quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I haven't argued what you think I've argued, Orincoro.
You don't need to make up arguments for me-- though I appreciate the thought, you lack a certain...Scott R-esque nuance.
It's customary to share your thinking, when you refute an analysis of your argument. From where I'm sitting, I'm still right about what you said. Granted, you didn't say that you were a racist, but I showed the similarity between your position (the position you defended, at least), and the traditional rationality for racism and Eugenics. That's my prerogative.
If you'd care to explain why you defend the idea of enforcing artificial gender roles, and yet for some reason aren't in complete agreement with OSC, I'd like to hear it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quote: "Ability to reproduce"- no qualifiers- as the drive for civilization? Unquote
Of course that's the drive for civilisation. Why do you think societies started in the first place? So people had the most security possible for themselves and most importantly their children. The most basic function of any civilisation is to create a safe environment for the next generation.
Quote: "I don't think that OSC even grasps how offensive his comparisons to rape are." Unquote
Quote "No... Rape and a sex drive is an entirelly different thing. I've had enough. It's just too irratating." Unquote
If you read what Card wrote: "which in other primate species is often expressed as rape" it's clear he's not talking about human rape, which, to me at least, makes what he's ACTUALLY saying much less objectionable. Also, Thornhill and Palmer's 2003 book, "A natural History of Rape", puts forward evidence that rape is not solely a matter of domination, but also is an expression of sexual desire.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_1_38/ai_75820043 A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion. - Review - book review Journal of Sex Research, Feb, 2001 by Todd K. Shackelford, Gregory J. LeBlanc A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion. By Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2000, 251 pages. Cloth, $28.95.
"A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion is an intellectual masterpiece. Thornhill and Palmer present a courageous, compassionate, and scholarly analysis of rape and male sexual coercion, informed by an evolutionary perspective. There is much to commend and recommend about this book. First, we applaud Thornhill and Palmer for their courage in tackling an area of work that is riddled with ideology, misinformation, and untethered emotional upset...."
It's a controversial book (those aspects I've eluded to anyway) but they're reputable researchers and at least indicates there's not only one reason for rape (i.e. the domination idea).
quote:If you read what Card wrote: "which in other primate species is often expressed as rape" it's clear he's not talking about human rape
BULLSHIT. This is such BULLSHIT that I don't believe you actually believe what you say.
Here's what OSC said and it's as clear as you can get.
quote:We expect heterosexual males -- males who are expressing the very drive that leads to reproduction of the genes, and which in other primate species is often expressed as rape -- to be able to recognize that "no means no" at every stage of wooing and coition.
In other words, our society right now says that everybody but homosexuals must curb whatever innate desires are perceived, by our society, as harmful or undesirable, regardless of how natural or evolutionarily productive they might be, or how strongly they are felt.
IF you were honest, you'd see quite clearly that he's comparing heterosexual rape (and the need for heterosexuals to restrain themselves from raping people) with the supposed need OSC believes for homosexuals to restrain themselves from entering into consensual relationships.
Basically in OSC's twisted little brain, the fact we say "People shouldn't be allowed to rape other people" somehow makes us hypocrites for also saying "Homosexual people should be allowed to have consensual sex".
So, no, OSC isn't talking about monkey rape, he's talking about human rape. Quite clearly, quite explicitly, quite unambiguously.
OSC can be accused of many things, but lack of clarity isn't one of them. He knew what he was comparing, and he was quite clear and explicit about it.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you'd care to explain why you defend the idea of enforcing artificial gender roles, and yet for some reason aren't in complete agreement with OSC, I'd like to hear it.
Where did I defend enforcement of gender roles?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The most basic function of any civilisation is to create a safe environment for the next generation.
Honestly, I think most civilization is much more selfish than that, and exists to provide a more comfortable environment for the people currently in charge of it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think OSC is saying that rape and homosexuality are the same. I think that the point OSC is saying is that being a natural urge does not make it acceptable to act on it. He is giving an example of a sexual urge (that may be natural) which society expects people to restrain. I have used a similar argument, saying that we expect monogomy even though our urges do not necessarily tend that way. If I cheated on my husband, telling him or anyone else that it was a natural urge would not make the offense less. BUT both of these examples start with the assumption that we know why the action should be repressed and are simply demonstrating that limiting your urges is something we are expected to do in society.
