This is topic To Card re: Homosexuality. in forum Discussions About Orson Scott Card at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003959

Posted by Topher (Member # 9028) on :
 
Note: If you are offended by homosexual subject matter, please do not read on.

First, hang in there with me while I dispense with personal history that will help explain my viewpoint. When I was 17, I fell in love with a fellow lineman on my Varsity football team. I was, and still consider myself, mostly straight - but couldn't control my feelings. After a year of repeated suicide attempts and continued deepening of my friendship with this guy...I finally confessed. Surprisingly, he felt the same towards me. He had a harder time getting used to us being a couple, he was raised Mormon and his father was a Bishop at the time. I took a gun out of his hands and off his temple twice. Yet, we are still together (it's been three years) and are currently engaged, one of our vows being to keep our relationship non-sexual until marriage. We still are fairly attracted to women (sexually), and don't kiss all that often (read: Im not some gay ho-bag). Still totally committed to, and in love with, each other.

What enabled me to steel myself and gather the internal fortitude that was required to confess my feeling to him, was found in reading Mr. Card's 1979 work Songmaster. So it came as quite a shock when I recently read his essay "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality." While I don't really enjoy, and barely identify, with the supposed "gay community", it seemed that Card viewed homosexuals as slave to some false god of sex. While, being gay (or bisexual) for me simply means being myself. By that I mean that I do not put on false airs and graces (ie - act fabulous, my voice is the same deep octave, etc.) and I treat men the same as I would women (I respect them). I am a person made for committed relationships (my religion and personality are as one on that) and I am not into premarital sex. There are lots of gays and lesbians out there who feel the same. Granted, there definitely is truth behind the promiscuity stereotype that surrounds the gay community, but it is irrefutable that the majority of that comes from the most readily visible homosexuals. Which are the flamboyant, the club goers, and the young. The same could be said of straight men and women. I am college student in 2005, and I see my straight friends getting around just as much as my gay ones. Which does NOT make it right, but it is absurd to think gay premarital sex and straight premarital sex are so different. I am quite a quite faithful in God, not necessarily religious (personally, I think at God resides in us and we can all pray and be faithful to him without being affiliated with a church), and believe in waiting.

Also, Mr. Card, to use theater kids as a example of homosexual sex, would be like using college age frat jocks as a example of straight sexual activity. I understand that you are not homophobic, and I am certainly not implying that you carry and hatred for gays, I just would like to invite you to reexamine the issue from a neutral perspective. Additionally, I believe that if God has a issue with my love, or how I chose to love, then that is a issue between us - and not a issue for government or religion to regulate.

Ack, well, regardless - I have a lot of respect for you Mr. Card, for your wonderful writing, your love of your family, and for your political opinions as well. From one would-be Republican to another.

Thanks,
Christopher.

PS - I apologize for my horrible and rushed writing, I'm at work and on production, thanks again for hanging with me.
 
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Welcome to Hatrack, Christopher. [Smile] I hope you stick around.
 
Posted by Topher (Member # 9028) on :
 
Thanks! Work and school schedule depending, I plan on it.
 
Posted by oolung (Member # 8995) on :
 
I think it's an important problem you described here: we use to think that the majority of gays and lesbians is just like that: blatant and as it were showing off their homosexuality. Those homosexuals who behave like that claim to fight for equality and acceptation, but it's precisely their behaviour that makes the rest feel shocked, insecure or whatever: and so we tend to transfer those feelings to _all_ gays, whether they are 'showy' or just try to get on with their lives. And it is my belief that after all a great part of gays are, except for their sexual orientation, exactly the same as us. But we don't know it precisely because they are perfectly normal! That's very unjust!
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Hey, welcome! [Wave]

I must confess, I was expecting far worse from the thread title. [Smile]

I suspect Card will say something along the lines of he has considered the issue from every possible angle, including possibly some that you are not aware of, just based on his responses past posts that imply otherwise. I don't think you're going to say anything to change him mind on this one, so I'll completely leave alone the topic of your post and say this instead: I too hope you look into some of the other discussions on both sides of the river and stick around! [Smile]
 
Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
 
I'm only aquainted with a very limited number of gay people so my views may be slanted but I have seen both sides of the flamboyance issue.

On one hand, my wife's aunt is a lesbian and I feel totally comfortable around her and her partner. They are both a bit older than the other gay people I know and are simply living their lives. They don't make a point to bring their sexuality into every conversation.

On the other hand, my wife has a friend who is a lesbian that is very overtly gay. In every conversation you have with her she makes sure to point out that she is gay or invite you to a gay club. In addition to this, she changes girlfriends on average of every 2 months. My wife tells me that she tells her about intimate details of their relationships. This would make me or I think most reasonable people uncomfortable whether the speaker is gay or straight.

Now that I think of it, I don't really know any overtly gay men so I can't speak to that aspect, but I feel that I would feel comfortable around anyone, gay or straight, as long as they mostly keep their personal lives to themselves. Mannerisms that are consider "gay" dont bother me either. I guess what I mean to say is that it is the "too much information" factor that bothers me.

Sergeant
 
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
 
Welcome to Hatrack!

I just wanted to comment on this one tiny statement at the end of your post:
quote:
I believe that if God has a issue with my love, or how I chose to love, then that is a issue between us - and not a issue for government or religion to regulate.
I get why you feel government shouldn't regulate it, but government and religion are two very different entities. The relationship between an individual and God is exactly what religion is all about. Religion attempts to regulate all our behaviors that are (according to that religion) offensive to God. So if God does have a problem with how you choose to love, it is in the nature of "religion" to try to regulate that behavior.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Good point.
 
Posted by Topher (Member # 9028) on :
 
In response to Icarus -
I agree that there a very valid points on _both_ sides of the issue. I, and I'm hardly alone, have had to take long hard looks in the mirror and admit to their faults, contridictions and problems in their lives. Only fair to be balanced, even when you don't want to be. =D

In response to Jenna -

I agree that is one of the main purposes of religion. I grew up in a rather odd religion, a mixture of christianity and judiasm and there was a lot of phrophetic action going on in the 70's and 80's...but I've come to believe and have faith in god, and obey my conscience (surely formed at least in part by religion.) But my paticular religion was intense in the way that every young adult was "given" to a "shepard" (a older member in the body) the then the young adult pretty much had to clear everything by them...etc. This wasn't something I, or my parents, felt was good for me (then or now). I haven't found a religion that felt right since.
I live my life according to truths I have found in my life, in God and in the Bible. Now do I think that every moral in the Bible applies to me, or even applies in this era? Nope...

I sputtering, sorry.

Back on track. "So if God does have a problem with how you choose to love, it is in the nature of "religion" to try to regulate that behavior." That is a good point (as Icarus pointed out), however there are many branches of Christianity - and they do not speak as one voice on many subjects (homosexual love being one). If I was living in Iran, a Islamic state, I could be put to death. SO - I have to pray to God for an answer. I believe religion is instrument of men, and it is undeniable that men have exploited (ie Catholic Church, dark age anyone?) countless times. So - if God gave his son for my sins, then perhaps he will give me my answer. Perhaps not. Yet - a full and happy with my boy would be worth it, regardless of whether it is a sin or not.
 
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
 
I think Topher brings up a good point. Many gays I know personally suffer from some stereotypes: the higher-pitched voice, the femenine characteristics... but many are just normal people who are easily mistakable as straight. In fact, a lot of closeted gays are able to remain closeted for so long because they're very normal by casual glance and contact.

But something else to keep in min is that acting femenine or having a higher-pitched voice and being gay doesn't mean they're flaunting it, and I think a lot of people lose sight of that. Some people's minds naturally lean towards feminine characteristics, or vice versa, no matter whether they're straight or not. I know several straight people who act effeminate, but are solely attracted to women. *shrug* I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can't assume that the majority of gays are like the ones most visible.

Please excuse my spelling or grammar mistakes. It's far too late and I'm far too tired to even try correcting any of them. x_x
 
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
 
I've come to respect Card's view on homosexuality, not so much because I agree with it, but because it is consistent with what drives and inspires me to love so much of his writing. In his writing, family and community are most important.

This is my understanding of Card's take on homosexuality:

Card believes that homosexuality does not promote the procreation of children and therefore, does not promote community.

He is wonderfully open to the mental, philosophical and personal virtues of people who also happen to be gay. In this way, it it obvious that he harbors no attitudinal distaste toward a person based on their sexual preference. On the other hand, he won't encourage or promote anything that encourages people to accept homosexuality.

If community is the most important factor in continuing humanity, and children are the most important building block of community, then Card is probably right. If there are other factors that are more important to humanity than community and children, then Card has yet to be convinced of those other factors.

