Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Discussions About Orson Scott Card » Article calls for people to NOT boycott OSC. (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Article calls for people to NOT boycott OSC.
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/scifi/orson-scott-cards-homophobia-affect-enjoyment-enders-game.html

**Warning: Harsh Language**

The article isn't that complimentary, but it does bring up a good point:

quote:
Orson Scott Card is a Latter Day Saint and as an organization the Latter Day Saints have a real problem with homosexuality. The Mormon church was deeply involved in getting gay marriage banned in California, using the 10% tithe it gets from each of its members to fund an anti-gay agenda. According to the site What Mormons Believe, “The Mormon Church is firm on its position condemning homosexuality as sinful behavior.”

What I’m getting at here is that while Card states his views on homosexuality a little more vehemently and openly than the average Mormon, he’s pretty much in line with the beliefs of the other 12.3 million Latter Day Saints in the world. If you’re going to take a stance against Orson Scott Card then to be fair, you’ll have to start boycotting pretty much every other Mormon in the world too.


Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thesifer
Member
Member # 12890

 - posted      Profile for Thesifer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't mind boycotting all Mormons. [Smile] But as an atheist, I really don't like any religion. So when they start talking crazy or bashing homosexuality, I just chock it up to their society accepted insanity.

I still eat Chik-Fil-A, even though I disagree with some of their executives/owners completely.

I still read Orson Scott Card as well. I've seen him say some pretty decent things, that I agree with, as well as some pretty ignorant things. That's just how it goes.

Posts: 155 | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ADStryker
New Member
Member # 12948

 - posted      Profile for ADStryker           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On that, we can agree. I don't mind boycotting all homosexuals. But as a Christian, I really don't like any deviance. So when they start talking crazy or bashing Christianity, I just chalk it up to their socially accepted insanity.

At any rate, I found the following interesting. James Taranto, in the Feb. 12th Best of the Web, quotes from a story in London's Guardian ...
quote:
Comic giant DC has commissioned Orson Scott Card ... to write for DC's Adventures of Superman series...

The news has sparked a furious backlash from Card's critics. Card is a long-time critic of homosexuality and has called gay marriage "the end of democracy in America." ...

"Superman stands for truth, justice and the American way. Orson Scott Card does not stand for any idea of truth, justice or the American way that I can subscribe to," said Jono Jarrett of Geeks Out, a gay fan group. "It's a deeply disappointing and frankly weird choice."

Then Taranto makes this cogent observation ...
quote:
Same-sex-marriage advocates would have more credibility in objecting to Card's warning about "the end of democracy in America" if they weren't trying to get him fired simply for expressing his opinion.
ROFL! True, dat.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ADStryker:
Then Taranto makes this cogent observation ...
quote:
Same-sex-marriage advocates would have more credibility in objecting to Card's warning about "the end of democracy in America" if they weren't trying to get him fired simply for expressing his opinion.
ROFL! True, dat.
...That doesn't actually make sense.

It's also not exactly true. OSC is a director for the National Organization for Marriage, which is a pretty awful anti-gay group. So, there's actions here as well.

Posts: 10131 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stoney,
It bothers me when people view complex issues as binary choice operations. In this case, either pro or anti gay with no gradations or actual examination of the behavior.

OSC is not just the same as other LDS. He doesn't just believe that the engaging in homosexual acts is a sin. He has written some pretty terrible and usually false things about gay people. He has advocated many anti-gay measures; for example, throwing gay people in jail from time to time to let them know that they aren't welcome in our society. And he's a director of NOM, which has waged a campaign of lies and fear mongering against gay people.

I'd expect even people who do believe that homosexual behavior is sinful to be pretty critical of OSC on this. If they are decent folk, at least. It is never okay to lie about people. It is never okay to use fear mongering to depersonalize and dehumanize a group of people. If that stuff becomes okay just because you agree with some form of the ultimate goal of a person or view them somehow as being on your side, you are not a very moral person.

---

To be fair, many on the pro-gay rights side see the issue in the same sort of binary situation, where anyone who opposes gay marriage or often even just view homosexual behavior as sinful as the worst thing ever, no matter what their actual character is.

Posts: 10131 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The article is very poorly written, and factually wrong. The church did not use the 10% tithed money to fund its efforts to get Proposition 8 passed. It used funds from other investments and holdings.

And so no, by implication you can't boycott the other 12.3 million Mormons. Many of us spoke out openly against Proposition 8.

