Message edited by: Marcoudesept ]
Posted by Marcoudesept (Member # 12981) on :
For those that are unwilling to be logical here is the legal explanation: I have proven the 2 people of the same sex can copulate without being homosexual. Therefore they are not a threat to the "sanctity of marriage" and any laws agaist them being married are by all means discriminatory by nature.
I'd further think that, in this light, most religons would find this unjustly judgemental and left to a higher power to decide.
If any groups wish to stop "homosexual marrige" all laws and arguements will need to be changed to reflect that distinction before any further logical debate can be made.
Posted by Kelly1101 (Member # 12562) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marcoudesept: For those that are unwilling to be logical here is the legal explanation: I have proven the 2 people of the same sex can copulate without being homosexual.
LOL what?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
don't ask. just don't eat or drink anything, don't let him bite you, and get to the escape pods fast.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kelly1101:
quote:Originally posted by Marcoudesept: For those that are unwilling to be logical here is the legal explanation: I have proven the 2 people of the same sex can copulate without being homosexual.
LOL what?
The premise seems to be that one of them is a hermaphrodite, both a man and a woman at the same time. So regardless of whether s/he copulates with a man or a woman, it is a 50% homosexual, 50% heterosexual relationship.
Maybe we should call it a bi-sexual relationship? A relationship with a hermaphrodite probably doesn't quite work out, unless you are bi at least to some extent. A straight hetero would probably find genitals of his/her own sex a bit creepy.
I'm not sure if religious extremists necessarily agree that hermaphrodism is a God's creation. Isn't devil's influence on the world fairly important to them? - So they could argue that it was the devil who corrupted the body of the baby in the womb, but thankfully the baby's soul can still be saved. If he/she abstains from sex for the rest of his/her life, that is.
If people don't want to accept gay lifestyle, any excuse will do.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
Orthodox Christians do think that the fallenness of the world - the free choices of humans to reject God and the created order - has resulted in a lot of brokenness.
As a fairly orthodox Christian, I am quite angry with my church's silence on the issue of hemaphroditism, so I'm not sure I would agree that "not having sex ever" is the "correct" orthodox Christian position.
(Sad about the sidetracking of the thread)
Posted by DarkWyndre (Member # 6402) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Fight to the death over? Really? And chances are there are gay friendly churches willing to perform gay marriages so they wouldn't have to force the gay unfriendly churches to do so. Dang. Deal with the gay swans already.
It seems like it is an issue to fight to the death over. In states where same gender "marriage" has been approved, there have already been same-sex couples who sought out conservative churches and requested that those churches perform a "wedding" ceremony and host it for them, and the churches declined.
Now those churches are being sued and for most churches that's a death sentence. Churches, unless they are wildly popular (and then they are generally giving a watered down feel good message and going out of their way to avoid stepping on anyone's toes), barely make ends meet. They rely upon the faithful giving of their membership in order to maintain their staff and facilities and most good ones (the ones being sought out and sued for "discrimination") use whatever is left to try and help their communities. In general, Churches in our country provide a tremendous amount of free counseling, food, monetary assistance, and general support for the needy in ways that our government just never could effectively.
These are the institutions that same-sex couples are intentionally setting out to destroy. They go into the situation knowing the Church will say no to their request because their entire goal is to sue the church and bury them in legal costs that mean the church ceases to exist.
So tell me ... who will be left to care for the poor and the needy when the people on the "right" side of history have driven them into the dust in their "crusade" against intolerance.
I fear that these folks have become the very thing they purport to oppose. They call people like Mr. Card hatemongers but there's nothing hateful about pointing out that children have the best outcome when they grow up in a stable family with their biological parents. Study after study confirm that as the absolute ideal.
Why would any of us be upset at someone who wants to give children, our most precious resource, the best possible chance at a meaningful and fruitful life?
I've covered a lot of ground with this post, and maybe a lot of it deserves its own expanded posts. Maybe I'll make a longer post sometime or start a blog but I think we as a species need to wake up from this madness that has gripped us. We won't survive it.