[ January 14, 2006, 04:29 AM: Message edited by: LadyDove ]
 
Posted by Avery Good Schreibner (Member # 8772) on :
 
I have sometimes wondered about homosexuality.

On occasion, I see that the homosexual community is pressing for rights as a separate group. I disagree that homosexuals are seperate and independent as a group that can be identified as deserving special protections. As far as I can see, the homosexual community is made up of hugely diverse ethnic, cultural, and religious characteristics - the same as the general population.

As I see it, the only difference is the manner in which homosexuals claim to engage in sexual stimulation (I say claim because I have never been so engaged or witness to such).

See, I don't even know if it is sex based on traditional methods of carying out the act. What homosexuals do may qualify as sex because the operation of such should-be-private activities includes the stimulation of organs and emotions designed for the sex act.

I think feeling attraction to a linebacker is normal. Even high school boys make friends with high school boys and are likely to profess friendship. Maybe it is like mother and child. Is breast feeding sexual? But mothers tell em there is a really good feeling there. Or children in general. Children were designed to be attractive with their hairless, pudgy bodies and big eyes. Those characteristics are supposed to produce in adults a desire to care for the child, in my opinion. Wanting to process such a relationship through sexual channels, in my humble opinion, is misconduct - child to adult, same gender to same gender.

I can see that people have different ways of viewing the same subject or event. Some guys may appreciate another linebacker because he can beat the other's head in and feel good about it. He may also feel the two have shared interests and create a friendship bond that leads to occasional warm fuzzy feelings. As smaller boys, holding hands or sleeping in the same bed or giving a hug is nothing more than friendship. I think problems arise when people come to believe some act is wrong or even evil. Then - one person can point to the other and say you are not part of my group. Something, I feel, however, would most likely bring an act into question - like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It just doesn't work.

Historically, there has never been a homosexual society, even if you lived on the isle of Lesbo. Roman's and greeks developed man love to a kind of social party status. Some Native people had a homosexual in their midst to give the boys something to do when the wife was unavailable, but the homosexual never achieved status. Homosexuality has never led to a master race (for biological reasons at least).

Speaking of biology, homosexuality is - what - self gratification - for each party. There is no greater purpose. The function of intimacy between men is you make me feel good and I'll make you feel good.

Finally, based on what has been said here, I would side with Card (though I have not read his article).
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:

Speaking of biology, homosexuality is - what - self gratification - for each party. There is no greater purpose. The function of intimacy between men is you make me feel good and I'll make you feel good.

Wow. Do you even know why this is staggeringly inaccurate and insulting?
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
For a second I thought you were a friend of mine who we call "Topher" short for Christopher. But he lives in canada your in the us. But he alo happens to be bi which is a wierd coincidence.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Avery Good Schreibner:
Speaking of biology, homosexuality is - what - self gratification - for each party. There is no greater purpose. The function of intimacy between men is you make me feel good and I'll make you feel good.

So I take it you are also against the use of condoms and other contraception, then?
 
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
How do you have a Homosexual life without premarital sex? I am puzzled by that assertion. It seems to be logically impossible.

Oh well I am not hip to all the new things maybe you both wire into the internet or something...

BC
 
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
 
quote:
How do you have a Homosexual life without premarital sex?
Is this a serious question???

Can you not have a heterosexual romantic relationship without premarital sex? I thought I'd had a few of those, before I married.

Why then could you not have a homosexual romantic relationship without premarital sex?
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
It seems alot of these semantic arguments are precipitated by one person saying: "I am going to give you the definition of moral. There it is. Now, here is what Gays are. You see? Gays are not moral. Period." The next person goes: "Hey there you! Thats not what Moral means!! How dare you sir?"

Well its easy to make all kinds of statments like this when they are only based on the facts presented in a convenient order. This is like writing a book called "The Complete Napolian Biography", and then at the end saying: "Well, based on the facts in this book, its clear that Nepolian was definetly Gay" For all the reader knows, the author did nothing but comb through Nepolian's life and find everything slightly "gay" about him and included it. Then, based on those facts alone, of course the conclusion is evident, and how dare you challenge such a statement.


Hmmmm
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Kinda of like Bill's Gertes "The China Threat".
 
Posted by Topher (Member # 9028) on :
 
In response to Avery Good -

Basically sexual acts are just about the same, thank you very much. If you really are curious, use your imagination (googling would be a tad too disgusting.) And no, for most men, attraction to another linebacker isn't normal. (Note: we aren't on a team anymore.) The attraction and love I have for him is just like the attraction and love between billions of people on this planet.

As to gay relationships - yes it can be all about sexual gratification. JUST as can hertosexual relationships. However, to say that all gay relationships/marriages are invalid because the option to procreate is not (in the tradtional sense) open to them, is slippery slope. A straight relationship is valid simply because they COULD have children? What about those couples who can't, don't want to or are otherwise inhibited?

With over-population causing huge problems in India and China, one would think NOT having children would be PLUS. So basically, your arguement is fundamentally flawed.

In response to LadyDove -

I would mostly agree with your analysis of Card's feelings on the matter. However, I have to disagree with it as well. Gay couples adopt children often, and raise them to be capable members of society. And according to the studies I've seen, their children typically turn out to be straight.

A homosexual lifestyle exists only in the way that a straight lifestyle exists, as different from individual to individual. And to say that it doesn't value having and raising a kid isn't true at all. Most of my gay and lesbian friends want children, as do I. When I am grown up enough for the responsibility, I hope kids to be the center of my life.

Now...yes, obviously, gay couples can't procreate. Yet the desire to enter into the loop of humanity (which we are already a part, thank you very much) to create a full cycle is as much a part of me as any other human. Can I have a kid with my guy? Nope. But there are many straight couples out there with similar problems. And yet they aren't are villified for being impotent, barren or too old.

Bottom line - homosexuals are part of almost every species of mammals on this planet. And same sex love is present and has been present in every human culture for quite a long time. And that is not because every bird, ape and human all made some conscious choice to committ some immoral act. Rather, homosexuality is a valid part of life. Whether I choose to accept it, supress it or subvert it.

Sorry - its 330 am here. And I have work in 3 hours. Sorry for the errors.

Night all,
Topher
 
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Topher, you make some excellent points. I am very burnt out discussing my views on homosexuality having argued about it for several years.
I strongly disagree with OSC's views on it. I respect that he cares about the family and what is best for children and society, but I feel that by attacking homosexuality him and others are over looking the real factors that threaten families like poverty.
So many Americans work 2 or more jobs and still cannot make ends meet. This was a problem highlighted in the book Nickled and Dimed. The woman in that book didn't have children, but she lived like a ton of people here who do who get home from working about 12 or 14 hours a day and after that have no time and energy to spend with their children.
This sort of thing has a worse impact than gay marriage or gay relationships in general.
Gay people have it hard enough in society, rejected by family members and friends, constantly stereotyped without being wrongfully blamed for being a threat to families.
To me it is just a political issue, a distraction from the real problems.
Though, one has to admit that anyone behaving in a promiscuous and irresponsible fashion is bad for society, but not all gays do that.
I think that community should also be about understanding people and supporting them. This does not mean supporting every deviant behavior. Nor does this mean creating a permissive society where men are allowed to leave their wives and children and women leave their families to "find themselves".
I believe a strong community is an inclusive community that compassionately understands difference without the use of stereotypes and things like that.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I think establishing getting married as a civil right is going to create a lot of problems we can't anticipate at this time, particularly if in doing so we break open the traditional definition of what a marriage is. Do single women have a civil right to pursue a polygamous relationship with an existing couple?

And where you are not exclusively gay but your soulmate just happens to be the same gender as you, why do you have a civil right for this to be a marriage any more than someone who meets their soul mate 10 years after marrying someone else? The whole concept of marriage exists not to celebrate soulmate-dom, but to keep people in stable relatiionships despite it.

Marriage is not a requirement to participate in American Democracy. It may mean you don't fit in socially the way you would like. I'm biracial, and will never fit in socially the way I would like. Should I try to get laws passed so that people aren't allowed to stare at me, ask if I adopted my children, or ask "What are you, exactly?" But I know the difference between a civil right and social awkwardness.

My position on gay marriage as a civil right is that it would call on the government to protect someone's right to discriminate against the opposite sex. It only needs to be a right in the case of people who have no possibility of a relationship with the opposite sex. I can't think of anything more discriminatory than saying "I could never be attracted to you because of your race/gender."
 
