I have visited hatrack off and on over the last few years, mostly to look for updates on the Ender's Game movie. I also read several webcomics, including Something Positive and Queen of Wands. Both have made references recently to some essay that Orson Scott Card wrote about homosexuality. I was wondering if anyone else here is aware of this essay. I can't really assume anything based on what others have said about it, and I'd like to read it myself.
I also just realized that this may have been addressed in a previous thread - at least Something Positive mentioned it in the updates - but I don't know where it is and Queen of Wands' take on it is completely different.
Anyway, does anyone know where I could find it?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I can't remember if this is the essay on homosexuality that received so much outside press, but there is one on homosexual marriage posted at OSC's The Ornery American site. This was one of his "Civilization Watch" essays, first published in the The Rhinocerous Times (online) about a year ago.
[ April 02, 2005, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by LTC DuBois (Member # 7661) on :
Apparently being tolerant and accepting doesn't extend to being tolerant of Mr. Card's views on homosexuality.
Why am I not surprised?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Probably because you're used to applying the logical fallacy contained in that script regardless of the actual aspects of the situation.
Posted by LTC DuBois (Member # 7661) on :
I'm sorry, I'm not well versed in the definitions of logical fallacies. Which particular one was I using?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You're over-extending the way that tolerance is used there. You're saying that tolerance should be absolute, like "Oh, you're all for tolerance but you won't let me kick you in the nuts. Hypocrite!"
In a ton of cases, this is actually a valid criticism, even if from a symbolic logical standpoint it's invalid. Plenty of people who say that we should be tolerant of people only mean people that they like. They can be quite nasy and intolerant towards people they don't agree with. "Tolerance" is just the mask they use to make their agenda seem more palatable, much like calling it "Defending Marriage" let's many people's gay hating seem much more worthy of respect.
But, on the other hand, there are also plenty of people who really do consider tolerance and understanding important virtues and they can express shock, dismay, and disapproval when people aren't displaying them without being hypocritical. edit: Just as there are plenty of people who feel that homosexuality is a sin for reasons that don't involve them hating gays.
In this particular case, the Something Positive example was about reconciling some of the views of an author that you aren't comfortable with with your enjoyment of their work and their existence as a real, living, breathing person as opposed to a 2-d figure whose only role is to provide you with entertainment and never disagree with you and the Queen of Wands seemed to me to be about a devoted fan having their image of one of their favorite authors smashed and her trying to deal with the disappointment.
In either case, the pat little script you played out (seriously is there a central source like a book or something that people learn these stock dismissals from or is it something from like a Jungian collective unconscious that mediocre arguments are constantly being rediscovered, like how Pascal's Wager keeps on being reconstituted?) doesn't fit.
[ April 02, 2005, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Verai (Member # 7507) on :
OSC states that homosexuals have the same marriage rights as everyone else and it's time to get the pitchforks and torches.
Posted by LTC DuBois (Member # 7661) on :
So believing homosexuals shouldn't marry is like kicking someone in the nuts? Or is it like "skin[ing] a couple dozen squirrels alive and watch them twitch helplessly on the ground"? In either case (yours or queen of wands) I'd say that's false analogy, but like I said before I haven't studied logic.
I may be stuck repeating mediocre arguments, and perhaps I shouldn't have posted at all. But I can't help but get annoyed at criticisms like
"this person was not a person who understood, or accepted, or embraced anything wholeheartedly and without judgement."
What sort of logical consistency is in that statement (also Queen of Wands)? I'm fairly certain that Mr. Card wholeheartedly understands, accepts and embraces some things. Surely he can accept and/or embrace certain things without wholeheartedly understanding them, or understand something without accepting it.
It's the phrase "without judgement" that really gets me. Is it even possible to accept something without making some sort of judgement? I judge that not supporting gay marriage is not as bad as punching someone in the nuts or torturing squirrels.
Whether or not a particular person agrees with Mr. Card or not on the issue of gay marriage is beside the point. But what is tolerance if it isn't extended to those you disagree with? Whoever is behind Queen of Wands is certainly free to disagree with Mr. Card. But likening him to a squirrel torturer doesn't seem like tolerance to me. I disagree with her opinion of Mr. Card, and I'm accusing her of hypocrisy. That's all, and I apologize if my reasoning wouldn't get me high marks in a philosophy course.
Posted by Centurion13 (Member # 7700) on :
I, too, witnessed the Queen of Wands strip addressing this topic, via WebSnark. I have no agenda whatsoever against homosexuals, and I winced when I saw Mr. Card's statement that many homosexuals have been coerced into the practice. I can't help but believe that there is something innate in being gay.
On the other hand, I have to agree with what Mr. Card says about the rest. I screamed it aloud, in the car on the way to work, while listening to NPR the other day. I was kind of fed up with the liberal spin, and hadn't had enough coffee. I hollered "I don't care if you want to shack up with someone of the same sex, but I will be damned if you will get away with mainstreaming something that folks from the dawn of time have considered a perversion! It is not normal. It is not, and never will be. I can tolerate gays. I can't tolerate calling white black, or vice versa. Two and two do NOT make five, no matter what you get the courts to say!!!"
Well, good thing the windows were up. And as I said, except for the time or two when I think Mr. Card's statements exceeded the reach of verifiable (by clods like me) data, I heartily agree. 'Twill but ruin the goodly name of marriage for the rest of us that are hetero.
Anyone who expresses shock at statements like this needs to take a hard look around at what most of the rest of the human race is up to. Maybe the fault lies with the intolerance and prejudice of 90% of humanity.
And then again, maybe not.
Cent13
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Hmmm. pitchforks and torches. I'm glad that intelligent discussion is desired.
Isn't it odd how quickly we jumped from "and of course homosexual marriage is unthinkable" (the constant refrain of the Left when other homosexual rights were being asserted) to "anybody who thinks marriage should not be redefined as including nonheterosexual couples without any recourse to democratic process is a bigot who would lead a hate-filled mob." My count is about six years for the transition. With no intervening scientific discoveries or political processes to suggest any basis for such a change.
You can often identify bigots by their fear of public discussion, their immediate recourse to ad hominem attacks, and their desire to punish and/or silence anyone who holds a contrary opinion. It becomes clearer when they deliberately misquote and misrepresent their opponents' statements in order to avoid answering them - usually a sign that they have no answer, they just don't want to admit that the other person might have some valid concerns which ought to be addressed.
The issue is moot, of course. Gay marriage will inevitably become the law of the land. And then we'll have to find a new word for the heterosexual relationship that used to be called marriage.
But judging from the kind of comments seen here and many other places, there will still be a concerted effort to punish anyone who actually said, "Whoa, can we THINK about this before we redefine the core relationship of civilization?" There are already people trying to get me banned from public speeches, even though I don't speak on this subject, and others who would like to organize boycotts of my books, with a goal of depriving me of a livelihood because I have had an incorrect thought and spoken it aloud.
They call themselves "liberals" and claim to favor "free speech." But, apparently, only when it is speech on the approved list.
You know, my full range of opinions used to be right in line with what the word "liberal" meant. How the world changes ... and heaven help the person who doesn't march in lockstep.
Posted by MetaLuna (Member # 7697) on :
I personally have no issues with free speech. Actually, Orson can have whatever opinion he likes. He is LDS, and I live in the middle of the largest LDS population in the country. I am accustomed to hearing that gays are not permitted the same rights as straight folk. (After all, WE don't marry people of the same sex, so why should THEY be allowed to?)
If it's true, however, that he is stating that homosexuals are somehow mentally maligned... well, that's just nonsense. And I am disappointed in him for perpetuating that sort of myth. I am studying psychology and anthropology at the University of Utah and have gained many perspectives on what is considered "normal". I can tell you right now that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that being gay is a learned trait, let alone one caused by sexual assault. How awful.
Tolerance, by the way, is being tolerant of all lifestyles and choices, though I'd add the caveat that it's only limited to choices/lifestyles that do not harm others. Homosexuality harms no one, except possibly those involved in the relationship. And Orson is not being tolerant by indicating that there is something "wrong" with gays.
I can, however, be tolerant of his ignorance.
Now, as I was saying... anyone have any idea where this article is? I'll go read the one on homosexual marriage and see if that's it, but if there are any others, please post.