If you meet a Mormon who does support Proposition 8, and there are also many of them, go from there.

quote:

He’s one of 6.3 million Latter Day Saints in the United States, worldwide more than 12 million people profess to believe that after Jesus was done with the Jews he came to hang out in the United States.

American continent, not necessarily the United States. So pretty much could have been anywhere within North, Central, and South America. The second and third being the most likely.

So anyway, his assertion that poor Katherine Heigl who isn't a Mormon anymore, should be boycotted too if anybody should, seems a little specious.

By all means, don't give somebody your business if you don't like what they will do with your money. But at least admit to yourself that unless you do the same due diligence on every business you are a patron to, you're being inconsistent. So get to work making sure millions of workers at Mcdonalds are in compliance with your political ideology.

Further, don't try to take away somebody's livelihood because they believe things you think are evil. If you are going down that road, do it because the person *does* things you believe actually causes harm.

Posts: 14191 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just read the article and it is pretty bad. It falls into just that sort of super simplistic binary choice I was decrying.

You are not an asshole or homophobe just because you think homosexual behavior is sinful. It is unjustifiable to reduce an entire group of very different people, such as the LDS, to a single stereotype, especially one so weakly constructed. I'm sure many of them are assholes and homophobes. Many of them are not. It is even likely that belonging to the Mormon religion makes them more or less likely to be those things (actually, like most actual real world things, it probably makes them both more and less likely to be those things, often even in the same person). Believing this way isn't just morally wrong, it's stupid.

Posts: 10131 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Stoney,
It bothers me when people view complex issues as binary choice operations. In this case, either pro or anti gay with no gradations or actual examination of the behavior.

Agreed (as with just about everything else in this post).

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
The church did not use the 10% tithed money to fund its efforts to get Proposition 8 passed. It used funds from other investments and holdings.

This is not a gotcha question...just seeking info: What source of money did the church use to purchase said investments and holdings? Because if the original purchase was made with tithe money, then it is a meaningless delineation I'd say.

quote:
By all means, don't give somebody your business if you don't like what they will do with your money. But at least admit to yourself that unless you do the same due diligence on every business you are a patron to, you're being inconsistent.
This concept is basically why I posted this article in the first place.

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
You are not an asshole or homophobe just because you think homosexual behavior is sinful. It is unjustifiable to reduce an entire group of very different people, such as the LDS, to a single stereotype, especially one so weakly constructed.

While the linked article is not by any means top notch, after reviewing it, the only claims upon LDS in general are:
quote:
What I’m getting at here is that while Card states his views on homosexuality a little more vehemently and openly than the average Mormon, he’s pretty much in line with the beliefs of the other 12.3 million Latter Day Saints in the world.
...And any finger pointing at a$$holery or homophobory is directly aimed at OSC, and not all LDS.

The binary reactions you speak of are, again, why I posted this article. OSC is many things, but he is still my favorite author (that being said, I haven't read anything new of his in long time, but to be fair, my reading life has disintegrated under the weight of running my household while watching two small children 24/7). While I disagree with OSC's stated views about homosexuality vehemently, I also do not hesitate to recommend him as an author, and recently gave a copy of EG to a teenage family friend.

Or to put it another way, no one is perfect, and to reject people's gifts because you don't like their faults is in the end counter productive as no one could possibly live up to absolute standards.

Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Moderator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stone_Wolf: Tithed funds can only be used for very specific activities. Building churches, upkeep costs for the buildings and materials for the members. Church welfare programs, etc.

Members of the church can also donate money to the church through several other programs beyond the 10% tithing requirement. Members also leave money to the church after they have died, the church by this point has been in the corporate game for many decades and has accrued hundreds of millions of dollars in holdings completely separate from its tithed funds. It uses these funds at its discretion. Proposition 8 was financed by some of these holdings, but members of the church also made additional donations to the fund outside of their tithing.

It's possible individual members misunderstood the request of the church for funds and simply put their tithing funds into that account instead of the regular fund, but the church did not ask for people to do so.

edit: Theologically speaking, there's no way you could supplant tithing with a political action fund.

