posted
Personally, while I didn't agree with the way he said everything, I think he was pretty right on about most everything else.
OSC was courageous to write as he did, as bluntly as he did. I agree what David said about this being an issue to divide the nation, even more so than abortion -- but I agree largely because abortion and other judicial "interpretations" of the Constitution have worn people down and gay marriage is the straw that broke the camel's back.
Another interesting article on the topic, but looking at the results so far of redefining marriage in Scandinavia:
ho·mo·pho·bia Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-& Function: noun : irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
vit·ri·ol Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin vitriolum, alteration of Late Latin vitreolum,neuter of vitreolus glassy, from Latin vitreus vitreous 2 : something felt to resemble vitriol especially in caustic quality; especially : virulence of feeling or of speech
hate·ful Pronunciation: 'hAt-f&l Function: adjective 1 : full of hate : MALICIOUS 2 : deserving of or arousing hate
in·tol·er·ant Pronunciation: -r&nt Function: adjective 1 : unable or unwilling to endure 2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : BIGOTED
I think that all four of these definitions fit the above essay to a T.
quote:So if my friends insist on calling what they do "marriage," they are not turning their relationship into what my wife and I have created, because no court has the power to change what their relationship actually is.
Instead they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected status of our, and every other, real marriage.
They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won't be married. They'll just be playing dress-up in their parents' clothes.
quote:The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.
It's that desire for normality, that discontent with perpetual adolescent sexuality, that is at least partly behind this hunger for homosexual "marriage."
They are unhappy, but they think it's because the rest of us "don't fully accept them."
Homosexual "marriage" won't accomplish what they hope. They will still be just as far outside the reproductive cycle of life. And they will have inflicted real damage on those of us who are inside it.
quote:All the while, the P.C. elite will be shouting at dismayed parents that it is somehow evil and bigoted of them not to rejoice when their children commit themselves to a reproductive dead end.
But there is nothing irrational about parents grieving at the abduction-in-advance of their grandchildren.
quote:anti-family revolution
quote:we perceive, correctly, that schools are being legally obligated to brainwash our children to despise the values that keep civilization alive.
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.
quote:It is the most morally conservative portion of society that is most successful in raising children who believe in loyalty and oath-keeping and self-control and self-sacrifice.
And we're tired of being subject to barbarian rules and laws that fight against our civilized values. We're not interested in risking our children's lives to defend a nation that does not defend us.
posted
Frankly, I found OSC's article beautiful. Whether or not you agree with him, his words have Power. I felt inspired and loved through those words. I was awestruck by the vulnerability and care he put into them. I am glad that someone is out there doing his level best to change the world through love and faith and putting himself on the line for what he believes is true.
All the things Card says about children and being civilized are true. Children do BEST when they can be guided by loving adults who bring both a male and female perspective to their upbringing. As a teacher, I work with parents and children from all sorts of families (single-parent, divorces and remarriages, even homosexual). All I know is that most parents truly care about their kids and want the best for them. But it's harder for the singles and divorcees. And their personal issues very much affect their children. Now, mind you, strong and loving parents and kids will survive. Those who truly care about each other. But many, unfortunately, do suffer. I really appreciated Card's unabashed advocacy of strong families.
I don't agree with him on all particulars. The message from his piece that came across through his article was that "someone/something is out to destroy all that is good and right in this world." Blame it on Society, Government, Religion, whatever... It's a boring idea to me. I was raised UberConservative Christian, and the Devil was always in the schools, the media, and pretty much everywhere. But it's not true, and it's too easy to blame what you don't like in society on something Other.
I think that what's really wrong is that people are either afraid or unwilling to look at the consequences of their actions. Religions are wonderful because they do ask their adherents to live a self-examined life. But in this day and age, most churches prescribe rather than question.
Living in society has never been easy. I just wanted to say to OSC "I've got your back", and I am proud to live in the same world with him. Keep fighting the good fight, and if we differ on particulars, that's okay.