Posted by MetaLuna (Member # 7697) on :
The writer of Queen of Wands has chosen to expound on her comments in her daily blog. She was also kind enough to link to the essay in question.
He's made many, many factual errors, and not just about homosexuality. I'll quote from it:
quote: The damage caused to children by divorce and illegitimate birth is obvious and devastating. While apologists for the current system are quick to blame poverty resulting from "deadbeat dads" as the cause, the children themselves know this is ludicrous... Most broken or wounded families are in that condition because of a missing father.
Of course personal examples are always easiest, so I'll start with that. I was a single mother. My daughter was quite well adjusted and, in fact, the friendliest damn kid in the neighborhood. Very happy, very loved. Why? My parents helped out. She had no father figure for years. She does now, and she's exactly the same.
As far as studies being performed on this, it's been shown that "fathers" are not as important as "father figures." In other words, children must have male role models in their lives, just as they must have female role models. And frankly, it doesn't matter if that role model shares DNA or not.
quote: Monogamous marriage is by far the most effective foundation for a civilization. It provides most males an opportunity to mate (polygamous systems always result in surplus males that have no reproductive stake in society);
This is, I'm afraid, just plain ridiculous. Those "surplus males" still perform useful roles in society, even if they are not "alpha" males. Furthermore, human beings were polygamous for many thousands of years, and still are in many countries. There's always been a good reason for it, too, though I won't go into it here. Polygamy has been economically, socially and maritally beneficial since the dawn of man. It's just not in our society anymore... and that's recent.
quote: Television programs will start to show homosexual "marriages" as wonderful and happy (even as they continue to show heterosexual marriages as oppressive and conflict-ridden).
One of the nice things about allowing gays to marry and to stop making a big to-do about it is that they can be treated like any other family... which includes the good times AND the bad. They won't be exempt. However, as it stands, gays are sent the message via TV that they cannot commit, that they are flirty and promiscuous, and that they don't have to even *consider* spending their life with one person... because legally, it's not realistic.
quote:The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.
That's the kicker. I'm done reading this. It's so beyond the realm of reality as to be insulting and, yes, laughable at the same time.
I love Ender's Game, and I love the series, though I haven't read any others of his books. I will always enjoy reading. I am, however, severely disappointed to see his fabulous writing skills used to try to convince people of such enormous tripe.
I hope you read this, Orson. I'm sincere in my concern that this nonsense is being spoken by a man as intelligent as you.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
And so, because you're taking psychology classes, you uncritically accept that there is some evidence of the attitudes you have been taught to have.
The issue I have written about is either "Does the Mormon Church have the right to determine its own doctrine and practice on homosexuality" or "Is there any possible harm to society at large from the arbitrary redefinition of marriage and has anybody seriously studied this" and nothing you have said here even remotely addresses these two questions, but rather assumes that because I have asked them I must be an evil, ignorant, or intolerant person ...
Doesn't it occur to you that maybe I've read exactly the same things you've read - and a lot of things you haven't? And that maybe your attitude reflects the unquestioning acceptance of biased information and propaganda and an eagerness to condemn people who have actually thought and researched beyond the little box you live in?
Have you actually looked at the so-called evidence for the view you espouse or sought to discover if there is in fact any evidence to the contrary? Do you question ANYTHING? Or do you merely accept that anyone who does not agree with your dogmas must be "ignorant"? Have you even considered the possibility that you might be wrong?
Considering that you have condemned me as "ignorant" without even reading the essays for which I am being excoriated, and without addressing any of the points I actually make, don't you feel just the tiniest qualm of self-doubt that maybe you're attacking the wrong person?
As for your assertion about there being no harm from homosexual "marriage," I'd be interested in knowing how you define "harm" and what degree of harm you consider to be sufficient to cross the threshold of becoming "intolerant behavior."
For instance, would attacking me without actually reading what I wrote and considering my ideas rationally be considered as harming me? And would permitting you to post such attacks against me on my own website not be at least an oblique hint of a disposition toward tolerance on my part? Have you actually considered all the relevant evidence before condemning me and dismissing me? Have you even TRIED to do so?
But wait. I was forgetting. You've actually taken CLASSES. What was I thinking!
[ April 03, 2005, 05:36 AM: Message edited by: Orson Scott Card ]
Posted by MetaLuna (Member # 7697) on :
One more thing...
My uncle is gay, and has been with his partner for 8 years. He's definitely the effeminate one - he speaks of his boyfriend like my grandmother spoke of my grandfather. And... he has never been molested, assaulted, or otherwise sexually abused in any way. How insulting...
My mother is staunch LDS and even she was able to accept her brother's boyfriend. And now she feels differently about gay marriage, too.
Posted by MetaLuna (Member # 7697) on :
WHOA! That was fast. Interesting.
Like I said, I don't consider you ignorant, intolerant, or evil. None of the above. I do, however, think you're wrong.
For the record, the CLASSES that I took never addressed homosexuality specifically. I never said that they did, only that what I'd learned from men wiser than me is that there is no evidence that homosexuality was the result of pscyhological trauma.
I had difficulty reading the entire essay because it was quite long and I've read so many like it before, it gets frustrating. I missed the "questions" you asked, and was mostly catching the parts that, even when taken out of context, had no excuse.
You don't need to be this aggravated. I'm a little disappointed that the first time I hear from Orson Scott Card personally is him basically chewing me out. Geesh. I need to write that down in my auto when I get around to it...
We will likely never know what effect homosexual marriage would have on society because it has been by and large forbidden by the majority. I do, however, think that removing the stigma (though not necessarily promoting it) would help with the effect homosexuality has on society in general. I knew a girl in high school who'd been crushed when her father and mother divorced... her father had been hiding his sexual preferences for years and finally couldn't deal with it any longer. Like I said - CRUSHED the family.
But if we'd been in a more tolerant world, one where homosexuals aren't "reprogrammed", maybe the man would have just gotten himself a boyfriend and NOT wound up destroying an entire family?
Regardless... hi, Orson. I love Ender's Game. Don't take this personally.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
I never said that such experiences were the sole possible cause, merely a possible and swept-under-the-rug contributing factor.
It is also astonishing to see the implication that in gay couples there is invariably a "feminine" one. I've known gay couples where both were effeminite, and gay couples where neither was. I've also known straight guys with all the standard markers of "effeminacy," and I've know relatively few actual women whose behavior was markedly "effeminate" as the term is defined when applied to homosexual men.
Do you also assume that in lesbian couples, one must always be "butch"?
It is a natural human tendency to adopt common assumptions and attitudes from the society around us, so unquestioningly that we speak as if they were true, without wondering whether, in fact, they are true at all.
Fortunately, I've actually known enough gay people to know that NONE of these assumptions is universally true of couples or individuals.
In a serious discussion about changes in public policy and law, perhaps instead of being guided by anecdote, we could look at serious research that does not rely on self-reported questionnaires.
And if there is NOT any such research to be found, perhaps both sides could refrain from making blanket statements about "no harm" or "the feminine one" and wait to make our drastic, previously untried social experiment until we have some kind of data that might indicate potential outcomes.
We might even look for research to indicate that the "harm" caused to homosexual couples from the inability to marry is greater or lesser or balanced with other potential harms; but instead, anyone who suggests that any harm is even conceivable is shouted down or dismissed as "ignorant."
Think, people! Use your brains! After all these millennia, is it such an emergency to suddenly adopt gay marriage that we can't even CONSIDER the matter through either scientific or political processes? Have we already, without any significant research, become so certain of the harmlessness of one thing and the harmfulness of another that we must STIFLE and STIGMATIZE even the asking of questions?
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Standard operating procedure: Attack. Then, if the other person defends himself, ask what he's getting so upset about.
So I was chewing you out. While your egregious attacks on me were ... nothing to be aggravated about. Poor innocent you - you can say truly vicious things about me, but if I respond, then I'm mistreating you.
Really, now. Was your idea that I should simply remain silent? Or treat your statements as if they were rational, when in fact they were merely a contemptuous dismissal of me?
Am I supposed to maintain a forum where only I am forbidden to speak, regardless of what other people say about me?
