Ok, first know I'm a huge fan of both the Ender series, Bean series, and Seventh Son series. That being said, I can't accept OSC's views expressed in the article http://mormontimes.com/ME_blogs.php?id=1586 .
It is dumbfounding to me that this man who wrote books that deal with extreme moral/ethical dilemmas is so blatantly disgusting in his worldview.
So Orson, I'd like to take a minute to remind you of the Golden Rule. You know "Treat others as you would like to be treated."
I believe that this is a tenant widely held by religious institutions and or at least widely taught to children.
So lets examine how you'd like to be treated.
"The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America."
Apparently granting equal rights to homosexuals in the form state and federal marriage benefits marks the downfall of the democratic government. You would see them relegated to a second tier status and or removed altogether.
Well lets just reverse that, become an authoritarian government and make it illegal for ANYONE to wed. I mean, you want to be treated fairly right? So outlaw marriage and just let people live with people they love, without any benefits of any sort or recognition of a legal union.
"These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote."
Are they? The United States claims religious freedom but it was created by religious men and written with inherently religious laws. That men and women shall be the only ones to marry is a strictly religious dogma that is reinforced by a majority of Americans indoctrinated at birth into a religious society. Ancient cultures had plenty of homosexuality and even the Greeks, that most esteemed of ancient learned cultures was accepting of the practice.
So what would you have the Judges do? Strike down the constitution as unconstitutional and go back and rewrite it with absolutely no religious influences whatsoever? Impossible. Or would you have them make the United States live up to its own ideals which are the pursuit of equality, liberty, and justice for all?
I still find it hard to believe that OSC wrote these things, and the rest of that incredibly depressing article. And I could go on all day pointing out the inequities inherent in his arguments against anything opposed to or upsetting to his religious views. But it is a free country and he can say what he wants. I just wish he understood that his readers are not all religious fundamentalists devoid of empathy for people who just want to live in the real world as equals.
On a personal note OSC, your books carry a lot of value to me in a literary sense because they are that good but I no longer respect you for any other reason. That article took any respect I had for you, beat it, gagged it, raped it, beat it some more, defecated on it, drugged it, tortured it for what seems like decades, and finally dipped it in acid still alive to dissolve unto death. That is the literally why I have no respect left for you, outside of the book series mentioned above. What a sad sad thing to learn about one of my favorite authors.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
While I understand you strongly disagree with what OSC wrote in that article, your response hardly seems to be more restrained or reasonable.
I think OSC's arguments against SSM ring hollow and his characterization of its proponents is often unfair. He seems convinced that masses of youth will be drawn in by it; seduced away from hetero marriage. I'm having a hard time seeing why that would happen. I can certainly imagine that societal tolerance of SSM will help interrupt the fear/shame/denial/repression/depression/acting-out cycle that inflicts so much pain on individuals and extracts such a high cost from families, with regard to homosexuality and other departures from religious stricture. (i.e. if Timmy is allowed to choose a stable, family-friendly expression of his sexuality, however it develops, perhaps he won't "fake it" and develop compulsive and harmful compensations.)
What's really harmful to marriage/society is dysfunction in relationships, and sexual dysfunction is highly likely to be fueled by shame and secrecy. The antidote is openness and tolerance [with appropriate social reinforcement for monogamy and responsible behavior].
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Malachin, we've discussed this article at length here--
Your reaction is way out of line-- it is in breach of the terms of service that you agreed to abide by here on Hatrack:
quote:You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.
It's ironic that the person you find so insightful should suddenly lose that valued insight when he disagrees with you.
Posted by JustAskIndiana (Member # 9268) on :
quote: So lets examine how you'd like to be treated.
"The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America."
Apparently granting equal rights to homosexuals in the form state and federal marriage benefits marks the downfall of the democratic government. You would see them relegated to a second tier status and or removed altogether.
I think you misunderstood the point. It's not the legal recognition of "gay marriage" that's of concern here, but how the GIVING of such recongnition took place that marks the "end of democracy". Card's point is that the courts alone decided to act to bring about such a dramatic social change, which under a democracy should only have happened by an actual vote.
Now perhaps if congress had voted on this issue, then Card would have no reason to mark this as an assault on democracy, but under the circumstances, I think he has a point.
But you, Malachin1, I don't really think you have a point, especially since you're looking at this issue from such a simple level. The golden rule? You want homosexuals to be treated as fairly as everybody else? Well let's see what right everybody else has: the right for the state to recognize marriage with someone of the opposite sex. Guess what? Homosexuals have this same right; they could marry somebody of the opposite sex if they choose to exercise their right. But, you say, not the right to marry somebody of the same sex? Well then, is that marriage? Can we just redefine marriage to be whatever we want it to mean? I think Card has written about this somewhere else, but the point is that this whole debate is lengthy and complicated....
...but Card's point here is not: whatever the country chooses, we must choose democratically and not by the court decisions.
Posted by Malachin1 (Member # 7654) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Malachin, we've discussed this article at length here--
Your reaction is way out of line-- it is in breach of the terms of service that you agreed to abide by here on Hatrack:
quote:You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.
It's ironic that the person you find so insightful should suddenly lose that valued insight when he disagrees with you.
Ok, wait a minute. Obscene maybe with the defiling of my respect scene. Otherwise, to my personal viewpoint, I see nothing untoward in the explanation of my views regarding his views.
Posted by Malachin1 (Member # 7654) on :
I think you missed my point about marriage. Our societies idea of marriage is based solely on a Puritan ideal of marriage. Where does it say in what makes up humans that a man and a woman should be wed? It takes a man and a woman to Procreate. But apparently anyone can love anyone given the make up of their brain. I'm not advocating bestiality or polygamy here. I'm just pointing out that in our society today there are men and women of the Same Sex who love each other and want the same rights as hetero couples. That is an incredibly simple aim that offends the sensibilities of religious institutions causing what should be simple recognition of a state of being to become a morass of conflicting moralities.
What should come first before all else is that everyone should be treated equally. A man and woman who are in love can MARRY. A man and man or woman and woman in love may not. The ONLY reason they cannot is because of a pervasive religious society that dominates the United States (and most of the world in one form or another).
Sometimes I just think the world would be better off without religion but that isn't going to happen anytime soon, short of nuclear holocaust.
So yes, I look as this problem as simple, because it is. People just like to make it complicated.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Quoting Malachin: "Ancient cultures had plenty of homosexuality and even the Greeks, that most esteemed of ancient learned cultures was accepting of the practice." Unquote The ancient Greeks may have been accepting of the practice of homosexuality, but they did not accept homosexual marriage, and those who practised homosexuality were still expected to take their place in society and marry heterosexually and procreate. So bad example.
Quoting Malachin again: "Our societies idea of marriage is based solely on a Puritan ideal of marriage." Unquote
Puritans were a 17th century group. Are you saying marriage between a man and woman didn't exist before the Puritans? I think you're just making this up. Every society in history has had rules and rituals surrounding the binding together of a man and woman in the union which perpetuates that society. Stable, successful marriages always have been fundamental to the stability of society. It is NOT just a religious imposition on society. Religion comes in because, again, every society surrounds those things which are most essential to their survival with religious trappings. The institution came first, protection by religion came after.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What should come first before all else is that everyone should be treated equally.
This is not the Golden Rule, you realize. It's not even the semi-universal version.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cashew: Quoting Malachin: "Ancient cultures had plenty of homosexuality and even the Greeks, that most esteemed of ancient learned cultures was accepting of the practice." Unquote The ancient Greeks may have been accepting of the practice of homosexuality, but they did not accept homosexual marriage, and those who practised homosexuality were still expected to take their place in society and marry heterosexually and procreate. So bad example.
Not to mention the whole issue was looked at differently. It was more about top/bottom than male/female. The man on top was just doing what a man does, but the man on the bottom (even if it was a woman on top) was really crossing the lines (unless he was young or a slave, in which case he wasn't a man anyway). It was about gender, not sex. I hate it when people bring ancient Greece into this debate, because almost always, they have no idea what it meant.
Posted by JustAskIndiana (Member # 9268) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malachin1: I think you missed my point about marriage. Our societies idea of marriage is based solely on a Puritan ideal of marriage. Where does it say in what makes up humans that a man and a woman should be wed? It takes a man and a woman to Procreate. But apparently anyone can love anyone given the make up of their brain. I'm not advocating bestiality or polygamy here. I'm just pointing out that in our society today there are men and women of the Same Sex who love each other and want the same rights as hetero couples. That is an incredibly simple aim that offends the sensibilities of religious institutions causing what should be simple recognition of a state of being to become a morass of conflicting moralities.
What should come first before all else is that everyone should be treated equally. A man and woman who are in love can MARRY. A man and man or woman and woman in love may not. The ONLY reason they cannot is because of a pervasive religious society that dominates the United States (and most of the world in one form or another).
Sometimes I just think the world would be better off without religion but that isn't going to happen anytime soon, short of nuclear holocaust.
So yes, I look as this problem as simple, because it is. People just like to make it complicated.
Look there are two issues here:
1.) The issue of whether the government should recognize same-sex marriages.
2.) The issue of how the U.S. should go about deciding laws regarding the above issue, which is the main point of the essay you linked.
Card's main point is on the second issue:
quote:It is such an obvious overreach by judges, far beyond any rational definition of their authority, that even those who support the outcome of the decisions should be horrified by the means.
This statement has nothing to do with his "blatantly disgusting" views of homosexuality, but the political route its proponents are taking. That's what my post was about and it really had nothing to do with your personal views on SSM, but as you said, I missed your point.
So I'm going to try to not miss your point this time: I think the issue you're really pissed about is nicely summarized when Card says:
quote: No matter how sexually attracted a man might be toward other men, or a woman toward other women, and no matter how close the bonds of affection and friendship might be within same-sex couples, there is no act of court or Congress that can make these relationships the same as the coupling between a man and a woman.
I think what you're trying to say is that homosexual relationships have an equally powerful bond and contribute just as much as normal marriages do to society. Therefore, the definition of marriage should be redefined to include same-sex bonds. The founding fathers may have based the legal definition of marriage off of their respective religious ones, but that doesn't apply in a multi-religious country that claims to have separation between church and state.
Does that pretty much summarize your position? Because if it does, then you should be arguing the part about same-sex marriages having an equally powerful bond and contributing just as much as normal marriages do society. Instead, your posts simply seem to be just a statement of your opinions for which there is little to discuss.
That's always the irony of people disagreeing with Card on SSM; they always link an article in which Card extensively argues how little same-sex marriages contribute to society and how temporary or illusive their bonds are, and those disagreeing never address this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:they always link an article in which Card extensively argues how little same-sex marriages contribute to society and how temporary or illusive their bonds are, and those disagreeing never address this
Always? And never? I'm fairly certain I've written at length on this one. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:That's always the irony of people disagreeing with Card on SSM; they always link an article in which Card extensively argues how little same-sex marriages contribute to society and how temporary or illusive their bonds are, and those disagreeing never address this.