I, myself, see little threat in gay marriages, but that is because I see marriage as a choice two people make together. But whether a child's parents are married or long-time lovers that might as well be married seems to make little difference. It is the commitment between the partners, to each other and their children, that makes all the difference in the world. If my marriage were annulled or declared illegal, my status and commitment to my family would be unchanged. No amount of money or labelling would change the commitment I have to my family.
In South Africa, when Gandhi was there, all marriages that were not Christian were declared illegal. The famous March Gandhi led was begun, in part, by that legislation. He and his wife were Hindu. Does this current issue fall so far from that one?
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
I am not going to argue the homosexual side of this.
I am not going to argue the religious side of this.
I am going to back up Bokonon and talk about the legal side of this.
What the Mass Supreme Court did was not MAKE NEW LAW. They had people come to them and say, "Hey, there is a loop hole in the constitution that can allow gay folks to get married. Does it say what we think it says?"
The court did the one thing it is allowed to do. It looked over the laws and the constitution, and it said, "You are right." That was all they had to do.
However, they went further.
They added, "We don't think this is what the legislature meant to say. We don't think its what the people of Mass want. We are going to postpone our ruling on this for two months so that the legislature is allowed to correct this. If they don't then we will be forced to read the law as written and allow Gay marriages."
They were not "Legislating from the bench." They did everything in their power to return the legislation to the Legislative body. All that was needed was to have the duly elected representatives vote on an amendment that defined gay marriage.
It is not the Courts fault that the Legislature were too busy campaigning and arguing to create the law they were given the opportunity to create.
Changing the constitution of the State of Mass. would have been Legislating from the bench. The court REFUSED to do that.
So conservative pundit and people like OSC and President Bush scream about Activist Courts.
What they are really miffed at is that the court did not take the opportunity to Legislate From The Bench--IN THEIR FAVOR.
Attacking our courts and our judicial system is as dangerous to our society as any attack on marriage.
It is that Attack that I think is overwhelmingly [b]WRONG[\b] with Mr. Cards essay.
quote:They are unhappy, but they think it's because the rest of us "don't fully accept them."
Tom has flat-out said that he believes the destructive elements of the gay culture - promiscuity, high suicide rate, et. al. - are the result of not being accepted by larger society.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh, Ayelar, when people of vastly differing opinions (gay marriage SHOULD be allowed vs. gay marriage SHOULD NOT be allowed) talk, it is, pretty much of necessity, going to be us vs. them.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Jeni, but I got the impression that OSC was talking more about US (the civilized heterosexuals) versus THEM (the anti-family gays). In other words, I saw a great deal of dehumanizing of homosexuals. Furthermore, I think much of what OSC wrote was specifically designed to make the reader feel frightened of homosexuals, whom he repeatedly insinuates (or flat-out claims) are anti-family barbarians out to destroy "our" way of life and "abduct our grandchildren".
posted
I didn't see it that way. I saw it as dehumanizing the Powers that Be which are unfriendly toward Card's deeply held beliefs in the family.
I guess he did mention something about a shadowy agenda, which I just don't see, but then again every writer who strongly advocates a point of view says such things about their antagonists.
I never will understand this hidden "agenda" business. Really, people! Conservatives aren't out to Destroy the Environment, Pagans aren't out to Subvert our Children, and Homosexuals aren't out to Twist our Morality. People are just trying to live their lives, and their priorities don't necessarily follow yours. It doesn't mean that they hate you because you choose a different Prime Directive and Modus Operandi.
Still, I can handle people having this fear of the Secret Agenda. I do think we'll make more progress once that concept is out of the way.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I read, OSC is calling the people who would demean strong family ties the barbarians. Not the homosexuals. OSC takes issue with "society" and "liberals", from what I can tell.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ayelar, despite not agreeing with him, I could easily see that the barbarian hordes of Scott's essay were all the people (straight and gay) who want to push for the redefinition of marriage, not just the gays who work toward that end. So his "us versus them" is "people who want to keep marriage as is versus people who want to redefine it." See? Your own preconceptions and biases, your own vitriolic intolerance of conservative ideas, is coloring your ability to read and understand this essay.
Posts: 1144 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:They added, "We don't think this is what the legislature meant to say. We don't think its what the people of Mass want. We are going to postpone our ruling on this for two months so that the legislature is allowed to correct this. If they don't then we will be forced to read the law as written and allow Gay marriages."