[ April 03, 2005, 05:54 AM: Message edited by: Orson Scott Card ]
Posted by MetaLuna (Member # 7697) on :
I'll first address my referring to my uncle as "the effeminate one." He is. He's effeminate, his boyfriend is not. I've also had plenty of gay and lesbian friends who operated differently. I didn't think you'd latch onto that.
I also want to point out that you may have been taking what I said too seriously. I was not writing with "**** that guy!!!" in my head. It was more like "Oh, come on..." I am disappointed. You have read nothing that I've written, but I have been privileged to read much of what you've done. You don't know me in the least, and I believed I knew something about you. I was wrong, and I am disappointed. I do not think of you poorly, or as an intolerant bigot. Just, as I said, wrong. You may think similarly of me.
As for blanket statements, you made a number of them yourself in your essay. You're right. There isn't enough objective evidence to firmly state one way or another, and my opinion that homosexuality harms no one is only based off of the available evidence. So until such proof is given, perhaps we should both remain open-minded? Which also means that you should consider that I have a dissenting view because I just disagree... not because I believe whatever nonsense the media throws at me.
I have a strong distaste for the whole "gay agenda". I hate the movement. It stereotypes every gay person out there, turns them into a caricature of what it's really like for most gays. But, as in the feminist and civil rights movements, such dramatic measures are usually needed to secure equality under the law.
When it comes to altering our legal structure to permit homosexual marriage, I believe it's best to err on the side of equality. They are equal and deserve the same things that any of us do - and in this case, that's to marry the one they love. If it turns out to be a mistake... and it better be a bigger one than legalizing divorce... well, measures must be taken, just as they were taken to undo Prohibition.
My mother suggested that people might be more willing to consider the idea if we called it something else ("civil unions", for example). Would that help? Marriage, after all, is simply a legal union these days. I was not married by a pastor/priest/rabbi/other religious official. I just have a nice little piece of paper. Why not let them have a piece of paper, too?
Posted by MetaLuna (Member # 7697) on :
Oh, and I'm enjoying our exchange. Even if you disagree with me and are, as I so eloquently put it, "chewing me out," you're one of my favorite authors. I'm all warm and fuzzy inside right now that you care enough what I think to talk to me.
But I have to emphasize that I'm not attacking you. Over the internet, you can't see my facial expressions or hear my tone, so I understand why you may have assumed an intention. However, I really don't think any less of you as an author.
It's great that you keep up with your forum. Didn't realize you did so much.
[ April 03, 2005, 06:16 AM: Message edited by: MetaLuna ]
Posted by Frangy. (Member # 6794) on :
To live united, with the same rights that a heterosexual marriage. In this aspect I think that they should allow and to promote it because they cannot do anything against their trends. But for the Church ... it is something sacred between a man and a woman who helps to complete... I do not believe that a man could complete another man (or a woman to another woman), if even it sounds surprise...
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Here's why I think the current views on homosexuality are harmful, please understand that I'm still trying to understand this stuff myself and as such, this may jump around...a lot.
What has happened lately is incredibly harmful. The court of public opinion has been stigmatized in such a way that any attempt to study homosexuality, under the assumption that homosexuality is a learned trait, will result in the scientists who make these attempts to be labeled "homophobic." Investors refuse to support these scientists as a result. Further, any attempt to disprove a standing scientific finding that "proves" homosexuality to be a matter of birth will be similarly labeled. Regardless of this fact, every single scientific study that has shown homosexuality to be genetic or natural has been thoroughly disproven. But since there is no investment in studies seeking to prove that homosexuality is a learned trait, science stalls and will never ever be allowed to give a solid answer to the question. How is that not harmful?
So here's my question. Why aren't we studying why people are homosexual instead of arguing over unknowns? I'll tell you why. Because the people who are adamantly for homosexual mariage fear the possibility that such a study may show that homosexuality might actually be nothing more than a psychological issue. If it is merely psychological, it can be "cured". If it can be "cured", there is no basis whatsoever for an argument for homosexual marriage.
edit: removed a comment that was addressed while I was writing. And to cut my mindless writing prompt
[ April 03, 2005, 06:40 AM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by JHamilton (Member # 7683) on :
OK, here's 2 cents from another perspective:
Just a little bio: I'm a Mormon, but a convert. I was born into the Catholic Church, and my wife is a convert from the Baptist Church. I fully support, sustain, and believe in the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. However, I also have a bachelor's degree in Criminal Justice and a master's in International Relations. So, I've been exposed to an enormous amount of what is considered "left wing" beliefs and dogma. I'm also a career Army Military Policeman. So, I have a bit of an interest in the laws and rules that govern society. What follows are some opinions based on my own experiences:
1. Homosexuality is not natural, in that it is contrary to the basic desire of any animal to reproduce. No species that zealously follows homosexuality can flourish. Given that homosexuality is not conducive toward reproduction, it is difficult to support the assertion that it is genetic. 2. Americans (and all free peoples) have the right to engage in whatever consentual conduct with other adults that they wish to engage in, so long as that conduct does not infringe upon the rights or well-being of others. 3. As the parent of an adopted child, I have a serious issue with homosexual couples competing with heterosexual couples to adopt children. All children are entitled to a healthy, happy home with a mother and a father. My son learns things from my wife he couldn't learn from me, and from me that he couldn't learn from her. Yes, I believe that there are homosexual couples out there who are loving and caring and do everything they can for their children. But, in the end, two women cannot provide a boy everything he needs to become a man. 4. In the realm of criminal justice, it is a noted statistic that domestic violence (my least favorite type of crime to respond to) is generally much more violent in the case of homosexual couples. This is not to say that all homosexuals are deviants, only that there is an inherent stress and difficulty in this type of relationship. 5. As far as Mr. Card's observation that the Mass. state supreme court attempted to make a change in society's rules without availing themselves of the democratic process, he makes a good point. It is clear that the majority of Americans are not in favor of legalizing gay marriage. However, even if they were, this would not end the issue. A popular majority can be just as much a dictator as a single person. If the population of the United States were to vote to outlaw the Book of Mormon, it would not make this decision "right". It would only make it "popular".
So, that's an opinion from an Army grunt here in Japan. Thanks to everyone for posting. This is one of the most interesting forums I've seen in years.
--Joshua
Posted by MetaLuna (Member # 7697) on :
Homosexuality is not natural on a widespread basis. Species cannot support themselves if all animals are homosexual. However, it never has and never will be common - and nor has it ever been unique to humans. There are a multitude of animals in the wild that display homosexual tendencies. Doesn't make it beneficial to the species - just a reality.
As far as voiding the democratic process, what the courts have done is established that marriage is about equality and rights, not a vote. Voting on gay marriage would be akin to voting on whether or not sado/masochists should be allowed to marry.
I bet if we wanted to make sado/masochism an issue, we could blow it up just as big as gay marriage. After all, it's DEFINITELY a learned trait, it's deviant, and it could have devastating effects on children produced by that marriage. If all they see is their parents smacking each other around, they might think that's normal. So they shouldn't be allowed to get married, just in case.
Only we can't say that, because it'd be infringing on others' rights. The only difference, though, is that one deviant sexual preference is obvious, and the other isn't. So the Massachusetts courts are erring on the side of equality here.
Decisions on equality in America should generally not be put up for a public vote. If it were, there would have been a time not so long ago when blacks would not have been allowed to marry whites. There are a multitude of other examples, but the courts did what they needed to do. And look - civilization is still standing in Massachusetts, and your marriage hasn't changed one bit as a result.
[ April 03, 2005, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: MetaLuna ]
Posted by Omelette (Member # 7701) on :
Maybe we need more homosexual couples, the last thing this planet needs is more consuming human beings spawned from "normal" heterosexual couples. It would be great if 1/3-1/2 of couples in densely populated areas could switch sexual orientations... wouldn't that be helpful of them. The worst part of your argument by the way was that the part about homosexual couples adopting. That's saying that any child raised by a single parent is not a whole person and never can be a "man". That's a slap in the face to a lot of people. The more people surrounding you in your life who love you the better.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(Ahem. Some say that the folks on the other side generally have a tendency to pleasantish manners even during times of disagreement. They are somewhat slow-witted, perhaps, or maybe just have had a lot of corners already worn off. Not to imply anything about the fine folks here, you understand -- merely musing aloud.
*whistles innocently /Off Topic)
[ April 03, 2005, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Verai (Member # 7507) on :
"But, in the end, two women cannot provide a boy everything he needs to become a man."