Posted by DarkWyndre (Member # 6402) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: but thankfully the baby's soul can still be saved. If he/she abstains from sex for the rest of his/her life, that is.
Can you please show me in the Bible where it says that in order for someone to be saved they must forever after the moment of salvation life a sinless existence?
Let me help you out a bit - Romans 7:7-25 -- I will provide the text for you so that you need not exert yourself to find it. The Bible's model for what a Christian is and ought to be wrote this:
What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now zit is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For d delight in the law of God, en my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
---------------
I find that this quite perfectly describes the nature of sin and the relationship of mankind to it. Even in salvation we still wrestle with it.
If you want to attack the beliefs of someone, you may want to actually take the time to find out what their beliefs actually are. No true Christian would ever make the statement you made in the quote above. Only someone who goes to church and styles themself a Christian without having any actual connection to what that means would think that way, and Christ was very clear on how He would deal with them.
P.S. - If you're curious you might want to search in Matthew for the part where Jesus begins with "Many will say to me on that day "Lord, Lord have I not..." and see what He has to say about people faking it or those who think they are special and chosen because of the things they said and did.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It seems like it is an issue to fight to the death over. In states where same gender "marriage" has been approved, there have already been same-sex couples who sought out conservative churches and requested that those churches perform a "wedding" ceremony and host it for them, and the churches declined.
Now those churches are being sued and for most churches that's a death sentence.
Errr...that has not happened. I'm not sure who told you it has, but they're lying.
quote:They call people like Mr. Card hatemongers but there's nothing hateful about pointing out that children have the best outcome when they grow up in a stable family with their biological parents. Study after study confirm that as the absolute ideal.
This is also not true. Adopted children do not show a consistent difference in functioning than non-adopted ones. Did you get these from the same source?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkWyndre: ...I think we as a species need to wake up from this madness that has gripped us. We won't survive it.
I sure hope this hyperbole.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkWyndre: In states where same gender "marriage" has been approved, there have already been same-sex couples who sought out conservative churches and requested that those churches perform a "wedding" ceremony and host it for them, and the churches declined.
Now those churches are being sued and for most churches that's a death sentence.
To echo Mr. Squicky, this is a load of horse pucky. Churches are not "public accommodations" as defined by anti-discrimination laws and as such are free to discriminate however they please.
Want to get married in a Catholic church? Can't do that if you're Jewish. Can't do that if you're Muslim. Can't even do that if you're Catholic but have previously divorced!
You can't even ATTEND a Mormon Temple Wedding unless you're a Mormon with a temple recommend.
Again, this is perfectly legal discrimination (as would be discrimination against gay marriages) because churches are not public accommodations (they are more akin to private clubs). This is the same reason the Boy Scouts can engage in employment discrimination by not hiring gay men.
Who CAN'T discriminate? The government (obviously) and by extension those who accept government money, and public businesses. If you run a public bed and breakfast, you can't hang a "no Jews" or "no Blacks" sign, and the same goes for "no gays" (assuming sexual orientation is a protected class in your jurisdiction). Like it or not, the law says if you want to do business with the public, you must do business fairly - but this has no bearing on churches.
All of this is pretty well moot anyway; simply because of the made-up hysteria over this very subject, all of the recent gay-marriage laws (an undoubtedly every one in the future) include specific wording allowing religious institutions to deny same-sex ceremonies.
Posted by Scooter (Member # 6915) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Love and fairness? Really? So it's love and fairness for a person who FINALLY has the right to fight in the military as an open gay person but they can't even have the same marriage rights? You do realize that some gay people have children, right? And allowing gays to marry doesn't change the rules. It just lets gays have the same marriage rights straight people enjoy. Like being able to make decisions for your sick partner or having the right to see them in the hospital.
As you well know, marriage rights are exactly the same regardless of sexual orientation, but that's not the point. Many are for maintaining the traditional definition of marriage because they believe ultimately it gives future generations of children the best chance to thrive. That is a loving and fairness oriented motive. You can disagree with how the dots are connecte but it is ignorant or disingenuous to label such people as haters or bigots or religious zealots.