Posted by Black Mage (Member # 5800) on :
 
quote:
Should I try to get laws passed so that people aren't allowed to stare at me, ask if I adopted my children, or ask "What are you, exactly?" But I know the difference between a civil right and social awkwardness.
Since when is this merely a "social awkwardness"? Are you claiming it's a matter of ettiquette whether or not I can marry another guy? The point is that marriage is a legal contract, and that a segment of the population is being excluded from the ability to make that contract for entirely arbitrary reasons.

quote:
I can't think of anything more discriminatory than saying "I could never be attracted to you because of your race/gender."
Pooka, I respect you because most of what you post on Hatrack seems to be pretty well thought-out and intelligent. But quite frankly, what are you on? This isn't . . . good Lord, I don't even know how to respond to this argument because it's entirely invalid. Yes, it's discriminatory. Everything we do as human beings is in some way discriminatory. But how different is it from you saying "I could never be attracted to you because I hate you with a fiery passion"? You may, for instance, not like racists, and therefore would never be attracted to one. That's another form of discrimination. We all discriminate in choosing a mate based on how we're built, mentally and physically. We may make exceptions, but that's still there.

Having said that:
Topher, I found this interesting because I have a rather similar situation in some aspects. You said neither of you are really gay; instead, you're just attracted to women and to each other. I've got a similar weird dynamic I'm trying to work out right now: I'm gay. I'm not attracted romantically or sexually to women in general, and I'm still attracted to men. And yet, I'm in a relationship with a girl. Occasionally there's an exception to a rule, I suppose, but it is more the minority than the majority.

And if anyone's considering using that part of my post as a justification for the "being gay's a choice" argument, please don't. It's not a choice. I don't choose to be attracted to guys. I choose whether or not to act on it. And if I love a guy, I'll be with a guy. And if occasionally the rare woman comes along that I'm attracted to, well. I don't discriminate. If I'm attracted to them, both romantically and sexually, and they to me, then I will pursue the relationship. With either sex.
 
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
 
Topher,

I've enjoyed reading your responses. Thank you for your candor and insightfulness.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Well, Topher isn't talking about exclusive homosexuality anyway. He's talking about "my soulmate happens to be the same sex and I'm not interested in looking further, and the law should enshrine this with marriage." I stand by my opinion, though it does attack all those people who are sure they've never been attracted to someone of the same sex.

I think someone earlier said Card believes having children contributes to community. I think that might be backwards of what he was trying to say, which is that the only reason for community and civilization to exist is to allow a structure in which to bring up children.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Those two statements are hardly mutually exclusive; clearly, the most successful communities are the ones where children are a resource rather than a drain.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
I think that might be backwards of what he was trying to say, which is that the only reason for community and civilization to exist is to allow a structure in which to bring up children.
Is it possible for people who disagree with this premise to coexist?
 
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
 
I'm not sure if I'm responding properly to the original question here, but here goes nothing. I believe that Homsexuallity is not the curse it is made out to be, for one thing homosexuals are equally contributing members of society, the bedroom is not something that the the government should be aloud to control, and can anyone think of a better resource who would be more than willing to adopt many of the orphans in the world (giving them loving homes I might add).

And if my two friends (who have been together for well over twenty years now) are any indication, then any child would be lucky to exepted into a home with two fathers or two mothers, as long as they are loved. [Big Grin]

I'm not too far off topic I hope, I got confused on what the topic was about after reading through all the responses. If I messed up then I'm sorry. [Frown]
 
Posted by Briseis (Member # 8878) on :
 
I have quite a few of my own different responses to different things said, so bear with me

quote:
"If community is the most important factor in continuing humanity, and children are the most important building block of community, then Card is probably right."
Community is a tossed around term here. So When I speak of community, let it be known I'm using the term, "Society as a whole; the public."


Reguardless of whether gays contribute a building block (a child) to a community, they are an individual, and provide their own uses. Wasn't Card the one who wrote of the Pequininos community in "Speaker of the Dead" where the elder women were sterile, no longer capable of reproducing? They are part of the community because they contribute something else. They are apart of the tone and identity of a community for reasons beyond reproduction. In other words, the ability to reproduce, though a high and mighty step to the continuation of something, should not be reguarded or valued as the final call as to if someone is illegable to be apart of "the line" or not. A sterile farmer may still toil in the fields all day and give to society.


quote:
Speaking of biology, homosexuality is - what - self gratification - for each party. There is no greater purpose. The function of intimacy between men is you make me feel good and I'll make you feel good.
Isn't that what heterosexuality is about as well? Let's take a look.

To me, the body and mind are two seperate things, forced to cooperate and work as one. For refrence, I am a straight adolecent. When I am hungry, my body craves for food, sending my mind the message it needs something to eat. When I'm done eating, my body rewards me with satisfaction for a happy tummy. The same can apply to sex. My body wants to reproduce, further the line. So, in order for that to happen, my body rewards me when I endulge in sexual activity. That is how attraction works, your body rewards you if you find the most attractive. That's why so many people chase after Johnny Depp! For yourself to achieve the chance to pro-create with such a valid mate is cause for greater reward. It's true that with gays, the ultimate goal of producing offspring is impossible, but the inner workings of the body itself are still valid, still work. BUT-It doesn't make the act itself, the love, the strain, the emotion behind it in the person or the person themselves less valid.


quote:
"Bottom line - homosexuals are part of almost every species of mammals on this planet. And same sex love is present and has been present in every human culture for quite a long time. And that is not because every bird, ape and human all made some conscious choice to committ some immoral act. Rather, homosexuality is a valid part of life. Whether I choose to accept it, supress it or subvert it."

Extremely well said.


quote:
I can't think of anything more discriminatory than saying "I could never be attracted to you because of your race/gender."
Perhaps that is because you value acceptance of race and gender over other values? What about people who would say, "I could never be attracted to you because of your intellegence, your humor, the way you look....ect."


quote:
And if anyone's considering using that part of my post as a justification for the "being gay's a choice" argument, please don't. It's not a choice. I don't choose to be attracted to guys. I choose whether or not to act on it.
Please consider what this person has said seriously. If you are one to think that sexuallity is a choice, reconsider. My own uncle was gay, and was driven to his own suicide partically of the fact that he was gay. He made plans to marry a woman, and play the part of mind over matter as best he could. This was all due to the way his body worked, and because our society rejects a choice out of his own hands. Yet that same society is fitting enough to judge him based a religion meant to merely "keep a standard to actions" per-say, based on a book that calls for forgiveness and judgement between the individual and god. Where's the justice in that?
 
Posted by Topher (Member # 9028) on :
 
To Pooka - actually I am talking about homosexuality. This is because regardless of what I classify myself as I am still considered a homosexual by the world at large.

And marriage may politically be some "governmental stamp of approval" on our relationship. Honestly, though, that's not how I veiw it at all. I DO want equality ... but I just frickin' want to get married too. To have it NOT be a huge issue, trust me the drama of it all is in no way fulfilling.

Additionaly POOKA - your whole arguement is basically flawed. Please tell me how letting to people of the same sex marry is going to bring up the issue of THREE(or more) people marrying? It isn't going to anymore than the current marriage laws do. You are probably adding up "freaky marriage law number 1 leads to freaky marriage law number 2." YES - soon I will want to marriage 4 goats and nine hampsters. Please. I'm sorry for sounding sarcastic and disparaging, but argue logically please.

Black Mage - highly interesting. We should talk more of this.
 
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Topher, what do you think about sexual orientation being a legally protected status? As in, you can't discriminate in housing or employment based on religion, race, age, etc?

Honestly, I don't know much about it, but I know it's up before our state legislature again this year (30 years in a row) and looks like it may very well pass this time (last year it was only defeated by one vote). I'm wondering what you think about this. Do you find that being in a homosexual relationship limits your choices in employment?
 
Posted by Topher (Member # 9028) on :
 
Hey jeniwren,

Well...it's tough. Many employers already have no-discrimination laws on their books (at least in California), and in and around the Los Angeles area most companies would lose quite a bit of business if they did discriminate. I haven't found it the least bit difficult finding employment - but I don't really come off as too..erhm, gay. Some of my friends, though, choose areas to work in (such as Hollywood) that tend to be more liberal than others.

I'm for the measure, but at the same time I don't think that gays/lesbians deserve any <b>special</b> treatment, just a fair rub. So, as long the measure just enforces the rights everyone should already have - then I'm for it. (I don't know the exact extent of the bill.)

Hope that answers your question...
back to work for I!
 
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
I'm with you on that. Not special treatment, just fairness.

I think it would be wrong not to hire a gay person just because the person hiring is uncomfortable with homosexuality.

However, I think where open homosexuality is in direct conflict with the job or employer's purpose (as with many churches), it is unkind of an openly homosexual person to purposefully challenge that. Like a gay person suing a church because they wouldn't hire them.

I think my ignorance is showing. I think it's wrong to force employers to hire people they find unsuitable for the job based on sexual orientation. But I also think it's wrong to discriminate in cases where sexual orientation just doesn't matter to the job. I don't know how you legislate that.
 