Posts: 389 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
docmagik
Member
Member # 1131

 - posted      Profile for docmagik   Email docmagik         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'd expect even people who do believe that homosexual behavior is sinful to be pretty critical of OSC on this. If they are decent folk, at least. It is never okay to lie about people. It is never okay to use fear mongering to depersonalize and dehumanize a group of people. If that stuff becomes okay just because you agree with some form of the ultimate goal of a person or view them somehow as being on your side, you are not a very moral person.
I'll believe anybody actually believes this when I see them decrying some of the lies, fear mongering, depersonalization, and dehumanization that has taken place by the SSM folks of Orson Scott Card.

Seriously, for anyone moderately familiar with his works and writings, some of the things being said are, at best, simply mean-spirited assumption, and at worst, out and out deception in the name of making him out to be someone who actively spends most of his time trying to make sure gay people are driven out of society.

Card didn't believe in throwing gay people in jail, and has stated now, "I have no interest in criminalizing homosexual acts and would never call for such a thing, any more than I wanted such laws enforced back when they were still on the books." It's in the actual link that the article at the start of this thread links to while calling him a homophobe.

But that's too nuanced a view for people who just want to believe he is evil incarnate.

Posts: 1862 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If he has changed his tune, great! Love to hear that, but it isn't a question of nuance, he said it, and if people are stuck on it, then he made that bed and gets to lie in it.

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 whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html
Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So... you have people struggling to pay their bills and that's what the church spends that money on? Gay marriage?

Urg. Stopping it at that. And not even letting gays have civil unions either. This really is an issue the LDS Church and OSC needs to get over. There's real things that hurt the family, why not focus on that?

Posts: 9883 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Synesthesia:
So... you have people struggling to pay their bills and that's what the church spends that money on? Gay marriage?

...and helping people pay their bills.

It's not a binary arrangement, wherein only a single cause gets funded.

quote:
Urg. Stopping it at that. And not even letting gays have civil unions either. This really is an issue the LDS Church and OSC needs to get over. There's real things that hurt the family, why not focus on that?
Rather than engage you on this for the umpteenth time, I'm going to just note that you have been answered on this before, on this site.

If you can make an argument using Mormon theology as to why the Mormon church should not spend money supporting its vision of marriage, then that might be a discussion worth having.

Posts: 14497 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
If he has changed his tune, great! Love to hear that, but it isn't a question of nuance, he said it, and if people are stuck on it, then he made that bed and gets to lie in it.

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 whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html
Dude. Read your own link:

quote:
The Supreme Court had declared in 1986 (Bowers v. Hardwick) that a Georgia law prohibiting sodomy even in the privacy of one's own home was constitutional. I was also writing this essay to a conservative Mormon audience that at the time would have felt no interest in decriminalizing homosexual acts. In that context, my call to "leave the laws on the books" was simply recognizing the law at that time, and my call to not enforce it except in flagrant cases was actually, within that context, a liberal and tolerant view -- for which I was roundly criticized in conservative Mormon circles as being "pro-gay." Those who now use this essay to attack me as a "homophobe" deceptively ignore the context and treat the essay as if I had written it yesterday afternoon. That is absurd -- now that the law has changed (the decision was overturned in 2003) I have no interest in criminalizing homosexual acts and would never call for such a thing, any more than I wanted such laws enforced back when they were still on the books. But I stand by the main points of this essay, which concerns matters internal to the Mormon Church.

Posts: 14497 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks for posting that, Scott. I was about to do so myself. The attacks against OSC for his anti-gay positions are so bizarre.

It's weird to see how people shut down their critical thinking processes around the issue of gay marriage.

I guess it's an extension of the way people often take steps to avoid thinking critically about marriage in general. Still, it sort of baffles me.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I have no interest in criminalizing homosexual acts and would never call for such a thing, any more than I wanted such laws enforced back when they were still on the books.
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 whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
If you guys think that the problem with those two statements is MY critical thinking processes being shut down, then there is not a whole lot left to talk about.

Yes, context matters, yes, who you are talking to will change the angle of attack you take to try and get through to your audience, but you can not say words like "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." and not expect to be considered a bigot and a homophobes. Full stop.

I'm glad that OSC changed his point of view, but I will not for a second pretend that he didn't say those things he said simply because he said he didn't say them.

P.S. What is a homophone and why does spell check always suggest it when I misspell homophobe?

Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Homophones are words that are pronounced the same but have different meanings (and usually spelling).

e.g. wretch and retch, ate and eight, etc.

Here's a website website of pretty much every single homohpone in the English language. Enjoy!