And for me, that is where the biggest flaw in OSC's reasoning is. He needs to explain why homosexual behavior is wrong and needs to be actively repressed. Rape and adultry have victims, they hurt someone. That makes them clear bads. Homosexuality lacks the clearly bad aspect and therefore a good reason for repression must be made. So, he argues, lower population. Again we must ask, why is that bad? And unfortunately there is no good answer for that question. In one of OSC's books, he has like 8 adults trying to repopulate a planet, so in that case, homosexual behavior would be bad. But, that is not our society and underpopulation is NOT an issue by a longshot. Before you can force someone else to not do something, you need to show that their actions harm someone other then themselves.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
8 people? I haven't read that book but... 8? ew.
I wish folks would pour less energy into homosexuality and more into domestic abuse. It's a way huger problem than homosexuality will ever be. You can't even use the AIDS argument because AIDS=HUMANS not just gay people, Africa for example is being devostated by that, mostly through heterosexual contact.
But domestic violence. Sometimes the churches aren't even a help. They can say, "Stick by your husband, he's your man. You're not allowed to get remarried or divorced, Think of the children. If you didn't nag him so much he wouldn't hit you." And that's just disgusting. He even had that line that just drove me up a tree in Children of the Mind I think. I'm not sure if he's saying that it's better to have a father around that is abusive than to be a single mother, but he sure does like concuring characters and using them as his political mouthpiece. I don't think domestic violence is even understood. A man can terrorfy his wife without even hitting her. And teenage girls are getting into violent unsafe relationships too.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't read Children of the Mind for a while, but I have had an abused woman once ask me whether or not she had made a mistake and if staying married had screwed up her kids. My honest answer, yes, without a doubt. The answer I gave- well, you know, I am sure that having a father around gave them some sense of stability and there is no point in doing what ifs since there are arguments either way. I don't know if Val was being nice and trying to give comfort to the woman or if that was really what she felt, but I do know that it is hard to look an abused woman in the eyes and say, yes your choices damaged your children. And honestly, I don't see how telling someone that helps in any way. The past is the past and people don't need more guilt added on.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aris Katsaris: you don't have to swear at me to get your point across. And no, I don't agree with you. I think you're letting your dislike of Card ("twisted little brain") get in the way of really understanding what he's saying.
Scholarette says it clearly: Quote I don't think OSC is saying that rape and homosexuality are the same. I think that the point OSC is saying is that being a natural urge does not make it acceptable to act on it. He is giving an example of a sexual urge (that may be natural) which society expects people to restrain. I have used a similar argument, saying that we expect monogomy even though our urges do not necessarily tend that way. If I cheated on my husband, telling him or anyone else that it was a natural urge would not make the offense less. BUT both of these examples start with the assumption that we know why the action should be repressed and are simply demonstrating that limiting your urges is something we are expected to do in society. Unquote (And I agree with the rest of that post too, Scholarette.)
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Aris Katsaris: you don't have to swear at me to get your point across. And no, I don't agree with you.
When you said "It's clear he is not talking about human rape" that was wrong. it was what was used in the comparison.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quoting Samprimary: When you said "It's clear he is not talking about human rape" that was wrong. it was what was used in the comparison. Unquote It was NOT human rape that was used as the comparison but rape in "OTHER primate species."
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It was NOT human rape that was used as the comparison but rape in "OTHER primate species."
He's noting the distinction between humans and other primates which is a cultural prohibition against rape ("no means no"). The implication is that without such a cultural prohibition that rape would occur within the human species as it does in other primates.
He then goes on to say that we don't have such a cultural prohibition against homosexuality, setting up an equivalency between what happens when cultural rules don't exist in primates (rape) and when they don't apply to homosexuals (consensual gay sex).
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
There's a link to three review articles in non-scientific publications, one of which I was able to read (the other two are in Commentary - not exactly an objective source by any means). It seemed to do a adequate job of a brief overview of the scientific understanding from when it was written in 1993.
As I said, I was able to read the other two, but, even ignoring their publication in Commentary, they were written in 1987 and 1992. If you're going to talk about the current scientific understanding of something like this, non-scientific articles (especially those from heavily slanted publication) that are over 15 years aren't, in my opinion, going to serve you that well.
I've already addressed OSC's innacurate description of the 1973/74 APA decision. It looks like he touches on the science from this time period in two other places.
quote:Evelyn Hooker's study, for instance, which purported to show that homosexuals were perfectly normal, studied a group of homosexuals who were members of organizations "extremely anxious to provide their most admirable members," and "she removed from the sample anyone who struck her as obviously pathological" (Rosenberg, p. 37).