Posted by johnbrown (Member # 8401) on :
 
Topher,

DennaJean addressed your original question many posts ago. I thought I might add just a bit.

I believe the main point of the "Hypocrites" title was to shine a light on the idea that because someone has a desire or urge, however strong, that they should therefore act on it.

Morals in and outside of religion seek to "regulate" what urges are appropriate to act on, which aren't, and how to deal with said desires. So to say having a desire makes it okay to act on it is hypocritical--because we could cite simple desire as a legitimizing basis for murder, rape, theft, etc.

For example, single folks with heterosexual urges have just as strong desires for sexual intimacy as those with homosexual urges. For those who believe in the chastity moral, we'd never say, oh, you have this sometimes consuming heterosexual desire, it must be good and natural, go have sex. No, we'd say, sorry, desire and even divine origin is not enough: you must not act on it until married; and for those unlucky enough not to have any hopes of marriage--you still cannot act on it.

Morals regulate the expression of our desires.

Well, what's the source of the moral? Some morals come from sad personal experience, some from observation, others from the community, and some come from those we believe communicate with God. Some have a basis in all of the above. Of course, Card cites all sorts of practical things as the basis for his stance against practicing homosexuality, and we could have a lively discussion about each point. But one strong input he doesn't mention in his articles for wide audiences is that Mormon prophets have simply said God doesn't want us to act on these urges (whatever their source may be).

But even though that moral comes from an authority figure and you could question or deny as a god-given, it doesn't change the nature of morals in general, nor the idea that morality implies that desire can never be the overruling consideration and cause for action.

[ January 17, 2006, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: johnbrown ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
No, we'd say, sorry, desire and even divine origin is not enough: you must not act on it until married; and for those unlucky enough not to have any hopes of marriage--you still cannot act on it.
Luckily, allowing homosexuals to marry means that it becomes possible for them to have sex while married, thus not violating any chastity taboos. [Wink]
 
Posted by johnbrown (Member # 8401) on :
 
That IS a valid way to meet the definition of chastity in many codes--just be monogamous. But this code (especially those from the Mormon persuasion) has that dang "marriage is definied..." clause. No end run there [Smile]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
But this code (especially those from the Mormon persuasion) has that dang "marriage is definied..." clause.
Luckily, though, we're not talking about religious morality. We're talking about legality, which is something else altogether.
 
Posted by johnbrown (Member # 8401) on :
 
Ah, I only meant in reference to Topher's original dismay at the article Card wrote which was published in a Mormon forum.

Of course, in this issue there's no clear line, as in many things, between religious and legal morals because so much of our system of law has been motivated by religious thought. Hence, the current battle to define what marriage is.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Actually, I believe "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality" was published as a Civilization Watch column, here and in Rhino Times.
 
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
It may have been reprinted there (though I don't recall it), but it's far older than that. <Goes to check.> Sunstone magazine, February 1990.

--Pop
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I shouldn't have gone into the exclusive homosexuality issue. I've sorry for opening that whole can of worms. But insofar as I did, I should have said "I can think of few things" rather than "I can't think of anything."
 
Posted by Topher (Member # 9028) on :
 
In response to JohnBrown -

First off, thanks for bringing me back on topic.

To parrellel an idea from another noted Science Fiction author, the difference between being human and animal is the ability to control our instincts, our urges. I cannot argue with the fact that merely having a desire to do something legitimizes it. However, I can say that consensual sex between people in love and in a committed relationship (assuming that all other legal forms are met) is not on par with murder, rape or theft. Or even a negative, or sinful, act.

It can only be assumed that there was divine intent/orgin in men and women having sex - or sexual desire between opposite sexes. I also say there is divine intent in beauty of human choice. Now it is easy to say, well choosing to engage in a same sex relationship or acting on same sex urges is a WRONG choice. A bible scripture or four points to that, it could be argued that is "wrong" based on phsical aspects alone, etc. However, not matter what we may believe in, it is man who says it is wrong.

That said, I personally believe in waiting for marriage. Yet - who knows how my views would change if marriage was 10 years off in my future (or if it never happened.)

If my only desire was to have sex with a guy (or to just have sex with a woman), I would feel I was being immoral. However, my wish to ingnore gender and live as normal (and thus amazing) life with someone isn't sinful in my view. Perhaps if I believed I was rushing into something, or that I had been leaving God out of my descision (I've involved both religion and God)...but that's not the case. Perhaps, though, I am legitimately ignoring the "morals in and outside of religion" that could very well be the case (even though it is unintentional.)

There are branches of Christianity who have been accepting - seeing love for what it is. Rather than seeing desire to have sex with a member of the same sex.

There are worse activities, by far, that are sanctioned in the Bible - but to get into that defeats purpose. I don't want to be pointing figers, or to be too defensive.

Regardless, thanks for your response Mr. Brown [Wink]

For the record, I have many Mormon friends - and debate with a certain Mormon Bishop on many occassions. Meaning, I respect your beliefs and religion.

[ January 18, 2006, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Topher ]
 
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
If you feel strong about this person, let nothing stand in your way.
I truly admire your restraight and discipline and respect too...
It's quite cool.
I believe more in waiting for the right person who will respect me than waiting for marriage, but sex is definetly something special that people shouldn't be to casual and disrespectful about.
 
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Topher:
Additionaly POOKA - your whole arguement is basically flawed. Please tell me how letting to people of the same sex marry is going to bring up the issue of THREE(or more) people marrying? It isn't going to anymore than the current marriage laws do. You are probably adding up "freaky marriage law number 1 leads to freaky marriage law number 2." YES - soon I will want to marriage 4 goats and nine hampsters. Please. I'm sorry for sounding sarcastic and disparaging, but argue logically please.

Topher, I don't see how you can disagree with Pooka about this. After all, permitting interracial marriage led directly to this push for same-sex marriage. Break one barrier, and you've broken them all.

<sigh>
 
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jeniwren:
Topher, what do you think about sexual orientation being a legally protected status? As in, you can't discriminate in housing or employment based on religion, race, age, etc?

It passed here in Illinois, and I think it's a really bad idea. But then, I think that laws against discrimination in hiring and housing are wrong period. Including those that take into account religion, race, age, etc.

The government shouldn't be permitted to discriminate, but anyone or anything non-governmental? Why not?
 
Posted by Topher (Member # 9028) on :
 
The main push for same sex marriage has happened only in the past 7 years or so.

Inter-racial marriage laws have been on the books for a bit longer than that.

Additionaly, where will pologimasts and those who are *really* into beastiality find their support base for such a difficult political move? Or their popular support?

One plus one equals TWO - not nine. Forgive for being peevish about this, but it's not logical. "If you raise tax laws once, whats to stop them from raising them to 99 percent?" "Once they insitute a draft, they always will." "Once a theif always a theif."

Well starLisa - I wonder how you would feel in the very early 20th century when women did not have the right to vote yet.

Additionally. I agree in principal with you about the legally protected status issue. However, I happen to know a young, minority, gay transexual - try finding work or apartment then. Compassion.
 
Posted by Topher (Member # 9028) on :
 
I'm sorry losing my cool there. Got a little riled up. I get what you are saying - I, obviously, just have to disagree. Thanks for responding =D
 
Posted by johnbrown (Member # 8401) on :
 
Topher,

I realize that there's more to this than sexuality. However, if it were strictly the intimacy of committed friendship there would be no issue, right? [Smile]

The thing about this issue that has to be highlighted (although sometimes not very helpful to people having to deal with it) is that a big part of this for many individuals is driven by religious authority.

In fact, in the future as more and more studies roll in reporting their findings on the effects in society of same-sex marriages and practicing homosexuality, even IF the majority of those studies were to show a neutral or positive effect (which they didn't, last time I checked; it was more a mixed bag), I do not think that would be sufficient basis for many to change their moral stance on this topic.

Why would this be?

Because studies and perceived benefit to society aren't the only or even main sources of many moral tenets. The argument by those who trust in religious authority would simply be that humans cannot see all ends and if God says not to do something, there must be a good reason why, even if we can't see it right now. Moral, in this sense, is defined by what God says to do or not do. Practice polygamy, He says. Then it's good. Don't. Then it's not. Kill. Then it's good. Don't. Then it's not.

We can argue about whether certain people do indeed know the mind of God on this subject, but because so many people believe the claims of such authorities (in fact, one of the thing that distinguishes relgions is the answer to who the authorities are), we can't separate them from this issue.