They'd probobly get a girl.
Joking aside, I realize that not everyone in this world thinks like me.
I can't stop the way my subconscience reels when a homosexual is present, or when one is in discussion. But if I ever felt I was treating one differently I would stop, pretend he was someone else, and compare the situation.
I don't understand why the normal part of the world should be forced to conform to a tiny minority of opinion (the premise of Mr. Card's arguments I think).
But if I was gay (I must be oozing empathy today), I would not tell anyone. There's a good chance that I would decide never to pursue anyone I was attracted to, to let the mindset become buried forever.
Why?
Because it invites too much chaos and hurt. Why open the door for that? Why make your life miserable when it's possible to make peace within yourself, as opposed to forcing everyone else make peace with you? You cannot achieve the latter in your lifetime, but the former is possible.
Posted by Gosu (Member # 5783) on :
I've noticed recently that there are a lot of people who openly attack Card. I mean they really attack him. Maybe not so much here, since he responds to some of the posts (grin), but especially at Ornery.
"Card should grow up"
Should he? Let me finish Children of the Mind and I'll get back to on that.
But meanwhile, what does bother me is the fact that people completely ignore the rules and state that another member is dumb and needs to grow up ASAP.
Metaluna, I am not saying you've done this. Standard Operating Procedure #2: throw "ideas" out and when somebody denies your "accusation" you bring to their attention that they, not you, were the one who connected the accusation to themselves.
Please people, let's disagree and cross-analyze ideas, but let's not call another member ignorant and incompetent.
But Gosu, Card himself calls other people stupid and ignorant!
I agree! What gives Card the right to talk trash of Starship Troopers?
Seriously, though, have you ever seen Card deliberately call another person, by name, completely ignorant if that person supported his argument with a at least a little common sense?
I would, however, like to state how I disagree with one of the comments Metaluna made:
quote: Of course personal examples are always easiest, so I'll start with that. I was a single mother. My daughter was quite well adjusted and, in fact, the friendliest damn kid in the neighborhood. Very happy, very loved. Why? My parents helped out. She had no father figure for years. She does now, and she's exactly the same.
No she isn't because you can never know she isn't. How do you know how she would have grown differently? Or do you mean she's the exact same as she was years ago?
Is that better, or worse?
[ April 03, 2005, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: Gosu ]
Posted by Centurion13 (Member # 7700) on :
Mr. Card, I have watched Metaluna and you go round and round. I have come away with two things:
a) A confirmation of an observation of mine, made over many years of perusing the bboards. That is, any time I read "who has the right?" or "how dare you?" or "this is an insult!" or "you didn't listen to me/read my text, etc", rational discourse has gone right out the window. Folks who talk about "simple disagreement" and otherwise attempt to establish how neutral they are, do so in the hopes of reserving the rational high ground. Meanwhile, they do their level best to reduce any points you made, valid or otherwise, to the level of non-rational emissions. Like a burp, or a hiccup. See, you're stupid, or you're a bigot (born and raised). Or you are a Christian, or you're just not listening (if you were, see, you'd immediately agree). In other words, of COURSE you'll make those points, because (and this is the important part), YOU CAN'T HELP IT!
It's what or who you are, and there just isn't any other way for you to behave. What you say or do is the result of non-rational forces at work in your brain, or your culture, or your upbringing. They base their (supposed) desperate desire to change your mind on the assumption that you have free will. Yet in the same breath, they deny you have that free will by claiming that your arguments are based on something other than rational argument.
Of course, this is not only hypocrisy. It is a lie. I don't mean as told to the rest of us. I mean it is a lie to the teller him/herself. They don't believe it themselves. After all, for their own arguments to have any validity, they themselves must have free will, and be able to think rationally, despite their upbringing, etc. Otherwise, no one can make a point about ANYTHING. They seem willing to extend this freedom from non-rational influences to themselves unquestioned, but are very stingy towards others, especially if the others disagree.
Either these people have not yet discovered what they are actually doing - or else they know, and it suits their agenda exactly. They get to eat their cake and have it, too. Either way, it's baloney.
This business of fem/butch is a red herring. The issue is this: will 'normalizing' or 'mainstreaming' a perversion make it normal, to anyone on the face of this planet other than in the eyes of the gay folks who wear the wedding rings? Will even they believe it, in their secret hearts? The name changes - the fact remains the same. And what will this mean to the social structure of America?
The second thing I come away with is this: C.S. Lewis once pointed out that the word 'gentleman' had been spoiled for its original descriptive purpose; that is, to describe someone with a coat of arms and landed property. There was no contradiction in the phrase 'John is a liar and a gentleman', any more than there is in 'John is a fool and an M.A.' Now it has become a term of praise, and worse, not everyone agrees on what it means.
I believe that this is happening to 'marriage’. It is happening in this generation for a reason, and I have not yet determined why it has become such a crisis. Homosexuals have been cohabiting for thousands of years, and I have never witnessed anything indicating they felt what they were doing fell under the descriptive term ‘marriage’. Indeed, though the impulse to cohabit in a homosexual relationship was strong, and even inborn, none of them that I have read of, ever felt that society was somehow obligated to grant him or her that status.
Maybe that’s why it’s sprung up, all of a sudden. The sense of entitlement, of rights over responsibilities, has been growing over the past few decades into a monster. At the same time, Deconstruction and Post-Modernist thinking has cast doubt over the statements of every single person claiming any kind of authority whatsoever. Take a stand opposite of the political left or religious right, and you immediately become an agenda-driven fascist, despite your education and innate intelligence.
I still think Mr. Card is spot-on, regardless of the individual quibbles you might have with him.
Cent13
Posted by Sal (Member # 3758) on :
As far as I know, the most informative book on whether homosexuality is "natural" is by this guy. It is called "Against nature? Homosexuality and evolution." Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to have been translated into English. The book shows with numerous examples that homosexuality is, in fact, widespread in the animal kingdom. Based on solid research it also explains, in fairly accessible terms, how this kind of sexual diversity (a 100% homosexual species is quite ridiculous, really) can be of sociological/evolutionary advantage.
I admire how OSC encourages the questioning of one's own views, including the sources that may have helped form these views. I just wish he would apply this approach even more to his own essays!
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote: The worst part of your argument by the way was that the part about homosexual couples adopting. That's saying that any child raised by a single parent is not a whole person and never can be a "man". That's a slap in the face to a lot of people. The more people surrounding you in your life who love you the better.
I was raised by a single mother. It certainly wasn't her choice. My parents got a divorce when I was 3 and my father died when I was 5. I was raised in a home with one VERY loving parent who sacrificed a lot to give everything to her 3 children. She did it alone and she is to be commended for it. I am very grateful to my mother for raising me as she did--I grew up with morals and love and I think I turned out alright.
But I knew our situation was not ideal. It was better to have a mother and a father who love each other and their kids. That would have been better. That doesn't mean I think any less of my mother or that she somehow did wrong by me. But I WAS shortchanged by not having a father--which was not her fault. I missed out on something real and important. Having people around who loved me was not a substitute for having a loving father.
So I don't condemn single mothers or single fathers if they're raising children alone because of circumstances like that. I applaud them for doing their best for their children. It is not easy to be a single parent. But, except in some strange and unlikely circumstances that I can't even think of right now but I'm sure that someone will come up with some situation, I think very little of parents who choose to raise a child alone. I think it is incredibly selfish of them to intentionally rob a child they claim to love of the experience of having a loving mother and a father. I don't care how many aunts and uncles are around. This opinion applies to people who irresponsibly have sex before marriage and get impregnated in a lab. (I would not include teen mothers in this opinion. Babies having babies is an entirely different issue with different causes and solutions. I'm more talking about the sort of Sex and the City crowd.. having sex with tons of people with little thought of consequence and responsibility.)
HOWEVER, I feel differently about adoption. There are so many children who need a home. Let the single people, let the same-sex couples, let anybody who isn't a maniac abuser take those children and give them love. That's better than being raised in an orphanage. (I could possibly be swayed in this view. I don't know...)
Well anyway... just thought I'd throw in my opinion, as the daughter of a single-mother.