Given the way she stacked the deck, the surprise was that she didn't find that homosexuality was better than heterosexuality.
The purpose of Hooker's study was not "to show that homosexuals were perfectly normal" and she did not claim this based on that study. If you remember from my description of the APA decision, the challenge posed was "Can anyone show that homosexuality, itself, is intrinsically psychologically damaging?" Hooker addressed this by looking at the most psychologically fit gay individuals she could find. If she ever compared them to the average heterosexual population, as OSC suggested, she would find that they were superior, which is sort of the point. They were psychologically healthy people who were gay, which was supposed to be intrinsically pathological.
The turning point on reclassification was that there was no valid evidence for regarding homosexuality this way. Hooker's study was one of many looking at this. It should be noted that further study over the last 35 years has born this out. It is scientifically indisputable that the APA made the correct decision in 1973.
The other mention of the science here is of Laud Humphreys. I am assuming that OSC was trying to reference Humphreys's famous Tearoom Study, because I can't find anything else he could be referring to. However, it looks like he has a very garbled understanding on the study, as almost everything he claims about it is wrong. Humphreys didn't set out to say anything about the "normality" of homosexuality. He was doing a survey of people who participated in the "Tearoom trade" (anonymous gay sex in reststops, public bathrooms, etc.) to get an idea of the make up of this population.
quote:Humphreys' findings destroy many stereotypes. Fifty-four percent of his subjects were married and living with their wives, and superficial analysis would suggest that they were exemplary citizens who had exemplary marriages. Thirty-eight percent of Humphreys' subjects clearly were neither bisexual nor homosexual. They were men whose marriages were marked with tension; most of the 38 percent were Catholic or their wives were, and since the birth of their last child conjugal relations had been rare. Their alternative source of sex had to be quick, inexpensive, and impersonal. It could not entail any kind of involvement that would threaten their already shaky marriage and jeopardize their most important asset - their standing as father of their children. They wanted only some form of orgasm-producing action that was less lonely than masturbation and less involving than a love relationship. Of the other 62 percent of Humphreys' subjects, 24 percent were clearly bisexual, happily married, well educated, economically quite successful, and exemplary members of their community. Another 24 percent were single and were covert homosexuals. Only 14 percent of Humphreys' subjects corresponded to society's stereotype of homosexuality. That is, only 14 percent were members of the gay community and were interested in primarily homosexual relationships (Humphreys, 1970).
OSC describes what he did as "Using only questionnaires", which is also clearly not true.
---
I don't really have much to say about the twin studies section. His description of the results seems pretty consistent with what I know. There are two sections where it looks like OSC may have just made things up that I take objection to, however:
quote:If seduction, molestation or other sexual trauma contributes to homosexuality, and if those are influenced by the perceived attractiveness of the subject to a molester, seducer or rapist, then the greater physical resemblance between identical twins may account for some of the results.
OSC ofetn brings up this - never quantified - idea of sexual abuse being a significant cause of homosexuality. This is flatly contradicted by the science. Molestation has been ruled out as any sort of significant cause.
Second:
quote:Most scientists agree that twin studies suggest that social influences play a significant role, alongside physical ones, in determining which people become identified as homosexuals in adulthood.
I'm not sure about this "Most scientists" claim. I'm pretty sure he just made that up.
---
On the anatomy, I've got to be honest. Neurology bores the crap out of me. I don't really know that much about the current understanding of relation here to homosexuality.
That being said, this part:
quote:But unrelated research has been discovering that, contrary to longheld belief, the brain's physical structures can change in response to human behavior.
, I'm not really sure what this longheld[sic] belief is that he's talking about. The change in the brain's physical structure has been known for quite some time. Long term potentiation, for example, was first observed in 1966.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, what little science OSC described accurately, he uses to attack his laugably absurd opening thesis:
quote:The claims of those who support gay marriage rest entirely on the idea that science has proved several things:
1. Gays have no choice whatsoever. Genes or hormones make them gay, and it is unreasonable to expect them to control or limit their behavior in any way.
2. Even if there is an element of choice (or preventable environmental influence), there is no reason to ask gays to control or limit their behavior, because homosexuality causes no harm to anyone.
3. Because the first two points have been "scientifically proved," it is unfair to give any kind of legal or social preference to the actions and relationships of heterosexuals. Any such preference is like telling gays to "sit in the back of the bus."