Yeah that's actually been addressed.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by JustAskIndiana: I think you misunderstood the point. It's not the legal recognition of "gay marriage" that's of concern here, but how the GIVING of such recongnition took place that marks the "end of democracy". Card's point is that the courts alone decided to act to bring about such a dramatic social change, which under a democracy should only have happened by an actual vote.
Now perhaps if congress had voted on this issue, then Card would have no reason to mark this as an assault on democracy, but under the circumstances, I think he has a point.
He has a poor point. The court acted within its rights, and the situation in which it found itself was created by the legislators, who by the way, had voted in favor of gay marriage not long before. Would you prefer a court system so castrated as to be unable to make *any* important decision at all? The tyranny of pure democracy is protected against by the courts. The endgame is that we do not live in a direct democracy. The position of the court was created democratically, and they follow the constitution which was enacted democratically by the state of California. Anti-gay marriage advocates have their recourse built in. But don't come crying if and when that plan eventually fails. The lovely irony is that anti-gay marriage advocates will continue to whine about the failure of democratic process just because they know theirs is a losing battle in any forum of reasonable people.
"...but Card's point here is not: whatever the country chooses, we must choose democratically and not by the court decisions."
Well then, we should probably throw out every court decision that protects every minority group from the abuse of the greater majority, because that's just not fair. What anti-gay marriage people will never truly understand is that this debate is no different from Brown v. Board of Education; their prejudice and hate will not allow them to see the great error reinforced by their religions.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
The major point I was going to raise Orincoro already has: that to decry the judicial allowance of same-sex marriage as "the death of democracy" seems a rather willful overlooking of other cases where the judiciary has stood against the will of the majority in order to protect the rights of the minority, many of which most now regard as fairly enlightened and forward-thinking decisions.
And at best, calling such "the death of democracy" seems a more than slight exaggeration. If I were going to muse on possible warning signs of the death of democracy in America, same-sex marriage wouldn't even fall in my personal top ten.
I also find some weight to the arguments that marriage has changed significantly over the centuries and that further change from the "traditional" model should not be viewed with scorn simply because, well, it veers from the traditional model.
The "homosexuals are free to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like the rest of us" argument has always struck me as extremely glib and hollow. "Well, you can have the crab legs, or the lobster bisque, or the jambalaya, or the stir-fried crawfish... You're allergic to shellfish, and you'd like another option? Jeez, no one else has had any problem with the buffet..."
Some awareness of the fact that many countries are now indeed allowing same-sex unions (including our neighbor to the north) also ought, to my mind, to at least allow one to consider a "wait and see" stance. Perhaps western civilization doesn't fall into shambles on the basis of this one, small thing?...
Now, Malachin, you should be aware (lurk before you leap!) that you are far from the first person to love Card's fiction writing but find you part sharply with some of the views stated in his opinion essays. I sometimes think that such may be the majority. I'd urge you to try to seperate your views of the opinions from those of the man, who is widely described as being quite gracious and intelligent. By all means disagree... But try to be polite.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Well then, we should probably throw out every court decision that protects every minority group from the abuse of the greater majority, because that's just not fair. What anti-gay marriage people will never truly understand is that this debate is no different from Brown v. Board of Education; their prejudice and hate will not allow them to see the great error reinforced by their religions.
Emptyquotin for truth.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What anti-gay marriage people will never truly understand is that this debate is no different from Brown v. Board of Education; their prejudice and hate will not allow them to see the great error reinforced by their religions.
As long as you adopt this attitude, you will never convince people to change their minds on the issue. There are significant differences between this issue and Brown v. Board. If you insist that it's only prejudice and hate that make them see those differences, then you don't understand their real reasons. And without addressing their real reasons, you can't argue against them. You can only argue against your cheap caricature. That can be awfully satisfying, unless you want to actually change things.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:What anti-gay marriage people will never truly understand is that this debate is no different from Brown v. Board of Education; their prejudice and hate will not allow them to see the great error reinforced by their religions.
What this presupposes is that conversation and communication are pointless. Since discourse and reason are useless, fiat is the only resolution to the opposition.
And that leads to legislative conflict, or worse.
The attitude expressed by Orincoro encourages closed minds; it fosters stereotypes; it removes possibilities for reconciliation and compromise. It appeals for conflict and conquest rather than thoughtful, passionate debate.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Where's Malachin1 gone, we wonders, yes, we wonders, precious
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
<i>"As long as you adopt this attitude, you will never convince people to change their minds on the issue"</i>
OSC says that people actually wanting to marry each other threatens his civilization and this being made into law would turn him into an enemy of his own government, which he'll attempt to overthrow by any means possible.
At this point, there's no point in trying to convince him of anything. He's the enemy in this. He'll attempt to destroy civilization in order to "save" it, because gay marriages threatens the existence of his grandchildren by allowing any potential homosexual offspring of his to actually marry people of their choice.
"And without addressing their real reasons, you can't argue against them."
His real reason seems to me to be that he wants as many grandchildren as possible, and this is threatened by encouraging gay people to marry each others, since some of OSC's own children may turn out gay, hence fewer grandchildren for him if they're not force into hetero marriages.
Honestly I don't feel any particular need to discuss the idea that OSC's desire of more descendants as superior to actual people's desire to marry each other. What's the point of discussing quantity of life vs quality thereof, when he clearly made his choice on the side of "quantity", and he made the choice that defines him as my enemy just as obviously as he defined me as his enemy?
If he wants to call me his enemy, I'll call him mine. I'll try to change the minds of those who're borderline sane, and OSC doesn't really qualify as such.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That's quite a crystal ball you've got there.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Folks really should just leave gay people alone. Especially since there are huge holes in society's fence that need to be mended.
Posted by JustAskIndiana (Member # 9268) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
OSC says that people actually wanting to marry each other threatens his civilization and this being made into law would turn him into an enemy of his own government, which he'll attempt to overthrow by any means possible.
This is just straight up false. The only thing I've heard remotely close to this is OSC saying that legalizing gay marriage would be a significant step towards the decadence of western civilization. I've seen 10th grade english essays that would even make Freud shake his head, and yet are still more substantial than this statement.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Please lay off the personal attacks.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: And without addressing their real reasons, you can't argue against them. You can only argue against your cheap caricature. That can be awfully satisfying, unless you want to actually change things.
I think that hatred and prejudice are the primary reasons. While I understand that technically the cases I site have different features, I believe that the primary motivators are the same. As with racism, I don't believe that discrimination against gays is reasonable in any guise. The long standing justifications and motivators for racism are much the same as those that now manifest themselves in discrimination against gays. What has continued to defeat racist government policy (such as anti-miscegenation laws), is a refusal to deal with racism on its own faulty terms.
You will point to "their real reasons," as if it is taken as a given that the underlying cause of discrimination is not a simple lack of understanding, empathy, or human decency fostered by a particular world view that has become unsustainable. Do you argue that because people who are pro-discrimination have what appear to them to be reasonable views, those views should be treated as reasonable? I would like those views to be exploded, and exposed for what they represent: thinly veiled excuses for the mistreatment of a minority by the majority, motivated by hate for that which the majority refuses to understand.
It doesn't really matter what group is being dominated by the majority; there will always be justifications. Racism is one, "family values" and Christian ideology are others. In a nation like ours, composed of so many people, the pressure to create and maintain a "national ethnicity," an image of the common person that represents a national ideal, is a dangerous force, but it is one that does exist. As you well know, the courts are in place to stop that majority voice from tailoring national policies to favor their preferred lifestyles, to the exclusion of the rights of others to pursue happiness. In this sense, Brown V. Board of Education, and this case, are much the same. The court feels that the law currently in place has fallen out of step with the greater ideal of personal freedom, and that to allow that law to continue to be enforced would constitute a tyranny of the majority over a recognized minority group.
I believe that christians in this nation would allow government policy to be shifted to their advantage because it is easy for them to do so. The conflict between one's religious ideals, and the stated ideals of one's nation and constitution are eased when they are aligned, providing greater security to a majority, and less security to minority groups. It takes strength from all of us to overcome the pull of the majority, and not to become a part of a single nationalist ideology. In the end, I believe that this class of conflict will destroy this nation, and the freedoms that we all enjoy.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by JustAskIndiana:
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
OSC says that people actually wanting to marry each other threatens his civilization and this being made into law would turn him into an enemy of his own government, which he'll attempt to overthrow by any means possible.
This is just straight up false. The only thing I've heard remotely close to this is OSC saying that legalizing gay marriage would be a significant step towards the decadence of western civilization. I've seen 10th grade english essays that would even make Freud shake his head, and yet are still more substantial than this statement.
I believe the above quoted is a paraphrase of one of OSC's published essays. It certainly rings of something I have read before- especially the part about having a duty to overthrow it "by any means possible." Anyone remember the source?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The attitude expressed by Orincoro encourages closed minds; it fosters stereotypes; it removes possibilities for reconciliation and compromise. It appeals for conflict and conquest rather than thoughtful, passionate debate.
Or it is phrased as a rhetorical challenge to opponents to consider their "reasonable views," in the light of an opposition that doesn't see reason in them. You forget that I make that statement in the midst of passionate debate. Obviously I *do* care what you think Scott, even though I think you're wrong now.
You've called me closed minded before, but every time you do, you reveal that your opinions of me are also set in stone. The fact that I phrase a statement in such a way proves that I am beyond approach? That I am in favor of conquest over reason? Why then am I addressing you at all? Why am I comparing one situation with another in order to reveal the reasoning behind my views? Why am I thinking at all instead of just going out and fighting in the streets?
If you'd like a retraction for the sake of clarity in my argument, then no, I don't really believe that anti-gay marriage people will "never" understand my position. I was using that phrase rhetorically, and not literally. Although, if you break it down, anyone who remains pro-discrimination and does understand and share in the true motivations behind it, as I have characterized them, is proudly full of hate (thus indicating that the common motivations are not as clearly or malevolently defined). It's my sincere hope that people will become aware of the needless prejudice they have against people who are different from them, and let it go. I see that happening in my own state, and I think there's hope.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The only thing I've heard remotely close to this is OSC saying that legalizing gay marriage would be a significant step towards the decadence of western civilization.
OSC's most recent article indeed noted that, should the courts continue to rule in favor of gay marriage, the only option open to "defenders" of traditional marriage would be wholesale replacement of the government "by any means."
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Originally posted by JustAskIndiana:
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: OSC says that people actually wanting to marry each other threatens his civilization and this being made into law would turn him into an enemy of his own government, which he'll attempt to overthrow by any means possible.
This is just straight up false. The only thing I've heard remotely close to this is OSC saying that legalizing gay marriage would be a significant step towards the decadence of western civilization. I've seen 10th grade english essays that would even make Freud shake his head, and yet are still more substantial than this statement.
You want exact quotes? Fine with me.
OSC says: "Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary."
OSC says: "Why should married people feel the slightest loyalty to a government or society that are conspiring to encourage reproductive and/or marital dysfunction in their children? Why should married people tolerate the interference of such a government or society in their family life?"
OSC says: "Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn."
---- What OSC is preaching is quite clear and plain and specific-- he's seeking the (violent if need be) overthrow of any government that attempts to legalize same-sex marriage.