Frankly, people like to frame this as a church vs state issue. It is much easier to argue for same sex marriage that way. But it is just not that simple and religion need not enter the discussion. Plenty of religious people don't understand this either.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:As you well know, marriage rights are exactly the same regardless of sexual orientation, but that's not the point. Many are for maintaining the traditional definition of marriage because they believe ultimately it gives future generations of children the best chance to thrive. That is a loving and fairness oriented motive. You can disagree with how the dots are connecte but it is ignorant or disingenuous to label such people as haters or bigots or religious zealots.
I don't see how they could not be bigots. That gay people can't raise healthy children has long been disproven. So, they want to legislate against a group of people based on a patently false belief in that group's inferiority. How could that not be considered bigotry?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Many are for maintaining the traditional definition of marriage because they believe ultimately it gives future generations of children the best chance to thrive.
That is the rub. It isn't that their beliefs from their point of view are evil, it's that the end result of their (false) beliefs is the oppression of a whole group of people.
It really truly doesn't matter what you believe if your beliefs are harming others and provably wrong. I hate to go there, but seriously, the Nazis believed they were doing something good for mankind by exterminating the Jews and homosexuals.
Of course it is a bit easier to spot the elephant in the room when it's running amok, killing people. It's a bit harder to spot when all you are taking away is people's right to marry who they choose, to make medical choices for their loved ones and to visit and comfort them when they are dying. Cause you know, it's for the good of mankind.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote: That is the rub. It isn't that their beliefs from their point of view are evil, it's that the end result of their (false) beliefs is the oppression of a whole group of people.
The end result of all wrong beliefs tends to be harm towards people. Including wrong beliefs that progressives may have.
Have you tried identifying some wrong belief which is nonetheless held by your favourite political group? What is the wrongest and/or most damaging you can think of?
quote:Cause you know, it's for the good of mankind.
You know, we progressives also feel we're doing something good for mankind when we're advocating same-sex marriage.
I really don't see how your argument works one bit against conservatives or reactionaries that oppose same-sex marriage that it wouldn't likewise work against progressives who support it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Have you tried identifying some wrong belief which is nonetheless held by your favourite political group?
I don't really have a favorite political group. I tend to stay out of politics because they drive me -crazy-. Ever notice I almost never post in political threads? It's cause I don't read them. But of course your point is accurate, every group, even white hats has a view that goes too far and could be seen as harmful.
quote:You know, we progressives also feel we're doing something good for mankind when we're advocating same-sex marriage.
I really don't see how your argument works one bit against conservatives or reactionaries that oppose same-sex marriage that it wouldn't likewise work against progressives who support it.
My argument isn't that anyone who says they are doing something good for mankind is clearly evil, that would be silly. My argument is that the stated purpose of "the betterment of mankind" is horrible excuse to oppress people. If "progressives" are advocating oppression for that reason, they are just as wrong as "conservatives".
Also, catch the phrase I used "provably wrong". I.e. children raised by gay couples have a disadvantage in life.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
DarkWyndre,
First off, before this branch of the conversation goes any further: I'd like to see some examples-even just one-of this growing epedemic of same sex couples heading to conservative churches and attempting to insist they be married there, and then suing if/when they aren't permitted to do so. I'll be candid: I don't believe you actually know this is happening-just that it is something you've been told and believe.
Second: I don't know if anyone else has told you this before, but your religion is just that. Yours. The only way you get to legislate it is if enough of your fellow citizens agree with you to basically force the matter in spite of some pretty serious constitutional roadblocks that are intended to prevent that sort of thing. Throughout most of our history, that's been pretty simple and straightforward to accomplish. Recently though it's begun to become difficult.
Well, this is now, now, and I don't care what a bunch of Bronze Age spiritualists have to say about morality and what we in the 21st century ought to be doing with respect to our sexual conduct. You can care all you like-that's fine, that's you're right, and I'm happy you have that right.