I know someone is going to say we shouldn't allow religious authority to influence public policy, but it has, does, and will happen. I don't know if it is possible not to have that happen. Especially not in this area. I know people arguing against it will bring up numerous stuides and arguments, but in the end, I'm going to assume the basis of a big part of this is religion. In fact, I have a friend in Indiana who argues public policy for his church (different from mine) and he knows that he can't win public debate by citing scripture, but it's that very scripture that motivates him to enter the debate against gay-marriage and adding homosexuality to the list of protected classes. I don't think this is duplicitous. I just think this is the nature of public debate. This means that for the pro-homosexual folks to convince those that are anti, I think they'll have to eventually let those folks hold the view that it's wrong, and stop contesting that. Instead, they should try to shift the debate to some other ground. This is what happened with prohibition, I believe, and abortion.
 
Posted by Topher (Member # 9028) on :
 
Religion and politics are quite inseperably tied together, and probably will be throughout my lifetime. I understand it is idealist of me to wish it otherwiser. However, I do expect adult Americans (when it comes to public policy) to put aside their religious beliefs and look at matters purely logically. Impossible or improbable...yes. From a scientific and psychological stantpoint - homosexuality is merely a valid percentage of the population who are due the same rights as every other American.

Now - God saying to do or not to do something is open to every humans own interpretation according to religion, texts, personal veiws, etc. Some choose to view religion as a guide to their life, some read the Bible accept it all as fact without methaphor or sublty, some choose for religion to be but a helping hand and have believe they a direct venue (person to being) with God. That is all groovy.

Yet the idealist inside of me screams at the injustice of being ruled and regulated by a standard that one doesn't even acknowledge as valid. Oh well, JohnBrown you are correct sirrah, I cannot sway minds who are dead set agaisnt it. To those who are so opposed to the very concept of gay's - then perhaps you will be lead to a different viewpoint if a daughter, son, husband, wife, friend has to go through what I did.

Thanks all for your responses.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
johnbrown,
The problem you get with saying that it's okay for people to force their religion on other people is that no one actually believes this. What people believe is that "It's okay for me to force my religion on other people, but not okay for other people to force their religion on me."

When things are framed in this manner, the only recourse people have towards their side of view is the application of force. We've got a whole history filled with the horrors attendent on this way of approaching social conflict resolution. I don't think we should go back to burning Galileo's at the stake and I think that the things that move us away from that, say for example the Enlightenment principles that our country was founded on, are things that we should celebrate and further.

The sides here are extremely unequal. No one is trying to make people be gay. No one is saying that you can not disapprove of people being gay. No one is saying you can't believe in your religion. What they are saying is that you forcing your religious views on other people justified only because you have enough force to do so is not legitimate. In much the same way it's not right for Baptists to enact legal disrimination against say the LDS, it's not right for Christians to legislate their religious prejudices against gay people.

---

quote:
I think someone earlier said Card believes having children contributes to community. I think that might be backwards of what he was trying to say, which is that the only reason for community and civilization to exist is to allow a structure in which to bring up children.
Of course, I consider OSC's demeaning and desacralized attitudes towards civilization and marriage to be a much more serious attack on marriage than anything gay people can do. I see viewing marriage in the "Close your eyes and do it for England" manner, where it's something people naturally don't want to do, but have to be tricked or coerced into as a really terrible way to approach one of the most beneficial relationships people can form.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
I see viewing marriage in the "Close your eyes and do it for England" manner, where it's something people naturally don't want to do, but have to be tricked or coerced into as a really terrible way to approach one of the most beneficial relationships people can form.
Card never proposed such a thing. You're being misleading here, Squicky.

Knock it off.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Yes, in fact he did. He specifically made the sociobiological case that men don't want to get married and that they need to be forced to do so by societal pressure so as to provide a good environment for children. This is further compounded by his assertion that gay people are fooling themselves if they think that they would receive any benefits from marriage. I've brought this up on numerous occasions when discussing his homosexuality articles.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Where?
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Here are a couple of quotes from here:
quote:
Since the natural reproductive strategy for males is to mate with every likely female at every opportunity, males who are not restrained by social pressure and expectations will soon devolve into a sort of Clintonesque chaos, where every man takes what he can get.
quote:
Civilization thrives only when most members can be persuaded to behave unnaturally, and when those who don't follow the rules are censured in a meaningful way.

Why would men submit to rules that deprive them of the chance to satisfy their natural desire to mate with every attractive female?

Why would women submit to rules that keep them from trying to mate with the strongest (richest, most physically imposing, etc.) male, just because he already has a wife?

Because civilization provides the best odds for their children to live to adulthood. So even though civilized individuals can't pursue the most obviously pleasurable and selfish (i.e., natural) strategies for reproduction, the fact is that they are far more likely to be successful at reproduction in a civilized society -- whether they personally like the rules or not.

This desacralization of marriage is an inherent danger whenever people try to oppose homosexual marriage by saying that the vital thing about straight marriage is that it can produce biologically related children. This is further compounded when you try to apply simplistic evolutionary psychology, as OSC does.

Marriage is a wonderful relationship that people enter into not just because it's the only way society will let them obtain a sexual partner, but because it confers some very big benfits on them (provided it's done right). This is one of the big reasons why I'm so opposed to so much of the anti-gay marriage and anti-divorce sentiment around Hatrack, because it basically spits on what to me is the terribly important core of marriage.
 
Posted by johnbrown (Member # 8401) on :
 
MrSquicky,

If I understand your point, then I must disagree with you. It seems to me that all law that's based on some moral tenet forces that tenet onto those who don't hold it. The source of the moral is irrelevant.

--Piracy of music
--Murder
--Theft
--Child porn
--Prostitution
--Drug use
--Rape
--Discrimination by age or race

All of the laws dealing with these practices have a religious basis in many who support, enforce, and enact those laws. And we support them by coercion. Freeing the slaves in the Civil War had a religious basis for many participating in the conflict. More force, based on religion. Mormons were forced to give up polygamy based on religiously motivated laws. Laws involve coercion. That's why we have law "enforcement."

You can't have complete freedom of religion in any society. What if I wanted to start up human sacrifice because I truly believed in the Aztec gods? Or pratice the cleansing that's part of Neo-nazism or the Klu Klux Klan? Sorry, we're going to force you to not practice that religion because it's offense to our morals which are strongly influenced by our religions. Living in a society means that some freedoms will be limited or sacrificed because the majority of the society doesn't beleive that way. They have other morals that oppose it, some of which are religiously based.

What we have in America is the freedom to practice any religion or none at all AS LONG AS we remain within the contraints of the laws of the land. The state tries to keep a level playing field for all religions, but it cannot separate public policy completely from religion. We don't have complete freedom of religion just as we don't have complete freedom to do anything we like at our workplace or in our homes with our children.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
You're twisting Card's viewpoint, Squicky.

Card isn't arguing for "Clos[ing] your eyes and do[ing] it for England;" rather he's stating that civilized society has a responsability to hold members who offend social code accountable (through disdain).

He is not arguing that everyone should get married, even if such a union is loveless.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
jb,
See, but that's not actually true. Those laws do not, in fact, rely merely on moral tenents held by some people in society. Rather, they all have aspects of demonstrable harm associated with them.

Religious or moral motivation is by no means an intrinsically bad thing. The problem comes in when it is the only basis for using force against other people. Realizing that this is not legitimate is the difference between a marketplace of ideas and the Spanish Inquisition, between trial by jury inside a legal system and trial by combat.

---

Of course you can't call whatever you want to do part of your religion and thus receive carte blanche to do it. In fact, as you may have noticed, I've been speaking out pretty strongly against forcing your religion on other people.

There are no such things as absolute rights. You have certain rights, but these do not abrogate other people's right. So you can't, for example, kill people as part of your freedom of religion. But, within your own personal sphere (and granted in some areas, such as religious drug use, people's definition of personal sphere differ), you're free to hold and practice whatever religion you want.

Personal sphere. Freedom. Very important concepts. See, the problem here is not in the personal sphere, as much as certain activists try to paint not being allowed to force their religion on others as an attack on their religion. It's that people are taking what belongs in the personal sphere and extending it into the public, legal sphere without the appropriate justification for that sphere. Much like the ID movement trying to extend their personal beliefs into the scientific sphere without any scientific merit or basis.

Unless you're willing to grant that other people can force their religion on you, you have no right and no justification to force it on other people. For many people on this board who are LDS, this principle that they have such a problem with it's used to support groups they don't like is the things that keeps their Baptist allies in the fight against gays from doing carrying out the bad things they want to do to them.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
For many people on this board who are LDS, this principle that they have such a problem with it's used to support groups they don't like is the things that keeps their Baptist allies in the fight against gays from doing carrying out the bad things they want to do to them.
The threat of loosing rights (proselyting for example) does not exempt us from trying to do what we feel is God's will-- in this case, using political rights to keep same sex marriage illegal.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Scott,
What he's saying is that people don't want to get married and that they have to be tricked or coerced into doing so for the reason that it's best for raising children. To me, this is very similar to telling English women, "Yes, we know that having sex is an unpleseant task, but it's the only way to have children. So, close your eyes and think of England." I very, very strongly disagree with this and I also view it as an extremely harmful way for a society to view marriage.