Oh, and Metaluna, your tone was in fact very offensive in your initial posts. I think it's quite clear that when you were actually called to account for your words that you decided to hide behind the internet, saying you were simply misunderstood. I think you were just surprised to get a response from the man himself. He understood exactly your intent..now instead of backpeddling, either stand behind your words or apologize.
-Katarain
[ April 03, 2005, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Katarain ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: I can't help but believe that there is something innate in being gay.
I screamed it aloud, in the car on the way to work, while listening to NPR the other day. I was kind of fed up with the liberal spin, and hadn't had enough coffee. I hollered "I don't care if you want to shack up with someone of the same sex, but I will be damned if you will get away with mainstreaming something that folks from the dawn of time have considered a perversion! It is not normal. It is not, and never will be.
Centurion13, I'm sure you know that many societies, from the dawn of time, have not considered homosexuality a perversion as you and others do. Or, maybe you don't.
You believe being gay is innate, yet an abnormal perversion. Why? Because it's less common then being straight? Does any minority behavior merit the term 'perversion'?
I think of perversions as either truly evil or else learned behavior, but there are other ways to define it.
quote: 1. Homosexuality is not natural, in that it is contrary to the basic desire of any animal to reproduce. No species that zealously follows homosexuality can flourish. Given that homosexuality is not conducive toward reproduction, it is difficult to support the assertion that it is genetic.
JHamilton, this does not follow. A small minority of homosexuals can help society in ways other than by reproducing. This is Camille Paglia's main thesis, though I have only read an essay or two of her's because I don't like her. Anyway, an inherited characteristic can seem at first glance antithetical to reproduction, yet flourish in the gene pool because of other positive factors in that characteristic.
{edit:Sal supported my second argument better than I. Well said.]
[ April 03, 2005, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Centurion13 (Member # 7700) on :
Morbo: I am well aware that there have been many societies which have tolerated homosexuality. Tolerated does NOT mean they did not consider this behavior a perversion of normal sexuality. It was at best regarded as a peccadillo, a private quirk, something to be sniggered about, but not necessarily condemned. What it was NOT regarded as, was normal. This was true for the Greeks; I presume other societies felt the same. They appreciated their gay members, but were not moved to call them 'normal'.
Second, 'perversion', despite the moral buzzword status it has received (making it nearly as useless as 'gentleman'), is a perceived turning away from what is considered normal. Yes, what the majority practices is most often considered 'normal', and there is a vested interest in maintaining this relationship between the two, and an understand of the difference, for various reasons.
As for your insinuation that, because homosexuals comprise a minority, they are in whole or part condemned on the basis of BEING a minority...are you sure that nothing lies behind that other than your point that the logical extension of this could be used to condemn other minorities as well? I meant no such thing, and thought that was pretty clear.
I detect a hint of disdain for the majority, simply because they ARE a majority. Could it be that, the multicultural mantra notwithstanding, the majority have a valid point? We are not talking about this culture or that, or this decade or that, but the whole of recorded human history and wisdom, largely coming down on the side of heterosexuals being normal.
Do you really think that post-modern human beings, hetero or otherwise, have suddenly discoved an attitude or mindset which has unnaccountably evaded the whole of human society for the past ten or twenty thousand years? That the existance of homosexuality outside of genetic misfortune can be explained as 'something of value' to societies which, nevertheless, persisted in snickering at the thought of buggery?
So what if animals experience homosexual tendencies? They can't help it. They don't have free will, and they don't have marriage. You may be a man and lust after another man, but in the end, you are just the same as any other man who ever lived. You have a choice to make, and it really does matter what you choose.
Cent 13
[ April 03, 2005, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Centurion13 ]
Posted by MetaLuna (Member # 7697) on :
quote: I would, however, like to state how I disagree with one of the comments Metaluna made:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course personal examples are always easiest, so I'll start with that. I was a single mother. My daughter was quite well adjusted and, in fact, the friendliest damn kid in the neighborhood. Very happy, very loved. Why? My parents helped out. She had no father figure for years. She does now, and she's exactly the same.
No she isn't because you can never know she isn't. How do you know how she would have grown differently? Or do you mean she's the exact same as she was years ago?
'Fraid you don't know my kid, dude. she's growing up, but her personality is the same as it was 4 years ago when I was a single mother. If anything, our relationship was better while I was single. She was stressed out when I got married, because it meant she had to listen to what someone else wanted her to do, but she recovered. Same sweet little girl.
My point was only that being raised by a single parent doesn't screw the kid up. What DOES mess with a kid's development is a lack of positive role models and a lack of structure. My husband and I struggled for years to get custody of my stepdaughter because her mother is a welfare-dependant high school dropout who never sees her, and her stepfather is in jail for child molestation. (At least they aren't gay!) We finally got her, which is great, but she's violent - always hitting my daughter, scratching her, poking her eye.
If she'd been raised by POSITIVE role models, it would have made all the difference. My daughter was. My stepdaughter was not. And gay people are capable of making mistakes as any straight person, but gay people have to adopt - the process is much more rigorous that way. Much better than straight but mentally screwy couples just poppin' 'em out like there's no such thing as a condom.
Posted by MetaLuna (Member # 7697) on :
quote: Oh, and Metaluna, your tone was in fact very offensive in your initial posts. I think it's quite clear that when you were actually called to account for your words that you decided to hide behind the internet, saying you were simply misunderstood. I think you were just surprised to get a response from the man himself. He understood exactly your intent..now instead of backpeddling, either stand behind your words or apologize.
This just sums up what others here are accusing me of.
Yes, I'm well aware of the common internet tactic where a person will actively insult and attack another and then later claim, "Oh, you misunderstood." I've been on the receiving end of that argument many times.
In this case, I am not pulling this trick. As I said a hundred times before, I never called Orson intolerant or intolerable. Just wrong. I think he was wrong. If I DIDN'T think he was wrong, I wouldn't be here. Actually, I might be arguing over on Something Positive's forum, telling them that they need to lay off.
I WAS surprised to hear from him personally, and actually misread the first post he made as being from someone else. I didn't even realize he was replying until the second or third answer. That's why I kept referring to him in the third person as though he weren't there.
But I maintain that he, as well as some others here, assume that I am attacking him because of preformed expectations, and not because of my actual intent. However, I'm not going to disagree with someone and intersperse it with phrases like "don't take this wrong" or "I'm not attacking you, but..." It's not my job to coddle people on a forum that I only just barely started speaking to, even if one of them IS the author of my favorite novel. He wrote a very inflammatory essay, and I disagree.
[ April 03, 2005, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: MetaLuna ]
Posted by JHamilton (Member # 7683) on :
Wow. This is not only a lively debate, it is (in general) a fairly intelligent one.
I stand by my statement that it is difficult to believe that homosexuality is genetic. Yes, homosexuals (like any other persons) can contribute to society. They can be good, law-abiding citizens who pay taxes, contribute to the public good, and cure cancer. However, given that they generally do not reproduce, any hypothesis that the tendency toward homosexual behavior is wholly genetic is innately weak.
Regarding adoption, there is a waiting list. A long waiting list. My wife and I have friends who have been waiting for over year, in some cases several years, for a child.
Katarain, excellent points about single parenthood. My parents are also divorced. My mother didn't choose to be a single mother, and no one would call it an ideal situation. That both our parents live in the same town, and we all had constant contact with both of them, mitigated the problems. But, no child would knowingly volunteer to raised by one parent, if the alternative was being raised by two loving parents of different genders.
Regarding the comment about two gay women adopting a girl, it still is problematic. Girls need a father, just as boys need a mother. The advice to girls that if they want to see how their boyfriend/fiancee/etc. will treat women, look to see how he treats his mother, is very true. A boy raised by two men will likely not be equipped with everything he needs to learn how to treat women respectfully.
That said, I know there are many homosexual couples out there who are good, loving people. Those who are parents are, in most cases, probably trying to love and raise their children as best they can. But, I still believe that there's something missing.
As always, just one opinion.
--Joshua
Posted by MetaLuna (Member # 7697) on :
quote:However, given that they generally do not reproduce, any hypothesis that the tendency toward homosexual behavior is wholly genetic is innately weak.
Not necessarily. If it is a genetic trait, it's likely it would be on a level with a number of other mental or physical disorders that seem to appear out of nowhere. I'm hesitant to use any examples that come to mind since I'm sure I'm wrong about some of them, but there are a multitude of disorders that, while genetic, have nothing to do with their PARENTS' genes.
