He seems to be really against homosexuality as a concept, but when it comes to actual real life situations, he doesn't seem as judgmental. I noticed that while reading his reviews of AI-- he was very approving of Adam Lambert...even after the finale, by which time everyone pretty much knew Adam was gay. Also, I've heard that OSC is perfectly respectful of his gay and lesbian friends--is that true?
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
He respects the people themselves without respecting their homosexuality, because he thinks the homosexuality is simply a fault that they can correct if they work hard enough (and we all have faults, after all!) Doesn't exactly make me feel better.
Posted by lolcats (Member # 12060) on :
@ Tara: Oh. Well, it makes *me* feel better. There's a difference between a bigoted person who insults and discriminates against a certain group--and what you describe. I was confused about this, since so many people have labeled OSC the former, but he'd always seemed like a classy guy to me. Your explanation makes sense. I'm totally for gay rights but I can tolerate OSC disagreeing, if he's still respectful and fair to individual gay people.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You do realise that you are describing that antipattern known as "Some of my best friends are X", right?
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
But lolcats is right. OSC may not approve of homosexual practices and he certainly doesn't approve of homosexual marriage, but I've never gotten the impression that he dislikes or wishes any harm to homosexual people. It really annoys me how people label him as a bigot and a hatemonger. You should at least know someone's position before you condemn them for it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:He respects the people themselves without respecting their homosexuality, because he thinks the homosexuality is simply a fault that they can correct if they work hard enough (and we all have faults, after all!) Doesn't exactly make me feel better.
Hmm. Tara, what exactly is objectionable about this PoV, aside from the fact that (I presume, anyway) you disagree with the part that labels homosexuality as a fault?
I mean, if that was the sum total of OSC's views on homosexuality and society - and I don't think it is, just to be clear - would there be anything wrong with that?
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
Something just occurred to me. I think that OSC's views on homosexuality match my views on smoking. I dislike the practice of smoking. I think that people who smoke should know better and should stop doing it. I do not think that smokers are inherently bad people and I don't think that they should be harmed, persecuted, or treated as subhuman because they smoke. I just wish they were smart enough to realize that whatever gain they think they are deriving from it isn't worth the harm to themselves and others.
I think this might be how OSC feels about homosexuality. Note that I say "I think" because I don't presume to know his exact thoughts or feelings on the matter. No one has labeled me a smoking bigot or hatemonger though. My point is that I believe that it's possible and reasonable to disapprove of something that people do but not disapprove of the people themselves.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:He respects the people themselves without respecting their homosexuality, because he thinks the homosexuality is simply a fault that they can correct if they work hard enough (and we all have faults, after all!) Doesn't exactly make me feel better.
Hmm. Tara, what exactly is objectionable about this PoV, aside from the fact that (I presume, anyway) you disagree with the part that labels homosexuality as a fault?
I mean, if that was the sum total of OSC's views on homosexuality and society - and I don't think it is, just to be clear - would there be anything wrong with that?
Well... Yeah...
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I keep misreading the title as "I think OSC isn't as gay as people thought." I should read more carefully.
As for the topic, I think that OSC is slightly inflammatory in his papers against homosexuality saying things like accepting homosexuality would destroy the church. But he doesn't harbor resentment toward homosexuals based solely on their sexual orientation. He views it as a sin, and they therefore are sinners until repentance. But everyone is a sinner, so he doesn't believe that his treatment of homosexuals should be any different than how he treats others.
I disagree with his position(if I've stated it correctly), but I wouldn't call him a bigot or homophobic. Intolerant of homosexuality? Yes. Intolerant of homosexuals? No.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If someone stands 100% behind articles they have written that say that allowing gays to marry will destroy our civilization, that you will consider government your mortal enemy and work to destroy it if it changes to permit gays to marry, and that laws making it criminally punishable to engage in homosexual behavior should remain on the books in order to keep gays socially repressed, how far is a "oh, but don't get me wrong, I have gay friends" supposed to reassure me?
In all seriousness, I ask.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Samp posted thoughts along the lines of what I wanted to say. Specifically in regards to this:
quote:But lolcats is right. OSC may not approve of homosexual practices and he certainly doesn't approve of homosexual marriage, but I've never gotten the impression that he dislikes or wishes any harm to homosexual people.
I certainly don't think OSC wants to actively commit harm against homosexual people, and I don't think he dislikes specific people because they are homosexual(more than he would dislike them for any other reason). But "harm" is a tricky word. If OSC, as a well known author and columnist, writes essays speaking out against homosexual marriage, with the intent to persuade others of his opinion, does it not do harm to the homosexual couples who are prevented from marrying because of his influential words?
OSC's beliefs about homosexuals might not in and of themselves cause harm, but his actions based on those beliefs might very well be causing harm.
It seems to me that this philosophy of, "i don't hate you, i just what you do" isn't so far off from this, "I don't hate you because you're jewish, I have lots of jewish friends, I just think being jewish is wrong, specifically practicing Judaism. It's fine if you're jewish...really, I just think if you are given equal rights as a jew that this would be the end of society as we know it, and I will fight with every ounce of being I have to make sure that never happens. All you have to do is never act on your jewish beliefs, and everything will be fine."
Can someone honestly say that, advocate for that, and then try to claim they are not harming jews? Is it really better to be nice in person to your few Jewish friends, while advocated politically for ALL Jews not to have equal rights? That doesn't make sense to me. I'd rather a person advocate for equal rights for all gays, but be a jerk to the few gays he knows in person.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Well... Yeah...
Umm... how... ?
Posted by hobsen (Member # 11808) on :
OSC began as a poet, later became a playwright and spent two years managing the Utah Valley Repertory Theatre Company, and now teaches creative writing. Given the success of gays in those fields, the idea that he has had no gay friends and associates over the years strikes me as absurd. By all reports he is quite comfortable with people who happen to be gay.
Posted by hobsen (Member # 11808) on :
Otherwise Samprimary's synopsis of OSC's positions above seems to me to lack nuance. OSC wrote in part, "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." While that is in truth a denunciation of gay marriage, elsewhere he has written that permitting gay civil marriage would do far less damage to "true marriage" than has been done by no fault divorce, although it would be in his opinion another nail in its coffin. And regarding his argument that laws making it criminally punishable to engage in homosexual behavior should remain on the books in order to keep gays socially repressed, he has explained that he wrote that almost twenty years ago, as part of an argument that states should stop enforcing such laws indiscriminately, as many were at the time doing. He argues that public celebrations of homosexuality set a bad example particularly for children who may be confused about their sexual orientation, and so should be discouraged by law - not that private sexual behavior should be punishable. And only a few days ago I read a lament by a long term gay activist in California, legally married to his partner of many years, that the extremes of behavior flaunted by the latest Gay Pride celebration he attended made him uncomfortable. If a married gay man can feel that way, is OSC's attitude all that far from the mainstream?
On the other hand, OSC has also claimed gay activism as a movement is no longer looking for civil rights, which by and large homosexuals already have. The belief that homosexuals now enjoy equal civil rights in most of the United States is, so far as I can find out, simply a delusion. It would be more accurate to say gay couples nowhere enjoy anything even approaching equal civil rights, even in the few states where gay marriage is permitted.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon: But lolcats is right. OSC may not approve of homosexual practices and he certainly doesn't approve of homosexual marriage, but I've never gotten the impression that he dislikes or wishes any harm to homosexual people. It really annoys me how people label him as a bigot and a hatemonger. You should at least know someone's position before you condemn them for it.
Well. Yes, he has no problem being friendly and polite to people he knows are gay. Look at what he's written about Janis Ian, for example. But he has a bit of a disconnect, since he's willing to harm us in the aggregate. Here's a quote from him:
quote:Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
quote:Originally posted by hobsen: [QB]And regarding his argument that laws making it criminally punishable to engage in homosexual behavior should remain on the books in order to keep gays socially repressed, he has explained that he wrote that almost twenty years ago, as part of an argument that states should stop enforcing such laws indiscriminately, as many were at the time doing.
He was unambiguously declaring that government needs to enforce a sexual norm by criminalizing gay sex in order to repress homosexuals and that this was why laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books. It was not an argument for improving the social or legal tolerance of homosexuals. It was an argument for relying on and maintaining old laws against homosexuality as a means of preserving heterosexual culture from their deviant influence.
quote:He argues that public celebrations of homosexuality set a bad example particularly for children who may be confused about their sexual orientation, and so should be discouraged by law - not that private sexual behavior should be punishable.
No, not in the least. He was saying that private sexual behavior should be punishable. That he added the caveat that it was only to repress the ability of homosexuals to be public about their behavior does not change this. He unambiguously stated that homosexual sex should stay illegal.
My synopsis does not lack nuance. It just directly confronts exactly what he has advocated. He is an author. The benefit of the doubt I will give him is the notion that he did not in any way, shape, or form misspeak, and given that he has had years since then to retract that notion and has not, it is only reasonable to state that this is clearly his position.
quote:If a married gay man can feel that way, is OSC's attitude all that far from the mainstream?
Yes. What percentage of Americans do you think straight-up want to keep homosexuality criminalized? Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:It seems to me that this philosophy of, "i don't hate you, i just what you do" isn't so far off from this, "I don't hate you because you're jewish, I have lots of jewish friends, I just think being jewish is wrong, specifically practicing Judaism. It's fine if you're jewish...really, I just think if you are given equal rights as a jew that this would be the end of society as we know it, and I will fight with every ounce of being I have to make sure that never happens. All you have to do is never act on your jewish beliefs, and everything will be fine."
Can someone honestly say that, advocate for that, and then try to claim they are not harming jews?
OSC never said he is advocating denying equal rights to gay people.
A better analogy would be someone who said they don't hate you because you are jewish; they just think practicing judaism is wrong. And they intend to help you by advocating a ban on practicing judaism. Under this analogy, assuming they are being honest, their intention is to help, not harm jews.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Someone can be intending to help and still be in favor of denying equal rights, as equal rights are not a state they get to determine.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
I don't see how your hypothetical is any better than Strider's, Tres. Either way, the Jews' freedoms are curtailed against their will.
Would you be OK with somebody in World War II-era California saying, "I'm worried for those poor Japanese-Americans, who might be exposed to violence in retribution for Pearl Harbor. Therefore I support placing them in internment camps for their own safety"? After all, this person's intention is to help, not harm Japanese-Americans.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Yeah, the fact he wants to put us in jail is what bugs me the most.
So when I buy an OSC book I donate an amount equivalent to the cover price to the HRC.
This hasn't been an issue lately.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
To be fare, the essay where OSC says he thinks homosexuality should be illegal was written 2 decades ago and even then he"s quite specific that he doesn't want to put you in jail Pix.
I disagree with his position too, but that is no reason to misrepresent it.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Rabbit: He wants to put A FEW of us in jail but only for the sake of making us keep our place. That doesn't make it much better.
And yes, 2 decades ago... But does he still stand by it or has he tempered his stand?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I'm pretty sure he wrote an essay against Lawrence v. Texas, and that was 2003.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Xav: Yikes! Was it that recent?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Originally posted by hobsen: OSC began as a poet, later became a playwright and spent two years managing the Utah Valley Repertory Theatre Company, and now teaches creative writing. Given the success of gays in those fields, the idea that he has had no gay friends and associates over the years strikes me as absurd. By all reports he is quite comfortable with people who happen to be gay.
Just to sort of step around the Godwin line here a little, I assume you are at least aware that many, well, shall we say "fanatically anti-" people in the past, people who have done MUCH worse things to minority groups than OSC has ever advocated against gays, have also known and been friends with individuals from those groups?
It's a fairly well documented phenomenon- fanatics are fanatics not because of the purity of their beliefs, but because of the cognitive dissonance that arises from the conflict between their core beliefs or values and their actual experiences. The way that the dissonance between the belief: "homosexuality is immoral," and the actual experience: "I have gay friends, who I also like as people," is to rationalize the core belief by projecting hidden evil onto homosexuals, but in such a way as to let the evil remain quite murky and unknowable, a bogey man shadow figure.
In fact, the belief described doesn't even star as "homosexuality is immoral." It starts with something more basic about the way a family should or a person should behave, and that becomes so important that a violation of that pattern is seen as the influence of evil corruption. It doesn't help that at the same time, we as actual individuals are pushed, as OSC obviously is, into somehow rectifying our actual feelings about *people* with our attachment to our own customs and ingrained attitudes.