So you can use whatever scriptural arguments you like, you can claim the Bible shows us how wrong an dangerous it is to permit same sex marriage until the cows come home, but what you can't do and expect to be taken seriously is insist that these 'arguments' of yours ought to carry even an ounce of weight with anyone who doesn't already agree with them. There are more and more people in this country, myself among them, for whom your religious arguments in support of a religious law are no more persuasive than if a vestal virgin were to appear and instruct us in proper sexual conduct.
------------
quote:As you well know, marriage rights are exactly the same regardless of sexual orientation, but that's not the point. Many are for maintaining the traditional definition of marriage because they believe ultimately it gives future generations of children the best chance to thrive. That is a loving and fairness oriented motive. You can disagree with how the dots are connecte but it is ignorant or disingenuous to label such people as haters or bigots or religious zealots.
Certainly many opponents tell themselves that this is a 'loving and fairness oriented motive'. Quite a lot of them surely do believe it, and there isn't any self-deception in the matter for them. But Scooter, I think you can take just a brief look at history-at recent American history, no less-and see how poor a rationalization that is when we look at other questions on which Americans have historically thought 'this is for the best' or 'this produces the best outcome in the long run' or 'this is just the way things are meant to be, and we're best served by adhering to that'.
quote:Frankly, people like to frame this as a church vs state issue. It is much easier to argue for same sex marriage that way. But it is just not that simple and religion need not enter the discussion. Plenty of religious people don't understand this either.
People like to frame it as a church vs state issue (that's not quite how I'd put it, but I know what you mean) because ultimately that's what it is. On the one hand there is a viewpoint that exists only because of religion-disapproval of homosexuality. You can't point to a group of people who arrived at disapproval of homosexuality completely free of any sort of religious background or influence. The closest you can get is, themselves a minority of the opposition, people who claim secular reasons to disapprove but when examined those reasons are shown to be...paltry.
On the other hand you've got the other side which sees nothing wrong with it and when told there is something wrong with it by opponents bluntly asks, "What?" and never, not once, have we gotten a reason that was free from religion that was persuasive on its own grounds. If you wish to dispute this claim, Scooter, by all means do so-tell us what evidence supports the claim that children of a happy, loving, diligent and monogamous same-sex couple can't be just as well adjusted and capable as adults as can those of heterosexual couples.
Posted by DarkWyndre (Member # 6402) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QB] DarkWyndre,
First off, before this branch of the conversation goes any further: I'd like to see some examples-even just one-of this growing epedemic of same sex couples heading to conservative churches and attempting to insist they be married there, and then suing if/when they aren't permitted to do so. I'll be candid: I don't believe you actually know this is happening-just that it is something you've been told and believe.
Second: I don't know if anyone else has told you this before, but your religion is just that. Yours. The only way you get to legislate it is if enough of your fellow citizens agree with you to basically force the matter in spite of some pretty serious constitutional roadblocks that are intended to prevent that sort of thing. Throughout most of our history, that's been pretty simple and straightforward to accomplish. Recently though it's begun to become difficult.
Well, this is now, now, and I don't care what a bunch of Bronze Age spiritualists have to say about morality and what we in the 21st century ought to be doing with respect to our sexual conduct. You can care all you like-that's fine, that's you're right, and I'm happy you have that right.
So you can use whatever scriptural arguments you like, you can claim the Bible shows us how wrong an dangerous it is to permit same sex marriage until the cows come home, but what you can't do and expect to be taken seriously is insist that these 'arguments' of yours ought to carry even an ounce of weight with anyone who doesn't already agree with them. There are more and more people in this country, myself among them, for whom your religious arguments in support of a religious law are no more persuasive than if a vestal virgin were to appear and instruct us in proper sexual conduct.
I really appreciate the assertion in your post that I am just a mindless drone who can't think for myself and just parrot what other people say. Here's the first google result for "Same sex couple sues church". There are tens of thousands of results.
