FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » I think OSC is not as against gay people as I'd thought. (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: I think OSC is not as against gay people as I'd thought.
lolcats
Member
Member # 12060

 - posted      Profile for lolcats           Edit/Delete Post 
He seems to be really against homosexuality as a concept, but when it comes to actual real life situations, he doesn't seem as judgmental. I noticed that while reading his reviews of AI-- he was very approving of Adam Lambert...even after the finale, by which time everyone pretty much knew Adam was gay. Also, I've heard that OSC is perfectly respectful of his gay and lesbian friends--is that true?
Posts: 16 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tara
Member
Member # 10030

 - posted      Profile for Tara   Email Tara         Edit/Delete Post 
He respects the people themselves without respecting their homosexuality, because he thinks the homosexuality is simply a fault that they can correct if they work hard enough (and we all have faults, after all!)
Doesn't exactly make me feel better.

Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lolcats
Member
Member # 12060

 - posted      Profile for lolcats           Edit/Delete Post 
@ Tara:
Oh.
Well, it makes *me* feel better. There's a difference between a bigoted person who insults and discriminates against a certain group--and what you describe.
I was confused about this, since so many people have labeled OSC the former, but he'd always seemed like a classy guy to me. Your explanation makes sense.
I'm totally for gay rights but I can tolerate OSC disagreeing, if he's still respectful and fair to individual gay people.

Posts: 16 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
You do realise that you are describing that antipattern known as "Some of my best friends are X", right?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
neo-dragon
Member
Member # 7168

 - posted      Profile for neo-dragon           Edit/Delete Post 
But lolcats is right. OSC may not approve of homosexual practices and he certainly doesn't approve of homosexual marriage, but I've never gotten the impression that he dislikes or wishes any harm to homosexual people. It really annoys me how people label him as a bigot and a hatemonger. You should at least know someone's position before you condemn them for it.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
He respects the people themselves without respecting their homosexuality, because he thinks the homosexuality is simply a fault that they can correct if they work hard enough (and we all have faults, after all!)
Doesn't exactly make me feel better.

Hmm. Tara, what exactly is objectionable about this PoV, aside from the fact that (I presume, anyway) you disagree with the part that labels homosexuality as a fault?

I mean, if that was the sum total of OSC's views on homosexuality and society - and I don't think it is, just to be clear - would there be anything wrong with that?

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
neo-dragon
Member
Member # 7168

 - posted      Profile for neo-dragon           Edit/Delete Post 
Something just occurred to me. I think that OSC's views on homosexuality match my views on smoking. I dislike the practice of smoking. I think that people who smoke should know better and should stop doing it. I do not think that smokers are inherently bad people and I don't think that they should be harmed, persecuted, or treated as subhuman because they smoke. I just wish they were smart enough to realize that whatever gain they think they are deriving from it isn't worth the harm to themselves and others.

I think this might be how OSC feels about homosexuality. Note that I say "I think" because I don't presume to know his exact thoughts or feelings on the matter. No one has labeled me a smoking bigot or hatemonger though. My point is that I believe that it's possible and reasonable to disapprove of something that people do but not disapprove of the people themselves.

Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
He respects the people themselves without respecting their homosexuality, because he thinks the homosexuality is simply a fault that they can correct if they work hard enough (and we all have faults, after all!)
Doesn't exactly make me feel better.

Hmm. Tara, what exactly is objectionable about this PoV, aside from the fact that (I presume, anyway) you disagree with the part that labels homosexuality as a fault?

I mean, if that was the sum total of OSC's views on homosexuality and society - and I don't think it is, just to be clear - would there be anything wrong with that?

Well... Yeah...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vadon
Member
Member # 4561

 - posted      Profile for Vadon           Edit/Delete Post 
I keep misreading the title as "I think OSC isn't as gay as people thought." I should read more carefully.

As for the topic, I think that OSC is slightly inflammatory in his papers against homosexuality saying things like accepting homosexuality would destroy the church. But he doesn't harbor resentment toward homosexuals based solely on their sexual orientation. He views it as a sin, and they therefore are sinners until repentance. But everyone is a sinner, so he doesn't believe that his treatment of homosexuals should be any different than how he treats others.

I disagree with his position(if I've stated it correctly), but I wouldn't call him a bigot or homophobic. Intolerant of homosexuality? Yes. Intolerant of homosexuals? No.

Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
If someone stands 100% behind articles they have written that say that allowing gays to marry will destroy our civilization, that you will consider government your mortal enemy and work to destroy it if it changes to permit gays to marry, and that laws making it criminally punishable to engage in homosexual behavior should remain on the books in order to keep gays socially repressed, how far is a "oh, but don't get me wrong, I have gay friends" supposed to reassure me?

In all seriousness, I ask.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Strider
Member
Member # 1807

 - posted      Profile for Strider   Email Strider         Edit/Delete Post 
Samp posted thoughts along the lines of what I wanted to say. Specifically in regards to this:

quote:
But lolcats is right. OSC may not approve of homosexual practices and he certainly doesn't approve of homosexual marriage, but I've never gotten the impression that he dislikes or wishes any harm to homosexual people.
I certainly don't think OSC wants to actively commit harm against homosexual people, and I don't think he dislikes specific people because they are homosexual(more than he would dislike them for any other reason). But "harm" is a tricky word. If OSC, as a well known author and columnist, writes essays speaking out against homosexual marriage, with the intent to persuade others of his opinion, does it not do harm to the homosexual couples who are prevented from marrying because of his influential words?

OSC's beliefs about homosexuals might not in and of themselves cause harm, but his actions based on those beliefs might very well be causing harm.

It seems to me that this philosophy of, "i don't hate you, i just what you do" isn't so far off from this, "I don't hate you because you're jewish, I have lots of jewish friends, I just think being jewish is wrong, specifically practicing Judaism. It's fine if you're jewish...really, I just think if you are given equal rights as a jew that this would be the end of society as we know it, and I will fight with every ounce of being I have to make sure that never happens. All you have to do is never act on your jewish beliefs, and everything will be fine."

Can someone honestly say that, advocate for that, and then try to claim they are not harming jews? Is it really better to be nice in person to your few Jewish friends, while advocated politically for ALL Jews not to have equal rights? That doesn't make sense to me. I'd rather a person advocate for equal rights for all gays, but be a jerk to the few gays he knows in person.

Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Well... Yeah...
Umm... how... ?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 11808

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen         Edit/Delete Post 
OSC began as a poet, later became a playwright and spent two years managing the Utah Valley Repertory Theatre Company, and now teaches creative writing. Given the success of gays in those fields, the idea that he has had no gay friends and associates over the years strikes me as absurd. By all reports he is quite comfortable with people who happen to be gay.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 11808

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen         Edit/Delete Post 
Otherwise Samprimary's synopsis of OSC's positions above seems to me to lack nuance. OSC wrote in part, "Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn." While that is in truth a denunciation of gay marriage, elsewhere he has written that permitting gay civil marriage would do far less damage to "true marriage" than has been done by no fault divorce, although it would be in his opinion another nail in its coffin. And regarding his argument that laws making it criminally punishable to engage in homosexual behavior should remain on the books in order to keep gays socially repressed, he has explained that he wrote that almost twenty years ago, as part of an argument that states should stop enforcing such laws indiscriminately, as many were at the time doing. He argues that public celebrations of homosexuality set a bad example particularly for children who may be confused about their sexual orientation, and so should be discouraged by law - not that private sexual behavior should be punishable. And only a few days ago I read a lament by a long term gay activist in California, legally married to his partner of many years, that the extremes of behavior flaunted by the latest Gay Pride celebration he attended made him uncomfortable. If a married gay man can feel that way, is OSC's attitude all that far from the mainstream?

On the other hand, OSC has also claimed gay activism as a movement is no longer looking for civil rights, which by and large homosexuals already have. The belief that homosexuals now enjoy equal civil rights in most of the United States is, so far as I can find out, simply a delusion. It would be more accurate to say gay couples nowhere enjoy anything even approaching equal civil rights, even in the few states where gay marriage is permitted.

Posts: 50 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by neo-dragon:
But lolcats is right. OSC may not approve of homosexual practices and he certainly doesn't approve of homosexual marriage, but I've never gotten the impression that he dislikes or wishes any harm to homosexual people. It really annoys me how people label him as a bigot and a hatemonger. You should at least know someone's position before you condemn them for it.

Well. Yes, he has no problem being friendly and polite to people he knows are gay. Look at what he's written about Janis Ian, for example. But he has a bit of a disconnect, since he's willing to harm us in the aggregate. Here's a quote from him:
quote:
Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
That's from "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
[QB]And regarding his argument that laws making it criminally punishable to engage in homosexual behavior should remain on the books in order to keep gays socially repressed, he has explained that he wrote that almost twenty years ago, as part of an argument that states should stop enforcing such laws indiscriminately, as many were at the time doing.