That all said, I find it quite likely that OSC does like gay people. I also find it likely that he dislikes himself for liking them, and is just finding a convoluted way of lashing out at that feeling in general.
Else, please tell me, why are the targets of OSC's refined rage and angst invariably a) gay advocates (whom he would know from his experiences) b) academics (of which he is one) c) intellectuals and English departments (a group that he would easily fall into according to most reasonable definitions, but feels nevertheless excluded from- he did leave an English department because he couldn't get along), and d) Liberals, a group he actually claims to be a part of.
There's an awful lot of something in all of that, that whispers "self-loathing," but is much more complicated. None of that is a particular screed against OSC btw, I've gotten less angry and more just kind of resigned and saddened by it all.
Tresopax:
quote: Under this analogy, assuming they are being honest, their intention is to help, not harm jews.
Hrmph. Which is why they say: "the road to hell is paved with 'good' intentions." We have a constitutional framework in place to make sure nobody gets too handsy about "helping" others in ways they really don't need or want.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:To be fare, the essay where OSC says he thinks homosexuality should be illegal was written 2 decades ago and even then he"s quite specific that he doesn't want to put you in jail Pix.
Rabbit, it's my understanding of OSC's position on that issue - keeping laws against homosexuality on the books - is that it should be done specifically to serve as a societal reminder that homosexuality is Unacceptable.
That's all I remember for certain enough to say, and I'll need to re-read Xav's link to refresh my memory...but for the sake of argument, let's just assume that OSC only wants to keep the laws on the books as a social reminder.
That's still a threat. If you want reminder of social mores, if you want to encourage people to behave in what you perceive as the morally upright way, you preach it from the pulpit, you (for example) publish essays, you put up billboards, etc. etc.
Keeping laws on the books is quite different.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
And more, it's indicative of an attitude towards the law and society that shows a certain lack of respect for, I don't know, order? Fairness? When OSC complains about "activist judges" running roughshod over democracy, remember that he also believes that certain laws should be used in ways that laws are not intended to function.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Anyone who argues with me hates themselves because they know within their heart of hearts that I'm right.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
That's why I don't argue with you. Because I love myself...and you're wrong. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:It seems to me that this philosophy of, "i don't hate you, i just what you do" isn't so far off from this, "I don't hate you because you're jewish, I have lots of jewish friends, I just think being jewish is wrong, specifically practicing Judaism. It's fine if you're jewish...really, I just think if you are given equal rights as a jew that this would be the end of society as we know it, and I will fight with every ounce of being I have to make sure that never happens. All you have to do is never act on your jewish beliefs, and everything will be fine."
Can someone honestly say that, advocate for that, and then try to claim they are not harming jews?
Under this analogy, assuming they are being honest, their intention is to help, not harm jews.
Yet the result is harm, regardless of their "stated" intention.
Posted by hobsen (Member # 11808) on :
Samprimary said, "He unambiguously stated that homosexual sex should stay illegal." That is correct; and I should not have added "not that private sexual behavior should be punishable." The Pixiest noted correctly, "He wants to put A FEW of us in jail but only for the sake of making us keep our place... And yes, 2 decades ago... But does he still stand by it or has he tempered his stand?" About the answer to that question, I simply do not know; but given the lapse of time she is right to ask the question.
Samprimary also asked, "What percentage of Americans do you think straight-up want to keep homosexuality criminalized?" About that I think you should ask Gallup or some other polling organization rather than me, but off the top of my head I should say a quarter. And even in fairly tolerant northern California I have met a number of people willing to say "Death to all gays!"
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: That's why I don't argue with you. Because I love myself...and you're wrong.
Obviously, you don't love yourself at all. I can feel the dissonance radiating from you...your face is green, and your tongue swollen from it.
I'm not trying to psychoanalyze you, specifically. But...I mean, you're obviously conflicted, and that conflict is causing you to express some seriously whacked stuff, Strider.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by hobsen: ... Samprimary also asked, "What percentage of Americans do you think straight-up want to keep homosexuality criminalized?" About that I think you should ask Gallup or some other polling organization rather than me, but off the top of my head I should say a quarter. And even in fairly tolerant northern California I have met a number of people willing to say "Death to all gays!"
Looks higher at about 40%.
quote:Do you think gay or lesbian relations between consenting adults should or should not be legal?
2009 May 7-10 56% (Should be legal) 40% (Should not be legal) 4% (No opinion)
quote:Would you be OK with somebody in World War II-era California saying, "I'm worried for those poor Japanese-Americans, who might be exposed to violence in retribution for Pearl Harbor. Therefore I support placing them in internment camps for their own safety"? After all, this person's intention is to help, not harm Japanese-Americans.
I wouldn't be OK with it. But if what they were saying is really what they felt, then yes that would be intending to help them, not hurt them.
quote:Yet the result is harm, regardless of their "stated" intention.
Perhaps. But the question is whether harm is intended, not what actually results. I agree with neo-dragon: "I've never gotten the impression that [OSC] dislikes or wishes any harm to homosexual people."
Posted by hobsen (Member # 11808) on :
Orincoro asked, "Just to sort of step around the Godwin line here a little, I assume you are at least aware that many, well, shall we say "fanatically anti-" people in the past, people who have done MUCH worse things to minority groups than OSC has ever advocated against gays, have also known and been friends with individuals from those groups?" The mention of the Godwin line here is appropriate, as Adolf Hitler is well known to have remained friendly with his Jewish family doctor. That did not make him benevolent toward Jews in general.
Otherwise your psychological interpretation probably applies to some people, but I have no idea whether it applies to OSC. Even trained psychiatrists, which I am not, in most cases prefer to avoid speculation about the mental processes of people they have never met. When some have tried to do so, in some cases the results have struck me as ludicrous.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I feel like he would like to stuff gays back in the closet and states that this is good for society. I'm not seeing it. I feel as if his point of view is very antiquated about gays and unhealthy and if I was his semi-gay friend I couldn't help but call him on it. He'd LOATHE if people dissed Mormons the way he disses gays, calling them children playing dress up? That's really not very nice. I think his gay friends are cooler for accepting him despite having that point of view.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The one thing Card does that really pisses me off is to presume he understands their deep seated motives and desires when he knows little more about them than you can read in the headlines. I find this equally offensive no matter who is doing it. Please stop impuning Mr. Card's motives. You do not know his mind or his heart and it is wrong to presume you do.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Strider: That's why I don't argue with you. Because I love myself...and you're wrong.
Obviously, you don't love yourself at all. I can feel the dissonance radiating from you...your face is green, and your tongue swollen from it.
I'm not trying to psychoanalyze you, specifically. But...I mean, you're obviously conflicted, and that conflict is causing you to express some seriously whacked stuff, Strider.
Nothing you say will make me love you any less.
Posted by hobsen (Member # 11808) on :
The part of the War Watch essay of June 30, 2003 linked to by Xavier which impressed me is the following:
quote:If states had voted (as most did) to repeal their anti-sodomy laws, fine; if people wanted to live in a state that did not have such a law, they were free to move there. It's one of the main benefits of a federal system.
According to that, OSC is no longer insisting that homosexual behavior should remain punishable by law, so long as the change in the law is made through the usual processes of legal reform rather than dictated by any court. And I am grateful to Mucus for finding a recent Gallup Poll which suggests that the percentage of Americans who want to criminalize homosexual behavior is even higher than I estimated at 40%. Maybe residing in the Bay Area has skewed my perceptions on that point, but the fact remains that a very large percentage of Americans still disagree with the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas striking down all such laws. Such attitudes change slowly, as was once shown by the fact that half of Americans still believed marriage between blacks and whites should be illegal decades after a Supreme Court decision - Loving v. Virginia I think - required that it be permitted.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I question the results of the Gallup poll. Context is everything. I'd like to see not only the exact wording of the question but also the other questions in the poll. Depending on context, many people may have been confusing making homosexual behavior illegal with making same sex marriage illegal.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Nothing you say will make me love you any less.
You're a seething bowl of putrid hate. Covering it with these sweet words is only doing yourself harm.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Do you think gay or lesbian relations between consenting adults should or should not be legal?
2009 May 7-10 56% (Should be legal) 40% (Should not be legal) 4% (No opinion)
This question is poorly worded. Especially in the current political climate, where the real question on everyone's mind is gay marriage, I wonder if when the questioner says "relations" many people hear "marriage" or even a similar civil union.
Or maybe I'm giving the American people too much credit and they really do care what consenting adults do in private. I think I'd like to know what they think the punishment should be, though.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The Rabbit and hobsen: The exact question is in the link:
quote:1977-2008 wording: Do you think homosexual relations between consenting adults should or should not be legal?
The list of questions (if any) is not given, but there is a list of results with roughly 30 results dating from 1977 to the present day. The results seem decently smooth and consistent (taking into account the general trend toward legalization) which would seem to discount confusion with same-sex marriage (since Gallup only started asking that question in 1996) issue.
Personally, I don't know why one would find the results all that surprising, but YMMV.
[ June 23, 2009, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
One thing people are neglecting is that unlike racial or ethnic prejudices, homosexuality is a behavior.
Many if not most of us, believe that our behavior and our desires are something we can and should control. We all agree you can't control the color of your eyes, your hair or your skin. You can't choose your parents. But it is still at a minimum highly debatable to claim that behavior of any kind is in the same category as race or ethnic heritage. Even though we know alcoholism (for example) has a genetic component, most of people believe that drinking alcohol is a choice that even alcoholics can choose not to drink.
The point is that it is very different to condemn a behavior than it is to condemn a racial or ethnic trait. In this sense, it simply isn't reasonable to compare the condemnation of homosexuality to racism or anti-semitism (remember that according to the Nazi's, you were a Jew if one grandparent was Jewish even if you converted to some other religion).
Even if you believe that homosexuality is 100% genetically determined, you would have to agree that this is still highly controversial and that it is not unreasonable for people to see it as a behavior that can be controlled. Certainly you can see the difference between someone who condemns a behavior that they believe can be controlled and someone who condemns a racial or ethnic characteristic which even they believe to be 100% genetically determined.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Personally, I don't know why one would find the results all that surprising, but YMMV.
I guess I find it surprising because I've never talked to any one who admitted to thinking homosexual relations between consenting adults should be illegal. I've talked with a lot of people who think gay marriage should be illegal. I've talked with a lot of people who think gay sex is really icky and people who think its a grievous sin, but I've never spoken with anyone who thought it should be a crime. Aside from the 1990 essay by Card, I've never even read anything claiming homosexual relations between consenting adults should be illegal. We have quite a diverse group of people here at hatrack, yet I've never heard anyone defending the idea that homosexual relations between consenting adults should be illegal.
Maybe I'm just much more sheltered from the bigot AH population than I think.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
If you take Card's controversial essay, and replace "homosexual" with "recreational drug user", would you think Card hated drug users, had an irrational fear of drug users or was some sort of self hating hypocrit or closet drug user?
If not, why not? What would be the difference? If Card had written that essay about drug users and still continued to be friendly and kind to drug users, would you have the same problem?
The thing is, that you can slip drug user into that entire essay and it works perfectly. Pretty much every piece of it would work. And you know what, I'd even still disagree with his conclusion since I think recreational drugs should be legal.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
A behaviour? I'd think a lot of gay people, even semi-gay people would disagree with that. Even if it "Can be controlled" why should it? I don't see it as any different than heterosexuality. I don't view it as abnormal or something to be looked down on.
It's not like I'm trying to put words into OSC's mouth, but I can't help but come to such conclusions from his TONE. And the sort of things he says. I'm telling you, they really are not very nice and are quite hurtful.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think my heterosexuality can be controlled. The question in my mind is not can it be controlled (I personally would be very insulted if someone said I could not control my sexual behavior), but should it. I can see reasons why an individual might wish to control it, but I do not see reasons why as a society we should enforce that control. I see a lot better reasons to controlling heterosexual behavior actually (since that behavior ends in babies).
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
However, technically speaking, people can get color contacts now, and they can dye their hair.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:A behaviour? I'd think a lot of gay people, even semi-gay people would disagree with that.