Honestly, the idea that straight people aren't going to get married because gay people can, that allowing gay people to enter into this extremely beneficial relationship somehow steals something or devalues other people's marriages is a mindset I shudder to consider. It makes me think of the ex-gay programs where after you get through your Clockwork Orange style conditioning, they pair you up with a feamle volunteer to be your wife, all in the name of "defending marriage".

Marriage (again, done correctly) is an extremely beneficial relationship for both the people inside it and society as a whole, even if their are no biologically produced offspring. I want very much to get married, not because that's what society tells me I should do or because that's the only way I can get sex, but because I really want the benefits that go along with being in a marriage.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Scott,
We've had this exact conversation. You think that it's okay to do this (legislate your religion) to other people, but that it would be wrong if other people (say the Baptists) did it to you.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:

He is not arguing that everyone should get married, even if such a union is loveless.

Actually, he HAS made this argument -- specifically, that people who don't marry in the correct way simply don't matter, and any society that pretends they do is doomed; in fact, his argument against gay marriage hinges on the idea that we shouldn't be pretending that gay relationships have any long-term value. He's also made the argument that marriage is far more important than love.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
What he's saying is that people don't want to get married and that they have to be tricked or coerced into doing so for the reason that it's best for raising children.
No.

He is saying that when men and women go against legitimate social custom (ie, in committing adultery, or in engaging in sexual relationships before marriage) civilization should hold them accountable for their actions by disdaining them.

Biologically, it IS more effective for men to spread themselves around to as many partners as possible. Biologically it IS (or was, before technology became such a large factor) more effective for women to make babies from the strongest suitor.

Civilization means we've overcome those biological urges through societal pressure. Reproductively speaking, when a man is civilized, he restricts himself to one woman. And the woman doesn't seek other biological inputs, as it were, for the creation of progeny.

Because violating those laws turns us back to un-civilization.

THAT'S OSC's point-- nothing to do with trickery.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
That definition of "civilization" is remarkably flawed. [Smile]
 
Posted by johnbrown (Member # 8401) on :
 
MrSquicky,

You're arguing about what's *convincing* to some in the current public sphere, not the fact that we force our morals on others all the time. And what's convincing changes over time. That's why we have laws on the books against adultery, sodomy, etc. because at a point in time those arguments *were* convincing in that sphere and legalized and supported by the state. I would certainly agree that as more Americans distance themselves from religion there must be more than an appeal to religion to convince a majority. But that doesn't mean religion will not play a huge role for a great number of those participating in that sphere and may be their primary motivation.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
But that doesn't mean religion will not play a huge role for a great number of those participating in that sphere and may be their primary motivation.
Can you write a convincing defense of shari'a law?
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
That definition of "civilization" is remarkably flawed.
Well, it certainly isn't complete...
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Scott,
You're ignoring a pretty significant part of what OSC is saying. I'll re-emphasize:
quote:
Since the natural reproductive strategy for males is to mate with every likely female at every opportunity, males who are not restrained by social pressure and expectations will soon devolve into a sort of Clintonesque chaos, where every man takes what he can get.
quote:
Civilization thrives only when most members can be persuaded to behave unnaturally, and when those who don't follow the rules are censured in a meaningful way.
OSC makes a pretty big point that marriage only continues because society coerces and tricks people into doing it, even though they don't want to.

---

See, yeah it does mean that. That's the whole point of the social contract. You give up some of the things that you want to do to other people so that other people don't have the ability to do them to you. You don't want other people to do what they think God tells them to do by legislating against you, so you give up the ability to legilate your religion against others. Or, more generally, you want a society that isn't like the bloodly sectarian mess that characterized most of Western history prior to nations being founded along Enlightenment principles, you don't get to violate those principles because it's different when you do it.

Given a different social centext, say that in certain sections of the Islamic world, Pat Robertson, without changing his character much, would be issuing fatwa's against your religion and his followers would be butchering you. In Europe, they called that the majority of the 2nd millenium A.D. We've gotten away from that god awful way of living and seeing things and I'm willing to give up my ability to force other people to go along with what I say for no other reason than I say it to keep us away from it.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
johnbrown,
No, it's not about what's convincing to people in the public sphere. It's about a separation between what people think is right in their personal spheres and what we have a right to enforce in the public sphere. I think that expressing Neo-Nazi views is just an awful thing to do, and more than a little pathetic. I (as well as a large majority of the country) am strongly opposed to these views and even go so far as to see them as without merit. However, despite near universal opposition, I have no right to say that people can't say them. If I'm a member of a Baptist majority somewhere, even though most people find it convincing that LDS is a pernicious religion that is spreading false doctrine and taking people away from the right way to do things, I don't have the right to legislate against them doing so.

It doesn't just come down to having the most power as you are claiming. There are rules outside of might makes right. Part of what these rules do is help determine what actions and what justifications are legitimate in the public legal context.

[ January 19, 2006, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 
Posted by johnbrown (Member # 8401) on :
 
I would suspect the US would run much like a country under Shari'a IF an overwhelming majority all had the same views. The fact is that we're a diverse bunch and have been since the inception of the country. We also have statutes on how much one segment can limit another's religious practice. And it's exceedingly difficult for one party to get the overwhelming majority. We've all decided to play by the system set up (no coups etc.) But if there were a supermajority, then I don't see what's preventing it from going that way. Perhaps you have an argument for what we have in place that would prevent this from occuring. The only thing I can see are the limits placed in the first amendment. But we already prohibit the free exercise in some circumstances.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'm certainly open to arguments to the contrary.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Perhaps you have an argument for what we have in place that would prevent this from occuring. The only thing I can see are the limits placed in the first amendment.
I agree with you that the limits built into the Constitution are our best defense against shari'a law even in a supermajority. Which is why I find the concept of things like the "Defense of Marriage Amendment" so odious and repugnant.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I agree that (much like the case with Blacks prior to the 14th Ammendment and the Civil Rights Act in 1964), there is nothing explicitly forbidding legislating prejudice against gays. To me, though, there's a big difference between what is expressly forbidden by the rules and what is in the spirit of the rules and what should be done.

I'd say one of the big reasons why we shouldn't like in a country with shari'a-like laws is that then we'd be living in a country with shari'a-like laws. In case people haven't noticed, these country are pretty much immense train wrecks.

I like scientific progress. I like provocative books and movies and such. I like having a multitide of perspective in the marketplace of ideas. I like equal treatment before the law. I've made my peace with women voters. To me these are good things.

---

And, beacuse it seems to alway be needing in these discussions, here's my discussion of what the Enlightenment was and what it means for our country.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
Scott,
You're ignoring a pretty significant part of what OSC is saying. I'll re-emphasize:

--Is this the right room for an argument?

-- I told you once.

-- No you didn't.

--Yes, I did.
 
Posted by johnbrown (Member # 8401) on :
 
You know, when the legislature convenes to make laws, they don't require debate or any types of evidence by law (proving demonstrable harm, for example, isn't required by law). All that's required is a simple vote. The statue is written, often without any mention of all the reasons why. So it seems that it's all a matter of convincing the parties voting and those who keep them there. Not a very effect wall when you get into supermajority situations.

It's an interesting question for another thread, but where should the line be drawn on legislating morals? (Again, it's impossible to not legislate morals because laws are things we think we should or shouldn't do, i.e. morals.) Someone here suggested only legislating those that can prove demonstrable harm. But then we can prove drunkeness causes much harm but don't legislate against that (except in the case of drunk driving). We tried with prohibition. I'm finding it difficult to find a satisfying principle or set of principles to draw this line.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Squick, there's a big difference between saying, "person X said Y, and Y leads to Z through steps A, B, and C" and saying, "person X said Z."

Even if your logical analysis about steps A, B, and C are correct, it is still an ineffective and less than totally honest way of recounting what others have said.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Yeah, it's nice that I didn't do that than and instead said "OSC said this." and then showed where, in my opinion, OSC said that.

I'd appreciate it if you and Scott could, I don't know, stop throwing out random attacks at my character, too.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Yeah, "viewing marriage in the "Close your eyes and do it for England" manner, where it's something people naturally don't want to do, but have to be tricked or coerced into" is EXACTLY what he said. </sarcasm>

It's not random. It's in direct response to what you do.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
BTW, what someone said isn't an opinion. It's demonstrable. If your little renditions of other people's views were accurate, you wouldn't be recasting them for rhetorical effect. Their own words would serve your purpose well enough.
 