He was unambiguously declaring that government needs to enforce a sexual norm by criminalizing gay sex in order to repress homosexuals and that this was why laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books. It was not an argument for improving the social or legal tolerance of homosexuals. It was an argument for relying on and maintaining old laws against homosexuality as a means of preserving heterosexual culture from their deviant influence.

quote:
He argues that public celebrations of homosexuality set a bad example particularly for children who may be confused about their sexual orientation, and so should be discouraged by law - not that private sexual behavior should be punishable.
No, not in the least. He was saying that private sexual behavior should be punishable. That he added the caveat that it was only to repress the ability of homosexuals to be public about their behavior does not change this. He unambiguously stated that homosexual sex should stay illegal.

My synopsis does not lack nuance. It just directly confronts exactly what he has advocated. He is an author. The benefit of the doubt I will give him is the notion that he did not in any way, shape, or form misspeak, and given that he has had years since then to retract that notion and has not, it is only reasonable to state that this is clearly his position.

quote:
If a married gay man can feel that way, is OSC's attitude all that far from the mainstream?
Yes. What percentage of Americans do you think straight-up want to keep homosexuality criminalized?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It seems to me that this philosophy of, "i don't hate you, i just what you do" isn't so far off from this, "I don't hate you because you're jewish, I have lots of jewish friends, I just think being jewish is wrong, specifically practicing Judaism. It's fine if you're jewish...really, I just think if you are given equal rights as a jew that this would be the end of society as we know it, and I will fight with every ounce of being I have to make sure that never happens. All you have to do is never act on your jewish beliefs, and everything will be fine."

Can someone honestly say that, advocate for that, and then try to claim they are not harming jews?

OSC never said he is advocating denying equal rights to gay people.

A better analogy would be someone who said they don't hate you because you are jewish; they just think practicing judaism is wrong. And they intend to help you by advocating a ban on practicing judaism. Under this analogy, assuming they are being honest, their intention is to help, not harm jews.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Someone can be intending to help and still be in favor of denying equal rights, as equal rights are not a state they get to determine.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tarrsk
Member
Member # 332

 - posted      Profile for Tarrsk           Edit/Delete Post 
I don't see how your hypothetical is any better than Strider's, Tres. Either way, the Jews' freedoms are curtailed against their will.

Would you be OK with somebody in World War II-era California saying, "I'm worried for those poor Japanese-Americans, who might be exposed to violence in retribution for Pearl Harbor. Therefore I support placing them in internment camps for their own safety"? After all, this person's intention is to help, not harm Japanese-Americans.

Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, the fact he wants to put us in jail is what bugs me the most.

So when I buy an OSC book I donate an amount equivalent to the cover price to the HRC.

This hasn't been an issue lately.

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
To be fare, the essay where OSC says he thinks homosexuality should be illegal was written 2 decades ago and even then he"s quite specific that he doesn't want to put you in jail Pix.

I disagree with his position too, but that is no reason to misrepresent it.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
Rabbit: He wants to put A FEW of us in jail but only for the sake of making us keep our place. That doesn't make it much better.

And yes, 2 decades ago... But does he still stand by it or has he tempered his stand?

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm pretty sure he wrote an essay against Lawrence v. Texas, and that was 2003.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
Xav: Yikes! Was it that recent?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post 
Found it:

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-06-30-1.html

Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
OSC began as a poet, later became a playwright and spent two years managing the Utah Valley Repertory Theatre Company, and now teaches creative writing. Given the success of gays in those fields, the idea that he has had no gay friends and associates over the years strikes me as absurd. By all reports he is quite comfortable with people who happen to be gay.

Just to sort of step around the Godwin line here a little, I assume you are at least aware that many, well, shall we say "fanatically anti-" people in the past, people who have done MUCH worse things to minority groups than OSC has ever advocated against gays, have also known and been friends with individuals from those groups?

It's a fairly well documented phenomenon- fanatics are fanatics not because of the purity of their beliefs, but because of the cognitive dissonance that arises from the conflict between their core beliefs or values and their actual experiences. The way that the dissonance between the belief: "homosexuality is immoral," and the actual experience: "I have gay friends, who I also like as people," is to rationalize the core belief by projecting hidden evil onto homosexuals, but in such a way as to let the evil remain quite murky and unknowable, a bogey man shadow figure.

