posted
...for his article on marriage, probably even more so with its recently being linked to by the Daily Rotten. He went so far as to amend the online edition of his 'World Watch' column with a response to a critical letter to the editor. However, there were still two unadressed problems with his article.
First, he claims that there has never in the history of the world been a marriage between two men or between two women. Secondly, he claims that marriage has always existed either primarily or exclusively for the production of children. And that's simply not true.
Sidestepping the "no true Scotsman" argument, what Card seems to be thinking of when he says 'marriage' has only existed for the past few centuries in the Americas and parts of Africa, and for a somewhat longer time in Europe. Even when one excludes polygamy from consideration, Card's statements are still false.
For example, in many tribal communities, a wealthy woman who may or may not already have a husband may take a wife of her own, for the purpose of helping around the house. And a husband making advances his wife's wife is considered inappropriate. In certain extinct cultures young men could only become the apprentices of the community's warriors by marrying them. And in a few Asian communities, if either the husband or wife in an arranged marriage dies before an agreed-upon period of time, a sibling of the deceased must step in to honor the agreement between the families of the husband and wife. The first two arrangements may seem impractical, until you realize that not all people consider divorce to be sinful.
I'm not going to ask rhetorical questions like, "Why doesn't Card correct these mistakes," but I would like to know that he has some way to respond to people curious about this.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My friend mentioned something I had forgotten... Native american tribes. In some native american tribes a man would take on the role of a woman and marry a man... and the same would happen with a woman. She'd hunt and do all the stuff that men did and would also marry a woman... And there was nothing wrong with it... people had a great deal of respect for these folks.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't that I don't believe you, I simply want more background information and would like it if you could give me some sources. Thanks.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I know in Papua New Guinea, they think a man has to get semen from someone as a young man in order to have it. At least that is the story they told the anthropologists, or the one the anthropologists reported. Also note that these practices have been extrapolated in some cases from "extinct" cultures. Edit: spelling
quote: especially since this would result in the schools relentlessly propagandizing all children toward homosexual “marriage” as a desirable choice.
Since when? Before high school, my teachers never even mentioned gay people, and if the subject came up they would ignore it. Now, in high school, maybe five teachers in the school have ever mentioned their opionions on gay marriage (outside of the Gay-Straight Alliance meetings), of course). Four were pro (and two of those were gay) and one was against. And this is in the "ultra-liberal" Bay Area, by the way.
And I'm really getting sick of Card believing that only the "elite" are liberal. There are far more rich Republicans than there are Democrats (and yes, I know Card claims to be a Democrat, but he is the most conservative one I've ever heard of). I also thought it was really low of OSC to accuse Mr. Herman of being an ayatollah.
Also-- I agree with Card about the way people are going about this (in SF, at least). But most of his essay was about how he didn't like the idea of gay marriage, not the way the courts are going about legalizing it.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It took long public debate and national struggle – including civil war – before a consensus emerged.
And that's a good thing?? Of course, everyone knows that the only reason the North won the civil war is because they were in the right abut the slavery issue.
quote: Mr. Herman is content with this, because he is part of the elite that has seized control and agrees with the forced experiments. But I’m quite sure that if a different group were using the same mechanism to force social experiments on an unwilling people, he would have a very different opinion.
I'm sorry, if there is any "elite" group controlling this country it is not those people who are simply tolerant of people with differing sexual orientation from their own. If a constitutional ammendment is passed banning homosexual marriagethat would be forcing social experiments on unwilling people. Honestly, what do the people who are against hommosexual marriage have to loose by it's being legalized? Oh that's right, their elite status.
Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
<tangent>In the Civil War, there were free blacks who fought for the South. I do not know if they were few or many and am too lazy to look it up, but I do recall that they existed.
Are there any homosexuals against gay marriage?
Of course, slavery was the most imporant issue of the Civil War, but not the sole one. </tangent>
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are some homosexuals who think that homosexual marriage is an attempt by homosexuals to "fit in" to the heterosexual world. I can't find a link, nor do I get the impression it's a widespread belief. It does exist, though.
Not a reason to oppose it for those who want it, though.
posted
People talk about marriage sanctity, yet they have failed to expunge that scene from "The Princess Bride". You know, "That bwessed Awwangement, that dweam wivin a dweam."
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