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks, and here I thought it was a cell phone that like other cell phones instead of landlines. And that OSC said was the end of democracy.
Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you can make an argument using Mormon theology as to why the Mormon church should not spend money supporting its vision of marriage, then that might be a discussion worth having.
Sure. Here you go:
The Mormon vision of marriage already deviates strongly from the state's definition of legal marriage. As such, Mormons should not be concerned with aligning the definition of legal marriage with their definition of spiritual marriage, since those definitions already do not align, and should concentrate their time and money on causes which are more likely to actually affect the moral lives of individuals.

Posts: 36934 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Mormon vision of marriage already deviates strongly from the state's definition of legal marriage.
In what way do you feel Mormonism deviates strongly from the state's definition of legal marriage?

Keep in mind that state-backed marriages are performed in our temples and in our meetinghouses. The Mormon concept of marriage requires that the marriage be "legal and lawful" in order for it to be valid in the eyes of the Church.

quote:
Mormons should not be concerned with aligning the definition of legal marriage with their definition of spiritual marriage, since those definitions already do not align, and should concentrate their time and money on causes which are more likely to actually affect the moral lives of individuals.
Indeed, the Mormon church isn't necessarily concerned with aligning the state's definition of marriage with specifics of our own. Until fifteen or so years ago, the fundamental elements of what marriage means was widely understood to be an exclusive arrangement between male and female monogamous partners.

Certainly, that's what the state demanded of the Church back in the late 1800s. [Smile]

From the standpoint of God's Church on the earth, the Church has a responsibility to all nations of the world to warn against unrighteousness and sin, and to encourage all people to live according to God's commandments. That's why the Church unites with other churches in opposing casinos; in speaking out against infidelity, drug use, alcoholism; in responding to disaster with compassion and aid.

And its also why the Church takes a strong position against same sex marriage. It is as moral a stance (according to our doctrine) as being a designated driver; as helping out a neighbor; as preaching the gospel of repentance and redemption.

I'll also note, Tom, that you haven't actually used any Mormon theology in your argument.

Posts: 14497 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And its also why the Church takes a strong position against same sex marriage. It is as moral a stance (according to our doctrine) as being a designated driver; as helping out a neighbor; as preaching the gospel of repentance and redemption.
Hardly. There is nothing inherent to the marriage contract, for example, that might prevent two gay men from marrying each other and living without sex. In what way do you believe that would be sinful?

(Note that a lifetime of celibacy is already the LDS Church's recommendation for gay men. Can you explain what moral argument they might muster against two non-LDS men being legally married and remaining celibate?)

quote:
I'll also note, Tom, that you haven't actually used any Mormon theology in your argument.
Sure I have. I just wasn't explicit. While Mormons certainly recognize non-Temple marriages, the fact remains that Mormon "marriage" is a distinctly two-tiered affair: you have secular marriages, and then you have what amounts, from the Mormon perspective, to "real" marriage. That "real" marriage bears no resemblance whatsoever to legal marriage, and is not threatened in any way by a change in the legal definition of marriage.
Posts: 36934 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't see how at least allowing gays to have the same benefits of marriage like being able to decide about their spouse's health will have a negative affect on "real" marriage.
Posts: 9883 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Can you explain what moral argument they might muster against two non-LDS men being legally married and remaining celibate?
Sure. Generally speaking, one of the purposes of marriage is to bind a man and a woman together as a unit in parallel to the union of our Heavenly Father and Mother. The spiritual connection to our heavenly parents is fostered when we emulate them as closely as we can-- and that means participating in the same relationship that they enjoy (male/female pairing).

From that perspective, male/male pairing is immoral even if the pair remains celibate. Whether they are LDS or non-LDS isn't important-- the relationship inherently undermines a fundamental piece of eternal identity according to Mormon theology.

To answer Synesthesia's question along the same lines, social approbation of such a relationship encourages its promulgation. Individually it won't matter much (or shouldn't); the damage is done in the aggregate.

quote:
hile Mormons certainly recognize non-Temple marriages, the fact remains that Mormon "marriage" is a distinctly two-tiered affair: you have secular marriages, and then you have what amounts, from the Mormon perspective, to "real" marriage.
Incorrect. The Mormon view of non-Temple, heterosexual marriages is that they are still "real." That is they are still sacred. Even if the participants are athiests, our belief is that God wants that marriage to succeed, regardless of whether or not the individuals will ever find belief in this life.

I don't think you really understand the Mormon perspective well enough to speak from it.

Edited to add an important doctrinal distinction. See the italicized section.