And he justifies that by arguing that the big bad government is teaching his potentially gay children that they may be married to the actual people they love, instead of merely following OSC's wishes to produce him grandchildren.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:And he justifies that by arguing that the big bad government is teaching his potentially gay children that they may be married to the actual people they love, instead of merely following OSC's wishes to produce him grandchildren.
To be fair, OSC seems to think that the differences between the male and female sexes are unbridgeable and wider than that of most other differences. He has written that, given the choice, many people would not want to partner with someone so alien and would prefer same sex marriages.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Another problem is that once a government redefines marriage, it may require the religions under it to conform to that definition.
It would be imposing the belief of some people on other people. It would force parents to further isolate their children from society, because they feel like that society has become harmful to their children.
When a religion believes that the eternal happiness of a person requires a certain set of actions that the government then refutes, then people have good cause to believe that that government is endangering their children AND neighbors and therefore, it is their enemy.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:When a religion believes that the eternal happiness of a person requires a certain set of actions that the government then refutes, then people have good cause to believe that that government is endangering their children AND neighbors and therefore, it is their enemy.
So, if the government allows other religions that yours, you need to violently overthrow it?
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
That is different. In that case, the government is remaining neutral and letting everyone worship how they may.
But when they start to dictate how you must worship, then we have a problem. And forcing a religion to conform to the government's definition of marriage is exactly that. It is also possible that religions won't be forced to do that, but the government will start propoganda against any view that doesn't accept same sex marriage and so won't be acting in a "live and let live" manner as is proper regarding religion but will act in a "live as I say" manner.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amka: Another problem is that once a government redefines marriage, it may require the religions under it to conform to that definition.
Except that it's not, and no one has even suggested that it do so.
quote:It would be imposing the belief of some people on other people.
This is exactly what's happening now. I'm glad you see it as a negative. Now try seeing it as a negative even when it happens to be your beliefs being imposed.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:And he justifies that by arguing that the big bad government is teaching his potentially gay children that they may be married to the actual people they love, instead of merely following OSC's wishes to produce him grandchildren.
To be fair, OSC seems to think that the differences between the male and female sexes are unbridgeable and wider than that of most other differences. He has written that, given the choice, many people would not want to partner with someone so alien and would prefer same sex marriages.
Ridiculous. Men and women aren't alien species. They are each different, not a series of gender stereotypes.
And anyway, I'm attracted to both men and women and seem to want to run off with a man, so I don't know if his idea is the case.
Also, same sex doesn't mean getting along and being happy. Watching football games together if you're men (or ballroom dancing). Or fixing cars together if you're women (Or shopping.) Gay folks have the same sort of challenges straight couples have, only worse in a way because they have to deal with society's scorn.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And if the government were forcing religions to conform to a specific definition of marriage, I'd be against that, pretty strongly.
Given that this is not something that there has been any indications of happening nor something than any sort of significant group is looking for, I don't see how talking about what some hypothetical government may do is relevant.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't think Amka's point was about influence so much as imposition.
***
quote:if you break it down, anyone who remains pro-discrimination and does understand and share in the true motivations behind it, as I have characterized them, is proudly full of hate
I don't think you get to define what motivates those who believe differently than you.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amka: but the government will start propoganda against any view that doesn't accept same sex marriage and so won't be acting in a "live and let live" manner as is proper regarding religion but will act in a "live as I say" manner.
That's not going to happen. Not everyone in the government believes in gay marriage. The government is not a gelatinous blob, but it's made of different people with different views. What could happen is some churches, the more "liberal" ones for lack of a better phrase will preform gay marriages. The conservative ones will not. No big deal. There's always going to a justice of the peace, sea captains and other folks who would perform them. Accepting gays as people and not wolverines at the gate trying to destroy society will not destroy civilization. Instead it's bond to improve it. There are bigger problems in marriage that sometimes get condoned by the church and society. Abuse, neglect, these things haven't gone away. So why not focus on that? Why not focus on how to help people in struggling marriages instead of focusing on gay people this, and gay people that?
It's like OSC's got this frustrating concept that a child is better off growing up with 2 parents even if they are dysfunctonal. This irratating line in the Ender series comes to mind. I don't think it's the case at all. I don't think that this strict view of sex roles helps marriages and society one bit.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
The government may not force conformity, though there will be quite a few cases where that is attempted. And they'll be attempted again and again. The religious beliefs of people are going to subject to judicial proceedings.
There will be propaganda. There already is, but once the government has sanctioned this belief, the propaganda may very easily become government sponsored.
As far as men and women being alien species: I've lived with a man for 17 years and am raising both girls and boys. They come out of the box different, and those differences persist through adulthood and in many ways. Much of the male vilification exists because women expect them to conform to how women act and believe that men should conform because no real difference exists except the man is bigger and can get his way more easily.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Actually, synth, why not focus on abuse? I agree with that. But the agenda of women's movements right now is abortion and gay rights. Not abuse and neglect. Women's movements have left children behind.
But that is another can of worms.
Another problem is that gays have tied up their acceptance in this. I think that's wrong. I would hire a gay person. I would have no problem working with one. I have friends that are gay. So it isn't about hate. It is about what really, truly moves a society forward. And you're going to hate this, but it is the nuclear family. When that breaks down and is attacked, then all of society is going to suffer.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
What if we took all this energy about gay marriage and sought to end spousal and child abuse?
I mean, seriously. Which is more harmful: not getting to have a judge marry a couple or parents beating the crap out of of a kid through their whole childhood?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
No one is attacking and trying to break up the nuclear family. If anything, it's being attacked from within.
And I don't think the women's movement has totally left children behind. It's all of society's responsibility to take care of children and help them reach their potential. One aspect of that would be foster care reform.
I don't get it. All of that men are from mars women are from venus stuff makes me feel like I'm from Saturn because I do not fit these stereotypes. At all. I grew up playing with Hulk action figures and cars, diapering stuffed animals, hating shoes, Barbies, pink and all of that stereotypical female stuff. There are plenty of men and women who just don't fit those notions, and I'm one of them. There's bond to be more, but folks seem to focus on the DIFFERENCE when scientific brain studies only find a handful of differencers (but it seems like women get the best part of the stick in terms of left brain/right brain connectedness and ect.) And most of the books like that seem to say, "men are like this, so suck it up." Which cannot possibly be healthy for a marriage when a man just sits in his cave all day long and a woman just sorts in a well sulking. People are a lot more complicated than that.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amka: What if we took all this energy about gay marriage and sought to end spousal and child abuse?
I mean, seriously. Which is more harmful: not getting to have a judge marry a couple or parents beating the crap out of of a kid through their whole childhood?
I would just counter that conservatives need to stop harping on the gay issue and look out for children and abused women and men instead. Some conservative group took out a full, $20,000 ad about how homosexuality can be cured and how folks could escape from it. What if they, instead of bothering gay people, many who are good hard working people with jobs and families, some even raising children and take a look at how their point of view on some levels creates waaaaaaaaaaay more damage to the nuclear family than gays getting married ever could.
Heck, the disturbing thing is some of these folks, Dobson for example, Pearl and the like totally condone treating children in a way that borders, abuse. In some cases it's full blown abuse, but that sort of thing is so acceptable in very strict circles that it's hardly questioned at all. I think it's way worse systematically hitting a child with a rod in a calm way because the child won't go to bed when you want them to than people being gay or two men or two women marrying so they can have benefits since there are a good deal of gays who have adopted children and had them in other ways.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It's like OSC's got this frustrating concept that a child is better off growing up with 2 parents even if they are dysfunctonal. This irratating line in the Ender series comes to mind.
What irritating line, Syn?
And how did you come to that conclusion that that was what OSC is implying?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amka: What if we took all this energy about gay marriage and sought to end spousal and child abuse?
I mean, seriously. Which is more harmful: not getting to have a judge marry a couple or parents beating the crap out of of a kid through their whole childhood?
Why can't we do both?
I don't see them being mutually exclusive.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Synth,
Accepting that there are differences doesn't mean accepting poor behavior or laziness. That is the stereotype perpetuated to make women feel superior. My husband works hard, and plays with the kids in a different way than I do and cooks in the kitchen and brings me flowers for no reason at all. I would never bring him flowers and he wouldn't want them.
But for instance, when my aunt recently died my husband didn't take me out to lunch or just take me into the bedroom to let me talk. A woman might know to do that. But he also didn't complain when I totally stopped doing much for a few days. That is how a man would act. He wasn't being insensitive. He loves me, but he's going to show it in a different way.
We read the "men are from mars" book just a few years ago, well after it had come out. We hadn't bothered because we don't read psychology books and we thought it was just silly. It didn't tell us anything new, but it did help us connect some of the dots. It wasn't as silly as we thought.
And of course everyone is an individual. I love math and science and science fiction. My superficial aspects make me tend to get along with men better. But the things I want out of a relationship are very female.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Javert,
Society's attention is limited to only a handful of major issues. That's why.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:And you're going to hate this, but it is the nuclear family.
Why do people constantly label me as hating or wanting to destroy the nuclear family, instead of being a very strong supporter of it? I want gays to be able to get married so they can enjoy all the great benefits that come along with a good marriage and form nuclear families. I don't see how this betrays hostility or will elad to the destruction of these two things I prize very dearly.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amka: Javert,
Society's attention is limited to only a handful of major issues. That's why.
Then we need to encourage society to stop being 'one issue voters'.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:And you're going to hate this, but it is the nuclear family.
Why do people constantly label me as hating or wanting to destroy the nuclear family, instead of being a very strong supporter of it? I want gays to be able to get married so they can enjoy all the great benefits that come along with a good marriage and form nuclear families. I don't see how this betrays hostility or will elad to the destruction of these two things I prize very dearly.
Because to the people who use this argument, you can't be for the nuclear family and like dudes at the same time.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
According to at least one definition (George Murdock's) the term nuclear family cannot be applied to homosexual couples:
quote:The family is a social group characterized by common residence, economic cooperation and reproduction. It contains adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and one or more children, own or adopted, of the sexually cohabiting adults.
Maybe you're a supporter of the post-modern family, Squicky.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Nope. I'm a supporter of the nuclear family. George Murdock (whoever that is) is injecting an irrelevant qualification.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But since theists assert that God has a purpose for allowing (and even causing) pain in the world, then this objection doesn't stand against the theist.
But is the definition descriptive or prescriptive? Gay families that look like traditional nuclear families are a relatively recent phenomenon. If they appear to be equivalent in structure and function to a traditional family, then the definition may need to be modified to fit the reality.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I like the family plan that follows the "two cooperative parents w/ children" model.
Might not be nuclear, but gives every indication of working just as well.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I'm a supporter of the nuclear family.
Hmm... I'd argue that the way that the term "nuclear family" is used in today's culture does not fit with the way you've described the type of family you support.
From what you've said here, you support heterosexual and homosexual couples engaged in stable, healthy family living. However, I believe most people in the US would define the nuclear family as George Murdock did; two parents of both genders, with their own or adopted children.