You may want to read why I quoted any scripture in the thread. Someone made an asinine statement and I simply pointed out that the sacred text in which Mr. Card believes doesn't promote such nonsense: people do.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ok, well clearly reality is determined by the number of Google search hits. Like I said: show some evidence that this is actually happening. You haven't yet-and in fact, I just did a search myself...and the first few results weren't even over a refused marriage at all.
I don't think you're a mindless drone, and didn't say so. I said you believed something you didn't actually know was true, and you haven't shown you do know it.
As for what it promotes: of course it does promote this 'nonsense'. You don't get to claim only the good stuff.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkWyndre: I really appreciate the assertion in your post that I am just a mindless drone who can't think for myself and just parrot what other people say. Here's the first google result for "Same sex couple sues church". There are tens of thousands of results.
If there are tens of thousands, perhaps you can find one better than this. The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association did this:
1) Open their land to public use.
2) Applied for (and received) a tax subsidy of ~$500,000 per year since 1989 in exchange for officially making their property a public "open space."
3) Rent out the pavilion to the public for various private events, including non-Christian weddings.
At this point, they turned their space into a public accommodation as I described in my earlier post. They are no longer a private religious institution, but rather a business open to the general public (and getting a half million dollar a year tax break from the public, to boot).
They can't suddenly turn around and say, But when we said this was a public open space we didn't mean for LESBIANS!
This has no bearing on actual churches that do actual churchy things and actual churchy weddings.
Posted by tesuji (Member # 13015) on :
Mr. Card is being persecuting for his beliefs. That is obviously wrong. I stand with him and I oppose intolerance.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Mr. Card is being persecuting[sic] for his beliefs.
...How?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yes, because people are pushing laws stating he cannot practice his religion or marry who he wants. He's so oppressed.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
Persecuted is perhaps not a good word choice. There certainly isn't a systemic attempt to shut him or his religion down using the official structures of government. However, I think the repeated insistence that he is not only wrong, but personally evil, cruel, hateful, and deserving of serious bodily, financial, and other harm is unwarranted.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:However, I think the repeated insistence that he is not only wrong, but personally evil, cruel, hateful, and deserving of serious bodily, financial, and other harm is unwarranted.
I'd agree. Unwarranted. Also, pretty much non-existent.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:However, I think the repeated insistence that he is not only wrong, but personally evil, cruel, hateful, and deserving of serious bodily, financial, and other harm is unwarranted.
I'd agree. Unwarranted. Also, pretty much non-existent.
You apparently haven't read the Comment sections of the recent news articles about Card. There are plenty of people wishing him all kinds of harm.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
Yup. It's really common on the social media sites I track as well.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Why are you reading comments sections. They're the horrible background radiation of humanity.
Death threats in commentary are completely non-noteworthy. Welcome to the internet. There are death threats in comments for Lets Play videos because a guy has a nasally voice, or because he didn't take the Future pole in Quartz Quadrant of Sonic CD. Having a political position will bring you death threats one hundred percent of the time always everywhere always. I receive death threats in my inbox and everything. I don't categorize my opposition based on the fact that I do.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkWyndre: Here's the first google result for "Same sex couple sues church". There are tens of thousands of results.
What would it demonstrate about your logic if I were to post the first google result for "conservatives are homophobic" and note that there are fourteen million results for that query?
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
I'm not claiming that it's necessarily unusual to have death/injury threats on the internet. I don't think that their ubiquity is a reason not to 1) say that they're unwarranted (in all circumstances, certainly not just in this one); 2) notice that it's not just the comments sections, but almost every blog post, even sites that tend to be more professional.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:However, I think the repeated insistence that he is not only wrong, but personally evil, cruel, hateful, and deserving of serious bodily, financial, and other harm is unwarranted.
I'd agree. Unwarranted. Also, pretty much non-existent.
You apparently haven't read the Comment sections of the recent news articles about Card. There are plenty of people wishing him all kinds of harm.