Engaging in sexual activity of any kind is a behavior. I think if you look closely at what Card and others who oppose homosexuality say, they don't condemn people for being attracted to people of the same sex, they condemn only the sexual activity itself. That is behavior and I doubt many people, even gay people, would claim that ones sexual practices are not behavior. I think this is very important to recognize. Most of the gay people I know don't think that homosexuality is strictly a behavior, but for almost everyone who condemns it -- it is only the behavior part they condemn.
quote:Even if it "Can be controlled" why should it?
That's a perfectly valid question and one worthy of discussion. But still, that is a different discussion than the discussion over whether there is any difference between being opposition to homosexual activity and anti-semitism.
quote:I don't see it as any different than heterosexuality. I don't view it as abnormal or something to be looked down on.
You don't see it that, many people do. If your goal is to pursuade those people they are wrong and not just congratulate yourself for being superior, then it is worth trying to understand where they are coming from.
Card thinks homosexuality is both self destructive and harmful to society. If you don't but you'd like to understand him rather than call him names, substitute any behavior you think is destructive and harmful and see if his arguments make sense. If the arguments would make sense for something that you think is destructive and harmful, then Card isn't being hateful or engaging in some sort of paranoia, he just disagrees with you about what is destructive and harmful.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by hobsen: And regarding his argument that laws making it criminally punishable to engage in homosexual behavior should remain on the books in order to keep gays socially repressed, he has explained that he wrote that almost twenty years ago, as part of an argument that states should stop enforcing such laws indiscriminately, as many were at the time doing.
Really? There was a WWW 20 years ago? Who knew?
If he didn't want to express that view, he could take the article down, or rewrite it.
quote:Originally posted by hobsen: He argues that public celebrations of homosexuality set a bad example particularly for children who may be confused about their sexual orientation, and so should be discouraged by law - not that private sexual behavior should be punishable.
Actually, that's not what he wrote. And public celebrations of heterosexuality set a bad example for kids who are confused about their sexual orientation as well. That's why so many of us come out later in life.
quote:Originally posted by hobsen: And only a few days ago I read a lament by a long term gay activist in California, legally married to his partner of many years, that the extremes of behavior flaunted by the latest Gay Pride celebration he attended made him uncomfortable. If a married gay man can feel that way, is OSC's attitude all that far from the mainstream?
I won't take my daughter to a pride parade. I haven't been to one myself since Tova was an infant. But pride parades are one thing. Criminalizing homosexuality is quite another.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The Rabbit:
Well, there is a breakdown of who opposes the legality of homosexual relations from 2003. There should be changes, but the percentage of people who oppose legality in 2003 at 37% is within the error of 40% for today.
Here are some demographics:
quote:"Do you think homosexual relations between consenting adults should or should not be legal?" May 5-7, 2003
I guess the question is how much you associate with religious Christians, older people, rural people, etc. (sorry for the formatting)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Emreecheek: However, technically speaking, people can get color contacts now, and they can dye their hair.
Can we create a special hatrack award for people who are being intentionally obtuse.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Rabbit:
quote:for almost everyone who condemns it -- it is only the behavior part they condemn
How sure are you about this? A lot of people believe that for a man to look lustfully on a woman is tantamount to adultery; wouldn't they feel the same way about lustful homosexual thoughts? I can't point to any specific examples, but I'm sure I've heard rhetoric that labels homosexual attraction a 'disgusting perversion' or blames it on the influence of Satan. I'm quite sure that a lot of gay people have felt condemned by society before they ever acted on their feelings.
BTW, the comparison to drug use only works if there's an approved, healthy form of drug use that Card approves of and enjoys himself. If OSC was a happy cocaine user but maintained that heroin was evil and must remain illegal, we'd have a more valid analogy.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: That's a perfectly valid question and one worthy of discussion. But still, that is a different discussion than the discussion over whether there is any difference between being opposition to homosexual activity and anti-semitism.
Why? A Jew can never stop being Jewish in the eyes of God, but there've been any number of Jews over the millenia who've stopped identifying as Jews and simply assimilated. Who were, to draw a parallel to homosexuality, closeted or completely in denial. Who lived as non-Jews and were accepted as non-Jews.
In both cases, it's basically an issue of extortion. People say, "Hey, we'll treat you like human beings (even if you aren't really) so long as you hide who you are. So long as you're properly ashamed of who you are. Dare to raise your head and be okay with yourself, and we'll do all we can to make your life a living hell."
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I've asked before, and I will do so again.
People say, "I just am against the activity, not the fact that they are attracted to members of the same sex. Its only when they act on that behavior that I object."
Then I ask, if two good Christian men fell in love, but did not consummate that love, would you be all right with them holding hands? Kissing? Living together?
I get a surprising number of, "Oh no. That would look bad." In other words, its not the bad behavior they want banned, its the appearance of bad behavior.
Its basically don't ask/don't tell for civilian life.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:BTW, the comparison to drug use only works if there's an approved, healthy form of drug use that Card approves of and enjoys himself. If OSC was a happy cocaine user but maintained that heroin was evil and must remain illegal, we'd have a more valid analogy.
No analogy is perfect nor is it intended to be. I think the analogy works just fine if Card approves of any healthy recreational activity that stimulates endorphins or any natural pleasure.
I don't even think that's necessary since I wasn't trying to create a perfect analogy I was trying to help people understand that there might be some way to explain Card"s reasoning besides labeling him a vicious hateful person.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
This thread makes me cringe.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Why? A Jew can never stop being Jewish in the eyes of God, but there've been any number of Jews over the millenia who've stopped identifying as Jews and simply assimilated. Who were, to draw a parallel to homosexuality, closeted or completely in denial. Who lived as non-Jews and were accepted as non-Jews.
In both cases, it's basically an issue of extortion. People say, "Hey, we'll treat you like human beings (even if you aren't really) so long as you hide who you are. So long as you're properly ashamed of who you are. Dare to raise your head and be okay with yourself, and we'll do all we can to make your life a living hell."
You know as well as I do that there are many many reasons Jews decide to live secularly or assimilate. Pressure from non-Jews (or extortion as you call it) is far from the sole reason and is at least in my my experience in the 21st century US not the most common reason. Jews abandon the practice of Judaism for many of the same reasons that other people abandon the religious teachings of their parents. It is even entirely possible that many Jews have abandoned Judaism not because of extortion but because they decided Judaism was wrong. I also no some people who choose not to engage in some forms of sexual activity they are drawn to (for example adultery) because they personally believe they are wrong and not just because of society pressure.
Second, you know as well as I that the Nazi's did not treat assimilated Jews any differently than non-assimilated Jews. If you had one grandparent who was Jewish, you were considered a Jew even if you converted to Christianity. That makes the Nazi form of anti-Semitism racial discrimination not religious discrimination.
And yes, I view religious discrimination as being fundamentally different from racial discrimination. I don't think it is acceptable but I still think that discriminating between people based on thei religious practices they choose to follow is fundamentally different from discriminating between people based on their ancestry. I also don't think its just to discriminate against practicing homosexuals, but I think it is fundamentally different from racial and ethnic discrimination.
Posted by hobsen (Member # 11808) on :
Lisa, the Card quote saying that laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books is attributed as follows by the Wikipedia biography of Orson Scott Card, "Card, Orson Scott (1990). "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality". Sunstone Magazine." So it was a magazine article of 1990 which has been widely copied onto the Internet. A Google search turned up over 9500 copies of the quote, which suggests the Internet as a whole probably has at least 200,000. An author cannot easily deny or recall a quote which has gone viral in that fashion, although I believe OSC has made some efforts to explain what he wrote in its 1990 context. That I expect did not work.
As to your other two points, I basically agree. In regards to the first, I replied to Samprimary as follows at least two hours before you made your post,
quote:Samprimary said, "He unambiguously stated that homosexual sex should stay illegal." That is correct; and I should not have added "not that private sexual behavior should be punishable."
But it does no harm to reiterate that I misspoke.
[ June 23, 2009, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"No analogy is perfect nor is it intended to be. I think the analogy works just fine if Card approves of any healthy recreational activity that stimulates endorphins or any natural pleasure."
I don't agree. Heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are too similar to ignore the "I get to have mine, only yours is not ok" aspect. Even though OSC believes that controls and delays are important for het sex as well, there is at least a socially acceptable expression of heterosexuality; there's no such thing for homosexuality in OSC's view.
However, let me point out that I agree that Card doesn't 'hate' gay people. It would be more accurate to say that his views on the interests of society are at odds with the interests and desires of gay people, and he seems relatively unconcerned about how that affects gay individuals.
Posted by hobsen (Member # 11808) on :
OSC might be concerned about the effect of his suggested policies on heterosexual individuals as well. If gays do not marry one another, they may marry heterosexuals. It would seem to me that might lead to a lot of unhappy heterosexuals in such marriages, with consequences not only of unhappiness for them, but of an increase in child abuse and divorce. Those are things OSC seems not to want, yet I think them probable consequences of what he recommends.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I can't even say I'm insulting the guy, I'm just pointing out that a lot of what he says about gay people is kind of... well... not very nice, rather mean at that. It's only different in the sense that gays come in all races, all varieties of ability and the like, but you can't say it's totally not the same. A man can get beat up just for SEEMING gay. Kids get bullied for acting different than the so called mainstream says they should act. It is a form of discrimination, and a sad form because it's more acceptable than looking down on someone because of race or religion. None of those things make sense. I object soundly to folks using stereotypes or misunderstandings to justify making life difficult for a whole group of people.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by hobsen: OSC might be concerned about the effect of his suggested policies on heterosexual individuals as well. If gays do not marry one another, they may marry heterosexuals. It would seem to me that might lead to a lot of unhappy heterosexuals in such marriages, with consequences not only of unhappiness for them, but of an increase in child abuse and divorce. Those are things OSC seems not to want, yet I think them probable consequences of what he recommends.
True... I can't say that would lead to the sort of healthy families OSC wants and society needs.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by hobsen: OSC might be concerned about the effect of his suggested policies on heterosexual individuals as well. If gays do not marry one another, they may marry heterosexuals. It would seem to me that might lead to a lot of unhappy heterosexuals in such marriages, with consequences not only of unhappiness for them, but of an increase in child abuse and divorce. Those are things OSC seems not to want, yet I think them probable consequences of what he recommends.
True... I can't say that would lead to the sort of healthy families OSC wants and society needs.
Yes, but I think he's under the impression that if we shut up and marry members of the opposite sex, we'll just get over the whole gay silliness.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Yes, but I think he's under the impression that if we shut up and marry members of the opposite sex, we'll just get over the whole gay silliness.
I'm not sure that's the case. I don't think he cares how happy or unhappy gay people are in their opposite-sex marriages.
His fear is that his daughter might not marry a man and have babies. So if OSC has no grandkids, what's the purpose of being a law-abiding member of society?
It's about reproductive security.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by hobsen: ... If gays do not marry one another, they may marry heterosexuals. ...
True... I can't say that would lead to the sort of healthy families OSC wants and society needs.
Ah, fresh from my RSS feeds.
quote:Renowned sexologist and sociologist Li Yinhe (李银河) in a recent blogpost on the lives of tongqi (同妻), heterosexual women who find themselves married to gay Chinese men (translation adapted from Yawning Bread):
I attended a forum that discussed the problem of 'homowives‘. The so-called ’homowife‘ (tongqi 同妻) is the wife (qi 妻) of a homosexual (tongzhi 同志). It has been said that China has 20 million male homosexuals, of whom 80 per cent would marry a woman. These women are the ’homowives‘, and there are 16 million of them.
The 'homowife' phenomenon is a phenomenon unique to China, seldom witnessed in other countries. In other countries, homosexuals would remain single or live together or marry other homosexuals. Very few would enter into a heterosexual marriage. This difference comes about because Chinese culture places such a great emphasis on marriage and reproduction, as to make them compulsory. ... The condition for 'homowives' is extremely tragic. At the seminar, there were 'homowives' who burst into tears as they spoke, leading all of them to hug each other for a good cry. Most days, they wash their faces with tears. I heard what I considered the most shocking testimony that from a woman who told of how she even doubted her ability to attract men -- why wouldn't her husband even want to look at her or touch her? Am I really that unworthy as a woman? She assumed that all men would treat her like that, not knowing that this is far from the truth. She did not dream that her husband would be gay. Under the circumstances, even the most beautiful and accomplished woman would not arouse him. .. They proposed a slogan: 'Homowife ends with me'. This slogan is full of hurt and also extends concern to those who may follow in their footsteps. The slogan gives one a feeling that it is a noble cause.