They were not "Legislating from the bench." They did everything in their power to return the legislation to the Legislative body. All that was needed was to have the duly elected representatives vote on an amendment that defined gay marriage.
Dan, you don't see the inherent bullying here? The court essentially said that if the legislative branch doesn't do what they say, they'll interpret it to mean that Gay Marriage is lawful and constitutional. Essentially it's you can do what I want your way, or you can do what I want my way. Either way, you'll do what I want. Period.
I'd call that an abuse of power, whether from the bench or the backyard.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think its fascinating that a large number of people are denouncing one set of declamations but not the other, on both sides. I'd say people who see hate in OSC's comments are just as wrong as he is, though I can see how one can be confused as what he says seems clearly designed to hurt certain groups. However, trying to hurt him in return is not warranted, just as his attempts to hurt are not warranted.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note: I haven't read this entire thread, so most of what I'm going to say is probably just reiteration of what has already been said.
Though I'm not really a supporter of homosexual marriages - and even less a supporter of the way they're being carried out - I've got to say that OSC has used some of the stupidest arguments I've seen lately. Especially this:
quote:In the first place, no law in any state in the United States now or ever has forbidden homosexuals to marry. The law has never asked that a man prove his heterosexuality in order to marry a woman, or a woman hers in order to marry a man.
Well, for the lack of a better term, 'durr'. Of course a homosexual man can marry a woman. No sensible people have been arguing that, so why does he feel a need to support it? I could likewise say "women could be housewives", but that doesn't mean it's wrong for them to work secularly.
I was also taken aback by his total lack of tact. Labelling gay marriage supporters advocates of the "anti-family revolution" is no better than labelling opponents of gay marriage "bigots".
But, then again, I usually disagree with OSC's take on most political discussions and generally avoid War Watch unless a topic about it shows up on the forum.
Posts: 2292 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, are you saying that I'm trying to dehumanize OSC? That I'm trying to invalidate his equality as a human being, or claim that his marriage is a sham?
Because I'm not. I think he's dead wrong, and I've lost an enormous amount of respect for the man. I'll voice my disgust and disagreement with tripe such as the above till the end of time.
But he's entitled to his beliefs, and you won't find me trying to deny him privileges such as marriage simply because I disagree with him.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"OSC was courageous to write as he did, as bluntly as he did."
How bizarre. Jenny, for her part, believes he wrote bravely and "beautifully."
This is, quite frankly, a load of bull.
The man accused homosexual couples of playing DRESS-UP, for God's sake. That's a patronizing put-down that we would never have tolerated here on Hatrack even a year ago -- and I'm frankly disappointed in anyone here who'd find it BEAUTIFUL.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The court essentially said that if the legislative branch doesn't do what they say, they'll interpret it to mean that Gay Marriage is lawful and constitutional."
As a side note, this is incorrect. What the court said is that, regardless of what the legislature did, the law as written was unconstitutional; they were willing, however, to give the legislature time to revise the law to bring it into accordance with the constitution.
No law was changed or rewritten; the existing law was simply found to violate the letter and spirit of the constitution.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I happen to think that a lot of things are written beautifully that I don't agree with. I cannot agree with all of OSC's positions, but I cannot deny powerful, beautiful writing when I read it.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about the "they are playing dress-up" bit did you find beautiful, exactly? Was it the implication that homosexuals can't have mature adult emotions, or the suggestion that they're just pretending to care about each other?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for the Legal-POV response. You beat me to it (and much better that I would have done it, anyhow).
Now, let's see...
Everyone seems to be in agreement that Civil Unions are OK. There's lots of disagreement, however, regarding "Marriages."
Let me be stupid for a moment:
My wife and I got married by a Justice of the Peace in a purely civil ceremony (really, we did); and later that year, had a fancy wedding with a Unitarian minister, "for show." The minister was quite confused when he explained to us how he would sign the marriage certificate after the ceremony, and we told him it wouldn't be necessary...but it all worked out.