:shrug:
Semantics.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Most people when asked what family consisted of would probably say "a mom and a dad and their kids and..." That doesn't mean that a family can't have two moms or two dads, just that the family archetype in the popular imagination contains parents of each gender. I think this is the same for the nuclear family.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
I believe it is safe to say the thousand year slumber of the Gay Marriage Dragon has ended.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I think extended families would work better in some cases, depending. Then there's always adopting people to be a part of your family too...
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:It's like OSC's got this frustrating concept that a child is better off growing up with 2 parents even if they are dysfunctonal. This irratating line in the Ender series comes to mind.
What irritating line, Syn?
And how did you come to that conclusion that that was what OSC is implying?
It was a line in, I forgot which book. Ender was dying and Valentine told Novinja (Sp) that she had done the right thing staying with her first husband and that it was good for the kids.
But her first husband was abusive and cruel, the whole entire family was messed up partially because of him, the youngest child was immatating his violent ways, the youngest daughter, using her mother as an example in a totally unhealthy way. But Valentine made it sound like it was good for the kids to have him as a father rather than have their biological father who already have a family take responsibility for them.
It bugged me a lot...
And that's not the only time he's used a line like that that got under my skin. What I'm reading of his views in marriage make me think, perhaps inaccurately, that he thinks it's better for kids to have a man and a woman raising them than a single mother, two men or two women even if they were as messed up as Novinua (grr cannot spell it) and her first husband were. It's not just him I pick this vibe up from but quite a few other folks and it's super, mega unhealthy on every level.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:As far as men and women being alien species: I've lived with a man for 17 years and am raising both girls and boys. They come out of the box different, and those differences persist through adulthood and in many ways. Much of the male vilification exists because women expect them to conform to how women act and believe that men should conform because no real difference exists except the man is bigger and can get his way more easily.
My current girlfriend knows me and "gets" me better than all but maybe 3 other people. I have more either in common with her or complementary to her than nearly anyone I've ever known. We do the finishing each other's sentences thing, coming up with the same joke at the same time, etc. There are also many differences between us, as there are between any two people.
But when someone tries to tell me that she is less like me or that I'd be more comfortable in a relationship with 50% of the population than with her, that person is freaking crazy.
People are all, in some ways, alien to each other. One of these differences is the both inborn and acculturated differences based on sex. There are a dizzyingly array of other differences that, in my experience, are not dwarfed or made irrelevant by the differences arising from gender.
But then, I also don't have much experience with cultures that put as strong an emphasis on gender roles as LDS do such that OSC can regard me marrying my girlfriend and her being the primary breadwinner and me being the primary child-carer person (which is likely to be the case) as an affront to marriage. I don't have experience with cultures that promote OSC's idea (which I regard as an attack on marriage) that people naturally shouldn't want to get married but have to because of child raising issues. But I've got to tell you, if you feel stuck having to marry someone who is less compatible with you than any other member of your own gender, if you regard marriage as an unpleasant imposition rather than something that is a great blessing, I feel incredibly sorry for you.
edit: Spelling
[ August 21, 2008, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Regarding the idea that defining opposition to SSM as hate-based is counterproductive, I must disagree. And in this regard, there clearly is a parallel between SSM and racial civil rights in the past: making it seem socially inappropriate to hold a particular view (such as pro-segregationism) can be powerful indeed.
Please note I'm not declaring that stigmatizing anti-SSM viewpoints is necessarily a good thing, or that it would necessarily result in more satisfactory societal movement on the issue. Something very similar has happened with regard to "liberal" viewpoints in this country, and I think it's despicable. But it's certainly arguably not progress-neutral or progress-negative from the point-of-view of a SSM advocate.
I rather wondered, coming into this issue: the question of religion usually seems to be framed as "forcing religions to recognize marriages that are antithetical to their fundamental beliefs," etc., etc. But what of a religion that does perform same-sex marriages and doesn't receive recognition of those rituals in the eyes of the State?
[ August 21, 2008, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There is a lot of hate based opposition to SSM. I think it could be productive for both sides to recognize this.
There is also plenty of people who oppose SSM for reasons other than out of hate for gay people.
There's an interesting question about whether it is more effective (it's not fair, by any means) to lump all them in with the many hateful, ignorant bigots on their side or to address them separately. I don't really know the answer to that.
---
quote:But what of a religion that does perform same-sex marriages and doesn't receive recognition of those rituals in the eyes of the State?
I don't think that's really a fair comparison. The unlikely scenario proposed is that the government will force religions to perform their religious ceremonies for people who the religion doesn't feel merit them. Not recognizing the gay marriage ceremonies with the secular analog doesn't really fit this to me. The government would have to be preventing these religious ceremonies from taking place.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Aren't religions already permitted to discriminate by not performing otherwise legal marriages? I'm pretty sure that a religion can refuse to marry people that are not members of their church or even people of different races. Doesn't the Catholic church refuse to marry divorced people who have not had their previous marriages annulled by the church?
If the right to such discrimination already exists, what is special about gay marriage that churches would all of a sudden be compelled to perform marriages that are contrary to their doctrine?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't think that's really a fair comparison. The unlikely scenario proposed is that the government will force religions to perform their religious ceremonies for people who the religion doesn't feel merit them. Not recognizing the gay marriage ceremonies with the secular analog doesn't really fit this to me. The government would have to be preventing these religious ceremonies from taking place.
I agree that government "forcing" religious groups to perform marriages they disagree with is highly unlikely. My point is more that if one argues the ability to refuse to perform same-sex marriages is a point of religious freedom, isn't a church that *does* want to perform same-sex marriages not having those marriages recognized by the state a kind of persecution as well?
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Mormons have been up that road before. The government will impose restrictions on religious expression if they feel it is bad enough.
"But I think it would be a bad idea." doesn't necessarily mean it won't happen.
As far as the nuclear family goes, it is important that children of both genders have good roll models of both genders and what a good marriage is. I had some experiences in high school that, if I hadn't had a good man as a father, would have made me very angry at all men. If I'd had two mothers instead, they would never have been able to provide for me what my father did without his even knowing it, just by being a good man every day. They wouldn't have known that at that time I really needed a good male role model. And if they'd been the bitter kind (quite within the realm of possibility) I would have been very damaged.
I'm sorry, but even the best of homosexual relationships are starting out the gate at a disadvantage here in regards to parenting. Sure, disadvantages happen. And some of them are the result of government tinkering (no fault marriages). But because chance throws kids into less than ideal situations doesn't mean we should elevate less than ideal situations to the same level as ideal.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:it is important that children of both genders have good roll models of both genders
Only if you have strict ideas of gender roles and insist on propagating those ideas in the next generation.
Otherwise, you get 'normal' people who are just a tad more progressive when it comes to things like "women should do this" or "men should do this".
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I'm sorry, but even the best of homosexual relationships are starting out the gate at a disadvantage here in regards to parenting.
Yeah. That is directly contradicted by the research done on this topic.
The children of gay couples have statistically no more psychological, social, or relationship problems than the children of similar straight couples.
---
There's a big difference between playing what if games and empirical and experimental evidence. Just because you think things would work a certain way or can make up a story where they do doesn't actually mean that this is what happens in reality.
edit: And I'd appreciate it if you stopped accusing me of not caring for the welfare of marriages, families, or children.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Mormons have been up that road before. The government will impose restrictions on religious expression if they feel it is bad enough.
When was that?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Mormons have been up that road before. The government will impose restrictions on religious expression if they feel it is bad enough.
When was that?
Anti-polygamy laws back in the olden days? Persecution?
Trying to rid Native Americans of their native beliefs? That sort of thing happened ages ago. Nowadays if you interfere with someone's religious beliefs, there's always suing or something.
quote:As far as the nuclear family goes, it is important that children of both genders have good roll models of both genders and what a good marriage is.
Gender role models aside (there's always teachers to consider, people within the community who can take up the slack when you have single mothers, grandmothers raising children in my case) many people do NOT get a good, healthy example of what a marriage is. Especially when it comes to things like gender roles becoming too strict, and women not having enough power and say-so in their marriage. That's not a healthy model. Our whole culture has the tendency not to have good examples of marriage in the pop culture. But, I imagine gays can give a loving example better than two heterosexuals in an unhealthy relationship. Nowadays the rules can cross and that's much better. Men can nurture and show affection towards their children, women could know about finances and how to fix their cars. The roles of people are not fixed into strict catergories. They have fixed over the last decades, marriage has shifted over the last decades. I say most of these changes are good ones because at least we are aware of what abuse is and what can be done about it. You can't really say the same thing about the past.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amka: I'm sorry, but even the best of homosexual relationships are starting out the gate at a disadvantage here in regards to parenting. Sure, disadvantages happen. And some of them are the result of government tinkering (no fault marriages). But because chance throws kids into less than ideal situations doesn't mean we should elevate less than ideal situations to the same level as ideal.
Perhaps, in some respects. I can certainly see there being a benefit to a positive role model of both genders at home. But that's a long way from saying that heterosexual unions or marriages are inherently better than homosexual ones. I'd certainly rather see children raised in a loving home by two same-sex parents than an abusive home with two opposite-sex parents. And arguably, the very struggles that same-sex partners are having to go through now in order to have their unions receive public recognition are a testament to their desire to take those unions, and the families that result, seriously, a testament notably lacking in many heterosexual marriages these days.
We live in an era of an increasing number of non-traditional families: children raised by uncles and aunts, by grandparents, by single parents (hopefully with supportive communities.) We're also seeing a tremendous number of children in a heavily stressed foster care and adoption system. I think recognizing the worth of dedicated same-sex families with strong commitments, rather than marginalizing them, might well work to the benefit of society.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Amka,
You seem to be making bunch of assumptions about what influences a child needs and some rather limited ideas of where those influences can be obtained.
And even given all of that, do we discriminate against every non-ideal situation? Should we prevent really poor people from marrying and having kids?
We let any old man and woman marry and have kids. There's no way to determine whether either will be a positive influence on their children. There a lot of kids that would be better off in a good gay marriage than a bad hetero one.
Also, gays are already pairing up and raising children. Given that this already occurs, shouldn't be provide the best possible environment for these kids by removing the stigma of having unmarried parents and providing all the rights and benefits to their parents that other parents have?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Regarding the idea that defining opposition to SSM as hate-based is counterproductive, I must disagree.
Why?
quote: And in this regard, there clearly is a parallel between SSM and racial civil rights in the past: making it seem socially inappropriate to hold a particular view (such as pro-segregationism) can be powerful indeed.
This could be said for any viewpoint for any topic.
quote: I'm sorry, but even the best of homosexual relationships are starting out the gate at a disadvantage here in regards to parenting.
It depends. Where a person values two gender-models in order to imprint certain gender roles, than this viewpoint is certainly true.
Where gender roles are not valued as much, it is not true.
quote:I also don't have much experience with cultures that put as strong an emphasis on gender roles as LDS do such that OSC can regard me marrying my girlfriend and her being the primary breadwinner and me being the primary child-carer person (which is likely to be the case) as an affront to marriage.