Of course I didn't. As a general rule, I don't read anonymous internet comments. From what I can see, this is absent from any of the people who are going on record or representing legitimate groups that are advocating a boycott.
However, after you said that this was from comments after news stories, I went to several news sites and did read through the top comments and I didn't find what was claimed. Could you point out to me where you are seeing this happen?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: I don't think that their ubiquity is a reason not to 1) say that they're unwarranted (in all circumstances, certainly not just in this one); 2) notice that it's not just the comments sections, but almost every blog post, even sites that tend to be more professional.
As I said, I'm not seeing these comments. Could you link me to where they are?
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
The "Orson Scott Card" and "Ender's Game" tags on tumblr are my biggest exposure.
I think there's also a difference between the way someone who thinks that opposing same-sex marriage is evil and reads "I hate Orson Scott Card and he's such a dick" and the way someone who opposes same-sex marriage would read that kind of remark.
I mean, if you think that the reactions of people who oppose same-sex marriage are automatically worthless, that's certainly your prerogative. But the comments on news stories seem extraordinarily hostile and rude to me, while they struck you as unoffensive and perhaps justified.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You didn't say they were rude. You said that they said he was deserving of serious bodily harm. I signed up for Tumblr and looked at the tags that you suggested and didn't find anything of the sort in the first 30 or so entries for each.
Surely if this is really common as you have claimed, you could show me one example of it.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
You may have a point. I went on a backwards trek through the tags, and I think I may have gotten a mistaken impression, since I check the tags several times a day, and thus might have seen a few of the posts so many times I thought there were more of them than there were.
The posts that I was referring primarily to are (warning: links are fairly offensive. I thought about excerpting them here, but then there's a chance that OSC or his family might read them, and that's just mean. I provide them only to give context for what I was talking about earlier.):
Asking a Mormon what he thinks about conservative issues is about like asking a Wolf what he thinks about vegetarianism. Why bother asking?
It doesn't appear that Mr. Card uses his fictional art to promote or oppose any of these "hot topic" views. I have read them all. I can't say that about the liberal writers of television fiction.
When people ask Mr. Card for his opinion, and he actually gives it (fairly courageous) he is then persecuted for his reply. He is not running for political office. Good grief, if people stopped watching TV shows based on the political opinions of the screenwriters, most shows would go unwatched. I don't fully agree with Mr. Card's philosophy about gay marriages, but he is NOT trying to impose it on us, is he?
I think OSC will be categorized with the other great, blacklisted authors. Read the history of S.L Clemens).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by roadranger: Asking a Mormon what he thinks about conservative issues is about like asking a Wolf what he thinks about vegetarianism. Why bother asking?
It doesn't appear that Mr. Card uses his fictional art to promote or oppose any of these "hot topic" views. I have read them all. I can't say that about the liberal writers of television fiction.
When people ask Mr. Card for his opinion, and he actually gives it (fairly courageous) he is then persecuted for his reply. He is not running for political office. Good grief, if people stopped watching TV shows based on the political opinions of the screenwriters, most shows would go unwatched. I don't fully agree with Mr. Card's philosophy about gay marriages, but he is NOT trying to impose it on us, is he?
I think OSC will be categorized with the other great, blacklisted authors. Read the history of S.L Clemens).
First: not all Mormons are politically conservative, and even if they are they're not animals and don't get a pass on it (or extra credit, mind) just because they're 'doing what comes naturally'.
Second: I do actually think it takes some guts to be open about opinions he knows will be unpopular. Though really that applies now much more than it did ten much less twenty years ago. Opposed to gay marriage in 2003? Not surprising. Common even, and hardly courageous. Opposed in 1993? not even remotely surprising and not at all courageous. And it needs to be said: given his activism over the years it would take a lot of work to begin to walk back his expressed opinion at this point, 2013, when the issue is (finally) beginning to turn decisively against him. So sure, he gets some guts-credit for not shying away from the issue (though strangely he has begun to, now that it's likely tied to a chunk of money) but it's not as though he could easily do so.