Now, I have to think that a homosexual marriage in a church that doesn't support homosexuality is a moot issue--it's not going to happen. So there are other ways to get married. Like a Justice of the Peace, for instance. And that marriage differs from a "Civil Union," or we wouldn't really have a problem to begin with.
So, a non-religious marriage between homosexuals is the issue, correct? That's my first dumb question.
This leads to my second dumb question: what's the big difference, then, between a non-religious marriage and a Civil Union? It's got to be more than just the words "between a man and a woman," or we're really just all wasting our time in a semantic debate (And no accusation of me being Anti-Semantic! I just won't put up with it! Some of my best friends are words!)
And my third and final dumb question: how is this supposed to destroy my life? How close to me do these married homosexuals have to be before my own marriage starts to suffer? Can it suffer if they're in the next state over? What about if they're living in the apartment next to mine? If we invite them over to dinner, will they somehow corrupt my children? Will they duct-tape our heads together and force us to watch Will & Grace, or Queer Eye?
Or is it just a matter of the real-estate values dropping?
posted
I interpreted it as pretending something they are not. I don't agree with the sentiments expressed, but the language was obviously evocative and powerful. It certainly got you riled up, eh? And that is what is beautiful about the writing. You cannot help but react emotionally to it.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
I thought it was well written, and that it did take courage to not only write, but publish on his website, under his own name, where he could be flamed the the satisfaction of his guests. I don't use my own name here, yet I thought long and hard about posting my landmark threads, and whether I should. It requires courage to lay your obviously unpopular opinions out there to be scrutinized and flayed to the nitpicking of single words, especially writing under your own name.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
See, I use "beautiful" differently, to imply that something actually possesses attributes of beauty (or, at the very least, Truth -- per Keats.)
I think the word you're looking for is "powerful," in that his words definitely DID have power.
And the words I'd be looking for are, most likely, "powerfully ugly" -- in that they had plenty of power in exactly the same way that a rank heap of stinking bile can clear a room pretty quickly.
----
Nor, to be honest, do I consider OSC to be particularly "brave" to write articles that express his controversial opinion. If he hung out here more often, perhaps, or knew more of us on a personal level -- so he'd have to actually face our reaction to his words -- or if he honestly thought about how his homosexual friends would feel if he belittled them to his face, THAT would be "brave." If he thought that people were going to stop buying his books, or that there were a legitimate chance that his publisher would drop him for being "offensive," THAT would be "brave."
But what OSC is looking for, more than anything else, is to play Demosthenes; I think two years of War Watch and an increasing tendency towards didactic argument in his novels makes that pretty obvious. He's not BRAVE for inviting controversy, because he LIKES insulting controversy; that's like arguing that Grego was brave for challenging the establishment, even as he drew power from the roar of the crowd.
OSC is not playing Locke; he's not making calm, dispassionate, logical, and uninsulting arguments for his position. He's deliberately riling people up -- and being as much of a demagogue as his conscience will let him get away with.
He's GOOD at it, but that doesn't mean I'm going to heap laurels on him for it.
posted
Tom, I went back and reread that bit. I think that what you are doing is what so many Bible-quoters do - taking a line out of context. Within the context of the article, it makes sense and clearly illustrates the points OSC is trying to make. Taken out, it is obviously offensive.
Beautiful writing should be seen as a whole, I think.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steve, for your third question, please see the article I linked above. Not that it would affect you, but it will very much affect your children and how they view marriage. Which was a *large* portion of the point OSC was making, and probably the biggest portion of his article I agreed with.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now we're getting into a discussion of aesthetics! *arched eyebrow*
There are those that would argue for the beauty in something harsh. Is there beauty in the violent world of Nature? Is there beauty in the wolf's teeth, the eagle's claws? These are tools of Power and Death.
How can I not frankly admire the beauty of words that also cut right to the point?
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
ssywak -- I don't think OSC is okay with civil unions. Its just a hunch I have from the essay, and his repeated insistence that giving homosexual people equivalent legal rights takes away other peoples' rights to have grandchildren that are genetically related to them and the spouse of their child (he puts an awful lot of restrictions on that right, as the general form -- have grandchildren -- is certainly something that homosexual couples can enable).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jenny, let me submit that any comment that is powerfully offensive when taken out of context but left intact is in fact merely hiding behind its context.