If that is actually what he believes, he has an even worse grasp of what and why people like myself believe what we do than he does on the current state of science on this issue.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread has evolved into a largely civilized discussion, and my normal response would be to leave it alone. But it's worth pointing out that it's grossly unfair to compare BAD heterosexual couples with IDEAL homosexual couples when trying to have a rational discussion. Society already has its muddlesome mechanisms to deal with child abuse and/or neglect. So to use worst-case heterosexuals is simply absurd - unless you can present any shred of evidence that homosexual parents never, never abuse their children in any way.
The determination should be based on whether NONabusive heterosexual couples offer to children necessary things that NONabusive homosexual couples cannot offer. And we should look at serious scientific studies on this, not declarative dogmas. There are scientists who are making a serious effort at understanding how parental role models help shape the behavior and mindset and personality of same-sex and other-sex offspring.
And everybody seems to forget that I have already said, and often, and passionately, that I think our society's embrace of no-social-stigma divorce and non-marital cohabitation does far MORE damage to our society, especially our children, than anything homosexuals do. After physical safety, children need security and constancy first.
And given the sexual patterns of the vast majority of male homosexuals, by their own report, I sincerely doubt that there would be any agitation for homosexual marriage if our marriage laws made divorce difficult and imposed stiff social and/or legal penalties for sexual infidelity.
Naturally, this remark will be greeted with outrage. But I didn't make up the statistics on the numbers of partners and the amount of "cheating" by male homosexuals. Those number come from their own reports to researchers.
Ultimately, of course, our whole conundrum here comes from the common misconception that marriage is about sex alone, or sex primarily. But since St. Paul had precisely the same idea (marriage is "to avoid fornication"), we can't claim that this misconception is some sort of modern invention. <grin>
Marriage is about promoting a regular and stable pattern of reproductive organization in a society, one that will promote peace and the maximum opportunity for universal access to reproduction while arranging for most children to grow up in circumstances that will make them productive participants in the system when they come of age. MATING is something that people handle just fine without any community intervention at all. Getting babies into the world is a cinch, and there are plenty of volunteers to make them at the drop of a hat. The problem is for a society to find a pattern of organizing and, yes, restricting all this that will lead to the MAXIMUM loyalty of the MAXIMUM number of citizens, thus ensuring the persistence through time and the extension through space of the community as a whole.
The community that best organizes itself to persist across time - which requires reproductive security for individuals, a reasonable amount of freedom and happiness, and the successful transmission of the culture from generation to generation (among many other things) - becomes a "civilization." The community that behaves in a way that causes reproductive insecurity, does not provide for freedom and happiness, and does not try to transmit its values from one generation to the next, generally ceases to exist.
So here is the question we're actually debating: Since homosexuality is NOT a solely genetic phenomenon, and since exclusive homosexuality is NOT the sole inevitable behavior of many or most persons with same-sex attraction (the statistics vary with the political winds, since they can only be questionnaire-based), it stands to reason that to one degree or another, it is a learned or chosen behavior. We also do not know, without performing the experiment, whether gay "marriage" will actually promote the freedom and happiness of those who opt for it, over the long term.
Therefore, we are now poised to make a decision to erase any social advantage to traditional marriage in order to give homosexuals something they THINK will make them happy, but at the risk of removing reproductive security from the people who actually make most of the babies. It is a vast social experiment and the only arguments in favor of it are either emotional or dogmatic. There are plenty of emotional or dogmatic arguments from the opponents. But there are also plenty of rational indicators that this experiment is not going to promote the desired result, and has a strong chance of severely weakening the allegiance of heterosexuals to the community.
In a nutshell: Consciously or unconsciously, more and more heterosexuals are going to think, or already think: Why should I be subject to laws that are designed to encourage any children of mine whose sexual orientation may be in doubt toward a NON-reproductive choice?
In other words, its about grandparenting - the persistence of genes across multiple generations.
And when it's about the perception of reproductive security, you can toss rationality out the window.
What the proponents of gay marriage take for granted is that everybody's going to be polite and abide by the decisions of the government.
What they can't seem to understand is that people do not behave rationally or in an orderly way when core issues are at stake. Whether they're conscious of them or not, many heterosexuals are going to have a deep emotional response that WILL find expression one way or another.
It is possible that even before gay marriage, our society has moved beyond the point where we can continue to command the allegiance of the people who create the next generation. Why would parents tolerate allowing their children to risk their lives to DEFEND a society that ATTACKS their reproductive security?