In fact, the belief described doesn't even star as "homosexuality is immoral." It starts with something more basic about the way a family should or a person should behave, and that becomes so important that a violation of that pattern is seen as the influence of evil corruption. It doesn't help that at the same time, we as actual individuals are pushed, as OSC obviously is, into somehow rectifying our actual feelings about *people* with our attachment to our own customs and ingrained attitudes.

That all said, I find it quite likely that OSC does like gay people. I also find it likely that he dislikes himself for liking them, and is just finding a convoluted way of lashing out at that feeling in general.

Else, please tell me, why are the targets of OSC's refined rage and angst invariably a) gay advocates (whom he would know from his experiences) b) academics (of which he is one) c) intellectuals and English departments (a group that he would easily fall into according to most reasonable definitions, but feels nevertheless excluded from- he did leave an English department because he couldn't get along), and d) Liberals, a group he actually claims to be a part of.

There's an awful lot of something in all of that, that whispers "self-loathing," but is much more complicated. None of that is a particular screed against OSC btw, I've gotten less angry and more just kind of resigned and saddened by it all.

Tresopax:
quote:
Under this analogy, assuming they are being honest, their intention is to help, not harm jews.
Hrmph. Which is why they say: "the road to hell is paved with 'good' intentions." We have a constitutional framework in place to make sure nobody gets too handsy about "helping" others in ways they really don't need or want.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
To be fare, the essay where OSC says he thinks homosexuality should be illegal was written 2 decades ago and even then he"s quite specific that he doesn't want to put you in jail Pix.
Rabbit, it's my understanding of OSC's position on that issue - keeping laws against homosexuality on the books - is that it should be done specifically to serve as a societal reminder that homosexuality is Unacceptable.

That's all I remember for certain enough to say, and I'll need to re-read Xav's link to refresh my memory...but for the sake of argument, let's just assume that OSC only wants to keep the laws on the books as a social reminder.

That's still a threat. If you want reminder of social mores, if you want to encourage people to behave in what you perceive as the morally upright way, you preach it from the pulpit, you (for example) publish essays, you put up billboards, etc. etc.

Keeping laws on the books is quite different.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
And more, it's indicative of an attitude towards the law and society that shows a certain lack of respect for, I don't know, order? Fairness? When OSC complains about "activist judges" running roughshod over democracy, remember that he also believes that certain laws should be used in ways that laws are not intended to function.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 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 
Anyone who argues with me hates themselves because they know within their heart of hearts that I'm right.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Strider
Member
Member # 1807

 - posted      Profile for Strider   Email Strider         Edit/Delete Post 
That's why I don't argue with you. Because I love myself...and you're wrong. [Razz]
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:
It seems to me that this philosophy of, "i don't hate you, i just what you do" isn't so far off from this, "I don't hate you because you're jewish, I have lots of jewish friends, I just think being jewish is wrong, specifically practicing Judaism. It's fine if you're jewish...really, I just think if you are given equal rights as a jew that this would be the end of society as we know it, and I will fight with every ounce of being I have to make sure that never happens. All you have to do is never act on your jewish beliefs, and everything will be fine."

Can someone honestly say that, advocate for that, and then try to claim they are not harming jews?

Under this analogy, assuming they are being honest, their intention is to help, not harm jews.
Yet the result is harm, regardless of their "stated" intention.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 11808

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen         Edit/Delete Post 
Samprimary said, "He unambiguously stated that homosexual sex should stay illegal." That is correct; and I should not have added "not that private sexual behavior should be punishable." The Pixiest noted correctly, "He wants to put A FEW of us in jail but only for the sake of making us keep our place... And yes, 2 decades ago... But does he still stand by it or has he tempered his stand?" About the answer to that question, I simply do not know; but given the lapse of time she is right to ask the question.

Samprimary also asked, "What percentage of Americans do you think straight-up want to keep homosexuality criminalized?" About that I think you should ask Gallup or some other polling organization rather than me, but off the top of my head I should say a quarter. And even in fairly tolerant northern California I have met a number of people willing to say "Death to all gays!"

Posts: 50 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Strider:
That's why I don't argue with you. Because I love myself...and you're wrong. [Razz]

Obviously, you don't love yourself at all. I can feel the dissonance radiating from you...your face is green, and your tongue swollen from it.