I hope the majority of male homosexuals do not enter into heterosexual marriages any more and spare a thought for the feelings of the homowife.
quote:I don't agree. Heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are too similar to ignore the "I get to have mine, only yours is not ok" aspect.
Would you say the same thing if the question were pedophilia or rape? I'm almost certain you wouldn't, even though I suspect sexual arousal and climax are very much the same for people who are drawn to those types of sexual activity. I suspect that even if science demonstrated a definitive genetic cause for pedophilia, you wouldn't consider it OK and would still want laws against it. If someone is only sexually attracted to children would you feel justified in saying "I get mine but yours is not OK? "
And just to pre-empt the argument, I DO NOT consider homosexuality equivalent to pedophilia or rape, that wasn't my point. I'm in favor of gay rights, civil unions and (under certain constraints) gay marriage,
My point is that almost everyone thinks that people should refrain from the types of sexual activity they see as harmful, regardless of how strongly they are drawn to those types of activities, Most people event support strict laws against types of sexual activity that they think are very harmful (like rape or pedophilia). If you start from the presumption that same gender sexual relations are inherently harmful, then the rest of the arguments are completely consistent with that premise.
The important argument is whether the harms associated with homosexual relations (if they actually exist at all) are sufficient to warrant societal intervention. And on this, I agree with you. I don't think the harm done to gay individuals that results from discriminatory laws is justified by the benefits it might have to the rest of society. But even if I did see those harms as being very significant, it would not indicate that I didn't have compassion for gay people.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I don't agree. Heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are too similar to ignore the "I get to have mine, only yours is not ok" aspect.
Would you say the same thing if the question were pedophilia or rape? I'm almost certain you wouldn't, even though I suspect sexual arousal and climax are very much the same for people who are drawn to those types of sexual activity. I suspect that even if science demonstrated a definitive genetic cause for pedophilia, you wouldn't consider it OK and would still want laws against it. If someone is only sexually attracted to children would you feel justified in saying "I get mine but yours is not OK? "
And just to pre-empt the argument, I DO NOT consider homosexuality equivalent to pedophilia or rape, that wasn't my point. I'm in favor of gay rights, civil unions and (under certain constraints) gay marriage,
My point is that almost everyone thinks that people should refrain from the types of sexual activity they see as harmful, regardless of how strongly they are drawn to those types of activities, Most people event support strict laws against types of sexual activity that they think are very harmful (like rape or pedophilia). If you start from the presumption that same gender sexual relations are inherently harmful, then the rest of the arguments are completely consistent with that premise.
The important argument is whether the harms associated with homosexual relations (if they actually exist at all) are sufficient to warrant societal intervention. And on this, I agree with you. I don't think the harm done to gay individuals that results from discriminatory laws is justified by the benefits it might have to the rest of society. But even if I did see those harms as being very significant, it would not indicate that I didn't have compassion for gay people.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I know you know the crucial difference is "consent", The Rabbit. That's a substantial difference that is absent from the comparison of heterosexuality and homosexuality when pedophilia and rape are excluded. It provides full justification for saying "sorry, you can't indulge your sexual orientation, even as the rest of us get to indulge ours" to a pedophile.
Importantly, it is not about harm to society in those cases, but harm to individuals. We don't forbid rape because we don't want to live in a society where rape is tolerated (not that we do), but rather because rape is a gross violation of a person's individual rights.
And brings us back to the crucial question, as you noted:
quote:The important argument is whether the harms associated with homosexual relations (if they actually exist at all) are sufficient to warrant societal intervention.
Nearly every argument I've seen that attempts to demonstrate the harm to society rests on "homosexuality is bad" as a premise, not as a conclusion.
I don't think we disagree much at all, Rabbit, other than on how to analogize the argument that OSC made. It does absolutely make sense to engage OSC and others who agree with him on the question of what harm is done and whether it is outweighed by the harms of discrimination, and not to blow cycles on calling him hateful and bigoted and otherwise confirming his prophecy that those who disagree with him will dismiss him with those labels.
However I have not seen where OSC has engaged on that topic to any meaningful degree. I think both sides' loudest voices are arguing against and dismissing the worst-case interpretation of the opposition.
Posted by Jamio (Member # 12053) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
I'm getting to this late. Things really crack around here sometimes.
Regardless of whether homosexuality is immoral, laws that no one has any intention of regularly enforcing really, really bug me. It's just begging for abuse.
There was recently an incident in my apartment building where the police responded to a shooting, did not find the fired weapon, but did find a sawed-off rifle, possession of which is a federal offense. They took the rifle, but no one was arrested. According to several law enforcement officers my husband talked to, if he had been found with such a weapon, he would have gone to jail for a very long time. I think that sucks, and I think it sucks that there are/were anti-homosexuality laws that could be brought against a gay person who just happened to be annoying for some other reason.
If all such unequal treatment could be done away with, I would happily pay for all the traffic violations I currently get away with because I'm little and cute and have big, brown eyes.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by hobsen: OSC might be concerned about the effect of his suggested policies on heterosexual individuals as well. If gays do not marry one another, they may marry heterosexuals. It would seem to me that might lead to a lot of unhappy heterosexuals in such marriages, with consequences not only of unhappiness for them, but of an increase in child abuse and divorce. Those are things OSC seems not to want, yet I think them probable consequences of what he recommends.
True... I can't say that would lead to the sort of healthy families OSC wants and society needs.
Yes, but I think he's under the impression that if we shut up and marry members of the opposite sex, we'll just get over the whole gay silliness.
You may be right, but to be perfectly honest, I'm not thrilled with his views on heterosexual sex/marriage either.
From the article you quoted earlier:
quote: We Latter-day Saints know that we are eternal beings who must gain control of our bodies and direct our lives toward the good of others in order to be worthy of an adult role in the hereafter. So the regulation of sexual drives is designated not just to preserve the community of the Saints but also to improve and educate the individuals within it. The Lord asks no more of its members who are tempted toward homosexuality than it does of its unmarried adolescents, its widows and widowers, its divorced members, and its members who never marry. Furthermore, the Lord even guides the sexual behavior of those who are married, expecting them to use their sexual powers responsibly and in a proportionate role within the marriage.
I'm not 100% sure what all that means, but there, I think, is a clue to his perception of sex in general.
Have you read his "Memory of Earth" books?
(Possible SPOILERS follow if you haven't read the books.)
It's been years since I read them so my memory is a bit off, but there was a homosexual character in them. When they get to Earth and have to repopulate, he takes a wife and barely manages to get two children on her. They end up forming a friendship/companionship though he never desires her.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Anyone who argues with me hates themselves because they know within their heart of hearts that I'm right.
Common. Anyone who denigrates and lambastes something they themselves have an affinity with is expressing a kind of self hatred. The Mexican immigrant child who grows up to be violently anti-immigration- the rich son of a Saudi oil baron with an abiding hatred of western decadence. I'm not in that equation- my own personal opinion on gay marriage doesn't matter when talking about the internally contradictory behaviors and beliefs of others, does it? Do you see something else in that? Am I perhaps projecting myself into it too much? Perhaps so, but I think you're being unfair to me here.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: [QUOTE]Most of the gay people I know don't think that homosexuality is strictly a behavior, but for almost everyone who condemns it -- it is only the behavior part they condemn.
That's always struck me as strictly strategic though... I mean, just imagine a world in which the social structure completely condemned and had even totally eliminated homosexual acts from ever being performed. Would such a society then treat the people who were gay really well? I doubt it. This whole claim always struck me as first, a way of expressing your hatred or bigotry without sounding too extreme or unreasonable, and b) picking your battles wisely.
But more than that, I think the movement has internalized the denial to the point that its philosophy actually states, and its people actually really *do* believe, that they would all be fine with gays as long as gays stopped doing "gay stuff." Just like OSC may actually feel fine about gays in person, but still rail against them in theory- I have a hard time wrapping my head around what a world where these people actually won could possibly look like. They have every motivation to make it look idyllic, and I bet few of them really believe it would actually make anyone's lives worse than they are.
And in a weird sense I do wonder what it would be like myself. A world where homosexuality was totally suppressed. Would a person who was gay, but raised in such an environment, really be happy? There would be pretty much no way of testing such a scenario.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Card thinks homosexuality is both self destructive and harmful to society. If you don't but you'd like to understand him rather than call him names, substitute any behavior you think is destructive and harmful and see if his arguments make sense. If the arguments would make sense for something that you think is destructive and harmful, then Card isn't being hateful or engaging in some sort of paranoia, he just disagrees with you about what is destructive and harmful.
...
Off the bat, it's hard to trust someone who says they only dislike the activities of sexually active homosexuals and not homosexuals or homosexuality itself; doubly so if it's not even the sexual congress itself, but the harm it does society. I think a lot of heterosexuals feel a certain knee-jerk response to visible signs of homosexuality, and it's difficult to overcome the suspicion that that knee-jerk response underlies their rhetoric.
(For the record, I'm just noting that, not saying that Card's feelings on homsexuality have that kind of knee-jerk revulsion at their base. I have no wish to get into another "you say that, but your real motive is this" shoving match with anyone; until some kind of neural interface is included with broadband, these kinds of arguments are about as pointless as they come.)
But moving past that, I feel like I can make some fairly reasonable arguments against, say, the legalization of pedophilic contact between adults and children, even largely outside societal norms and moral standards. I've known people who survived rape at an early age and seen what it did to their emotional development. Even assuming a fully consensual adult-child sexual relationship (and ignoring the very real question of at what age someone can be said to be giving genuine informed consent to sex), there's still really unpleasant questions about if a child can be expected to protect themselves adequately from sexually transmitted diseases, protect themselves from pregnancy- what the effect might be of a pregnancy in someone who was barely post-puberty, the factor of physical intimidation in relationships and social courtships when one member is certainly the physically stronger of the two... Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
My point being, if I replace "homosexuality" with "pedophilia", I feel I can make a strong, compelling, and defensible case to just about any reasonable person.
When Card discusses homosexuality, I want to go, "Er... Uh? Hey!... But... No, that's not..."
Obviously, we come from very different backgrounds. If he says that most of the homosexuals he knows have some kind of sexual abuse in their backgrounds, for example, I don't doubt that's true... But his experience is far from mine. And that divergence in experience is frustrating; it makes me feel like he hasn't really looked very broadly before coming to quite extreme conclusions. And that having achieved certainty in his own mind, he hasn't tried very hard to test those conclusions.
Gay marriage is a relatively new social phenomenon, one which we don't have a lot of comparable phenomena to compare with to draw conclusions. But what we do have is a number of countries and even states that are beginning to allow it on some basis. If I saw some willingness to examine the path-setters over time and perhaps contemplate the possibility that gay marriage does not cause the streets to run with blood, so to speak, it would be a lot easier to accept the ideas offered as being rigorously examined and offered in good faith. Instead, it feels like an endless loop of "it is -> what it is -> what it is."
Certainly, people can disagree. But it's hardly unreasonable to ask that those who disagree be able to offer a followable chain of thought as to why they disagree, especially when so much is at stake.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I know you know the crucial difference is "consent", The Rabbit. That's a substantial difference that is absent from the comparison of heterosexuality and homosexuality when pedophilia and rape are excluded.
Well actually, consent isn't the issue in the case of pedophilia as society and the court system have found over and over again. We do some sort of hand waving and say that a minor "can"t consent" to having sex with an adult but at some level we all know that is just hand waving. I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised to hear of cases where a minor girl or boy (say age 14) not only consented to sexual intercourse with someone 2 or 3 times their age but actually invited it. Consent isn't the only issue involved.
I really don't have much interest in continuing this argument. As I've said over and over again, I don't agree with Card's position on homosexuality, but I think I understand why people might share his views besides some sort of hatred or homophobia. It isn't just some irrational self serving idea that can be boiled down to I get mine but you can't have yours.