I can't speak for OSC, but I can for LDS doctrine. There's nothing in our doctrine that mandates that a woman as the primary breadwinner and a man as the primary nurturer is an affront to marriage.
Here is the doctrine on it:
quote:By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.
quote:I don't have experience with cultures that promote OSC's idea (which I regard as an attack on marriage) that people naturally shouldn't want to get married but have to because of child raising issues.
I don't think he's ever argued "shouldn't." I think that he's actually right about the biological urges humans face, and the civilizing influence that history imposes upon us. I think that he's arguing in favor of civilization-- that civilization is the "should."
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I can't speak for OSC, but I can for LDS doctrine. There's nothing in our doctrine that mandates that a woman as the primary breadwinner and a man as the primary nurturer is an affront to marriage.
The quoted text you provided surely seems to strongly suggest gender roles even if it doesn't mandate them. Then again, the text you responded to didn't say anything about mandating roles, it said there was a "strong emphasis" on them.
He also didn't say "doctrine", he said "culture." The culture definitely defines gender roles. Men and women attend gender-segregated Sunday school sessions every week, have gender-specific church sanctioned activities, even separate gender-specific portions of General Conference to view.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I can't speak for OSC, but I can for LDS doctrine. There's nothing in our doctrine that mandates that a woman as the primary breadwinner and a man as the primary nurturer is an affront to marriage.
The quoted text you provided surely seems to strongly suggest gender roles even if it doesn't mandate them. Then again, the text you responded to didn't say anything about mandating roles, it said there was a "strong emphasis" on them.
He also didn't say "doctrine", he said "culture." The culture definitely defines gender roles. Men and women attend gender-segregated Sunday school sessions every week, have gender-specific church sanctioned activities, even separate gender-specific portions of General Conference to view.
I was responding to the word "affront." EDIT: I could have been clearer about that, I suppose...
Yes, there are generally defined gender roles, but doctrinally, there's no restriction or institutionalized discipline for men and women who don't follow them. EDIT #2: ...that is, within marriage. If Mom works, and Dad stays at home to take care of the children; or if both parents work; there's no Church discipline against them.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Ah. Well the affronting was referring to conclusions OSC was reaching based on the doctrinal/cultural gender role pressures. I can see, based on the doctrine and cultural situation, someone coming to the position that nontraditional marriage was an affront and indeed I have heard as much from individual church members multiple times.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Regarding the idea that defining opposition to SSM as hate-based is counterproductive, I must disagree.
Why?
I believe I said why, but to summarize: to the point of engaging those who oppose SSM, it may be considered counter-productive, but that relies on the notion that the objective is to change the minds of those who oppose SSM. If the objective is instead to marginalize the viewpoint, it could be quite productive, whether or not that tactic should be considered appropriate.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote: And in this regard, there clearly is a parallel between SSM and racial civil rights in the past: making it seem socially inappropriate to hold a particular view (such as pro-segregationism) can be powerful indeed.
This could be said for any viewpoint for any topic.
Frankly, that's not remotely true. If I prefer red to blue, or feel the Atkins diet is a superior method of weight loss, or hold that democracy is superior to dictatorship, it's going to be a monumental stretch to make me feel that my view is socially inappropriate. Issues that border on civil rights are far more likely to bring such matters to bear, in part because, to one side, it appears that some people are being denied rights largely because it makes a larger group of people uncomfortable. There are a great many issues that would never be framed that way.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amka: Another problem is that once a government redefines marriage, it may require the religions under it to conform to that definition.
This will not happen. We have the first amendment for a reason.
"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."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:if you break it down, anyone who remains pro-discrimination and does understand and share in the true motivations behind it, as I have characterized them , is proudly full of hate
I don't think you get to define what motivates those who believe differently than you.
(Emphasis mine). Which is why I framed it in that way. I am acknowledging that the stated motivations and justifications are different, and that I as a pro-ssm advocate would seek to show that anti-ssm people are suborning and encouraging hate and repression of a minority, whether they think they are or not.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: And that's not the only time he's used a line like that that got under my skin. What I'm reading of his views in marriage make me think, perhaps inaccurately, that he thinks it's better for kids to have a man and a woman raising them than a single mother, two men or two women even if they were as messed up as Novinua (grr cannot spell it) and her first husband were. It's not just him I pick this vibe up from but quite a few other folks and it's super, mega unhealthy on every level.
Meh, well, I objected to Novinia as a ch aracter on virtually every level. I just, for the life of me, didn't understand what she was meant to show about human nature in any of the books. Nothing good, it seems; she was a horrifying parody of the "strong woman." Maybe that was the point, but I was certainly never sympathetic.
quote: If I prefer red to blue, or feel the Atkins diet is a superior method of weight loss, or hold that democracy is superior to dictatorship, it's going to be a monumental stretch to make me feel that my view is socially inappropriate. Issues that border on civil rights are far more likely to bring such matters to bear, in part because, to one side, it appears that some people are being denied rights largely because it makes a larger group of people uncomfortable. There are a great many issues that would never be framed that way.
QFT
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I can see, based on the doctrine and cultural situation, someone coming to the position that nontraditional marriage was an affront and indeed I have heard as much from individual church members multiple times.
Squick's point wasn't about non-traditional marriage ; it was about gender roles within a traditional marriage, as viewed by OSC and by the Mormon church.
Here's his quote:
quote:I also don't have much experience with cultures that put as strong an emphasis on gender roles as LDS do such that OSC can regard me marrying my girlfriend and her being the primary breadwinner and me being the primary child-carer person (which is likely to be the case) as an affront to marriage.
Do you see the difference between what you're arguing and what he has argued?
quote:making it seem socially inappropriate to hold a particular view [...] can be powerful indeed.
Do you truly not see how this statement can be utilized by either side of any argument?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I imagine it could be used by either side of any argument, but in a great many arguments (arguably, the vast majority), it would be approximately as useful as a rubber spatula as a tool for pulling nails.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
quote:making it seem socially inappropriate to hold a particular view [...] can be powerful indeed.
But it gets us no closer to the truth. It is a method that can just as easily be used to enact evil as good.
Synth:
quote:Gender role models aside (there's always teachers to consider, people within the community who can take up the slack when you have single mothers, grandmothers raising children in my case) many people do NOT get a good, healthy example of what a marriage is.
So how will making homosexual marriage legal improve this? Are homosexuals more stable in their relationships?
Besides, in my case, the teachers made things worse. They are typically poor substitutes for a parent.
MattP
quote:You seem to be making bunch of assumptions about what influences a child needs and some rather limited ideas of where those influences can be obtained.
I presume to know because I took parenting seriously. I've read books, I’ve read studies, I’ve listened to my pediatrician (whose well visits often involve questions about how my husband involves himself and his feelings). Parents are role models, and they’re gender role models as well. To show a negative example: fathers who abuse their wives tend to raise sons who will then abuse their wives.
There are few good substitutes for parental role models, and those usually involve closely related family members such as a grandparent or uncle.
As far as studies go (someone mentioned that), they all suffer from the same design problem: self selection. These studies are comparing people who wish to participate in a study about the effect or non-effect of (usually) lesbian parenting. The bias is already built into the study. Further problems involve the design of questions as well as biased subjective answers to those questions. Any time any psychological or sociological study must recruit volunteers, the conclusions of that study cannot be taken as representative of the whole population.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So how will making homosexual marriage legal improve this? Are homosexuals more stable in their relationships?
More stable than many heterosexuals? Yes. Absolutely. Than all heterosexuals? Probably not. Is it your opinion that only ideal heterosexuals should be allowed to marry and raise children?
quote:To show a negative example: fathers who abuse their wives tend to raise sons who will then abuse their wives.
Why do you think this is a gender model and not merely an adulthood model?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:As far as studies go (someone mentioned that), they all suffer from the same design problem: self selection. These studies are comparing people who wish to participate in a study about the effect or non-effect of (usually) lesbian parenting. The bias is already built into the study.
I'm not sure I follow. Lesbian parents who self-select for studies are good at providing that certain je ne sais quoi that only a father can provide? How do they manage it if having two different genders is so key?
You still seem to be arguing for an ideal which many heterosexual marriages don't live up to while acknowledging that at least some non-heterosexual marriages do a good job of.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amka: Any time any psychological or sociological study must recruit volunteers, the conclusions of that study cannot be taken as representative of the whole population.
That's a big fat whopping over-statement. It depends on what's being studied, along with a host of additional variables. You're just talking about studies in which there may be a self-selection bias- that isn't all studies. There are plenty of studies conducted where the fact that the participants are volunteers doesn't matter. There are also many ways in which studies attempt to control for this factor so that their results are representative and reproducible. I'm not a sociologist, but it takes about one class in sociology (and one in psych) to learn that. If we just rejected every study ever done on a group of volunteers, we'd be throwing out a lot of useful information.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
On one hand, lesbian parents who volunteer for a study probably think they're better-than-average in their parenting skills and how they treat their child. In that regard (only those who are reasonably certain they'll demonstrate positive parenting volunteering for such a study), there may be a self-selection bias.
But on the other hand, that's probably true for the heterosexual parents who are the "control" for said study as well.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:More stable than many heterosexuals? Yes. Absolutely. Than all heterosexuals? Probably not.
Tom, didn't you argue recently that legitimizing homosexual marriage would bring stability to homosexual relationships that isn't there right now?
Maybe I'm remembering someone else.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Marrying and living together happily ever after with the person you love is still seen as an ideal in our culture, no matter how much it has decayed in practice.
You can't reject gay marriages without rejecting the very worth of commited monogamy in the whole of society.
OSC at least takes it to its logical outcome of arguing that gay people should not have gay sex, and instead marry people of the opposite gender and reproduce. I've attacked him as non-sane before, but at least his irrationality has a consistency in parts of it. If he sees commitment only worth anything for the sake of reproduction, then yeah: little sense in gay marriages.
And then he screws it up by ALSO claiming "When a heterosexual couple cannot have children, their faithful marriage still affirms, in the eyes of other people's children, the universality of the pattern of marriage."
Gee, you'd think OSC would understand that it's this same universal pattern of commitment to a single partner that same-sex marriage would also affirm. That if non-reproductive hetero marriages still affirm a valuable lesson, the same holds for non-reproductive homosexual marriages.
So yeah -- still irrational, still insane, still babbling with contradictory arguments that make absolutely no sense.
Like all those (even more self-contradictory ones) who claim to be "defending marriage" while at the same time saying that gay people don't gain anything from being married, there's no value to them being married, they can just keep having their homosexual relationships as is.
That's a new sort of "defense", I guess. "Defending" marriage by calling it utterly useless and meaningless.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, didn't you argue recently that legitimizing homosexual marriage would bring stability to homosexual relationships that isn't there right now?
Sure did. I think a lot of the problems facing long-term homosexual relationships are due to general societal disapproval of homosexual relationships, and social acceptance/reinforcement of those relationships should have all kinds of ancillary benefits. That said, individual homosexual relationships are still capable of remarkable stability; it's not possible to tell whether a given relationship is stable or not simply by identifying the genders of the people involved.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
And to clarify further: If OSC was to really be consistent in this manner, he'd be arguing in favour of making automatically invalid all the marriages of infertile people.