Saying that gays who want to marry are "gaining nothing" and "playing dress-up" isn't insulting only because of its word choice, but because he is deliberately dismissing their desires as fictional and their emotions as immature. Putting it back into context doesn't make it any less insulting; it just wraps the insult in other words so that it sounds less insulting.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeni -- the article you linked above is interesting, but I don't think the studies mentioned show what they say it shows. First, marriage statistics did improve. They assert the improvement is meaningless, but they demonstrate no additional statistics to show that, merely doing some intellectual theorizing as to why they are meaningless.
Then they move on to statistics dealing with unmarried couples, and assert the problems there are caused by allowing homosexual people to get married. I think that causation is tenuous at best, particularly as they (notably, as the statistic is clearly one they had access to based on some of their mentions) don't mention the growth in that problem before homosexual marriage was allowed, which I predict would show the growth either remaining constant or decreasing.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes I hope that this issue (or one like it) does, as David presages, rip this nation apart. The way things are going, the US seems to need some rippin' apart.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu, I don't think that supportive statistics could be cited because such statistics cannot be calculated due to lack of data. That's what I got from the article, anyway. It's pretty dense. It is reasonable, it seems, to theorize as much as the other side does, isn't it? And isn't it reasonable, based on the conclusions of the article, that we should at least tread with caution?
As OSC said in his article, we openned the floodgates with easy divorces and socially acceptable casual sex, to the clear and undeniable harm of children. Don't these previous experiences teach us enough to have enough caution to wait and see what happens in the few other countries that are trying this to see what we would be doing to our own next generation?
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll be really interested to see if OSC chooses to respond to this thread at some point.
I can tell you are really disturbed, Tom. Having heard some of Card's rants before, I know he is quite opinionated and egotistic (as all good writers I have ever met are). I accept that as part of who he is. And I love him for it. I also accept and love the bits of you that come across strong, opinionated, and egotistical.
I guess I rarely see things as insulting, because I take vitriol to be a personal matter of the one giving the opinions, not necessarily applying to me and mine. After all, this is an opinion piece where someone is giving his opinion and justifying it. It is a beautifully written opinion piece. Doesn't mean you have to like or agree with the opinion expressed. Obviously you don't.
But I wouldn't write off all the things written. My approach is to find common ground and find ways to respect others, even if I think they are far off-base in some respects.
In OSC's essay, I find beauty in the way he writes and the way he advocates for children.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If any writer potrayed conservatives as a group as barbarians and in general used the same kind of rhetoric OSC did about them, there isn't a conservative on this forum who would be defending him.
If any writer potrayed heterosexuals or those who want strictly het marriage to be the law the way OSC does, there isn't a person on this forum who would be defending that writer as anything but a mere propagandist.
Is there not one conservative on this forum who doesn't recognize that the language OSC has written this essay in is insulting and deragatory towards groups who do not think the way he does? Isn't this a sign of a lack of character? At the very least, doesn't this tactic cause his essay to fail by the standards of rational discourse? Can you not put your own group in those groups that he is condemning and understand what people are saying?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have yet to read any article that I think speaks to the truths of the matter. No "conservative" article has graciously given ground to the other point of view. No "liberal" article has done so, either. Until someone stretches to find common ground, we're going to have beautifully written but fatally flawed arguments.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is my darkest day on Hatrack. I am so completely disillusioned I can hardly post coherently. I am in the Kafka-esque position of a man falsely condemned listening to friends (?) admire how well crafted is the gas chamber.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: OSC is not playing Locke; he's not making calm, dispassionate, logical, and uninsulting arguments for his position. He's deliberately riling people up -- and being as much of a demagogue as his conscience will let him get away with.
and here Tom had me really believing he was such a nice guy in person..... I thought he was kind, fun, happy go lucky... then I read his posts on this thread and see none of that.
quote:If any writer potrayed conservatives as a group as barbarians and in general used the same kind of rhetoric OSC did about them, there isn't a conservative on this forum who would be defending him.