If you have no interest in trying understanding why decent people might hold that opinion, fine. But then I don't know why you participate in this sort of discussion except to vent.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I don't know that I earned that response, Rabbit. I have not demonstrated "no interest in trying to understand why decent people might hold that opinion." I haven't been venting. I think maybe you're reading between the lines too much. I'm not invested in the "OSC hates gays" point of view, at all.
Your assertion that consent isn't the key issue in statutory rape surprises me, though. I certainly thought it was. Can you help me understand what you mean? What's the issue, then? I'm pretty sure it doesn't come down to "yuck." Yes, the issue is meaningful consent. That's not hand waving, it's a recognition of an important difference between a child (or adolescent) and an adult.
Edit: please see next post before responding.
[ June 24, 2009, 01:24 AM: Message edited by: scifibum ]
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:It isn't just some irrational self serving idea that can be boiled down to I get mine but you can't have yours.
I guess perhaps you thought I was boiling down OSC's point of view this way. I suppose I can see where that impression would come from. No, I don't think it boils down to this. Honestly I think it boils down to a religious belief. Less mind-readingly, I think it boils down to the reasoning that opposite sex pairings are crucial to civilization but also a fragile institution.
All I really wanted to point out is that OSC doesn't seem to acknowledge the price paid by gay individuals if society continues to condemn homosexual behavior. Sorry if that appeared somehow to be the same as believing that decent people could not hold the opinion.
(I'm really not all that puritanical, you see.)
Posted by ToraMay (Member # 12080) on :
quote: Heterosexuals who have positive attitudes toward gay people may choose to believe that sexual orientation is innate so that they don’t have to assign moral responsibility for a choice that they would not make. Those who believe homosexuality is morally wrong may choose to believe that it is a choice, precisely so they can assign moral responsibility.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm sorry about the misunderstanding scifi. The point of my original drug user analogy was solely that if you start from the premise that homosexual activity is self destructive and harmful to society, then the rest of Mr. Card's arguments don't seem hatefilled, fearful of irrational. Since you objected to the analogy, I figured that you objected to my point.
My intent with the drug user analogy was that many people think behaviors that are self destructive and harmful to established social institutions should be illegal for reasons other than hatred, hypocrisy, or irrational fear.
If your only objection was that homosexuality is not objectively as self destructive or harmful to society as drug use, then we are in complete agreement.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
But Rabbit, do you really buy the idea that all of OSC's speech against equal rights has to do with homosexual activity being "self-destructive and harmful to society?" I suppose I can see how you do- Mormons would have alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, and other legal but abusable drugs outlawed in their perfect society. But what I have a hard time buying into is the idea that these very puritanical beliefs are not based initially on bigotry and hate, or at least xenophobia. The LDS church was a racist institution, like many churches, a very short time ago- was their rationalization against black ministers about the destruction of society I wonder?
You ask an interesting question: whether a sane rational person could have the right to disagree. I think it's perhaps a bit much to ask that we give anti-gay rights activists the benefit of the doubt in that regard. Perhaps we shouldn't assume they are *irrational,* but my understanding of the world definitely tells me they are misguided. But then it's always a bit like that episode of South Park where the atheists of the future fight over the best name for their league of atheists. No end to these kinds of conflicts.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:But Rabbit, do you really buy the idea that all of OSC's speech against equal rights has to do with homosexual activity being "self-destructive and harmful to society?" I suppose I can see how you do- Mormons would have alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, and other legal but abusable drugs outlawed in their perfect society. But what I have a hard time buying into is the idea that these very puritanical beliefs are not based initially on bigotry and hate, or at least xenophobia.
Why is that hard to believe? I think it'd be a bit strange and very counterproductive to assume the reasons that OSC states for his position are not really why he believes what he believes, and instead posit secret motives that he won't admit, without any real evidence for that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Consent isn't the only issue involved.
I've mostly stayed out of this particular version of this conversation, but I feel like I need to note that, no, consent is the only issue involved. It is not merely "hand-waving" to assert that minors are not capable of giving informed consent; the law in all its forms accepts the argument that children of a certain (unfortunately arbitrary, but that's for convenience's sake) age are incapable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions and therefore incapable of consenting acceptably.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote: Heterosexuals who have positive attitudes toward gay people may choose to believe that sexual orientation is innate so that they don’t have to assign moral responsibility for a choice that they would not make. Those who believe homosexuality is morally wrong may choose to believe that it is a choice, precisely so they can assign moral responsibility.
And those of us who are gay think the fact that y'all can argue about it instead of just asking those of us who know are pretty silly.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Why is that hard to believe? I think it'd be a bit strange and very counterproductive to assume the reasons that OSC states for his position are not really why he believes what he believes, and instead posit secret motives that he won't admit, without any real evidence for that.
I stated multiple exams of people who do exactly this kind of thing. It's hard to believe because it's usually not true, in my experience. What would be "real" evidence? The kind of secret motivations that OSC posits day in and day out about other people? As I've said before, he spends most of his writing talking about how people are deceitful and self-deluded, talking about their true motivations. Shocker that I might suggest one with such an interest in that aspect of human nature is himself a part of it. I'm not saying I *know*, but it seems pretty stupid not to at least suspect this is the case.
Do you accept everything that everyone tells you all the time at face value? It works for basic stuff, but this is a fairly involved issue, and his position is, for lack of a better word, a bit contradictory.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I stated multiple exams of people who do exactly this kind of thing. It's hard to believe because it's usually not true, in my experience. What would be "real" evidence? The kind of secret motivations that OSC posits day in and day out about other people?
I have objected repeatedly when OSC writes about the "real secret motivations" of people he barely knows. I find it objectionable no matter who does it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Consent isn't the only issue involved.
I've mostly stayed out of this particular version of this conversation, but I feel like I need to note that, no, consent is the only issue involved. It is not merely "hand-waving" to assert that minors are not capable of giving informed consent; the law in all its forms accepts the argument that children of a certain (unfortunately arbitrary, but that's for convenience's sake) age are incapable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions and therefore incapable of consenting acceptably.
QFT and emphasis.
Thanks, Tom. You put this much more reasonably than I would have. -------
I don't think that "I get to have mine, only yours is not ok" is exactly right, but it is close. It is this incredibly smug sense that everyone should want to live the way that they do that is the problem. That unless people have families that look just like theirs, they aren't really families. That if people want something other than their kind of relationships, they are somehow sick or wrong or, at best, misguided. It is great that OSC has a family that works for him; it is arrogance to believe that because it works for him it must be imposed on everyone.
The Rabbit, I understand what you are saying. Yes. If one accepts OSC's premise then what follows is a natural conclusion requiring nothing extra hateful. But this ignores the fact that he is starting with a hateful premise and one that has no basis in anything but the idea that everyone should want to live like he does.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It is this incredibly smug sense that everyone should want to live the way that they do that is the problem. That unless people have families that look just like theirs, they aren't really families.
While there are certainly people out there who are that way about these sorts of things, I think generally it's more likely to be a case of simple ignorance. That is, someone has one set of experiences with 'family', and everyone they know has a similar set of experiences, and so to them, that's 'Family'. Smug doesn't have to enter into it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:But Rabbit, do you really buy the idea that all of OSC's speech against equal rights has to do with homosexual activity being "self-destructive and harmful to society?"
Absolutely! That's what he says. Though I do not know OSC personally, I belong to the me church and know quite a few people who like OSC honestly and sincerely believe homosexual activity is self destructive. What's more, that hypothesis actually fits the data we know about OSC much better than your hypothesis. Based on what people who know OSC say, even what gay people who know him say, your explanation simply doesn't fit the data.
I'm sure there are other examples where it does fit the data but the fact that some people who disapprove of homosexuality are actually (insert your favorite condescending insulting explanation here), is not evidence that OSC shares those characteristics. I'm sorry but it just isn't.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: [QB] I'm sorry about the misunderstanding scifi. The point of my original drug user analogy was solely that if you start from the premise that homosexual activity is self destructive and harmful to society, then the rest of Mr. Card's arguments don't seem hatefilled, fearful of irrational.
So if I started arguing, based on the cases of Kara Neumann and children like here, that all religious belief was deadly harmful, and therefore should be illegal, you are saying that it would be wrong to label this argument as hateful, fearful, and irrational?
Because there is a gigantic difference between beliving that something is harmful, and believing that one's personal opinions should be state law. The latter absolutely does not follow from the former.
quote:My intent with the drug user analogy was that many people think behaviors that are self destructive and harmful to established social institutions should be illegal for reasons other than hatred, hypocrisy, or irrational fear.
And lots of other people find those arguments fatally flawed, largely for the the same consent reason that everyone but you thinks is central to the question. If the arguments are flawed for drug use, then they are doubly flawed for living honestly as a gay person.
At least people who oppose the use of drugs can point to concrete, physical harm caused by their use and abuse(same as people who oppose the war on drugs can point to concrete harm caused by their criminalization). OSC can't point to any concrete harm caused by gay people living their lives the way they want to. That kills the analogy.
I don't see why you feel the need to translate to all us unthinking close-minded liberals what OSC is arguing anyway. He's written plenty. He's a writer. It's not like he's incapable of explaining himself adequately. If you think someone is mistaken about his argument, you should quote what he wrote, not explain to everyone what arguments you think he's trying to make. Then we can decide for ourselves what he's actually arguing. If, for instance, OSC really thinks that being gay is harmful (more harmful that choosing to be childless), you should be able to find a quote of him saying that.
If you can't, then you are probably not actually defending OSC's argument.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think that The Rabbit is trying to defend OSC's argument. I think she is just making a case against taking such a hard line that we can't listen to what the the person we are arguing thinks the argument is. I think that The Rabbit is merely advocating listening as more useful tack to changing minds.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I stated multiple exams of people who do exactly this kind of thing. It's hard to believe because it's usually not true, in my experience. What would be "real" evidence? The kind of secret motivations that OSC posits day in and day out about other people?
I have objected repeatedly when OSC writes about the "real secret motivations" of people he barely knows. I find it objectionable no matter who does it.
That's fair.
There's no need here for you to get snippy about it (ala, your second post). We're allowed to disagree.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't think that The Rabbit is trying to defend OSC's argument. I think she is just making a case against taking such a hard line that we can't listen to what the the person we are arguing thinks the argument is. I think that The Rabbit is merely advocating listening as more useful tack to changing minds.
The Rabbit has a point -- it is fruitless to argue against somebody is you don't understand their argument and your points of disagreement. I've seen people do it on this message board and in real life countless times, arguing almost for the sake of arguing, without really listening. Sometimes, when I'm a neutral observer, it seems to me that they're not really disagreeing at all but can't get past their own wording choices.
In this case, I think there are two major points of disagreement that I have with Card on gay rights, based on his articles:
1. The role homosexuality plays on society and 2. The role government plays in society.
Putting bigotry aside, which is, after all, just a word, and not a useful one at that, I think the real problem boils down to those two things. Card thinks that homosexuality is fundamentally harmful to society and that if something is harmful to society, the government should step in.
I disagree on both counts, although the first more than the second. I do not believe homosexuality is harmful either to individuals or to society. If there were only three people left on earth and two of them were gay, we could talk.
As far as the role of government goes, that's a little trickier, because sometimes the government does step in for the greater good, but only when one person's rights conflict with another's. Government is not there to be our moral compass, especially when we're all trying to take it in different directions. You have to be careful when asking the government to step in due to "harm" to society -- because the will of the people can make such things happen in a representative government.
In any case, as Card himself is not here to tell any of us whether or not we have correctly understood his arguments, I find this entire conversation to be difficult at best, pointless at worst.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Thanks Kate and Christine, You are right. I'm not trying to defend Card's position, I'm trying to help people understand a different point of view without villifying it.
I'm really quite fed up with people on both sides of the gay right issue who are content to vilify the other side. I know people on both sides of this issue and it hurts me to see either side vilified. Its not true, it's not productive, it's not civil and it's not nice. I think if people were to make an honest attempt to understand the other side, we would make great strides toward finding a resolution that was acceptable to most everyone. But that won't ever happen if people are solely concerned about winning.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that part of the problem I have with the "let's all be nice and civil to each other" (even though I know it is important) is the failure to recognize that, as polite as one is about it, denying someone civil rights because you don't think their life is as good as yours is not nice and not civil and not polite. It is offensive no matter how it is sugar-coated with good intentions and "hate the sin, not the sinner" rhetoric.