I'm not trying to psychoanalyze you, specifically. But...I mean, you're obviously conflicted, and that conflict is causing you to express some seriously whacked stuff, Strider.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
...
Samprimary also asked, "What percentage of Americans do you think straight-up want to keep homosexuality criminalized?" About that I think you should ask Gallup or some other polling organization rather than me, but off the top of my head I should say a quarter. And even in fairly tolerant northern California I have met a number of people willing to say "Death to all gays!"

Looks higher at about 40%.

quote:
Do you think gay or lesbian relations between consenting adults should or should not be legal?

2009 May 7-10
56% (Should be legal)
40% (Should not be legal)
4% (No opinion)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1651/Gay-Lesbian-Rights.aspx
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Would you be OK with somebody in World War II-era California saying, "I'm worried for those poor Japanese-Americans, who might be exposed to violence in retribution for Pearl Harbor. Therefore I support placing them in internment camps for their own safety"? After all, this person's intention is to help, not harm Japanese-Americans.
I wouldn't be OK with it. But if what they were saying is really what they felt, then yes that would be intending to help them, not hurt them.

quote:
Yet the result is harm, regardless of their "stated" intention.
Perhaps. But the question is whether harm is intended, not what actually results. I agree with neo-dragon: "I've never gotten the impression that [OSC] dislikes or wishes any harm to homosexual people."
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 11808

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen         Edit/Delete Post 
Orincoro asked, "Just to sort of step around the Godwin line here a little, I assume you are at least aware that many, well, shall we say "fanatically anti-" people in the past, people who have done MUCH worse things to minority groups than OSC has ever advocated against gays, have also known and been friends with individuals from those groups?" The mention of the Godwin line here is appropriate, as Adolf Hitler is well known to have remained friendly with his Jewish family doctor. That did not make him benevolent toward Jews in general.

Otherwise your psychological interpretation probably applies to some people, but I have no idea whether it applies to OSC. Even trained psychiatrists, which I am not, in most cases prefer to avoid speculation about the mental processes of people they have never met. When some have tried to do so, in some cases the results have struck me as ludicrous.

Posts: 50 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
I feel like he would like to stuff gays back in the closet and states that this is good for society.
I'm not seeing it. I feel as if his point of view is very antiquated about gays and unhealthy and if I was his semi-gay friend I couldn't help but call him on it. He'd LOATHE if people dissed Mormons the way he disses gays, calling them children playing dress up? That's really not very nice. I think his gay friends are cooler for accepting him despite having that point of view.

Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
The one thing Card does that really pisses me off is to presume he understands their deep seated motives and desires when he knows little more about them than you can read in the headlines. I find this equally offensive no matter who is doing it. Please stop impuning Mr. Card's motives. You do not know his mind or his heart and it is wrong to presume you do.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Strider
Member
Member # 1807

 - posted      Profile for Strider   Email Strider         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:
Originally posted by Strider:
That's why I don't argue with you. Because I love myself...and you're wrong. [Razz]

Obviously, you don't love yourself at all. I can feel the dissonance radiating from you...your face is green, and your tongue swollen from it.

I'm not trying to psychoanalyze you, specifically. But...I mean, you're obviously conflicted, and that conflict is causing you to express some seriously whacked stuff, Strider.

Nothing you say will make me love you any less.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 11808

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen         Edit/Delete Post 
The part of the War Watch essay of June 30, 2003 linked to by Xavier which impressed me is the following:
quote:
If states had voted (as most did) to repeal their anti-sodomy laws, fine; if people wanted to live in a state that did not have such a law, they were free to move there. It's one of the main benefits of a federal system.
According to that, OSC is no longer insisting that homosexual behavior should remain punishable by law, so long as the change in the law is made through the usual processes of legal reform rather than dictated by any court. And I am grateful to Mucus for finding a recent Gallup Poll which suggests that the percentage of Americans who want to criminalize homosexual behavior is even higher than I estimated at 40%. Maybe residing in the Bay Area has skewed my perceptions on that point, but the fact remains that a very large percentage of Americans still disagree with the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas striking down all such laws. Such attitudes change slowly, as was once shown by the fact that half of Americans still believed marriage between blacks and whites should be illegal decades after a Supreme Court decision - Loving v. Virginia I think - required that it be permitted.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
I question the results of the Gallup poll. Context is everything. I'd like to see not only the exact wording of the question but also the other questions in the poll. Depending on context, many people may have been confusing making homosexual behavior illegal with making same sex marriage illegal.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Nothing you say will make me love you any less.
You're a seething bowl of putrid hate. Covering it with these sweet words is only doing yourself harm.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 8594

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:

quote:
Do you think gay or lesbian relations between consenting adults should or should not be legal?