Third: he's not running for political office but he's a soldier in a battle of ideas. He has aggressively and even viciously attacked people and ideas in that particular battle in the past. No sense trying to hold him up as being unfairly treated given that.
Fourth: absolutely he's trying to impose something. NOM and all that.
Posted by roadranger (Member # 13035) on :
He was not soliciting his opinion, he was asked for it.
He should be allowed to defend his opinions and character with as much vigor used by his attackers.
His harsh-sounding verbal "attack" was actually a "defense."
He would probably avoid talking to people who are incapable of listening to the "whole answer," but they look like everybody else.
[ August 07, 2013, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: roadranger ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Uh, have you really read his books? Look at some of the Bean ones. One had a speech from a gay dude about getting married and having babies being the only way to be part of the web of life. 90% of Ender in Exile was nagging and lecturing about monogamy and babies. Just about every character had to stop and preach. Someone in Law and Order SVU, for example might spout on about the importance of vaccinating kids or something but another character is at least allowed to disagree. Like how Stabler is like, I am anti-abortion. And Benson is like, well I am pro abortion. And they are partners and such and both can spout their points. Get OSC to write Law and Order SVU (DON'T WRITE LAW AND ORDER SVU! It's one of my favourite shows!) and it would be like this-
Benson-I think I should quit being a cop and get married and have babies because heterosexual marriage is the only way to create a healthy family and as a woman I really should be pumping out the babies.
Stabler-I agree. Why am I a cop when I too could be impregnating my wife some more? I already have 5 kids, but what's several more kids?
Rapist-Why should I run around raping women, when I too could just marry one and have babies with her?
Stabler-Yes, because the meaning of life is having babies, babies, more babies, but only if you are married heterosexuality.
Benson-I agree.
(They all skip off into the sunset)
And no, it's not a defense when you are saying that certain members of the population are playing dress up in their parents clothes. Dude is being a jerk and should never, ever, EVER write law and order SVU.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
he's not trying to
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Goody. ^-^
I'm just currently obsessed with that show.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by roadranger: He was not soliciting his opinion, he was asked for it.
He should be allowed to defend his opinions and character with as much vigor used by his attackers.
His harsh-sounding verbal "attack" was actually a "defense."
He would probably avoid talking to people who are incapable of listening to the "whole answer," but they look like everybody else.
In this particular case? Alright. Please don't try to suggest, though, that this is the usual flow of these sorts of reactions to Card's statements. He offers his opinion wholesale, through columns, books, and his own political activism, frequently. At some point he loses the defense of 'why are you coming to pester me'?
He's certainly allowed to do so. You, however, are criticizing people for being antagonistic and aggressive towards his opinions as though he hasn't done much worse himself-and for longer. Or are we to pretend that over the generation he's been politicking and writing about these matters, he's been the victim?
I've been reading Card for almost twenty years now and have read his work from before that and when it comes to politics over the past decade, he's rarely missed a chance to mingle attack and defense quite vigorously.
It's interesting that you assert people won't listen to his 'whole answer'. Can you provide an example, or is your suggestion to be accepted at face value?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Wow. I've read him for about 21 years. Dang. Longer than I've read Neil Gaiman. And I've read quite a few books, columns, read the Ender series several times. Heck, even when he was doing his whole GAYS ARE BAD spiel I was still reading him.
For a while until he started LECTURING. It's even annoying when people I agree with do it though. Like having every character in a story go, "I believe in treating everyone with equality and respect."
"Well I am the bad guy having exploded everyone, but I believe that we should never smash spiders. Ever. We should instead leave them alone."
"And I'm some random nun that just walked by and I also believe we should not smash spiders, gays should get married, we should never circumcise infants ever, and that everyone who sees Synesthesia should give her chocolate, live spiders and money."
"Yes, I'm some random old man who has seen war and doom and I also agree with all of those things too."
If I do that as a writer, find me and put centipedes in my underwear or force me to look at tryophobia pictures. I hate the writer possessing characters and making them nag the reader about their political and social points of view.