Which is why, as much as one tries to understand where he is coming from - actually especially when one understands - OSC's position is offensive.
Also, if one's religion requires one to hold an offensive belief, that does not excuse it from being offensive. The leadership of my own Church has an offensive position on gay marriage. I do not share that position. Whether or not someone can disagree with their religious leadership is up to them, but we don't get off the hook because we think that God agrees with us.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that part of the problem I have with the "let's all be nice and civil to each other" (even though I know it is important) is the failure to recognize that, as polite as one is about it, denying someone civil rights because you don't think their life is as good as yours is not nice and not civil and not polite. It is offensive no matter how it is sugar-coated with good intentions and "hate the sin, not the sinner" rhetoric.
It is very human, however, to rationalize such behavior and to truly, deeply believe it that way. Maybe it's easier for me to understand because I've shifted from a strong anti-gay stance to a strong pro-gay stance, but I can assure you that I didn't change my mind because people told me I was a bad person filled with hatred and bigotry.
In fact, the most likely reason that I held that stance, the reason I held a lot of stances that I later flip flopped on, it because my parents did. And they were the strongest influence in my life before I went to college. But whatever the reason, I had a great bit of rationalization going on that was internally consistent. I don't see how that made me a mean, uncivil, and impolite person. If anything, I was nicer, more civil, and more polite back then. The older I get, the more hardened and cynical I become. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:as polite as one is about it, denying someone civil rights because you don't think their life is as good as yours is not nice and not civil and not polite.
Certainly the people subjected to this treatment won't think it's nice, civil, or polite.
But that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not laws should be passed or struck down.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I'm really quite fed up with people on both sides of the gay right issue who are content to vilify the other side.
I don't think anyone vilified the pro-SSM side here on Hatrack...
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm not trying to defend Card's position, I'm trying to help people understand a different point of view without villifying it.
When toddlers demand to get another cookie, the problem isn't that the parents don't understand what the toddler wants, or why. It's that the toddler doesn't have a right to eat cookies all day long. So what if OSC thinks that his reproductive security demands that the government not recognize any family structure that doesn't look like his? His rights don't supersede everyone else's to live their lives as they see fit.
Sorry, but only one side of this debate has a moral and rational leg to stand on. That's not always the case, but it is here.
Now, if you'd made an argument like "Well, sure, you are arguing from a standpoint of fairness and rights and consent and you totally win based on thsoe premises, but all they care about is premises X,Y and Z (conformity, not having to think about icky things, etc), and they just don't care about fairness or rights", that would have been a lot simpler, and you would have gotten less argument
Though frankly, when you made a whole post comparing rape to gay relationships, directed at people who defintately think that consent is the primary moral issue, and didn't once mention consent yourself, I have to wonder if you understand the arguments of gay marriage supporters as well as you think.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that part of the problem I have with the "let's all be nice and civil to each other" (even though I know it is important) is the failure to recognize that, as polite as one is about it, denying someone civil rights because you don't think their life is as good as yours is not nice and not civil and not polite. It is offensive no matter how it is sugar-coated with good intentions and "hate the sin, not the sinner" rhetoric.
It is very human, however, to rationalize such behavior and to truly, deeply believe it that way. Maybe it's easier for me to understand because I've shifted from a strong anti-gay stance to a strong pro-gay stance, but I can assure you that I didn't change my mind because people told me I was a bad person filled with hatred and bigotry.
In fact, the most likely reason that I held that stance, the reason I held a lot of stances that I later flip flopped on, it because my parents did. And they were the strongest influence in my life before I went to college. But whatever the reason, I had a great bit of rationalization going on that was internally consistent. I don't see how that made me a mean, uncivil, and impolite person. If anything, I was nicer, more civil, and more polite back then. The older I get, the more hardened and cynical I become.
Christine, you may have been (though I think you are pretty nice, now) but your position wasn't.
Scott, perhaps not. But that is not the point I was addressing.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Certainly the people subjected to this treatment won't think it's nice, civil, or polite.
But that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not laws should be passed or struck down. "
No, but its also a little ridiculous to expect people to be nice and civil and polite when what they are talking about is the mean, uncivil, impolite policy that you are saying should remain in place.
General "you."
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Christine, you may have been (though I think you are pretty nice, now) but your position wasn't.
So...love the sinner hate the sin? Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not really. Just insist on some recognition that there isn't a nice way to hold an offensive opinion.
A bus driver can say "please" when telling someone they have to go to the back of the bus that doesn't make it okay or require you to be polite about going.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:No, but its also a little ridiculous to expect people to be nice and civil and polite when what they are talking about is the mean, uncivil, impolite policy that you are saying should remain in place.
On the contrary-- this is a requirement for civilization. Learning to speak civilly to people who are diametrically opposed to your own viewpoints is one hallmark of adulthood. The society that embraces civil discourse is therefore more free because the citizens are ensured that other citizens are not going to suddenly grab weapons and kill them-- no matter how much they might disagree.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In any case, as Card himself is not here to tell any of us whether or not we have correctly understood his arguments, I find this entire conversation to be difficult at best, pointless at worst.
I am allowed, though, to point to the nonambiguous statements of an author and know that he meant what he said and argue based on this point, especially given the lack of a retraction and the fact that this year he amped it up and even became part of this nation's most prominent anti-SSM organization.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:No, but its also a little ridiculous to expect people to be nice and civil and polite when what they are talking about is the mean, uncivil, impolite policy that you are saying should remain in place.
On the contrary-- this is a requirement for civilization. Learning to speak civilly to people who are diametrically opposed to your own viewpoints is one hallmark of adulthood. The society that embraces civil discourse is therefore more free because the citizens are ensured that other citizens are not going to suddenly grab weapons and kill them-- no matter how much they might disagree.
Scott, free for whom? You are missing the point that the viewpoints themselves are not equal in civility. Sugar-coating with polite words does not make denying rights to gays civil. It is neither just nor kind, so demanding civility from supporters of SSM is, perhaps unwitting, hypocrisy.
If you (general you) want more civility in the words of advocates for gay rights, you (general you) might stop insisting on uncivil actions against gay people.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Sugar-coating with polite words does not make denying rights to gays civil. It is neither just nor kind, so demanding civility from supporters of SSM is, perhaps unwitting, hypocrisy.
If you (general you) want more civility in the words of advocates for gay rights, you (general you) might stop insisting on uncivil actions against gay people.
Addressing the subject at hand: opponents of SSM do not recognize that same sex marriage is a civil right. It's useless to stomp your feet on the ground and shout, "It is, it is!"
On a more general note:
I'm alarmed that you feel this way about dialog. Or maybe you just feel this way about this select subject. (I don't know why that would be the case)
More than rights are being taken away from the unborn. Would it be right of those who oppose abortion to start being uncivil in discussions here on Hatrack? How far are you willing to apply your ideas about justified incivility?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott, you are not reading what I am writing.
I am not suggesting that advocates of gay rights become less civil. I have noted that civility is important. I have agreed that trying to understand the other point of view is important.
What I am suggesting is that opponents of gay rights who complain about the incivility of advocates of gay rights need to look at their own behaviour. No matter how polite their words, their action in opposing equal rights (since you object to "civil rights") is not polite. It is not kind, or nice, or friendly, or understanding, or just. It may be, for some, considered a religious necessity or a bulwark against reproductive chaos, but that does not make it kind, or nice, or friendly, or just.
Recognition of that is important.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
But again, as Scott pointed out, they aren't opposing equal rights. They don't consider the right to a same sex marriage to be a right at all, for anyone.
What’s the civil way to express that viewpoint?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:If you (general you) want more civility in the words of advocates for gay rights, you (general you) might stop insisting on uncivil actions against gay people.
I do not agree that holding an opinion is equal to taking an action.
I do not agree that withholding cookies from a toddler who is having a tantrum is unkind.
This has nothing to do with homosexuals.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
My understanding of kmbboots's argument is not that she's saying that she or anyone on the pro-SSM side of the argument should be uncivil - it's that anti-SSM proponents should not complain about what they consider uncivil actions since, from the POV of pro-SSM people, the anti-SSM side is, in and of itself, uncivil.
So. "I'm not going to do A because I recognize it's bad. But you shouldn't complain too much about people doing A, since you're doing A yourself."
I agree with this position.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott, if you aren't equating homosexuals wanting to marry with toddlers wanting cookies, what is the relevance of that statement? Why would you post it in this discussion?
True. If one never takes action on their opinion they are not engaging in unkind acts.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:if you aren't equating homosexuals wanting to marry with toddlers wanting cookies, what is the relevance of that statement? Why would you post it in this discussion?
Because you are hinting that in some cases, it's excusable to be uncivil.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think the abortion analogy is apt. It's difficult to maintain civility, but people should try. Otherwise, the sides will simply become increasingly polarized.
In other words, be uncivil all you like, but I think it's more likely to hurt your cause than help it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:if you aren't equating homosexuals wanting to marry with toddlers wanting cookies, what is the relevance of that statement? Why would you post it in this discussion?
Because you are hinting that in some cases, it's excusable to be uncivil.
No. I'm not. If I thought that, I would say it rather than hint at it.
Again. I am not suggesting that supporters of gay rights should be less civil; I am saying that people who oppose gay rights are more uncivil, no matter how polite they are about it, than they think they are.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: My understanding of kmbboots's argument is not that she's saying that she or anyone on the pro-SSM side of the argument should be uncivil - it's that anti-SSM proponents should not complain about what they consider uncivil actions since, from the POV of pro-SSM people, the anti-SSM side is, in and of itself, uncivil.
So. "I'm not going to do A because I recognize it's bad. But you shouldn't complain too much about people doing A, since you're doing A yourself."
I agree with this position.
Jhai, I believe that both you and kate are begging the question. The SSM debate is fundamentally not about whether gay people should be denied civil rights it is about whether people should have the right to marry a person of their choosing regardless of gender. The primary question IS whether this should be a civil right or not. Your argument basically boils down to you don't think you need to be civil if you are right.
The funny thing is, that your stance is the radical one. To the best of my knowledge, prior to the last two decades, civilization that have sanctioned same sex marriage are at best highly exceptional even among civilizations like ancient Greece where same sex relationships were not only accepted but praised. I don't think that constitutes a reason why our society should not sanction SSM, but certainly it ought to make it clear that this isn't a long recognized legal right.
You are the ones proposing that we grant a new right in our society. It is your burden to pursuade opponents that this right is just and just shouting 'it is a right' repeatedly is begging the question.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: My understanding of kmbboots's argument is not that she's saying that she or anyone on the pro-SSM side of the argument should be uncivil - it's that anti-SSM proponents should not complain about what they consider uncivil actions since, from the POV of pro-SSM people, the anti-SSM side is, in and of itself, uncivil.
So. "I'm not going to do A because I recognize it's bad. But you shouldn't complain too much about people doing A, since you're doing A yourself."
I agree with this position.
Jhai, I believe that both you and kate are begging the question. The SSM debate is fundamentally not about whether gay people should be denied civil rights it is about whether people should have the right to marry a person of their choosing regardless of gender. The primary question IS whether this should be a civil right or not. Your argument basically boils down to you don't think you need to be civil if you are right.
Where? Where! have I written that anyone should stop being civil? MY argument is the opposite of that. I am saying that even if we are all wrong and opponents of SSM are right - because God says so or civilization will fall if we allow gay marriage or whatever - they are still being unkind and unjust and not nice.
Perhaps religious dictates and saving families as you (general you) think they should be trumps being kind and just and nice. I get that. Just don't pretend that you (general you) are being kind and just and nice.
quote:
The funny thing is, that your stance is the radical one. To the best of my knowledge, prior to the last two decades, civilization that have sanctioned same sex marriage are at best highly exceptional even among civilizations like ancient Greece where same sex relationships were not only accepted but praised. I don't think that constitutes a reason why our society should not sanction SSM, but certainly it ought to make it clear that this isn't a long recognized legal right.
You are the ones proposing that we grant a new right in our society. It is your burden to pursuade opponents that this right is just and just shouting 'it is a right' repeatedly is begging the question.