Those infertile people wouldn't be affirming any "reproductive pattern", the same way that gay couples don't.
The same way he has in his stories gay people forgo gay sex and instead marry and reproduce with people of the opposite gender, he'd have fertile people forgo their infertile partners and find fertile partners.
Abraham would not only sleep with Sarah's servantwoman, he'd divorce Sarah and marry the servantwoman instead. Hence affirming the universal pattern of reproductive hetero couples, I guess.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tom, do you see where your points seem to conflict?
1) Homosexual relatioships are stable;
2) Homosexual relationships aren't stable because they can't be married.
In any case, #2's need isn't answered by legislation, but by widespread cultural approval. There's a difference.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: In any case, #2's need isn't answered by legislation, but by widespread cultural approval. There's a difference.
So the only way you'll be happy with homosexual marriage being legal is if the majority of people in the country support it? More than the majority? Everyone?
There's something to be said about not polling the foxes for their opinion on what to do with the hen house.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
1) Individual homosexual relationships can be, and have been, very stable, despite cultural and societal stigma.
2) Said legislation may not eliminate said stigma, but it removes many legal and social disadvantages that homosexual couples have compared to heterosexual married couples.
Furthermore, there's a slight difference between "Some people in this country don't want us to be married" and "The government of my country will not allow us to be married", at least in terms of societal pressure.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Javert:
My happiness isn't at question here.
Tom's point (summarized in my bullet #2) was that legalization of homosexual marriage would lead to greater general stabilization of homosexual relationships.
He also said, however:
quote:I think a lot of the problems facing long-term homosexual relationships are due to general societal disapproval of homosexual relationships, and social acceptance/reinforcement of those relationships should have all kinds of ancillary benefits.
Legal approval doesn't mean social approval; legally being married DOES NOT mean that homosexual relationships will perforce be stabilized, because there's a social element in action that does not necessarily regard law.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Legal approval doesn't mean social approval; legally being married DOES NOT mean that homosexual relationships will perforce be stabilized, because there's a social element in action that does not necessarily regard law.
That's true as far as it goes - the social approval does not necessarily follow from legal approval. But there are significant reasons to think it would.
quote:There's something to be said about not polling the foxes for their opinion on what to do with the hen house.
That's an inapt analogy. Most people who oppose same sex marriage are the hens and roosters already in the house (or who already have legal access to the house and anticipate being there at some time in the future).
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:There's something to be said about not polling the foxes for their opinion on what to do with the hen house.
That's an inapt analogy. Most people who oppose same sex marriage are the hens and roosters already in the house (or who already have legal access to the house and anticipate being there at some time in the future).
I'm reminded of the Charlie Brown special where they had the river race. The girls all voted that the girls got to stay in the cabin and the boys had to stay outside, without giving the boys a vote.
There's a reason this country isn't a pure democracy.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malachin1: Ancient cultures had plenty of homosexuality and even the Greeks, that most esteemed of ancient learned cultures was accepting of the practice.
Are you really suggesting that "This is SPAAAAARRRRRTAAA"?
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
There's no conflict. While homosexual relationships need more stability, arguing against permitting homosexuals to marry because this might cause a child to be adopted into an unstable situation is an untenable argument as long as we do not screen heterosexual marriages for stability; there is greater variation of parental ability within the sphere of heterosexual marriages than there is between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.
quote:Legal approval doesn't mean social approval; legally being married DOES NOT mean that homosexual relationships will perforce be stabilized, because there's a social element in action that does not necessarily regard law.
If legal approval doesn't ultimately influence social approval, I doubt people would be fighting against this so hard. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:While homosexual relationships need more stability, arguing against permitting homosexuals to marry because this might cause a child to be adopted into an unstable situation is an untenable argument as long as we do not screen heterosexual marriages for stability; there is greater variation of parental ability within the sphere of heterosexual marriages than there is between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.
I don't see how this relates to the points I raised. Can you explain?
quote:If legal approval doesn't ultimately influence social approval, I doubt people would be fighting against this so hard.
Okay.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Tom, do you see where your points seem to conflict?
1) Homosexual relatioships are stable;
2) Homosexual relationships aren't stable because they can't be married.
In any case, #2's need isn't answered by legislation, but by widespread cultural approval. There's a difference.
Maybe I should let Tom answer for himself, but I want to point out that you misunderstood his two points. This would be closer:
1) Homosexual relationships CAN be stable, and many are.
2) Legal SSM (and the social tolerance that would both reflect and engender) would remove potential obstacles to the stability of SOME homosexual relationships.
Here's an analogy for the second point: Many hetero couples can be happy together, and under the right circumstances have a successful marriage. But for some people that would otherwise be fine, having a hostile set of in-laws can cause a marriage to fail. Of course, some people can succeed in marriage despite the hostile in laws, but not everyone can. It would improve the average stability of these hetero relationships if all the in laws would play nice.
(Not equating opposition to SSM to hostile in laws in terms of character or motivation! Just illustrating how the points can both be true.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm sorry, but even the best of homosexual relationships are starting out the gate at a disadvantage here in regards to parenting. Sure, disadvantages happen.
Yikes. Take 'homosexual' and replace it with 'interracial' and this could be straight out of the playbook of the anti-miscegenation crowd from half a century or so ago.
The more things change rite
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: And to clarify further: If OSC was to really be consistent in this manner, he'd be arguing in favour of making automatically invalid all the marriages of infertile people.
Those infertile people wouldn't be affirming any "reproductive pattern", the same way that gay couples don't.
Well, if the logic was entirely consistent, then he would be insisting that older male widowers be encouraged to marry younger women who are still fertile.
An infertile or elderly women would be of no use in the marriage for "reproductive pattern" equation.
But wait, this mode of thought suggests that the only value of women is their ability to reproduce. It can't be that this whole argument boils down to good old fashioned latent misogyny... right?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I'm sorry, but even the best of homosexual relationships are starting out the gate at a disadvantage here in regards to parenting. Sure, disadvantages happen.
Yikes. Take 'homosexual' and replace it with 'interracial' and this could be straight out of the playbook of the anti-miscegenation crowd from half a century or so ago.
The more things change rite
Or "disabled," or "Athiest," or "poor," or "immigrant."
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"But wait, this mode of thought suggests that the only value of women is their ability to reproduce. It can't be that this whole argument boils down to good old fashioned latent misogyny... right?"
I have been telling myself that his views are a confluence between his personality and his Mormon upbringing.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It fills me with the urge to curse.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
*sigh*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The thing that's sad about this quote --
quote:The claims of those who support gay marriage rest entirely on the idea that science has proved several things...
-- is that I've had this conversation with OSC, and none of my claims (as a supporter of gay marriage) rest entirely on any proofs of science, much less the ones he chose to list.
Interestingly, his secular opposition to gay marriage seems to rest entirely on this:
quote:The cultures that last longest are the ones that maximize the reproductive opportunities and security of the largest number of their members. They must believe that they have a fair chance to reproduce, must be reasonably sure that the children they raise are their own, and must trust that society will provide mating opportunities for their adult children and not act to interfere with their reproductive success.
If it were proven that certain homosexual behaviors maximized reproductive success, then, would OSC change his mind on this subject? Alternately, if a form of relationship were found to improve security and reproductive opportunities beyond what is offered by modern marriage, would OSC immediately call for this new form to be adopted and recognized?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I must stop annoying myself because it gives me a stomach ache but-
quote:We expect heterosexual males -- males who are expressing the very drive that leads to reproduction of the genes, and which in other primate species is often expressed as rape -- to be able to recognize that "no means no" at every stage of wooing and coition.
No... Rape and a sex drive is an entirelly different thing.
I've had enough. It's just too irratating.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Interestingly, his secular opposition to gay marriage seems to rest entirely on this:
quote:The cultures that last longest are the ones that maximize the reproductive opportunities and security of the largest number of their members. They must believe that they have a fair chance to reproduce, must be reasonably sure that the children they raise are their own, and must trust that society will provide mating opportunities for their adult children and not act to interfere with their reproductive success.
That's... Genuinely boggling.
I don't mean, "that's ridiculous" or "that's stupid" or "that's hateful"; I mean, I genuinely cannot quite put myself inside that mindset, unless I'm misunderstanding it or imagining it far more narrowly than the author intended. "Ability to reproduce"- no qualifiers- as the drive for civilization?
I mean, on a very basic and- I would think- obvious level, the ability of everyone to have as many children as they possibly can must eventually begin to put a strain on a civilization. Imagine the problems that have been postulated for the "Baby Boom" generation increased by an order of magnitude.
There are so many things that are so much more important to me than a maximized ability to reproduce, not least of which being that any children I do have are given the maximum ability to achieve their full potential, including in a plethora of ways that have absolutely nothing to do with their own ability to reproduce. And that potential may well actually be threatened by large population who feel their best measure of success is their own ability to increase that population as quickly as possible.
If there were an n that defined members of a successful civilization, I would think ability to breed would be only a part of it.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
I don't think that OSC even grasps how offensive his comparisons to rape are. At this point, he's proving himself to be so ludicrous in both an ethical and a logical level that I can't get mad at him, any more than I couldn't get mad at at a toddler for not grasping multiplication.
quote:"But there can be no serious question that homosexuality, to the degree that it cannot be overcome or outlasted, is a reproductive dysfunction."
No more than celibacy is, and yet OSC has never argued that virgin women must be encouraged to have sex and get pregnant. Gay men in his stories get married and have children, why don't his Catholic priests and nuns ever do?
quote:"There are, however, different ways of living with homosexual desires."
And there's also different ways of living with desires of celibacy. But OSC considers celibacy to be normal and non-problematic, and he considers homosexuality to be abnormal and problematic, even though they're equally non-reproductive.
quote:"Wouldn't we prevent dyslexia, if we could?"
Yeah -- we must find the celibate gene / psychological affliction that must be striking all those priests and nuns, and cure them of their affliction. Forcefully. They're reproductively diseased after all.
As yet, he's still not given us the slightest evidence that homosexuality should be considered an "affliction", except in the sense that certain parts of society don't like it. OSC wants all his non-celibate people to hetero married and producing children, NO MATTER WHETHER THEY WANT IT THEMSELVES OR NOT.
I'd ask OSC to ask his homosexual friends whether they feel that it's the homosexuality itself that causes them the greater misery or whether it's society's attitude towards homosexuality.
And if it's society's ATTITUDE towards homosexuality that's causing the misery, not the homosexuality itself --- then it's society's ATTITUDE that must be seen as the dysfunction to be cured.
But you won't see OSC bashing society's complete acceptance of celibacy in priests and nuns. No, you merely see him bashing its acceptance of homosexuality instead.
The ironic thing is that because homosexuality *is* partially gene-based, his continuous attempts to drive homosexuality underground into "normal reproductive patterns" probably means that more homosexual people get born in the next generation.
If he only urged people that actually want to reproduce to do so, he'd probably get fewer gay people in the next generation (and more importantly, less unhappiness all around).