[ February 17, 2013, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]

Posts: 14497 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's just your religion doesn't rule the whole world. You have no right to push your doctrine on people when gays are not forcing straights to marry people of the same sex. They just want the same rights. That is not unreasonable.

Plus, it's kind of hypocritical considering the Mormon church's history of polygamy. They want to preach to people about heterosexual monogamy now? They need to step back and leave people alone. Even some hard core Mormons, catholics and ect will want to choose the happiness of their kids and friends over pushing doctrine on everyone. I will never give up tea.

Posts: 9883 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Even if the participants are athiests, our belief is that God wants that marriage to succeed, regardless of whether or not the individuals will ever find belief.
And you believe that if two men are married, God does not want that marriage to succeed?
Posts: 36934 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Even if the participants are athiests, our belief is that God wants that marriage to succeed, regardless of whether or not the individuals will ever find belief.
And you believe that if two men are married, God does not want that marriage to succeed?
According to Mormon doctrine, and from an eternal perspective, the relationship is inherently limiting. As the doctrine exists right now, homosexual relationships simply CANNOT succeed. At least one leader of the Church has recently commented that homosexuality doesn't even exist outside of mortality.
Posts: 14497 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Success" in this case means being able to create spirit children in the next life.
Posts: 14497 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, that's a pretty silly -- and limiting -- definition of success. If you ask someone, including Mormons, "how do you help a marriage succeed," they're probably not going to give you a list of things that'll ensure spirit pregnancy.
Posts: 36934 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Note the qualifiers and context, bro.
Posts: 14497 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The context, of course, is that of the secular, nationwide legal definition of marriage. If the Mormon definition of "success" isn't relevant in that context, then it shouldn't apply.
Posts: 36934 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm sorry, but that's not the context of the statement you responded to.

Would you like to change the topic?

Posts: 14497 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't have a problem with LDS for being against homosexuality (and SSM) morally. I have a problem with them trying to make it illegal. Laws should not be used to force your concept of morality on to people who are not causing direct harm onto others with their actions.
Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm sorry, but that's not the context of the statement you responded to.
Of course it is. God would like all marriages to produce "spirit children." Because you don't believe homosexual marriages can produce spirit children, you don't believe they should be permitted. Isn't that it in a nutshell?
Posts: 36934 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are infertile and child free straight people... The world should not be run based on your doctrine. I will never give up my earl grey, and gays should have the same marriage rights. They pay taxes in society. They deserve that right too.
Posts: 9883 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is what is out of context, Tom:

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Well, that's a pretty silly -- and limiting -- definition of success. If you ask someone, including Mormons, "how do you help a marriage succeed," they're probably not going to give you a list of things that'll ensure spirit pregnancy.

If you feel that the post I made prior to this was out of context, please let me know-- we can reset this conversation, if you want.

In the meantime, I'll just note that you haven't provided an explanation (based on the Mormon church's doctrine) as to why the Church should not spend its funds to promote its ideas regarding marriage to voters.

Syn:

quote:
The world should not be run based on your doctrine.
[Smile]

Actually, creation is run according to our doctrine. It's only politics that deviates. (Which speaks poignantly to the supremacy of human free will.)

quote:
There are infertile and child free straight people...
Indeed. I think you're having the same context problem Tom is having, though. At least you're in good company.

quote:
I will never give up my earl grey
By all means. Enjoy.

quote:
gays should have the same marriage rights. They pay taxes in society. They deserve that right too.
The payment of taxes doesn't guarentee rights. If it is a right, then it's inherent, regardless of whether one pays or not. They are HUMAN rights, not "taxpayer rights."

(Caveats-- such as criminal convictions-- may apply.)

I'm not actually arguing against marriage rights for homosexual couples. I'm arguing that the doctrine of the Mormon church is such that funding opposition movements is intellectually and doctrinally consistent; and that the right of freedom of speech permits it.