Marriage isn't a new right. Just like voting wasn't a new right when we allowed women to vote. Now, most places, it is a legal protection that some people have access to and others do not. "This is how it has always been" is not a good enough argument nor is it a true argument. Marriage has been many things - and still is - before it became what it is here and now.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Your argument basically boils down to you don't think you need to be civil if you are right. "
No, kate's argument boils down to "If you treat people meanly, don't be surprised if they treat you meanly in response. This does not mean that anyone should be mean to other people."
Look, I get that some people don't think this is about equal rights (they are wrong, but whatever), but to believe that you are not being mean to gay people while arguing against letting gays have access to civil marriage is frankly inexcusable for any halfway-intelligent person.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Rabbit, did you actually read what I wrote? My argument (i.e. my interpretation of Kate's argument) boils down to exactly what I wrote, no more, no less: "I'm not going to do A because I recognize it's bad. But you shouldn't complain too much about people doing A, since you're doing A yourself." How is that equivalent to "you don't think you need to be civil if you are right"? If you would like, I can put these two statements into propositional logic and prove that they are not the same, nor even close to it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Where? Where! have I written that anyone should stop being civil? MY argument is the opposite of that. I am saying that even if we are all wrong and opponents of SSM are right - because God says so or civilization will fall if we allow gay marriage or whatever - they are still being unkind and unjust and not nice
How? That is the argument. Is it just or is it unjust? And kind and nice are pretty strongly linked with what is just. I suppose people might consider it kind and nice if I give people more than they justly deserve but is it unkind and not nice if I don't. Couldn't one fairly consider it not nice if people demand to receive more than they justly deserve?
If it is just to prohibit same sex marriage, is it then unkind and not nice to oppose legalization? Seriously, explain your argument. You are still begging the real question. Does justice demand that people should be allowed to legally marry any person of their choosing regardless of gender.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The Rabbit, can you explain to me how denying SSM is just?
I can give you plenty of reasons that it isn't.
Added: Really. In decades of arguing for gay rights, I have heard lots of arguments about religion and protecting families and saving children from existing in homes without both genders. I have never heard someone argue that it is fair.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I think the abortion analogy is apt. It's difficult to maintain civility, but people should try. Otherwise, the sides will simply become increasingly polarized.
In other words, be uncivil all you like, but I think it's more likely to hurt your cause than help it.
Is this true though? In both the abortion and gay marriage cases, while it is true that both sides are polarized I have to wonder if it is actually true that being civil would actually help.
Looking at the social trends and the projections of places like 538, it seems that same-sex marriage is all but inevitable although it may take a long time. The abortion fight is partly won, although vigilance is very required. And all this is with the current set of very uncivil tactics. In other words, it seems like the uncivil tactics are actually working and of benefit!
So is it actually true that if everyone sat down and starting being more polite that the cause of same-sex marriage and pro-choice would actually be advanced? Or rather, is it the case that less noise and uncivility might actually mean less attention to the two causes and more antipathy toward changing the status quo?
It is an interesting question and I don't think the answer is as obvious as assumed by some of the preceding posts.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
kmboots, I'm not arguing that denying same sex marriage is just so no I'm not going to explain it to you.
You are proposing that something be made a legal right that is not currently a legal right -- you therefore have the burden of pursuading people that this change is just. This is the big underlying question in the debate. You can't just pretend it doesn't exist and everyone agrees. They clearly don't.
The SSM debate isn't a debate between people who all agree that people have an inherent right to marry who ever the choose without restriction. It isn't a debate between people who think its OK to deny this right and people who don't. Its a debate about whether or not this should be a right.
This the question. If the answer were obvious, there wouldn't be a debate. This is what I keep saying about trying to understand where the other side is coming from.
Opponents of SSM (at least the ones I know) are not people who think its gays should be treated unkindly and unjustly. They aren't people who think its OK to discriminate against people because they are gay. They are people who think that the current system in which people are allowed to marry only people of the opposite sex is just. If you want that to change, you have to address the question not just keeping repeating that you are right and they are wrong.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"That is the argument. Is it just or is it unjust? And kind and nice are pretty strongly linked with what is just."
Actually, justice is linked much more closely to retribution, vengeance, punishment, and unkindness.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"You are proposing that something be made a legal right that is not currently a legal right -- you therefore have the burden of pursuading people that this change is just. "
Alternatively, people holding something for themselves that they won't let others have access to have the burden of showing that the status quo is just.
Currently existing is not a good argument for alternative view points to have the burden of proof. Its a COMMON argument, but its not good.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Opponents of SSM (at least the ones I know) are not people who think its gays should be treated unkindly and unjustly. They aren't people who think its OK to discriminate against people because they are gay. "
Opponents of SSM are, nevertheless, people who DO treat gays unkindly and unjustly.
Also, the proposition "It is not ok to discriminate against people who are gay," and "It is just to deny same sex marriage while maintaining the status quo of legal marriage," are contradictory.
To discriminate means to make a distinction in favor of one group over another. It is illogical to claim that the status quo of marriage is not discriminatory... people who maintain it is not aren't paying attention to what civil marriage in the United States is.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "You are proposing that something be made a legal right that is not currently a legal right -- you therefore have the burden of pursuading people that this change is just. "
Alternatively, people holding something for themselves that they won't let others have access to have the burden of showing that the status quo is just.
Currently existing is not a good argument for alternative view points to have the burden of proof. Its a COMMON argument, but its not good.
Perhaps valid in a philosophy class but impractical when we are discussing the law. A system which required those who opposed changes to the law to prove the status quo was fair would virtually unworkable.
I have in my a possession a bar of excellent chocolate. It is legally mine and I intend to eat it. Current law says that only people who pay the fair market price or recieve it as a gift have the right to good chocolate. If you believe that this system is unjust and that all people deserve to eat good chocolate whether or not they can pay the fair market price or have generous friends, then you have the responsibility of persuading people that the law should be changed. Telling me that I'm unkind, and unjust and not nice because I'm going to eat and enjoy my chocolate while I oppose changes to the law that would allow everyone to eat and enjoy this chocolate, is begging the question.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What Paul wrote.
The Rabbit, if you don't want to make that argument, do you want to pass on arguments that you think other opponents of gay rights are making?
How does denying gay people the same legal protections that straight people enjoy qualify as fair?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Opponents of SSM are, nevertheless, people who DO treat gays unkindly and unjustly.
You are still begging the question. I don't care how many times you rephrase it. The debate exists because opponents of SSM disagree with that this is a fact. They don't believe it is unjust deny people the right to marry some on of the same gender.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Now I want some chocolate.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Opponents of SSM are, nevertheless, people who DO treat gays unkindly and unjustly.
You are still begging the question. I don't care how many times you rephrase it. The debate exists because opponents of SSM disagree with that this is a fact. They don't believe it is unjust deny people the right to marry some on of the same gender.
The Rabbit, I could with just as much sense, argue that calling someone a stupid bigot is kind and civil because I believe that.
Not, mind you, that I am doing that here and now.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"You are still begging the question. I don't care how many times you rephrase it. The debate exists because opponents of SSM disagree with that this is a fact."
Actually, I'm not sure that's the argument they are making. Most "good" arguments I've seen against equitable marriage (not that I've seen any actual good argument) don't deny that they are being unkind and unjust to gays, rather, those arguments assert, usually, necessity or similar. Necessity, beneficial for society, etc. are not the same as "kind and just."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As for the chocolate argument. Capitalism is not supposed to be fair; our legal system is supposed to be.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
On kindness:
You are only being kind towards people if the people you are acting towards agree that you are being kind. That's implicit in the definition of kind. Since you cannot find more than a small handful of gays who think the anti-equitable marriage stance is kind, the only way for an anti to believe s/he is being kind is by being delusional or deliberately blind.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Kate, You seem to believe that straight people have the right to marry any person of their choosing. Neither gay people nor straight people have the legal right to marry some one who is already married to someone else, or someone under a set age, or someone who is a close relative or someone who does not consent or someone of the same gender.
It is entirely possible to see these laws as applying equally to everyone and not specifically to straight or gay people. Historically, the legal contract of marriage has been about property rights and responsibilities not about love or sexual attraction. Even today I can think of many reasons people might want to marry someone to whom they were not particularly sexually attracted, although these are the exceptions not the rule. For example, two men who wanted to get married to save on medical insurance wouldn't be allowed to but a man and a woman would be allowed to marry even if this was their only reason. Two divorced women who chose to live together to share child care and financial responsibilities, would not be allowed to marry but if they were a man and a women they could.
Personally, I see no reason why the fact that two people whose relationship is sexual should receive legal rights that are different from two people whose relationship is non-sexual.
In my opinion, the legal status of marriage has already been made archaic by modern attitudes toward love, sex, marriage, property, inheritance and women in general. It is no longer adequate for dealing with the complexities of family relations and property ownership in our modern society and needs to be overhauled. But I think the claims that the law discriminates against gay people are inaccurate.
It might be accurate to say the laws give an unfair advantage to people with more traditional property and familial arrangements. Even families like mine with two career professionals are at a disadvantage under currently law.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: As for the chocolate argument. Capitalism is not supposed to be fair; our legal system is supposed to be.
The chocolate analogy is awful. Rabbit can't be so morally blind as to not know that.
It costs to make chocolate. That's why it's fair to pay for it. Marriage "costs" the state some too, but gay people are already paying the same taxes, and getting none of the benefits.
So a better chocolate analogy (as if the harm caused by not having a few onces of chocolate is comaprable to the harm of not having a legal marraige) is that gay people are like people with severe peanut allergies who are forced to buy chocolate, but only in the form of chocolate peanut butter cups. And that's fine for most people, who really like chocolate peanut butter cups, but it's not going to work for people with allergies. Their choices are to not eat the chocolate they want and paid for, or to eat it with peanut butter, and be miserable.
It's obvious to anyone with a heart that that's not a just situation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Kate, You seem to believe that straight people have the right to marry any person of their choosing. Neither gay people nor straight people have the legal right to marry some one who is already married to someone else, or someone under a set age, or someone who is a close relative or someone who does not consent or someone of the same gender.
What have written that makes you think that is what I believe? Is is because I keep insisting that I am married to Viggo Mortenson? How do you think that "same gender" fits with under age or already legally committed to someone else.
As for the roomates who want to save on insurance. If they are opposite gender roomates, they can get married if they choose. They may also be committing insurance fraud, but they can get married.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" But I think the claims that the law discriminates against gay people are inaccurate. "
You think wrongly. Either you do not know the law, or you do not know what discriminate means, or you are lying. I choose to believe you simply are uninformed.
The word discriminate means to give preference to one position or group over another.
Marriage in the united states as a legal institution allows people to marry a consenting person of their choosing, unless they choose a person of the same sex, or a close family member. This is giving preference to people who choose to form a pair-bond with someone of the opposite sex. The laws in most places where same sex couples may not marry outlining what marriage is in the united states have been written explicitly in response to people desiring to marry someone of the same sex. DOMA was passed in response to people desiring to marry a consenting person of the same sex, not of close familial relations.
This is a textbook example of discrimination.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
So the law discriminates on a group that is defined solely by their desires?
So do laws that require people to get a drivers license to use the public road ways discriminate against the group of people who don't want to get drivers licenses?
Do tax laws discriminate against the group of people who don't want to pay taxes?
Do laws against steeling descriminate against the group of people who want to take stuff that doesn't belong to them?
Do laws against murder discriminate against people who want to kill somebody?
I have a hard time buying off that a law is discriminatory because it disadvantages people who desire something other than the law.
Laws against steeling and killing were made only in response to people who wanted to steel and kill. By your definition these are all textbook examples of discrimination.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:As for the roomates who want to save on insurance. If they are opposite gender roomates, they can get married if they choose. They may also be committing insurance fraud, but they can get married.
Do laws consider a marriage fraudulent if the two people aren't having sex? First time I've heard it. I'm fairly confident that as long as the marriage is legal, you aren't committing insurance fraud.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The Rabbit, so would a law that allowed white people to sit in front of the bus or go stay at certain hotels wouldn't be discriminatory because it only disadvantaged people who desired something other than the law?
I'm really not sure where you are going with that.
Again, you are not reading what I wrote. No. Laws do not consider a marriage fraudulent if two people aren't having sex. Like I wrote, "they can get married".