Since I don't care one way or another about the number of gay people out there, I only care that those people who are gay are allowed full equality, that outcome is completely neutral to me.
But OSC, so eager for so-called "reproductive normality" ought be urging gay people to be gay at each other, EXACTLY so that they're not forced to pass their supposedly flawed genes to the next generation.
[ August 25, 2008, 03:51 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:The ironic thing is that because homosexuality *is* partially gene-based, his continuous attempts to drive homosexuality underground into "normal reproductive patterns" probably means that more homosexual people get born in the next generation.
It doesn't work that way. There is some evidence that homosexuality in one sibling is associated with increased fertility in the others, especially those of the opposite sex. It is also more likely that a second or third child of a certain sex will be gay. A large part of this process appears to be hormonal levels in the child, but every single individual reacts to hormonal levels in a different way, and has a unique chemistry.
Now, the fact that hormonal levels affect sexual orientation does not make homosexuals "diseased." It's more like being tall, being artistic, being athletic, or being shy. Your brain just develops the way it develops, and that's who you are. There are some things, on that level, that can't be changed for love or money, and along with that, it's *who* these people are. The idea that OSC loves some individual gays is in itself a contradiction: those people could not exist in another way- their sexuality is not on the surface, they're not all victims of sexual abuse, and they aren't all damaged goods.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:
quote:The ironic thing is that because homosexuality *is* partially gene-based, his continuous attempts to drive homosexuality underground into "normal reproductive patterns" probably means that more homosexual people get born in the next generation.
It doesn't work that way. There is some evidence that homosexuality in one sibling is associated with increased fertility in the others, especially those of the opposite sex
Uh, that's true, but I don't see how what you said contradicted what I said in any manner.
This fertility in the sibling is presumably not affected by whether the gay sibling is ALSO reproducing or not. If both siblings are reproducing then, if anything, "gay genes" are passed to more people in the next generations, than if only the straight sibling was reproducing.
If OSC really wants the "affliction" to go extinct, its counterproductive of him to be urging gay people to procreate.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Gay men in his stories get married and have children, why don't his Catholic priests and nuns ever do?
The Children of the Mind of Christ were certainly married, and in Speaker for the Dead, when Andrew meets with Bishop Peregrino, they talk about the Speaking he did for the founder of the Filhos. Andrew mentions that the founder of the Filhos WANTED those who belonged to his order to leave it eventually and reproduce.
quote:OSC has never argued that virgin women must be encouraged to have sex and get pregnant.
Not in so few words, and usually he talks about marriage and stable relationships first. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amka: I presume to know because I took parenting seriously. I've read books, I’ve read studies, I’ve listened to my pediatrician (whose well visits often involve questions about how my husband involves himself and his feelings). Parents are role models, and they’re gender role models as well. To show a negative example: fathers who abuse their wives tend to raise sons who will then abuse their wives.
There are few good substitutes for parental role models, and those usually involve closely related family members such as a grandparent or uncle.
As far as studies go (someone mentioned that), they all suffer from the same design problem: self selection. These studies are comparing people who wish to participate in a study about the effect or non-effect of (usually) lesbian parenting. The bias is already built into the study. Further problems involve the design of questions as well as biased subjective answers to those questions. Any time any psychological or sociological study must recruit volunteers, the conclusions of that study cannot be taken as representative of the whole population.
I've got a few problems with these objections.
1) While the self-selection bias introduces a source of error, this can be overcome in several ways.
-- One by using a hypothesis of a binary nature. You're asserting that there is a universal lack in same sex parents. I assuem that there are specific ways that you'll assert that they are worse. That's what has been done. People have put forth "This will be a difference between children of mixed sex parents and those of same sex parents." If this is true and more or less universal, this should be no problem with a volunteer subject pool. Remember, you're claiming that all same sex parents have a universal fault, not just the ones who wouldn't volunteer for a survey.
Second, you can do it with numbers. A large enough sample set vitiates these errors. I was going through some of the studies about this, counting the sample sizes. When I got to a little over 900, I stopped. That's 1800 or so parents didn't fit into your unavoidably deficient characterization.
2) While many of the studies relied on volunteers answering questionaires, many did not. Not only were there various designs that selected the school kids to study (these were opt out, but didn't rely on volunteers), but there were also studies built off of standardized mandatory assessments of adopted children.
3) As I mentioned above, many of the assessments were standardized, meaning that your assertion that the questions were biased is incorrect.
-- As an aside, I resent your assertions that I and my colleages don't care about integrity or the welfare of children. The facts aren't what you want to believe shouldn't give you license to commit personal attacks. Besides the unjust nature of your attack on the field as a whole, it's telling to me that there are several people (myself included) who started out believing, as you did, that children raised by same sex parents would tend to be somewhat worse off in some areas than those raised by mixed sex parents, but changed their view as the data didn't show this.
---
I'd like to know, which studies and which books have you read that show that same sex parents are worse than mixed sexed? I am not aware of them.
I can't speak to what you talked about with your pediatrician. I can however say that the American Academy of Pediatrics
quote:recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Regarding the 1973 decision by the APA, we had an uncontentious thread about the history here
I'll quote myself:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The 1973/74 decision took place within the context of two wider cultural shifts that may make what happened somewhat clearer.
The first was a redefintition of the purpose of sex across the cultural board. The introduction of effective, reliable contraception and the century or so of efforts by contraception advocates had brought about a sharp change in the public perception of the purpose of sex. As the physical reality of sex leading to reproduction had been largely obviated, the idea that sex was primarily about reproduction was also falling by the wayside. By the 70s, even the Catholic Church had altered it's millenia-old view of sex by raising pleasure from a secondary role to procreation to of equal importance. Though thwarted by papal intervention, a commission called in 1966 even said that there was no reason in doctrine or practice for the Church to be against birth control. Outside the sexual arch-conservatism of the Catholic Church, the idea that sex solely for pleasure was ok and even healthy became widely accepted.
More specifically, the 50s and 60s saw a widespread attack on the two dominant schools of psychology, Pschyoanalytic (the traditioanl couch jockeys - pretty much like Freudian) and Behavioral (what of the rewards and punishments, Pavlov, Thorndike, Watson, and such). Experimental analysis of the predictions of these two theories often found them wanting. In the field of psychopathology, new therapies were being developed and applied with remarkable sucess. Albert Ellis and others developed treatments based on their patients cognitions, fueling the fledgling Cognitive school of psychology. Advances is the biological understanding of the brain led to the development of a wide array of pharmocological treatments.
As these two schools of psychology weakened, so did their way of approaching and defining psychopathology. Several people touched on the idea of homosexuality as a deviation. That what the inital definition of what was a mental illness relied on: deviations. A person was sick when they deviated from most people in society, from what society expected of them, and most importantly, from what the theory the therapist adhered to said was normal.
There was a growing dissatisfaction with this theoretical orientation, both from people who believed the the theories involved were highly flawed and from people who were noticing the problems with labeling people as "ill" and that some of the people so labeled didn't seem to be having any real problems.
While there were isolated extremists such as Thomas Szasz before this, these issues really came to a head when the gay activists used sophisticated (and some not so sophisticated) political protests to force confrontations at APA meetings during 1972 and 73. Out of these confrontations, there developed a dialogue between the APA and these activists and within the APA as homosexual members came forward (although, as the NPR piece points out usually in some sort of disguise) to discuss why, actually, homosexuality should be considered a disorder.
First in comittee and then, in 1974, by the whole APA membership, the determination was made that there didn't exist sufficient evidence to say that gay people should actually be considered intrinsically sick. Due in large part to the agitation and forcing of the issue, the APA membership moved towards a characterization of psychopathology that now seems inevitible. Rather than basing their judgements of what was sick and what was healthy on the predictionsof theories, they analyzed people's functioning and drafted condtions by which it could be considered impaired.
The rest of the 70s was characterized by a re-evaluation of the field of psychotherapy under this different standard of pathology. This can be seen clearly reflected in the change from the DSM-II to the DSM-III in 1980.
---
The actual history and progression of this is much messier and more prone to politcs than I'm making out. Check out the NPR piece or some of the other reasoures. There's great stories involved here and the decisions and divisions that sprang out of this are still active today, some in places you wouldn't expect.
Also, it's important to note that, while it would be silly to say that there isn't an air of endorsement of homosexuality to this decision (which is borne out by later APA actions), the APA doesn't consider the DSM as a standard for judging what's right and what's wrong. Removing it as a classification doesn't mean that they were saying that it was right, just that it didn't fit the qualifications for being considered a mental illness. There's actually at least one interesting interview with an APA member who agreed with this decision but still considered homosexuality wrong. I'll see if I can find a on-line version of it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure, but it seems to me that the rest of OSC's article is patently absurd enough that there isn't really a need for me to bring up the actual science to rebut it. Is this other people's impression? I don't mean people who were critical to begin with. Is there anyone who thinks "Well, that's a cogent article that makes good points and accurately represents the current science on this issue."?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I do agree with OSC that genes should never be used to excuse any behavior. Regardless of our genetic makeup, we should still be held accountable for our actions. Someone may have the gene for aggression, but there are numerous ways that they can deal with that extra aggression. In my experience, most geneticists would agree with me on that point (I am a genetic researcher so these issues come up frequently).
So while I think homosexual actions can be avoided, I think that being able to limit your activities does not mean you should. In order to argue that a desire should be repressed, you must establish that the activity does harm.
While I personally believe that God does not want us to engage in that activity, I don't think that alone is justification for restricting others. I believe God wants everyone to attend my specific church, but I would never dream of forcing people into church.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm not sure, but it seems to me that the rest of OSC's article is patently absurd enough that there isn't really a need for me to bring up the actual science to rebut it. Is this other people's impression?
I think there's a need to bring up the actual science to rebut it, because positions such as those expressed by OSC direly need to be addressed.
At the same time, science really isn't a critical concern for him. The whole attempt in his latest article to discredit the 'scientific' premises lending support to equal marriage rights for gays is an errant attempt to lend legitimacy to his whole idea that marriage should be about ensuring maximally efficient procreation in society. And that whole hackneyed argument is only an attempt to say that his opposition to gay marriage is not religious.
It's so disingenuous it makes my head spin, but I'm especially grated by the 'don't get me wrong, I have gay friends' part.
Bag of nickels, etc.
What is this, honestly.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: OSC:
Therefore, our scientific efforts in regard to homosexuality should be to identify genetic and uterine causes, as well as environmental and social influences that put their children at greater risk of this reproductive dysfunction so that the incidence of this dysfunction can be minimized, and where it occurs anyway its negative effects on the individual and the rest of society can be minimized.
This is Eugenics.
The danger is in the assumptions he's making, and the prescription he suggests shows why the assumptions are dangerous.
It's weirdly ironic that OSC would involve himself in a creatonist attack on Darwinism, call Hitler a Darwinist, by association linking the theory of natural selection with eugenics and therefore fascism, and then come full circle and espouse eugenics himself while rationalizing his idea with lip-service to Darwinism...