Posts: 14497 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you feel that the post I made prior to this was out of context, please let me know-- we can reset this conversation, if you want.
Oh, I don't think it was out of context at all. There's no disputing that if you ask a Mormon how to make a marriage succeed, he will not assume that you're asking how to make spirit children. The idea that a "successful" marriage is one that produces spirit children is pretty much a non-starter; it doesn't come up in any practical way, except when justifying oppression against homosexuals.

quote:
In the meantime, I'll just note that you haven't provided an explanation (based on the Mormon church's doctrine) as to why the Church should not spend its funds to promote its ideas regarding marriage to voters.
Again, I believe I have. I have explained that the Church's doctrine of marriage already deviates strongly from the legal definition and practice of marriage. Attempts to spend money to make marriage hew more closely to that definition when speaking specifically to homosexual relationships seems to be horrifically narrow-minded, given that there are several ways in which the Mormon understanding of marriage deviates far more meaningfully from the secular practice of marriage. Even if one grants that the fantastically wealthy church should be spending money on marriage advocacy instead of charity, football, or acquiring real estate, the idea that the greatest threat to "spirit children" is the practice of two men who love each other living together in a legally sanctioned way is one that I think'd be pretty impossible to justify doctrinally, and moreover will almost certainly prove deeply embarrassing to the church within three decades.

quote:
The payment of taxes doesn't guarentee rights. If it is a right, then it's inherent, regardless of whether one pays or not.
While this is a niggling criticism, I should point out that rights are not necessarily considered "inherent" in the way you're describing. We provide different rights to citizens, to voters, etc.; we deny some rights to people we believe no longer deserve them; we circumscribe the practice of some rights, do not recognize others, and so forth. You speak of "caveats," but the simple fact is that pretty much all "human" rights have "caveats" that do not depend on whether or not the person being denied -- or extended -- the right is actually a human, but instead falls into some other class.
Posts: 36934 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
... If you’re going to take a stance against Orson Scott Card then to be fair, you’ll have to start boycotting pretty much every other Mormon in the world too.

Ummm, ok then. Saves me some money?

Don't you normally have to put something undesirable in the second part of this kind of argument?

"If you're going to enjoy bacon then in fairness, you'd better eat some pork chops and roast pork."

*Goes through list in the article* I'm going to have to boycott Grey's Anatomy, the Republican Party, Dell computers, and Twilight? Oh noes, that's going to be tough. I get the idea of the article, but you really have to put some negatives in the "to be fair" part, you know?

Posts: 7453 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Um, I was quoting the article (which I didn't write) so you are misquoting me there.
Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Attempts to spend money to make marriage hew more closely to that definition when speaking specifically to homosexual relationships seems to be horrifically narrow-minded, given that there are several ways in which the Mormon understanding of marriage deviates far more meaningfully from the secular practice of marriage.
It's possible that the Church's very present opposition to SSM has already undermined missionary efforts with bad publicity; is that what you're getting at here?

quote:
The idea that a "successful" marriage is one that produces spirit children is pretty much a non-starter; it doesn't come up in any practical way, except when justifying oppression against homosexuals.
Actually, it comes up very often in situations not relating to homosexual marriage at all. Maybe you don't hang out in the right circles?

Quick return back to this:

quote:
Even if one grants that the fantastically wealthy church should be spending money on marriage advocacy instead of charity, football, or acquiring real estate, the idea that the greatest threat to "spirit children" is the practice of two men who love each other living together in a legally sanctioned way is one that I think'd be pretty impossible to justify doctrinally,
Really? Can you explain why?
Posts: 14497 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because of all the threats to spirit children, men who wouldn't be producing spirit children seem to be among by far the slightest. Consider the number of spirit children who aren't produced because people die in car accidents every year before they get married -- and yet the Church isn't opposed to driving at all.
Posts: 36934 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
According to Mormon theology, people are not limited to marriage in this life. It is generally believed that people who did not have the opportunity to marry in this life will be afforded an opportunity in the next life. Same goes for those who were trying, but did not meet a suitable companion. It is also believed that children can also be conceived in the next life. I suspect arrangements can be made for couples where the partner died before children could be born, or people who are biologically impeded from having children.

I have no idea how God handles homosexuality in the next life, only that in our society should make allowances for it since we live in a secular democracy.

Posts: 14191 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What "threats to spirit children" are you talking about, Tom?
Posts: 14497 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yozhik
Member
Member # 89

 - posted      Profile for Yozhik   Email Yozhik         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@Mucus: By that logic, shouldn't you also be boycotting this forum?
Posts: 1502 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Like I said, ad blockers.
Posts: 7453 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stephan
Member
Member # 7549

 - posted      Profile for Stephan   Email Stephan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
... If you’re going to take a stance against Orson Scott Card then to be fair, you’ll have to start boycotting pretty much every other Mormon in the world too.

Ummm, ok then. Saves me some money?

Don't you normally have to put something undesirable in the second part of this kind of argument?