I don't know what insurance companies require, hence "may" be committing insurance fraud.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:What have written that makes you think that is what I believe? Is is because I keep insisting that I am married to Viggo Mortenson? How do you think that "same gender" fits with under age or already legally committed to someone else
No. Marriage to people who are teenagers, first cousins and even polygamy (marriage to someone who is already married) have been legal for much of human history. In fact, in many cultures one has been able to legal marry a woman without her consent. I'm still searching for examples of civilizations where same sex marriage has been legal.
Look I'm not trying to be obtuse. I'm obviously not making my point clear. If you want to persuade people that SSM is just, then you have to provide arguments to support that because it isn't obvious. This is a very new idea and reflect changes in our societies attitudes about what marriage is and what marriage should be. I'm not saying that those changes are wrong, in fact I think many of them are good. I'm saying that they need to be clearly articulated and saying "arguments like "how does same gender fit with X, Y and Z" don't cut the mustard.
Rights are a really a rather strange concept. We tend to think of them as something that is true and that exists whether or not we recognize it. But then how do we recognize them? How do we decide whether or not something is a right and exactly how that right is defined? And societally the answer to that question has thus far always been through by consensus. If you can persuade enough people that something is a right -- it becomes a right.
The things is, at least from a legal perspective, it has proven much easier to create new rights than to decide old ones weren't really rights. So maybe we should think really hard about the future consequences before we start enshrining new things as legal rights.
Which is why I'm asking, build the argument. Why is SSM the just thing to do? Why should people have the right to marry someone of the same gender? Use your best logic, your best heart render stories, your best persuasive ability and explain why people should consider this a right. Don't just keep repeating that its obvious. If it is really and truly as obvious as you claim, you should be able to support the argument really easily.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The Rabbit, so would a law that allowed white people to sit in front of the bus or go stay at certain hotels wouldn't be discriminatory because it only disadvantaged people who desired something other than the law?
No. That creates different rules for different people based on their ancestry, not their desires. If a gene were identified as causing homosexuality and people who had that gene were prohibited from marrying, that would be discriminatory. But a law that prohibits everyone from marrying someone of the same gender is not explicitly discriminatory. It applies the same to gay people and straight people. It has discriminatory effects because gay people are far more likely to want to marry someone of the same sex.
quote:I'm really not sure where you are going with that.
I'm trying to point that we don't generally consider a law that impacts differently on people with different desires or behaviors to be disciminatory. Should we consider laws against murder discriminatory because black males are more likely to commit a murder that white females? No. If the law creates different rules for black males and white females who have the same desires and behaviors, then it is discriminatory.
quote:Again, you are not reading what I wrote. No. Laws do not consider a marriage fraudulent if two people aren't having sex. Like I wrote, "they can get married".
No, I don't know what insurance companies require, hence "may" be committing insurance fraud.
I read what your wrote but I'm afraid I don't understand your point in writing it. I was giving an example illustrating that the current laws apply equal to a straights and gays. If a pair of straight men wanted the legal benefits of marriage, the law would apply equally to them as it does to a gay pair of men who might want the legal benefits of marriage. The law is not explicitly discriminatory against gays since it would apply to any pair of many who wanted to marry and not only to a pair of men who wanted to marry because they were sexually attracted.
Let me give you another example. My husband and I have for most of our married life payed higher taxes because we were married. Some of our friends who have been together for nearly as long and who often represent themselves as a married couple, have never gotten married legally because of the financial disadvantages. My husband and I could do that as well but we don't want to (mostly for religious reasons). Do you think that the tax law discriminates against people of my religion?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The Rabbit, gay people are not asking for the right to marry their cousins (which is actually allowed in many states) or underage people.
I think you may be hedging around getting rid of marriage rights altogether and I can sort of see that. Right now, though, straight people have the right to marry and start families with a consenting person and gay people do not have that right. That is not just. Keeping people from having the legal protection of a family is not kind.
We don't allow children to get married because they can't consent. We don't allow siblings to get married because of problems with reproduction and consent. And that may indeed not be just (see how I admitted that?) but there is a good reason for it. It is kind because letting children be raped is unkind.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:As for the chocolate argument. Capitalism is not supposed to be fair; our legal system is supposed to be.
Capitalism is legal under our system. If its not fair, then how can we justify a legal system which defines and defends property rights determined by unfair capitalist market forces.
On second thought, lets not go there. I really not in the mood for a another fight with the libertarian crows. I've been called a monster enough on hatrack lately.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"So do laws that require people to get a drivers license to use the public road ways discriminate against the group of people who don't want to get drivers licenses?"
Yes.
"Do tax laws discriminate against the group of people who don't want to pay taxes?"
Yes.
"Do laws against steeling descriminate against the group of people who want to take stuff that doesn't belong to them?"
Yes.
"Do laws against murder discriminate against people who want to kill somebody? "
Yes.
"I have a hard time buying off that a law is discriminatory because it disadvantages people who desire something other than the law."
As I said above, either you don't understand the law, or you don't understand the word "discriminate." Clearly, the failure in your understanding is over what the word "discriminate," means.
Discrimination in the law is not always wrong. But it is up to the state to justify any discrimination.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hey, I am not such a big fan of unfettered capitalism myself. Theoretically, people are supposed to have the same opportunity to make the money to buy the chocolate.
Yeah. Not so much.
And, just saying, calling people crows is not so civil and I have never called you a monster. Nor would I.
[ June 25, 2009, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" If you want to persuade people that SSM is just, then you have to provide arguments to support that because it isn't obvious."
What definition of "just" are you using that would say that current marriage laws in most states are just?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well this discussion sure is going places, exit stage right
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The things is, at least from a legal perspective, it has proven much easier to create new rights than to decide old ones weren't really rights. So maybe we should think really hard about the future consequences before we start enshrining new things as legal rights.
But we don't have to enshrine anything at all! Just say "The government can not count penises before giving couples their marriage license." That's it. That would solve all the problems. Then gay and straight and bi and transgendered and intersexed people, and whatever category I'm forgetting could all get honest marraiges.
quote:Which is why I'm asking, build the argument. Why is SSM the just thing to do?
If you don't understand it by now, you never will. If you would tell your gay child that he should never have an honest legal marriage like the rest of his friends and family, then there's no convincing you.
quote:Why should people have the right to marry someone of the same gender?
Why the hell shouldn't they? Why the hell should the government be looking down the pants of an intersexed person who lives as female and say "Sorry, your penile tissue is 2 cm too large for you to marry the man you love and who wants to marry you. Go find a woman."?
quote:Use your best logic, your best heart render stories, your best persuasive ability and explain why people should consider this a right. Don't just keep repeating that its obvious.
Those stories have been told for years, the arguments have been laid out. Some people are too morally obtuse to empathize.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Hey, I am not such a big fan of unfettered capitalism myself. Theoretically, people are supposed to have the same opportunity to make the money to buy the chocolate.
Yeah. Not so much.
And, just saying, calling people crows is not so civil and I have never called you a monster.
No, you haven't called me a monster. You are quite civil and I did not mean to imply otherwise. There are however other people who have participated in this thread who have called "a monster" and "worse than Hitler" in times past because I raised a question about property rights. I just really don't want to head down that road right now.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
swbarnes2, I don't think that The Rabbit actually believes the arguments she is defending.
I think (and I am guessing here so forgive me if I am way off) that she is just hurt and troubled by the idea of people that do believe those arguments being called unjust and unkind.
For what it is worth, I don't think that, ordinarily, those people are basically unjust or unkind. I don't think that most opponents of SSM think of the issue in terms of what is just or what is kind. I think most of them are thinking in terms of "we need to protect families" or "God says so" or some combination. I think that, if they started to think in terms of justice and kindness, they would see things differently because, at heart, most of them are kind people and fair people.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Paul, You are absolutley missing my point. I don't think current marriage laws in most states are just. But discriminatory is not the only form of injustice out there.
My point is, and has been through out this thread, that you can not build a persuasive argument for SSM unless you make an effort to actually understand that opposition. If you just demonize them and demean their position, it will go over well with the choir but you aren't going to win any converts.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:But we don't have to enshrine anything at all! Just say "The government can not count penises before giving couples their marriage license." That's it. That would solve all the problems. Then gay and straight and bi and transgendered and intersexed people, and whatever category I'm forgetting could all get honest marraiges.
And you think that wouldn't enshrine anything? Man you are naive.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I understand the anti-ssm position. I've looked closely at it for years. There are two basic non-god arguments against equitable marriage:
"Straights are better than gays, either intrinsically or at some important task such as raising children." Or "I don't want my kids to learn that there are gays out there until I'm ready to tell my children about those people."
People keep trying to tell me they have other arguments, but they haven't advanced one yet that doesn't fit into those categories (plus "God told me too," which doesn't even merit categorization as an argument).
" If you just demonize them and demean their position, it will go over well with the choir but you aren't going to win any converts. "
I actually disagree with that statement, on this topic, because I don't think the people on the fence are there for reasons concerning the substance of the arguments anymore. I explained that in depth on another thread a few months ago.
That said, if you are arguing that anti-ssmers are acting out of what they think is justice, I'd like to know what definition of justice they are using.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... If you just demonize them and demean their position, it will go over well with the choir but you aren't going to win any converts.
Again, I wonder if this is actually true. The Gallup polls that I linked to earlier have historical results for same-sex marriage as well. Interestingly, most of the increase does seem to be due to converts.
While it is possible that the conversion is *in spite* of the current tactics employed which include a hefty amount of demonization and mockery. I'm starting to think that the change may actually be because of it.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: swbarnes2, I don't think that The Rabbit actually believes the arguments she is defending.
I would have thought so too, until she said that no one thought that consent was more than "hand-waving". She thought that you didn't care about consent either. That wasn't some hypothetical argument, that was her made-up strawman of your position.
Why ask other people to refute arguments that you already know how to refute?
quote:I think (and I am guessing here so forgive me if I am way off) that she is just hurt and troubled by the idea of people that do believe those arguments being called unjust and unkind.
If I arrested every member of the LDS church in her town because I sincerely believed the Mormons were awful people who belonged in prison, I don't think she would be troubled by the people calling me an authoritarian monster. I don't think she'd care a whit if I thought I was being just and kind, while her butt was languishing a prison cell.
quote:I think that, if they started to think in terms of justice and kindness, they would see things differently because, at heart, most of them are kind people and fair people.
In which case, telling people "Look at the consequences of what you are advocating. Look at how cruel and unfair it is" wouldn't be a bad strategy. But the attitude of "OMG!!!111 YOu have to let the true-believers do and say whatever they want, becasue telling them they are being pointlessly cruel and unfair is so mean!!!" precludes that approach.
Posted by hobsen (Member # 11808) on :
Changes can be made with more or less tact. New Hampshire earned points when approving same sex marriage because the governor insisted on having it spelled out, among other things, that churches could not be compelled to perform same sex weddings. Under the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, there was zero chance the courts would permit such compulsion anyway - but having that written into the law made it more acceptable to the people of the state.
California did just the opposite in two ways. First the state altered marriage licenses to say those contracting were Party A - if I remember - and Party B. That annoyed a lot of heterosexuals who thought they were married to a husband or wife and not a party, and they protested so loudly the licenses had to be changed again to say Spouse A and Spouse B. That was acceptable wording, but bad feeling remained.
Secondly a lot of people worry that permitting SSM might have bad social effects. And California did not even ask whether spouses considered themselves male or female, nor whether they were from California or from out of state. So no one has any accurate figure for how many same sex marriages were performed, or where these couples might be living - so no studies can be done to show no detectable harm was done. Failing to keep any records on a major social experiment made voters nervous, and when voters get nervous about anything they tend to throw it out and start fresh. Or that is my opinion of voters anyway, for whatever it may be worth.
As a Californian, I should hate to say that Californians are just naturally dumb. California officials got taken by surprise because very few expected the California Supreme Court would suddenly insist on issuing marrage licenses to same sex couples. And New Hampshire made the change later, with plenty of time to prepare, and that state could learn from California's mistakes. Both sides in this controversy are now settling down for a long struggle, and some of the initial blunders will probably not happen again.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I think both sides' loudest voices are arguing against and dismissing the worst-case interpretation of the opposition.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)