I also fail to see how it could only be a choice... Yes, sometimes people choose to date people of the same sex, but then there are the millions who would rather be straight and have done with it. Be normal. But they aren't. They're persecuted and singled out for it, but they can't just change their minds.
Also, homosexuals DO often reproduce. Many times, they get married - either lying to themselves, or just lying to others, or simply accepting that which they cannot change.
Posted by JHamilton (Member # 7683) on :
MetaLuna,
Good points. True, some homosexuals do reproduce, but I think we can all agree that it is at a much lower rate than heterosexuals.
Also true, some genetic traits (I'm not saying "disorders") are not dominant in all generations. Some traits do "skip" generations. But, it remains that these traits, in order to be genetic, are passed from ancestors to offspring.
It also remains that homosexuality is counter-productive to reproduction. If it were inherently genetic, the trait would have bred itself out of the human gene pool centuries ago. By contrast, it seems like homosexuality is more common today than it was in the past. The numbers of homosexuals seem to be increasing. There are several possible explanations for this.
Society is more accepting and tolerant of homosexuals than it was in the past. I'm somewhat ambivalent about this. People have the right to do what they want with other consenting adults, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. But I do take issue with the way the media is increasingly trying to portray homosexuality as normal, acceptable, and common.
It is apparent that some people have more tendency toward homosexuality than others. But, the same goes for drinking alcohol, playing tennis, and shooting firearms. I wasn't born a marksman; it took the Army years to teach me how to shoot a sniper rifle. But, I was born with good eyesight and good hand-eye coordination. But that didn't make me a good shot when I came out of the womb.
Gay-bashing is wrong and hateful. No one who calls themselves a Christian should take part in such un-Christlike practices. He loves homosexuals, just as He loves all of us. We should be able to show the same love toward all people that He does.
Yes, I believe homosexual acts are sinful. But so is fornication, lying, and profanity. I'm not perfect in any way. I don't think that Christ loves me any more than he does a homosexual. But that doesn't mean that He is happy with the sins of any of us.
As always, all opinions.
--Joshua
Posted by signine (Member # 7671) on :
Ah, homosexuality and debates as to it's origins. I've heard a dozen theories but the simple fact is some people just find members of the same sex sexually attractive. It's not terribly uncommon, and dare I say it (many will disagree) most people in the course of their lives will find themselves sexually attracted to a member of the same sex. It hasn't happened to me yet, but frankly I kind of wish it would. I'm a big believer in experiencing all you can out of life, even if many consider it to be both negative and immoral.
That said, I'd like to deposit my $0.02 into this discussion. Homosexuality has always been around and will always be around. It only seems to become acceptable, however, in representative governments with large populations. Then a culture develops around homosexuality, and to me it seems to be almost a form of rebellion. Gay bookstores, gay clubs, gay everything. With every personal choice a person can make that will push them away from the mainstream, there will be those who wish to feel persecuted. There's really no reason to have a lisp and a limp wrist, except to mark yourself as homosexual to others around you. It's very much like the teenagers who become Wiccans and never actually learn a single thing about the origins of the faith they claim to follow, only rail against Christians for persecuting them.
It's not always like that though, a fair amount of any people in a "persecuted" subculture aren't doing it to be persecuted, but rather simply to be the person they are. I have an openly gay friend who hates gay bars. He hates gay novels. He hates flamboyant homosexuals. I asked him one day that, if he hates everything gay, why is he gay? He responded "because I only find men attractive, and sex with women disgusts me."
A gay man can fall in love with a woman, just like a straight man can fall in love with another man. The real difference here is simply a matter of sex. Just plain old sex, why is it such a big deal? Well, if you wanted to you could trace it to women's lib, you could trace it to any number of things, but as far as I concern myself romantic love has a lot to do with physical attraction. Pheremones, body language, subtle clues that bring two people together without them ever knowing why. Some people receive and send different clues than others, and thus some people are gay.
I don't believe that this is a choice, any more than being a man or a woman is a choice we're born with. It's just a matter of how you're wired.
The issue of marraige is slightly different. OSC and many people on this forum seem to stand firmly behind the idea of that allowing gays to marry is wrong. I would say this depends on your beliefs as to the role of government, not the future of society or religion.
In my opinion the role of government is to provide those things which we as a society need, protect us from those things that could harm us from the outside, and give us, as a society, the freedom to develop as we see fit. I would like to believe that the founding fathers tend to agree with me being as " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." There are those among us who differ in opinion from myself, they believe that the role of government is to protect their culture and the way of life they've become accustomed to.
Under my point of view, the issue of homosexual coupling becomes one of Civil Rights. Government doesn't have the right to dictate that a couple who's made a lifetime commitment doesn't receive the same benefits and rights as a similar couple based on the type of sexual attraction they share. Under the other point of view, it becomes an issue of social development. If we allow Gay Marriage that implies mainstream acceptance of homosexuality and the redefinition of an old and sacred tradition between man and woman. This would do irrepairable damage to the institution of marriage, society as a whole, and destroy forever the nuclear family.
I can't say that I really disagree with the opposite point of view. It certainly will result in all of those things, and the results really can't be accurately predicted. I don't think the government should interfere though. If two gay men desire to get married and both are Catholic, they will be recognized by the government but not by their church. That seems rational to me.
I can also understand how it would sound completely insane to those who have the opposite viewpoint. C'est la vie.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Girls need a father, just as boys need a mother.
Shockingly, while this gets thrown into these discussions a lot, there is surprisingly little data that suggests this conclusion.
In general, numerous other factors are far more important in a child's life -- according to the data, that is -- than the sex of his or her parents. And since the poor, the stupid, the fat, the rural, the southern, the young, etc. are still permitted to have children, despite the very real chance that children born to any of these groups will be below average in some way, I see no reason why we need to get all hung up about such a relatively minor variable as parental sex.
[ April 03, 2005, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Sal (Member # 3758) on :
Well, what about this:
One fine day during the thanking celebration, just when a particularly sumptuous harvest feast was about to climax in the excesses of fertility rituals, the valley’s main alarm sounded. Word of mortal danger had reached Robbiton. Bad-ass monsters were invading the planet, powerful predators who specialized in intergalactic trade of the brainy stuffing that filled the skulls of humanoids.
A somber mood settled momentarily on the party as the male heterobbits put on their armor. Grandness of manly display and eagerness of protective gesturing counted high toward their procreative success. Erect feathers decorated their helmets, much to the renewed excitement of the robbigals who shouted their admiration and fare-thee-wells.
None of the robbit army returned. A far superior species, the predators disdainfully harvested the small bits of stuffing from underneath the feathers. They normally would let go of a small number of males, such as were required for the local regeneration of resources for future trade. However, there was so little promise in future exploits of the sparsely endowed robbits that instead, the predators preferred to make their quota this time and be done with the planet once and forever.
This should have been the end of Robbitondom.
Except! A perverse trick of nature brought about the robbits’ fortuitous survival. A small and hardly tolerated subpopulation of queer creatures, male homobbits who expressed little interest in robbigals, nor in showing off for them, had remained home. Interest or not, they were males. When the robbigals realized that all heterobbits had turned into dead war heroes, they made sure that at least some of the present male seed was put to procreative use.
Not bothered by any more predator raids, Robbiton thrived. The robbit brains gradually expanded, and they played a decisive role in the No-Brain-For-Trade Alliance that eventually defeated the predators. The small subpopulation of homobbits remained what they were, although somewhat more tolerated by the heterobbotical majority. That the homobbits were never entirely accepted as full robbits may be due, perhaps, to their refusal to wear their feathers on their heads.
Posted by MetaLuna (Member # 7697) on :
quote: Also true, some genetic traits (I'm not saying "disorders") are not dominant in all generations. Some traits do "skip" generations. But, it remains that these traits, in order to be genetic, are passed from ancestors to offspring.
What I meant is that there are some genetic anomalies that have nothing to do with the genes passed on by the parents.
For example, Down Syndrome is a condition that is expressed in the genetic code, yet there may never have been an individual with the syndrome in the family. There are similar examples, such as in hermaphrodites (partial and full).