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
 
quote:
quote:

Since the natural reproductive strategy for males is to mate with every likely female at every opportunity, males who are not restrained by social pressure and expectations will soon devolve into a sort of Clintonesque chaos, where every man takes what he can get.

quote:
Civilization thrives only when most members can be persuaded to behave unnaturally, and when those who don't follow the rules are censured in a meaningful way.
Squick wrote:
quote:
OSC makes a pretty big point that marriage only continues because society coerces and tricks people into doing it, even though they don't want to.

Coerces, yes, but I still don't get the "tricks" part. If we look at behaving as wild animals as the only option to behaving in a civilized manner, then being civilized is "unnatural".

As unnatural as it may be, it is also a meme born of making the choice to be civilized generation after generation. Frankly, I'm not sure that it is the natural predilection of humans to be polyamorous. Some animals take a mate for a lifetime. Who's to say that we aren't among those? It is altogether possible that a single mate is a better evolutionary strategy for humans, and the social norms are the result of trying to codify and enforce that strategy.

In any case, I don't get that anyone is being "tricked". We all fall under the same social pressure to marry, have children, etc., etc. It's not a trick, it's right out there in the open.

If one makes the decision to go against the social norm, they may be coerced, but not tricked.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
jb,
I'm on board with it being difficult to 1) enforce a following of the spirit of the laws sort of thing and 2) precisely evaluate what action would cause the least harm. However, I don't necessarily think that they are all that relevant here.

First, again, I'm not talking about what is explicitly prohibited by the system, nor in fact about any one specific vote of something in Congress.

It's entirely possible (likely in fact, at least some of the time) that the Congressmen are voting the way they do because some one paid them money to vote that way and that there is really not much we can do about that taking any one specific vote into account. What we can do, however, if propogate a view of the system where such a thing is considered bad.

When you get right to it, that's pretty much what I'm trying to do here. I'll admit that, while there is a whole lot of spirit and more than a few letters of the law that are directed towards preventing the sort of thing I'm talking about, in this particular instance, there is nothing specifically prohibiting legislating your religious prejudice (assuming that you don't blatantly come out and say that's why you're doing it). However, I have been trying to show how it definitely goes against the spirit of our system and is both unjust and not a particularly good idea to adopt this sort of thinking. Even if you ultimately disagree, you've got to admit that there's more than a little hypocrasy in saying that you can do this to other people but they can't do it to you.

On the second part, I think you're criticism of the practicality of utilitarian systems kind of overjumps what we're talking about here, which is that there should be at least some objective and transferrable basis available for thinking that a course of action is good or bad before we enact it onto law that is to be carried out with force on the population.

To take a commonly used example, murder is not primary against the law because we think it's a morally bad thing to kill people. It's against the law because, hey, I don't want to get killed and this whole note desiring death thing is pretty much universal. It's not so much a restriction of people's personal actions as it is a protection of people's personal rights, in this case my right not to be beaten to a bloodly pulp with a tire iron. I can make a similar argument for nearly all of the laws you think are based mainly in morals.

Not so with the legalized prejudices against gays (or blacks for that matter). They are about enacting the majority's belief that a certain section of the population (who is never them) should not be treated as full citizens in some way.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
LD,
In that essay, with those two quotes, I think saying "tricked" is a bit of an extention on my part, but taking the whole of OSC's writing on it, I think it's an accurate description of his attitude. If it's really so terrible, I don't really have a problem with withdrawing it. The main point remains that OSC has characterized marriage as something people wouldn't (and shouldn't if they are following their "natural" self-interest) enter into and thus society must exert pressure to make them.

This, to me, is related to the divorce thing, that I think you were in on recently, where people think that the thing to focus on is not letting people get divorced, whereas I think we should mostly be focusing on building up strong marriages and showing why it's in people's interest to choose good marriages.
 
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I can't help thinking that OSC's view on marriage makes it as unappealing to me as sitcoms do.
I just have trouble believing that men are uncivilized animals that just want to have sex with as many women as possible and women just want to rope the strongest possible man regardless...
I just don't agree... It seems too simplistic to me.
 
Posted by Topher (Member # 9028) on :
 
I concur synesthesia, good point.

I am most certainly not a fan of Clinton - but whoever said "devolve into Clintoneque chaos" was being a very over-dramatic. But I won't get into a off topic debate.

A friend friend of mine just got married at to another guy. When I asked "Well...that's not legal, is it?" he shot me a offended look, "Toph - your not turning into some stupid fundamentalist are you? Of course it's not, and that makes so much better."

Perhaps I should adopt this attitude.
 
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
 
Syn,

I agree. That's one of the reasons I mentioned the possibilty that monogamy is natural to other species; why not us?

I get very confused when I try to think about this whole issue. And I'm sorry if I confuse you as I try to explain my thoughts.

If we are animals, then sex is about procreation, not love, comfort or enjoyment. Marriage is so closely tied to sex that in purely practical terms, it seems to lack a spiritual component. If marriage is only about sex, then an unbreakable social contract of marriage makes sense

If marriage is more than sex and sex is more than an animal instinct, does that mean that we are more than animals? And if we are more than animals, can we truly choose to look at sex as nothing more than an animal instinct?

Squick,
I agree that more emphasis should be placed on creating stable marriages than on punishing divorce. I just don't think that one can make a point of encouraging good marriages while turning a blind eye to failed marriages.

I think that sex and marriage are too important to us as a species to take a neutral position on the matter.
 
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
 
I'm not going to get involved in the main argument here, but I did want to address one thing Avery said:

quote:
Roman's and greeks developed man love to a kind of social party status.
I'm not entirely sure what is meant by this.

Romans and Greeks certainly did have absolutely no problem with male-male sex. No problem at all (save perhaps in the military). Social roles and obligations constrained it somewhat - ideally a man was supposed to be faithful to his wife when he married, for example - but the practice of what we today call homosexual sex was socially acceptable and even encouraged. When you read Latin love poetry, often the only way to tell if it is addressed to a female or male lover is if the poet names the object of his affection. Men had sex with men, and no one really cared.

The only real social stigma with male-male sex was to be the submissive partner, since Real Men aren't passive, but active. Having sex with another man was okay, as long as you weren't acting the part of a woman. The active partner was more or less regarded as bisexual, whether or not he had any sexual attraction towards women; the submissive partner was considered "homosexual."

I have no idea what "social party status" means, but it's entirely ignorant to make a blanket claim that dismisses the widespread popularity and acceptance of male-male sex in Roman society.
 
Posted by johnbrown (Member # 8401) on :
 
MrSquicky,

quote:
Even if you ultimately disagree, you've got to admit that there's more than a little hypocrasy in saying that you can do this to other people but they can't do it to you.
I wasn't saying that. I was saying there's not enough pro-homosexuals to push through their agenda right now with ease and probably the most effective way to get some traction is to move the grounds of the debate.

I find your idea compelling and I can see it covering many situations
quote:
It's against the law because, hey, I don't want to get killed and this whole note desiring death thing is pretty much universal.
But there are many situations where despite not liking to be killed, we do it anyway. Abortion, capital punishment, war, self-defense, anti-terrorist operations, etc. In some societies you can kill for all sorts of offenses. So I don't know that this one rule is going to clear everything up because there are so many rights in conflict. And when you have rights in conflict you have to prioritize one. How do you do that? Well, there's the moral again. I'm sure what you're saying has to be part, but it doesn't seem to cover all conflicts of rights.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
LD,
Have I come across as being unconcerned about sex or marriage?

We got onto this track because I'm extremely concerned at the pernicious attitudes towards marriage that many of the so-called defenders of marriage put out so as to show how gay people shouldn't get married. Don't get me wrong, I think that OSC is very concerned about marriage. It's just that what comes across as his definition of marriage appears to me to be both a twisted view of the institution and a twisted view of the world itself.

I don't think that this breaks down into simple for, against, or neutral positions. A lot of the fight is over the defintion of what marriage is. Some people appear to me, either out of an honest reflection of their views or out of a desire to define in as important only in the ways that gay people can be excluded, to define marriage in a very damaging, desacralizing way, even as they are claiming to support it.

I don't think that marriage is against my self-interest (except as it relates to raising children in a stable environment). I don't think that the problems with marriage began when we started allowing divorce. I don't think that marriages that, for whatever reasons, don't result in children are at best meaningless. I even think that regarding the divide between men and women as far surpassing any other possible divide between people is...how am I supposed to say this...widely divergent from reality.

I do think that marriage provides for a relationship that offers up stability, engagement, mutual creativity, happiness, health, support, sharing, and a whole host of other things that you just can't get at anywhere near the same level anywhere else. I think it's fantastic. I think if people really understood how much better their life could be if they were in a good, working marriage, getting married and supporting good marriages would be topping most people's life goals.