Minority rights persist only with the consent of the majority. right now, the proponents of gay marriage show NO regard for the LARGE majorities opposed to the idea. Don't they understand that the current level of tolerance of homosexuality is a RARE thing, and already causes seething resentment on the part of large numbers of people?
Don't they have any conception of history, of what happens when the majority gets fed up with what they perceive as a danger from a minority?
Don't they understand that what may be at stake here is NOT gay marriage per se - that may simply be impossible and, in a definitional sense, already is impossible. What is really at stake is the continued authority of our governments and courts if they try to enforce something that strikes at the heart of the reproductive security of the majority?
Here's the amusing thing: I believe MY position on this issue is very much in the best interests of homosexuals, and the gay marriage project is actually self-destructive.
If homosexuality really is completely genetic in origin, and our society really does commit to getting all homosexuals to engage only in homosexual relationships, then will that gene not be completely extinguished?
In fact everyone knows that it is not wholly or even, in all likelihood, mostly genetic. Homosexuals are a minority and one whose acceptance is only barely tolerated by the majority as it stands. In the real world, the likelihood of severe backlash increases with the degree to which the majority perceives the minority's demands as unfair, unreasonable, outrageous, or dangerous.
Even if, in some abstract sense, people "should" accept gay marriage, the fact is that a majority do not, and a large minority vehemently NEVER will, and have given clear indications that they will not accept a legal system that demands this of them.
So what's the hurry? Why is this an emergency? Are there homosexuals dying because they can't get married? Is there a gay marriage crisis that must be resolved? Obviously not. The only reason this is so urgent is because the proponents of gay marriage are, in fact, intolerant of the opposition of the MAJORITY. They place their private minority desires above the feelings (and, perhaps, legitimate concerns) of the majority.
How do you think this looks to that majority? Especially in a society that purports to be a democracy?
So setting all other issues aside, on sheer practical grounds, demanding gay marriage - whose advantages all depend on SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE - against the will of the majority seems to be ridiculously dangerous to the interests of homosexuals. Social acceptance cannot be legislated; it comes only by persuasion.
Given time, a majority might come to accept the idea of gay marriage. Pushed, the anger level will rise and the whole structure is placed in doubt.
If gay marriage advocates are patient, and the courts do not impose it by fiat on an unwilling public, and in time gay marriage is enacted by a willing majority, THEN we will find out, in that vast social experiment, just what the consequences are. I think the consequences then will be devastating ... but in a gradual way, over the long term.
Pushing for gay marriage now, undemocratically, is a recipe for social cataclysm. I don't want that cataclysm. I don't want to see homosexuals turned into scapegoats and victims of a violent puritanical reaction. But that is what overpushing NOW will quite likely lead to.
Maybe not. Maybe people will sit back and let it happen. But at that point, it is inevitable that the social allegiance of vast numbers of Americans will bleed away. Their contempt for government and for their own society will grow. They will NOT transmit that culture to their children. Their children will NOT grow up accepting that America deserves their loyalty, obedience, or sacrifice.
That's how civilizations die.
The supposed advantages of gay marriage to the relatively few people who even want it seem so trivial compared to the probable and/or inevitable consequences of forcing it on a society opposed to it, that I marvel at the short-sightedness of those who insist on it. As recently as two decades ago, gay activists and the Left in general promised that the idea of gay marriage was ridiculous. Now they treat anyone opposed to it as if they were evil or pathological. Just how fast do you think a society can transform its core values, especially when there has been no serious effort to persuade anybody, based on evidence or reason, that there are any social benefits at all to the transformation?
This whole thing has been so badly handled that you could almost imagine that the whole gay marriage push has secretly been managed by the Religious Right, in order to destroy any sympathy for the gay cause. Nothing that the religious Right could have done could possibly have led to as much resentment and hostility as the court-imposed gay marriage transformation has done.
Minorities only get their way as long as the majority lets them. That's just how things work. If gay activists are going to play the "fairness" card, they have to let it be played back on them, too, or it will stop working.
But judging from my hate mail, there is zero chance of rational behavior from the extreme Left. There will be no tolerance or even patience from them - they will push their cause until it destroys them; and then they will not understand what happened ...
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it's worth pointing out that it's grossly unfair to compare BAD heterosexual couples with IDEAL homosexual couples when trying to have a rational discussion.