Which brings up an interesting question... those of you who believe that homosexuals should not marry - what about transvestites, hermaphrodites, and post-operational transgenders?
Posted by MetaLuna (Member # 7697) on :
quote: Homosexuality has always been around and will always be around. It only seems to become acceptable, however, in representative governments with large populations.
For the most part, I agree with your post. This is somewhat incorrect, though. There have been many small societies where homosexuality is understood and perfectly acceptable. Some plains Indian tribes, for example, accepted it. I can't give you more definite examples, but I know the literature showing this is out there.
I personally think that the problem with persecution of homosexuality comes when a society gets *too* large, and government is used to mandate individual preference.
Posted by Breecita (Member # 7639) on :
The problem that I see is that there seems to be no division between Marriage In A Church and Marriage In The State.
I was married by the government. The government gave me my marriage certificate. I call my husband my husband, he calls me his wife... but there is no church that recognizes our union. Does that mean we have a civil union and not a marriage?
I honestly am not sure anymore. I don't think any church should be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. Some churches don't allow marriage between people who have gotten divorced. Some churches don't allow marriage between people of the same gender. That is their right, no matter what I think of it, and our government is supposed to protect that right.
On the other hand, I don't see why my husband and I should be granted the rights to file taxes and make decisions for each other by the government when another couple can be denied. Legally, there is no reason. The government isn't going to revoke our wedding license if we don't have children. The government isn't going to end our marriage if we turn out to be a less wholesome influence on our children than the people next door. We aren't required to contribute anything to society that two men or two women couldn't contribute.
Until we can decide what marriage is, I don't think anyone is going to be able to agree on who should be able to enjoy the privilages of it.
[ April 03, 2005, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: Breecita ]
Posted by signine (Member # 7671) on :
quote:On the other hand, I don't see why my husband and I should be granted the rights to file taxes and make decisions for each other by the government when another couple can be denied. Legally, there is no reason. The government isn't going to revoke our wedding license if we don't have children. The government isn't going to end our marriage if we turn out to be a less wholesome influence on our children than the people next door. We aren't required to contribute anything to society that two men or two women couldn't contribute.
Until we can decide what marriage is, I don't think anyone is going to be able to agree on who should be able to enjoy the privilages of it.
That's pretty much my point of view. Since as far as the government is concerned marriage is a matter of certain privileges granted and certain taken away. I've known a few people who've been married just for tax purposes. I've known a couple who got married so he (a Marine) could get a stipend for having a wife and so she (a Japanese) could get American citizenship. The simple fact is that marriage in this country needs a radical overhaul. The divorce rate is through the roof, no one takes the idea seriously anymore if they aren't religious, and it's starting to become more acceptable to be a single mom than to be a married one.
In Nevada a couple can get married for less than $200 in a drive through. They can have met literally two seconds before that. They will gain all the benefits the government provides. Unless of course they happen to be of the same sex.
I've yet to see anyone really talking about solvency of the situation and rather their own viewpoints, not that any idle speculation as to the solution of the problem would really affect anything. Either way, the steps that I'd like to see taken are as follows: 1. The government ceases performing marriages. 2. The government performs civil unions (for hetero and homo patrons) 3. The rights granted by a civil union are roughly equal as those for a marriage. 4. A civil union can only be broken in extreme circumstances such as abandonment, acts of violence, et cetera. There should be a substantial fine for the person forcing the "divorce" which would be based on a percentage of the guilty party's income.
Marriage shouldn't be defined by the government, and marriage should be forever. "Til death do us part."
Posted by Agnes Bean (Member # 7614) on :
quote:Apparently being tolerant and accepting doesn't extend to being tolerant of Mr. Card's views on homosexuality.
Apparently being tolerant and accepting didn’t extend to being tolerant the views of people in the South who thought blacks did not deserve equal rights. I guess the civil rights movement really wasn’t about tolerance after all.
Before you jump all over me, I do know that the gay marriage issue is not at all as black and white as the issues addressed by the civil rights movement. But I’m hoping the above analogy will help you understand why statements like “apparently being tolerant and accepting doesn't extend to being tolerant of Mr. Card's views on homosexuality” can seem so ridicules and upsetting to some people.
quote:The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.
It’s statements like this that really upset me. Although I do not agree, I understand the sentiment behind not supporting gay marriages. But the quoted passage seems extreme to me. My I ask where you got the data that led you to this conclusion, OSC?
In you favor, OSC, your anti-gay marriage arguments are some of the best I’ve seen. I still disagree with you (but then, I am one of those nasty liberals you seem to take so much problem with ), but I can actually see the rational behind most of what you say. In many places on the Internet where I’ve discussed this, the argument against gay marriage is either “because it’s gross! EW!” which is not an argument at all, or “I’m a Christian and the Bible says it’s a sin,” to which my response is “and I’m a Jew gone atheist, so I really couldn’t care less what the Bible says.” You actually flesh out real arguments, which is why I find I’m able to respect your point of view, even if it upsets me.
I agree with Breecita about the difference between marriage by state and marriage by the Church. I personally believe that a gay couple who are devoted to each other deserve the right to be married by the state and enjoy the same legal benefits as a married heterosexual couple. But certainly thing religious institution shouldn’t be forced to marry anyone they do not wish to marry.
Posted by LTC DuBois (Member # 7661) on :
I understand that my glib remark is upsetting to people who believe Mr. Card is wrong. I'm sure some gay rights advocates even liken Mr. Card to slavery or Jim Crow bigots supporters from a bygone era.
Here's how I interpreted what I read on the Queen of Wands website:
How could such a wonderful book be written by such an ignorant bigot? I felt bad because obviously Mr. Card's a hypocrite who doesn't accept and tolerate everything I think he should.
The point I was trying to make was not that Mr. Card is right. The point is no one who has a moral code worth a damn is accepting of everything. I won't tolerate a person who kicks someone in the nuts without any provocation. I won't accept a person who believes blacks are an inferior race. Those are simple issues that the vast majority of Americans can agree on. Gay marriage is not.
I don't feel that strongly about gay marriage. I'm undecided about just what the correct course of action is. So I'm not willing to jump to the conclusion that Mr. Card is hyprocrite simply because he doesn't agree with the radical left. I fully believe Mr. Card was and is capable of writing novels as wonderful as Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead, for the obvious reason that he did. Does his stance on gay marriage make him a bad person? No, it makes him someone you disagree with.
Let me make it clear that I'm not accusing all those who posted on this thread as believing the same as the Queen of Wands comic.
Posted by MetaLuna (Member # 7697) on :
quote: The divorce rate is through the roof, no one takes the idea seriously anymore if they aren't religious, and it's starting to become more acceptable to be a single mom than to be a married one.
I take marriage very seriously and I am not religious. I also don't think it's fair to assume that being religious makes you take marriage more seriously than anyone else.
And, having experienced being a single mom, it is certainly NOT more acceptable to be one than to be a married one. I can't tell you how difficult it was to deal with the comments and stares and looks of *confusion* when people would ask me where my husband was. In fact, I consider myself lucky. I had supportive parents when my ex husband left me, and I had to raise the child alone. Otherwise, I might have been washed into the abyss that is welfare... which is where an awful lot of single moms go.
I personally believe that the divorce rates are at least partially attributable to media. We see these FANTASTIC happily-ever-after out-of-the-box marriages where people are just bouncing off into the sunset together, and rarely do we see the work that goes into it. People like Dr Phil start spouting this nonsense about how "sometimes, it just doesn't work" and how if you fight "too much", then it wasn't "meant to be."
Clearly marriage, as defined by our society, needs work - but the government can't help.
Part of the problem with not allowing homosexual people to marry is that we're skipping the whole process of even a pretense of accountability and going straight to promiscuity and cheating. Why on earth would we expect gay couples to be loyal and committed when they can't even legally and publicly declare it? This is what spreads STDs. Marriage, commitment, families and kids actually help slow it down. People with husbands/wives/kids are less likely to sleep around. I think allowing gays to marry would help our society on a health level.
Marriage definitely needs work... but restricting it to only certain people based on gender alone is not going to help it. It'd be like putting a feeding tube in a girl with anorexia. It temporarily solves *part* of the problem, but won't ultimately fix the situation.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
It's interesting how whenever anybody openly disagrees with the agenda of the homosexual left that they are met with anger and hatred at worst, and at best with that attitude of "ignore him, he's got Tourette's".