I date a lot, especially by the standards of Hatrack. Many of my friends also date a lot. We have the opportunity of say having sex with a lot of people that many here don't even see as a possibility. And to a certain extent, we take advantage of that. And you know what, nearly all of my friends in this situation really want to get married (actually, most of them have already gotten married, some with kids now). The people who really like just bouncing from person to person are, in my experience, generally not particularly happy people.

You can talk to me all you want about how evolution has given me a barbaric need to always just sleep with as many women as I can. The thing is, I'm not a monkey. You're just so story doesn't fit me. Maybe that describes how you see the world, but it doesn't describe me.

What we really need is not a bunch of joyless social scolding about you have to go against your natural instincts and self-interest and get married for the kids or because society will punish you if you don't. What we need is people coming forward with how great it is to be married, with stories of all the things they get out of it. See, because I get these stories from the people I know who are married. I see their joy in their lives and their partners, some after 8 years of marriage now.

But of course, if that were the case, it would be just about unconscionable to not let gay people enjoy this wonderful relationship...and we can't have that.

edit: to add an all important negation.

[ January 19, 2006, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
jb,
In those situations where we kill despite not wanting to be killed ourselves, the wider issue is generally that we'd rather be in a situation where people were killed in situations like that than not. We kill in self-defense and consider it okay because we'd rather live in society where it is permissible to kill someone who is trying to kill you than where it is not. We have capital punishment because many people believe that there are some crimes where it is important to have this punishment for. Having a penal system does introduce an element of punishment, even up to that of death, but it serves to take away the threat of people breaking the laws it is set up to protect.

I'm not suggesting some simplistic concept here. More of a general truth, which is that most laws in our society can in fact be justified by maximizing good, preventing harm way instead of saying that the only support they have is a moral judgement.
 
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
 
quote:
You can talk to me all you want about how evolution has given me a barbaric need to always just sleep with as many women as I can. The thing is, I'm not a monkey. You're just so story doesn't fit me. Maybe that describes how you see the world, but it doesn't describe me.
Ah, I have successfully caused you as much confusion as I've caused myself. [Smile]

Actually, I was disagreeing with Card's idea that man's natural state is promiscuity.

quote:
I do think that marriage provides for a relationship that offers up stability, engagement, mutual creativity, happiness, health, support, sharing, and a whole host of other things that you just can't get at anywhere near the same level anywhere else. I think it's fantastic.
I think that we are more than animals and that marriage is about more than sex. Thus, though I respect the idea that marriage is about procreation and community, as a spiritual being, I have trouble seeing it as only about procreation and community. That being the case, I have trouble accepting that it is to be regulated by the community, yet I believe it must be.... ::mumbles:: I have many questions and few answers.

The only point in that post where I disagree with you is in the idea that you can encourage stable marriages and ignore or not criticize divorce. I'd love to think that extolling the virtues of marriage would be enough to make people choose good mates and keep their commitments, but I don't think it is.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
LD,
That wasn't directed at you. It was directed at the "just so story" sciencesque evolutionary psychology idea that OSC was advocating.

I think the divorce thing falls into the general class of things I call the welfare queen category. That is, punishing the small number of defectors, satisfying though it may be, screws up the system a great deal more for the majority of people who aren't defectors. I think the little good that you can do with many of the ways people want to punish or prohibit divorce is outweighed by the greater harm that they will cause.

You may have missed it, but in the last thread, I was exactly ignoring or not criticizing divorce. In fact, part of the conflict was that I was extending the failure inherent in a divorce further than some people thought that I should.
 
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I think that sex and marriage and all of that is a sacred thing.
I'm not against some aspects of conservatism, but I can't help that some of these concepts contribute to all the things the conservative types are against.
Like do you really need society to look down on people for their private problems without knowing of the whole situation? Should we be like ancient China killing those that commit adultery or breaking their legs because that's what that leads to...
People make mistakes. People will sometimes have affairs instead of dealing directly with their problems. People will often view marriage as the road to some faerytale like existence without realizing that it's hard work to maintain a relationship no matter what.
Wouldn't it be a better idea to emphasize how sacred sex and marriage is instead of condemning adulters or painting human beings as yet another animal instead of an individual with complex problems and complex reasons for doing things besides our genes say to sow as many seeds as possible.
That just gives people an excuse instead of taking responsibility for their own actions.
There really needs to be middle ground!
 
Posted by johnbrown (Member # 8401) on :
 
But MrSquicky you cannot maximize good until you define what it is--morals. Capital punishment to some is a great evil. What's moral? What right outweighs another? There are a lot of ways we arrive at it--authority, reason, observation, empiricism, utilitarianism, etc.--but saying it maximizes good is too general for me because goods often conflict.

We want a safe society. That's good. We think capital punishment deters. We think the punishment does some good. So we kill. But others in our society turn that on their heads saying it only makes things worse. Well, which good is good? We say a woman should have autonomy and therefore right to choose any type of abortion. A good. But we also say that the child has a right and needs to be protected. Goods in conflict. Which one really is better? How do you prioritize?

So saying that maximizing good is the key is a fine general thing to say and may apply in many cases but there are quite a few where it fails us.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
Card isn't arguing for "Clos[ing] your eyes and do[ing] it for England;" rather he's stating that civilized society has a responsability to hold members who offend social code accountable (through disdain).

OK, that's certainly reasonable, but it's going to happen anyway. That's what a social code means : Something such that, if you transgress against it, you are treated with disdain. And you are certainly free to disdain anything and anyone you like. (And before you say that you are not free, in a politically correct world, to disdain gays, let me point out that you are wrong. It's just that other people will then use their right to disdain you.) What you are not free to do, is enshrine your social code in law.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
What you are not free to do, is enshrine your social code in law.
Well, that's not actually true, now is it? You might wish it weren't so, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Well, yes. I sit corrected. Let me instead say 'what you should not be free to do, is enshrine your social code in law.'
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
You know, in a certain way, KOM is actually correct. If the laws specifically said, "What we're doing here is enshrining our religious tenents in law." (which, as far as I can tell is actually what people want to do), the ink wouldn't have time to dry before they were struck down.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
He said "social code" not religious tenents.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
And if I had indeed said 'tenets', I would be very clear that they have nothing to do with 'tenants'. That said, I do think this particular social code is, in fact, a religious tenet.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
He said "social code" not religious tenents.
Which is why I provided a qualifying "in a certain way" and tied it directly to the specific issue under discussion, which does involve enshrining religious prejudice into law.
 
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Welcome Topher. [Smile]
I found your tale moving.
I'm a gay man and have had similar reactions to OSC's works and views. Best of luck and all hail OSC, for better or worse. [Smile]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Which is why I provided a qualifying "in a certain way" and tied it directly to the specific issue under discussion, which does involve enshrining religious prejudice into law.
Which, in your opinion, involves enshrining religious prejudice into law. You got that part right the first time.

Your inability to comprehend others reasons for their policy preferences doesn't automatically make those preferences the "enshrining of religious prejudice."
 
Posted by Topher (Member # 9028) on :
 
King of Men - everyone messes up on spelling here and their. [Wink]

The reality of the situation is, whether or not it should the case, that many of our social values are derived from our religious beliefs. Our social values are then very directly related to how we cast our votes (especially on social issues.) Obviously religious beliefs are then valid in the legal system. Now - the question is whether people might ignore their belefs (if their beliefs are opposed to issue) to uphold a, not higher, different standard of equality.

Regardless of ones veiws on homosexuality, religion and sex there has to be looked at from a higher, one of equality. "All men a created equal." One of the founding principals of this country. It could be argued "Yes, you're right, I can marry whatever woman I want to - so can you!" The point could also be argued "We all should be free to marry whom we choose (note: human, quanitity one)."
 
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
 
quote:
(note: human, quanitity one)
I love this phrase.
 
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Am I alone in thinking there's this other component to people getting together and starting stable relationships besides if we didn't we'd all turn into barbarians who fornicate out in the woods whenever the need presents itself with some random person who just so happens to have body heat?
I can't help thinking there's something... that draws people together to bring out the best in each person and THAT'S what helps society. People building a relationship with the person that brings out the best in them regardless of things like sex...
To me that's what the purpose of marriage is. People come together, find these traits in each other, realize they want their kids to be a combination of the two of them...
Gays and lesbians cannot have kids the regular way, but they still can find these traits in each other, start lives together and work hard in their relationships and adopt kids and care for kids from previous marriages and work hard to raise them the right way like anyone else. Perhaps they'd want to work even harder because having kids is not just some bang, bam, ioh, no we're going to have a baby sort of thing.
 


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