2009 May 7-10
56% (Should be legal)
40% (Should not be legal)
4% (No opinion)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1651/Gay-Lesbian-Rights.aspx
This question is poorly worded. Especially in the current political climate, where the real question on everyone's mind is gay marriage, I wonder if when the questioner says "relations" many people hear "marriage" or even a similar civil union.

Or maybe I'm giving the American people too much credit and they really do care what consenting adults do in private. I think I'd like to know what they think the punishment should be, though.

Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
The Rabbit and hobsen: The exact question is in the link:
quote:
1977-2008 wording: Do you think homosexual relations between consenting adults should or should not be legal?
The list of questions (if any) is not given, but there is a list of results with roughly 30 results dating from 1977 to the present day. The results seem decently smooth and consistent (taking into account the general trend toward legalization) which would seem to discount confusion with same-sex marriage (since Gallup only started asking that question in 1996) issue.

Personally, I don't know why one would find the results all that surprising, but YMMV.

[ June 23, 2009, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
One thing people are neglecting is that unlike racial or ethnic prejudices, homosexuality is a behavior.

Many if not most of us, believe that our behavior and our desires are something we can and should control. We all agree you can't control the color of your eyes, your hair or your skin. You can't choose your parents. But it is still at a minimum highly debatable to claim that behavior of any kind is in the same category as race or ethnic heritage. Even though we know alcoholism (for example) has a genetic component, most of people believe that drinking alcohol is a choice that even alcoholics can choose not to drink.

The point is that it is very different to condemn a behavior than it is to condemn a racial or ethnic trait. In this sense, it simply isn't reasonable to compare the condemnation of homosexuality to racism or anti-semitism (remember that according to the Nazi's, you were a Jew if one grandparent was Jewish even if you converted to some other religion).

Even if you believe that homosexuality is 100% genetically determined, you would have to agree that this is still highly controversial and that it is not unreasonable for people to see it as a behavior that can be controlled. Certainly you can see the difference between someone who condemns a behavior that they believe can be controlled and someone who condemns a racial or ethnic characteristic which even they believe to be 100% genetically determined.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Personally, I don't know why one would find the results all that surprising, but YMMV.
I guess I find it surprising because I've never talked to any one who admitted to thinking homosexual relations between consenting adults should be illegal. I've talked with a lot of people who think gay marriage should be illegal. I've talked with a lot of people who think gay sex is really icky and people who think its a grievous sin, but I've never spoken with anyone who thought it should be a crime. Aside from the 1990 essay by Card, I've never even read anything claiming homosexual relations between consenting adults should be illegal. We have quite a diverse group of people here at hatrack, yet I've never heard anyone defending the idea that homosexual relations between consenting adults should be illegal.

Maybe I'm just much more sheltered from the bigot AH population than I think.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
If you take Card's controversial essay, and replace "homosexual" with "recreational drug user", would you think Card hated drug users, had an irrational fear of drug users or was some sort of self hating hypocrit or closet drug user?

If not, why not? What would be the difference? If Card had written that essay about drug users and still continued to be friendly and kind to drug users, would you have the same problem?

The thing is, that you can slip drug user into that entire essay and it works perfectly. Pretty much every piece of it would work. And you know what, I'd even still disagree with his conclusion since I think recreational drugs should be legal.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
A behaviour? I'd think a lot of gay people, even semi-gay people would disagree with that.
Even if it "Can be controlled" why should it? I don't see it as any different than heterosexuality. I don't view it as abnormal or something to be looked down on.

It's not like I'm trying to put words into OSC's mouth, but I can't help but come to such conclusions from his TONE. And the sort of things he says. I'm telling you, they really are not very nice and are quite hurtful.

Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
I think my heterosexuality can be controlled. The question in my mind is not can it be controlled (I personally would be very insulted if someone said I could not control my sexual behavior), but should it. I can see reasons why an individual might wish to control it, but I do not see reasons why as a society we should enforce that control. I see a lot better reasons to controlling heterosexual behavior actually (since that behavior ends in babies).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Emreecheek
Member
Member # 12082

 - posted      Profile for Emreecheek           Edit/Delete Post 
However, technically speaking, people can get color contacts now, and they can dye their hair.
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

   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