No matter how reasoned one writes about why they disagree with what has become the institution of homosexuality, it is always treated as if the words are simply a thin veneer over some sort of seething hate or quivering fear.
And then, of course, heaven forbid that you mention religion, because of course all enlightened people know that religion has no place in a discussion about morality.
It's so much easier to call someone intolerant and then dismiss their views because "they're intolerant, so their thoughts don't matter".
But you cannot convince me that labeling OSC and those of us who believe as he does as being intolerant is anything less than a pathetic attempt to quash dissent and an expression of a lack of confidence in one's argument.
If you really had any coherent, logical arguments, why would you not hesitate to bring them out? It's so much more effective than ad homineum attacks.
I disagree with, say Communism for example, and I can come up with a lot better arguments against communism than calling all communists wannabe totalitarian murderers. After all, only a small percentage of communists ever succeeded at being totalitarian murderers....
What amuses me is all of the people who say, from reading his books I get the feeling that Scott is such an understanding and tolerant guy, and then he posts this essay about how homosexuality is wrong, and we all know that all tolerant people approve of homosexuality, so why the dichotomy?
And of course, it's a false dichotomy. Scott is tolerant, he's not out there putting them in concentration camps or walking around with a sign "God Hates Fags" (because He loves them, He just wishes they wouldn't sin, same as the rest of us). The understanding and tolerant Scott you see when you read his books is him, and the understanding and tolerant Scott you fail to see when you read his essays is still him.
You can be tolerant, and you can be understanding, and still disagree with homosexuality.
And what he's saying about people not questioning or thinking is all those people who are swallowing the ideas that are put out there by the proponents of homosexual behavior, that you are intolerant if you disagree with it.
It's like all those professors at my university who say that if you agree with them, you are an "independent thinker" or a "free-thinker". But if you don't follow their thinking in lock-step, then you're a brainwashed puppet. Hee-lar-ee-ous.
Double-plus good, I say.
So there are valid arguments for all aspects of homosexual behavior, and against it. The "hatred and intolerance" slander is not one of them.
I cannot think of the accusations of hatred and intolerance as being anything other than intimidation. It's not like you're going to change Scott's mind. You're just trying to shut him up, and to make people who would be receptive to his thoughts feel afraid to agree with him for fear that they might be labeled likewise.
Kinda like being Mormon in Southern Baptist Texas, getting told I was going to Hell for being a Mormon.
Oh yeah, now I wanna be a Southern Baptist...
Likewise, so you're calling me intolerant and hateful for thinking that homosexual behavior is wrong? Sorry, not going to make me change my mind.
I realize, however, that posting this likely won't change any minds, or any methods of discussion. The hatred and intolerance argument has been the primary argument against us to the point that it becomes the automatic reflex. It's a shame, though, because it's an important subject and warrants sober discussion.
Posted by MetaLuna (Member # 7697) on :
Out of curiosity, who are you addressing?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: No matter how reasoned one writes about why they disagree with what has become the institution of homosexuality, it is always treated as if the words are simply a thin veneer over some sort of seething hate or quivering fear.
Hm. I would say that the posts on this thread -- mine included -- demonstrate that you are categorically wrong in this overgeneralization.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
More of a general rant than an attack on anyone in specific. I was addressing the attitude brought up by that queenofwands comic as well as the accompanying blog.
Oh, there's exceptions to this, and I should have used "usually" instead of "always". But categorically wrong? No. Try bringing this up from the conservative side on an university...which is where I usually have these conversations. There are people who rise beyond this, and some are on this board, but the dominant ideology in media and the university is along the ideas of what I have said.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Oh, there's exceptions to this, and I should have used "usually" instead of "always". But categorically wrong?
I dispute your use of the word "usually," in fact. I suspect that there is merely a very loud minority of people on my side of the issue whose opinions are generally repeated by their opponents, since those opinions are considerably easier to criticize than my own.
And yes, if it's not even usual, then it is in fact categorically wrong.
I'll admit that many people skip a few steps and go straight from "opposes gay marriage" to "bigot." But this is also a long way from being "hateful."
Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :
quote:And since the poor, the stupid, the fat, the rural, the southern, the young, etc. are still permitted to have children, despite the very real chance that children born to any of these groups will be below average in some way, . . . [emphasis added]
Sh*t, Tom. Smile or something when you say that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I can't win. People keep telling me to use fewer smilies. Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :
Don't use smilies when we can tell you're kidding. Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Tom, I've only skimmed this particular thread, but having debated this topic off and on for a long time, I have to fall on tern's side in this. It's a very common tactic for proponents of gay marriage to insinuate that their opponents harbor secret "hateful" or "fearful" motivations, and that their stated reasoning is only a mask or an excuse. You haven't gone as far as some, but just yesterday, you even told me that I "really" just wanted to delegitimitize homosexual love.
There's a lot of shouting and hand-wringing going on in this debate. Not a whole lot of listening.
Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :
But to be fair, people on the other side often suggest that proponents of legalized homosexual marriage specifically and consciously are opposed to the institution of marriage or the family and want to destroy these. They are also often described as harboring hatred toward religion in general, religious people, or Christians in particular. So I guess there are simply a lot of inaccurate characterizations of people's motivation on both sides.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"You haven't gone as far as some, but just yesterday, you even told me that I 'really' just wanted to delegitimitize homosexual love."
Yep. And then I realized you didn't think about love the same way I do.
To me, love without commitment and social acceptance is pretty much dead. I had not realized that you didn't feel that way until you objected, at which point I revised my statement. It's not that I've changed my mind about what you think, but that I don't think it's worth quibbling with you over terminology.
You'll notice I haven't revised my actual position at all, Geoff; I've just accepted your terminology to avoid argument.
If you think it's okay for homosexuals to love each other for the rest of their lives, as long as society doesn't have to acknowledge the value of that choice, then far be it for me to say you don't believe in "homosexual love."
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
informational-nostalgic tangent/
Centurion13: While you have every right to the screen name, you might be interested in knowing that there was a beloved jatraquero by the name of Centurion, who is now deceased. One of his parting instructions was that this forum be informed when he died. We had a bit of a Speaking for him at that time. He was a fantastic human being. I hope you can live up to his example.
[ April 07, 2005, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Goo Boy, you have no idea how weird it is for you to be on this forum while I'm finalizing rewrites of a screenplay all about you
Tom, let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. Are you really saying that love which is not supported by societal institutions is dead? What do you mean by "dead"? I may be reading the word differently than you intended.
I've always thought that "love" was all about how you value other people, how you serve other people, the closeness of your relationship, etc, regardless of any official, government-sponsored institution. One of the key points of the Parable of the Good Samaritan was that whom you love isn't defined by whom the government says you should love. It is defined by whom you serve and care for, even in the face of prejudice or opposition.
With that definition, there is no way that I — or anyone — could deny that homosexual couples love each other. Or at least, are as likely to love each other as heterosexual couples are.
The issue for me isn't love. It's government institutions, their effects on society, and the most proper strategy for developing and altering them to serve the needs of the populace. It's not about Romeo and Juliet (or in this case, Romeo and ... Mercutio?) and how much they desperately want each other and how right it is for them to be together. The "love" and the "togetherness" is already accomplished for most of these couples. Only the question of how best to serve the needs of society at large through well-defined societal institutions remains to be answered.
The government currently allows marriage between heterosexuals without requiring any "proof of love". Loveless marriages and families crop up all the time. They may not be healthy, but they are legal, and are bear the same responsibilities as loving marriages.
To me, this implies that the question of whether or not a relationship involves love is not the prime determining factor in whether or not that relationship should be considered a marriage. So accusations, arguments, or insinuations about love are entirely beside the point. I'm not making any assertions about love, so there should be nothing in that realm for someone to argue against.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
Frangy I've already welcomed. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
), but I can actually see the rational behind most of what you say. In many places on the Internet where I’ve discussed this, the argument against gay marriage is either “because it’s gross! EW!” which is not an argument at all, or “I’m a Christian and the Bible says it’s a sin,” to which my response is “and I’m a Jew gone atheist, so I really couldn’t care less what the Bible says.” You actually flesh out real arguments, which is why I find I’m able to respect your point of view, even if it upsets me.