"If you're going to enjoy bacon then in fairness, you'd better eat some pork chops and roast pork."

*Goes through list in the article* I'm going to have to boycott Grey's Anatomy, the Republican Party, Dell computers, and Twilight? Oh noes, that's going to be tough. I get the idea of the article, but you really have to put some negatives in the "to be fair" part, you know?

Well, you should boycott everything Romney has invested in with his company Bain Capital, right?

Staples, AMC Entertainment, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel radio stations, Dunkin Donuts, Warner Music, The Weather Channel, Domino's Pizza, Sports Authority, and every movie made by Artisan Entertainment before being bought by Lion's Gate in 2003.

Posts: 3121 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stephan
Member
Member # 7549

 - posted      Profile for Stephan   Email Stephan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aaron Eckhart and Katherine Heigl movies.

Never stay in a Marriott hotel. Don't they even put the Book of Mormon in the rooms?

JetBlue

Posts: 3121 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If your point is that no boycott is 100% complete, then as I said, I get the idea of the article.

But if you're going to provide examples, can we assume when I went through the article and picked out the most prominent examples to me, that these other repeated examples are even more obscure to me? For example, best I can tell, JetBlue doesn't even fly to Canada or Asia for that matter.

And many of the recognizable examples look out-dated or irrelevant. For example AMC has long been bought by a Chinese company (something that I'm pretty thankful for since they seem to be boosting more Chinese language films at our local location), Burger King is a public company and Bain sold their stake in 2010. And there are ones in there I have no idea what a Brookstone or a Burlington Coast Factory is, etc.

Honestly, your argument seems more convincing in abstract than in concrete terms. If in reality, I'm going to have to go out of my way to find relevant companies, that kind of feels against the spirit of a boycott.

Posts: 7453 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mucus: Burlington Coat Factory is a great place to buy coats (obvious neh?) and baby accessories such as strollers and car seats (weird neh?).
Posts: 14191 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Thanks for posting that, Scott. I was about to do so myself. The attacks against OSC for his anti-gay positions are so bizarre.

It's weird to see how people shut down their critical thinking processes around the issue of gay marriage.

I guess it's an extension of the way people often take steps to avoid thinking critically about marriage in general. Still, it sort of baffles me.

Dan,
I've been dealing with a sick 7 month old and my memory is pretty terrible, but didn't we already have a conversation that involved me saying something terrible OSC said about gays, you taking exception to it, and then me showing you where he said it?

I could probably find it through searching, but I figured you'd remember better than I.

---

On this particular issue, of course OSC advocated prosecuting gay people. That is literally what he wrote.

To me, the part that is even more telling, the one that he has called for many other times is the reason why he wanted to do this. Not because he thought that it was just or that they were a danger to society. It was to send a message that they aren't welcome in society. This has been a consistent theme in his writing about them, even when he's had to tell lies (e.g. All the gay people he knows secretly hate the gay sex they have) to support it.

OSC has consistently written false, malicious, and consciously dehumanizing things about gay people. He is now a leader of an organization who has consistently advocated against gay people using fear mongering and bigotry based on similarly false, malicious, and consciously dehumanizing things.

There's a pretty extensive history of people talking about that here. I happen to be among the most prominent. You can look me up, Dan. I don't believe I deserve your drive by insults, much as you seem to like throwing them at me.

Posts: 10131 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For me, I don't outright boycott people whose opinions I don't like. Even with OSC, where I know that by giving him money I am indirectly supporting an evil organization like NOM. Because, let's face it, whenever you spend money on anything but the purest of stuff, you run a pretty good chance of it going to support some pretty bad people.

But that doesn't make it to me that you shouldn't let this affect your purchasing decisions. For me, some of my money going to support NOM or, to a lesser extent, even to people who are using shameful, abhorrent tactics like OSC in their public advocacy, is a negative, and it makes me less likely to spend my money that way. Honestly, for me, OSC's best years are far behind him, so when it's pretty easy for me. There's plenty of other stuff out there at the level of quality that he currently produces and a fair bit at much better quality, so it's not hard to not buy OSC. I consciously stopped buying IGMS because again, plenty of other similar stuff out there so why support NOM?

This fits in kind of oddly with what I wrote before. I don't get why people would see this as a binary situation. It's not either full boycott or don't care. This seems so obvious to me and is so obviously missing from most discussions of this topic.

Posts: 10131 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2