I think it's more fair to compare adoptive homosexual parents with adoptive heterosexual parents, certainly.
---------
quote:Why would parents tolerate allowing their children to risk their lives to DEFEND a society that ATTACKS their reproductive security?
I'm a bit vague still on why you think same-sex marriage is a challenge to your reproductive security. Would you lay out for me the rationale for this, again?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: I believe MY position on this issue is very much in the best interests of homosexuals.
I think that gay people are a better judge of that then yourself.
quote:If homosexuality really is completely genetic in origin, and our society really does commit to getting all homosexuals to engage only in homosexual relationships, then will that gene not be completely extinguished?
No one sensible claims that it's entirely genetic. Twin studies, and the studies of birth order kill that argument pretty quickly. So why bring it up?
Studies have shown that the female relatives of gay men are more fertile. This has been in the scientific literature for almost 4 years. Of course, this is probably just a single locus, and there are others involved, but all it takes is one to demonstrate that the claim doesn't hold water.
Didn't you claim to have studied the scientific facts of homosexuality? If I am misremembering, I apologize. Because surely you would have come across this, and would have seen how it would lead to the maintenance of any gay-predisposing genes in the population.
That's a link from 2004, it was the only one I saw where the whole paper was availible for free. But there are about 4 more papers, the most recent being from this summer.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You've all put the coat over chasm and called it solid.
OSC's basic position is anti- plan of salvation.
He is fully aware that the church and Christ himself supported secular government (numerous sources). Our Church has supported equal rights to protection under the law (support- the entire early Mormon history) and divided a church court from the ability to impose any punishment upon life, limb or property- we are tried for membership only (D&C 144).
What do you have, when you combine the them?
First, a we support equality under the law, we do not support any morality in the LAW (because that is the nature of an institutionalized inequality, exactly what the church fought in the 1800s). Thus, Mormons, if we had any integrity, would unequivocably support removing "marriage" from the law, and putting that into the realm of the church.
Any civil union is a civil union- recogonized by the law.
Any marriage is a marriage- recognized by a church.
Any church that will "marry" a gay couple may, but no church can be compelled, as they already have full rights afforded by the government.
I posit that any capable of standing before a civil agency for a civil license be allowed to do so, in any combinations desired, because it is not the office of our government to define our "personal contracts" but rather to organize equal protection under the law.
The reason Mormons are in pretzels is because Alma realized this himself when the libertines were brought for judgment and Mosiah said, "I judge them not" but not being very courageous to consider jurisprudence separate from the Mormon feeling that we must prostleyte (however that's spelled) we are sure we just had better reverse Mosiah's judgment (which God approved to Alma) in today's world.
OSC's just smart enough to know that he's a bigoted hypocrite.
posted
I'm sorry, math isn't my strong suit. What are you saying exactly? And with less variables this time.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that he adds it up differently than you doesn't make him a hypocrite. It means that you disagree.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, if you say you believe and support certain principles, you cannot support an action that offends all three principles of free agency, equal protection under the law, and the boundaries of moral law our Church or any church may exact for moral lapses.
Most people would call that hypocrisy, but if you want to call it "I know what I said, but I want you to AGREE that I get to act differntly because we have a DISAGREEMENT" I'll let you.
Posts: 14 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still looks like you disagree over what is the issue here. Just because you disagree is no reason for you to pull out the personal insults.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gah, the first time in what, two years, that OSC is willing to talk to us, and we would get an incoherent troll signing on at that very moment. :resigned:
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:if you say you believe and support certain principles, you cannot support an action that offends all three principles of free agency
Wouldn't a more likely answer, besides assuming that OSC is scum, be that he disagrees with you about what exactly those principles are and whether or not those actions offend them?
I'm not a huge fan of the over-used Occam's razor, but come on -- our first assumption should not be that the other person is evil.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't just type as fast as you can munga, please. I think I know what you're trying to say, but your flitting about it's hard to get a grasp. Take a minute, take it slow. The forum and conversation isn't going anywhere.
And munga didn't say anything about being evil I think. Just hypocritical.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why would parents tolerate allowing their children to risk their lives to DEFEND a society that ATTACKS their reproductive security?
I'm a bit vague still on why you think same-sex marriage is a challenge to your reproductive security. Would you lay out for me the rationale for this, again?
I'd be very interested to hear this too, Mr. Card, if you'd indulge us. I was following you fine up to that point, but I lost the thread of the argument here and I'd like to understand it better.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Most highest euchamenious am I, And everyone knows well That when so frickfully I sigh, I've got a smail to tell.