But there would be "liberals" defending him.
Considering the lack of effort by a lot of people on the pro-gay-marriage side to attempt to understand where the other side is coming from, I've got little sympathy. Let the zealots yell at each other for a while.
Dagonee *For the record, I thought it was way over the top.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about this article should make Tom (or anyone) be fun and happy, go-lucky???
This is a real issue that impacts people in very real and very important ways.
How would you like to be living with someone you love for 20+ years to find that when they die you are legally homeless because the home was in your partner's name. That when they are in the hospital that you don't have any visitation rights... There are many many reasons for gay couples to want some legal protections.
This insn't a funny topic to alot of people farmgirl.
Posts: 512 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jenny has now definitively become someone to whom I can . Those kind of views (being able to appreciate the beauty and integrity of a piece even if you don't necessarily agree with the message) are what make me stay here on the 'rack.
I loved the film ANGELS IN AMERICA for its beauty and artistic merits, even thought I didn't agree with all of the 'points' it was trying to make.
Also the flipside - I know people who agreed 100% with what the film was 'trying to say' and admired that, and yet weren't a big fan of the production.
Of course some people honestly hated all parts of it - inclusing, seemingly, OSC. I don't agree with that - not do I agree with a great deal of his film reviews - but I'm not going to call him dumb and uncultured and closedminded about them, because it's very obvious that he is none of those things. He writes from his own personal experience, as well as from extensive research in many cases. It's raw. Sure. But I'm tired of watered-down-to-please-everybody PC wordplay.
I honor and respect people who say what they truly believe - even if I disagree.
Does that mean I won't try to get them to see my own point of view? Of course not.
In turnm I respect people who are opposed to me giving rational and well thought out responses as to why they think I'm wrong.
But if they just start insulting my person without making a point - that's where you lose respect. OSC rarely makes blanket statements without trying to explain how he sees it. And that, I can respect.
So once again: Jenny - love ya. Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
I don't see how letting homosexuals marry robs my marriage of ANYTHING. I mean, wha?
One of my friends compared this argument to the parable of the Prodigal Son. You know the part where the father hauls out the fatted clf and the cutlery, and the 'good' son has a hissy fit? I see her point. Gods, this is depressing.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Saying that gays who want to marry are "gaining nothing" and "playing dress-up" isn't insulting only because of its word choice, but because he is deliberately dismissing their desires as fictional and their emotions as immature. Putting it back into context doesn't make it any less insulting; it just wraps the insult in other words so that it sounds less insulting.
There are many very serious emotional experiences that humans can have, which are either delusional, or lead to self-destructive or other-destructive behavior. The harm that such feelings cause does not make the feelings themselves any less powerful, nor does it make their positive or truthful aspects any less good. But IF the harm exists, we help no one by declaring such statements to be inherently, unspeakably offensive.
You clearly do not agree that homosexual attraction causes harm. That's fine. You and Card disagree. But simply saying so should not be an unspeakable crime against humanity.
Of course the love that homosexuals share with one another is real, just as love and devotion between heterosexual couples, between friends, between parents and children, between citizens and their nation, etc, are all absolutely real and incontrovertible. What Card seems to be asserting is not that homosexual love is fake, but rather that when the love between members of the same gender becomes sexual, rather than platonic or fraternal, then something has gone wrong. The human reproductive pattern, as developed by generations of natural selection, and around which much of our society (particularly the process of early childhood development) is centered, has broken down. He asserts this, and then goes far enough to say that we help no one by offering all the outward forms of marriage to sexual relationships that are centered around a breakdown of the human reproductive pattern.
At no point does he say that the love isn't there, or that the feelings are fake. He says that the outward forms applied to those feelings are fake when applied inappropriately.
[does not wish to become Card's whipping boy, but also does not enjoy seeing Card whipped for the wrong reasons]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
and here Tom had me really believing he was such a nice guy in person..... I thought he was kind, fun, happy go lucky... then I read his posts on this thread and see none of that.![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
. Those kind of views (being able to appreciate the beauty and integrity of a piece even if you don't necessarily agree with the message) are what make me stay here on the 'rack.![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