For I, only I, can ever know your broop; I am the mighty grebnerol, the plenkmer of the sloop.
You've all got petty problems, but none of them has I; For my theckel keeps me fit, and my chergbom keeps me wry.
My mind is mighty, I've groopled hard, And every crail I've slain; I've piked the birgots to the grard And et their tiny blains.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Gah, the first time in what, two years, that OSC is willing to talk to us, and we would get an incoherent troll signing on at that very moment. :resigned:
Maybe the incoherent troll has been lying (laying?) in wait for months for the opportunity to snipe OSC with their brilliant attack.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mungagungadin: ...... because if I were OSC, I wouldn't.
Ah. I think we might be at the crux of the problem -- you're assuming that OSC enough like you that he does things for the same reason you would do them, if you were to do them.
If you were OSC, you wouldn't answer, so you assume OSC wouldn't.
If you said what OSC says, you'd be a hypocrite, so you assume that OSC is.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I don't think he'll answer because if he responds at all, he must address the meat of the complaint, or just responding, "I am not a hypocrite!" will sound strange.
Posts: 14 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I wouldn't respond either, because I'd have no interest in discussing my views on such things with somebody being so rude.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Gah, the first time in what, two years, that OSC is willing to talk to us, and we would get an incoherent troll signing on at that very moment. :resigned:
Eh. This is a guy who can't even explain honestly and accuratly why people disagree with him about what happened in a movie.
He's never going to be able to honestly assess why people disagree with him on any subject.
No one who thinks that they are acting in the best interests of a group when they deny them civil rights is going to be persuaded by anything.
He's not going to talk, and never was.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why write him off in advance? It costs nothing to leave the possibility open, and even less to be civil about it. Personally, I'd like to have this conversation, if he's interested -- and if he's not, I don't think that necessarily means I or anyone else can conclude something negative about his character.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Personally, I wouldn't respond either, because I'd have no interest in discussing my views on such things with somebody being so rude.
With all due respect, Mr. Card used his skills as a rhetor to create the impression of right around a position that violates to the core my support of the Plan of Salvation, our Church's position regarding equal protection under the law, and one of the most disastrous mistakes ever made by faithful people- the placing of God's laws into Government meant for all.
Is OSC the taliban, burning women who show an ankle? No, but encouraging the same mistake in less lethal instruments does not right make.
What Mr. Card did was very damaging to the sensitive souls who might have, over the years, been attracted to his voice.
If I was rude, he was far more hurtful.
*is there a reason the board is so slow I can't see my writing before it goes up? Is it me, or is it like this all the time? My finger problems are offending ME.
Posts: 14 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
He has talked (assuming a slight liberty to use "talked" for posting on an internet site) - here, today. I really wish you and munga wouldn't try so terribly hard to make him regret doing so.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, while I do agree with you that munga is perhaps going about it the wrong way, I kind of see their point. It would seem more his fashion to say his piece then leave, comparible with a child saying something then putting his hands over his ears going "lalala" (not saying he's a child, I just thought it a funny visual). This is not really talking to us, but talking at us.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you folks were doing a better job of parsing the issues, I wouldn't have stepped up.
But I've said my peace, I'll go back to Ornery
OSC is a man like any other, he doesn't have the chops to perform many analyses that he does write about, I wish he would get a little more education in his views prior to posting, but he's probably mostly a very good soul.... when he's not being a hypocritical bigot (I lay this on him because I don't think he could have really forgotten his own earlier writings and publications).
Posts: 14 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those things are not comparable. Posting once does not incur an obligation to post again, and posting and not returning is not the same thing as you described.
You have to being trying very hard to find negative things to think about him to reach that conclusion.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee, while I do agree with you that munga is perhaps going about it the wrong way, I kind of see their point. It would seem more his fashion to say his piece then leave, comparible with a child saying something then putting his hands over his ears going "lalala" (not saying he's a child, I just thought it a funny visual). This is not really talking to us, but talking at us.
And what, swbarnes and munga have decided to make sure he's actually got a valid reason for not responding? You know - just in case he actually does do that, since they don't actually know what his intent here is.
For crying out loud, we've got someone who apparently doesn't actually know what the word "hypocrite" means calling him a hypocrite, and someone else challenging those asking for civility by making up claims about what he can't possibly know.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