It shows pretty clearly that he has a deeply flawed understanding of Darwinism to begin with.
Just to be clear, the problem with OSC's assumption (and he has no problem whatsoever dismissing any study he doesn't agree with, so this shouldn't be shocking to him), the jury really IS out on why homosexuality happens. But the fact that it happens is not proof positive that it is a de facto problem, or as he puts it "sexual dysfunction." This has never been established scientifically.
OSC again acknowledges that sexual identity exists on a spectrum which is observable. However, he fails to allow for the possibility that this spectrum is a functional aspect of human development, and that it may itself be an adaptive part of our makeup as human beings.
For instance, plasticity in sexual identification may be, and probably is, related to birth order. This may be important for the way that families develop, so that the environment a person grows up in, say with 3 sisters or 2 brothers or a brother and a sister, does have an effect on that person's own identification. If we start blithely monkeying with a process that has been going on since the dawn of time, trying to pre-program the place of every child on the sexual-identity spectrum, we have NO IDEA of the consequences. For all we really know, monkeying with our sexual-identity formation process could destroy vital aspects of the nuclear family, having entirely the opposite effect as would be intended.
The fact that there are pedophiles and sex addicts in the world, and the fact that these problems, which demonstrably harm people, are caused by our environments is not proof that all environmental effects are negative. Else, OSC would encourage that children NOT be raised by their parents, lest their parents in some way damage them. It's clear that OSC is aware that the environment can have positive effects, and there's no reason to dismiss out of hand that gender identity is not meant to be plastic in youth. There are many concievable reasons why it should be.
That is why Eugenics is a bad idea: it presupposes that there is an "ideal" state for human beings, just as OSC is suggesting, and that deviation from that state is dysfunction. The plain fact that there are no two alike human beings demonstrates the fallacy of this belief.
If you decide that a person's sexual identity places them in a qualitatively inferior position as a human being, you should be free to say the same about their level of interest in religion, their artistic and musical abilities, their math abilities, their height, their build, their "cognitive ability," all of which qualities are SPECTRAL in nature, meaning that each person's individual qualities cannot be effectively or conclusively judged against a standard, because that standard is unknowable. OSC falls prey to the most basic fallacy that encourages racism, sexism, and eugenics, the idea that he knows or that anyone knows, or that there even exists, an ideal state for a human being.
I read a very very interesting paper about this a few months ago, I must go track it down and share it. It details the history of Eugenics, and the underlying fallacy that plagues our society to this day.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
quote:The ironic thing is that because homosexuality *is* partially gene-based, his continuous attempts to drive homosexuality underground into "normal reproductive patterns" probably means that more homosexual people get born in the next generation.
It doesn't work that way. There is some evidence that homosexuality in one sibling is associated with increased fertility in the others, especially those of the opposite sex
Uh, that's true, but I don't see how what you said contradicted what I said in any manner.
This fertility in the sibling is presumably not affected by whether the gay sibling is ALSO reproducing or not. If both siblings are reproducing then, if anything, "gay genes" are passed to more people in the next generations, than if only the straight sibling was reproducing.
Ah, I see my mistake, I assumed you understood something about genetics and inheritance. Though I am not a geneticist or a scientist, I will do my best to explain why you are wrong.
Scientists, feel free to correct me.
It is not necessarily true that a parent who expresses a dominant trait is MORE likely to pass that trait on to their child as a dominant gene. It is as likely for that gene to exist as a recessive trait in that individual's siblings, and for it to be expressed as a dominant trait in a successive generation. So, the fact that a gay person does not have children will not eliminate gay people, IF (and it's a big IF), genes are solely determinant of sexuality. Besides which, there are many genes associated with sexuality and gender expression, and it would difficult to impossible to determine definitively which genes affect what, and how.
You can't imagine it in the same way you imagine things like hair and eye color. Red hair will eventually vanish from the human race because it is based on a single gene which expresses itself only when two parents carry a certain recessive trait, which causes a deficiency in hair and skin pigment, causing red hair. That probably developed among a closed population in Ireland. Homosexuality shows no sign of a beginning in human history, and is present in every culture and every population group in the world, as far as I know. It's clearly more complex than a single gene.
I hope that's clear and close to accurate. The basic point is that genes don't work in a totally linear fashion. There are a number of genes, for instance many genetic diseases, which continue to be passed from generation to generation DESPITE the fact that when expressed, the gene kills the person. There are carriers who spread the gene without it affecting them. Sickle cell is an example of this, I believe, and there are many many others.
I have blue eyes, despite the fact that neither of my parents do. Now according to you, I must be adopted.
quote: If OSC really wants the "affliction" to go extinct, its counterproductive of him to be urging gay people to procreate.
And again, what is being suggested is Eugenics, and it is a class of theories about human beings which is based on false reasoning.
[ August 25, 2008, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Actually, if the gay gene (or one of them) is actually on the X chromosome as has been hypothesized, then sons of male men will not get the gene at all. Daughters will, however, be guaranteed to be carriers. So, gay men should not be having gay sons in theory (unless the gay man is hooking up with a female who is a carrier and assuming that the X gene model is the actual mechanism).
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I'm not sure, but it seems to me that the rest of OSC's article is patently absurd enough that there isn't really a need for me to bring up the actual science to rebut it. Is this other people's impression?
I think there's a need to bring up the actual science to rebut it, because positions such as those expressed by OSC direly need to be addressed.
And I for one find you cogent and effective on the issue. I'd like to hear more. In fact I think you should write a more extended treatment of OSC's basic logical lapses. No need to be specific if he isn't being, but you could give a general treatment of his thought process from a scientific viewpoint, which you are good at.
Samprimary as well, from a more political angle- I find it enlightening to have the crap that people fling around regarding this issue (from both sides most assuredly) spelled out and dismissed for what it is.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Actually, if the gay gene (or one of them) is actually on the X chromosome as has been hypothesized, then sons of male men will not get the gene at all. Daughters will, however, be guaranteed to be carriers. So, gay men should not be having gay sons in theory (unless the gay man is hooking up with a female who is a carrier and assuming that the X gene model is the actual mechanism).
Of course, thank you, that was the piece of information I had on the tip of my tongue and had forgotten.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'll see what I can do tonight.
Posted by delicate flower (Member # 6260) on :
Can you throw a bone to the scientifically disinclined and explain the difference between "genetic" and "hereditary"? I was under the impression that if sexuality is genetic, it doesn't necessarily mean its hereditary.
It's been a long time since 10th grade bio, but can you clarify this for me?
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Ah, I see my mistake, I assumed you understood something about genetics and inheritance.
That *sounds* obnoxious. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't mean it that way.
quote: It is not necessarily true that a parent who expresses a dominant trait is MORE likely to pass that trait on to their child as a dominant gene. It is as likely for that gene to exist as a recessive trait in that individual's siblings, and for it to be expressed as a dominant trait in a successive generation.
Yes, you're wrong, a dominant trait IS atleast as likely to pass as a recessive trait. But even if it were less likely to pass than a recessive trait, my argument would still hold, since the comparison isn't recessive dominant but rather between dominant AND recessive vs not-even-recessive.
quote: I have blue eyes, despite the fact that neither of my parents do. Now according to you, I must be adopted.
No I never said that. I understand quite well about recessive genes, thank you very much.
Honestly the points you refute, and the point I made have absolutely nothing to do with each other. And I don't have the patience to keep repeating my words, when you can merely reread them.
I never claimed it was a single gene. I never claimed it was as simple as dominant/recessive. I never claimed only gay people produce gay people.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Actually, if the gay gene (or one of them) is actually on the X chromosome as has been hypothesized, then sons of male men will not get the gene at all. Daughters will, however, be guaranteed to be carriers. So, gay men should not be having gay sons in theory (unless the gay man is hooking up with a female who is a carrier and assuming that the X gene model is the actual mechanism).
Of course, thank you, that was the piece of information I had on the tip of my tongue and had forgotten.
You ignore the part where he said "Daughters will, however, be guaranteed to be carriers" -- which supports my conclusions, and not yours.
No matter how you cut it, if homosexuality has a partially genetic base, gay people reproducing their genes means more gay people in the future than if they didn't reproduce those genes.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: It is not necessarily true that a parent who expresses a dominant trait is MORE likely to pass that trait on to their child as a dominant gene. It is as likely for that gene to exist as a recessive trait in that individual's siblings, and for it to be expressed as a dominant trait in a successive generation.
Don't confuse matters by trying to pigeon-hold everything as "dominant" or "recessive".
That kind of thinking is not often useful outside of high school biology.
quote:You can't imagine it in the same way you imagine things like hair and eye color. Red hair will eventually vanish from the human race because it is based on a single gene which expresses itself only when two parents carry a certain recessive trait, which causes a deficiency in hair and skin pigment, causing red hair.
Becoming rare is not the same thing as vanishing. There would still be plenty of people with the one copy of the red-hair allele, and when two such people had kids, some of those kids would be red-heads.
quote:I have blue eyes, despite the fact that neither of my parents do. Now according to you, I must be adopted.
Who on earth said that? I don't think that anyone has said anything that demonstrates an ignorance of that much genetics.
quote:And again, what is being suggested is Eugenics, and it is a class of theories about human beings which is based on false reasoning.
The method of affecting the gene pool of future generations by over-breeding some alleles and under-breeding other will work, (it's not like animal breeders didn't know that for centuries) it's just that it only works if the traits you are basing your decision on are genetic. And people tended to decide who breeds and who doesn't breed based on things that weren't actually genetic, like doing well on an IQ test.
But no one is suggesting that we carry out Eugenics, but what is being pointed out is the irony that if you wanted there to be no more gay people, the last thing you want to do is to encourage them to get into false, dishonest marriages with straight people and have lots of kids.
However, I do not think this is OSC's goal, I think his is more for gay people to be gay, but act straight. So he doesn't care if a gay man marries a woman and has 20 gay kids, as long as those 20 gay kids enter into straight marriages. Their miserable life in lovelesss marariges is less important than the fact that their loveless marriages validate his own choice to be married.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Did any of you read the three articles OSC linked to?
The Atlantic one is free and public, and confirms some of his charges.
quote:Their miserable life in lovelesss marariges is less important than the fact that their loveless marriages validate his own choice to be married.
I don't think that follows from what he's said at all. How did you come to this conclusion?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Hmmm
I don't know. I can't help but think that sexuality, gender and humanity in general is a lot more complicated than folks think. We'll never really understand it with this template of normal. It doesn't seem like that Atlantic article... really meshes totally with OSC's points of view... Totally meshes...
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
My knowledge of biology extends to advanced highschool biology, years ago. So I'm glad to see someone knows more than I do.
quote: However, I do not think this is OSC's goal, I think his is more for gay people to be gay, but act straight. So he doesn't care if a gay man marries a woman and has 20 gay kids, as long as those 20 gay kids enter into straight marriages. Their miserable life in lovelesss marariges is less important than the fact that their loveless marriages validate his own choice to be married.
The excerpt I quoted explicity advocated the active elimination of "the sexual dysfunction" of homosexuality, and not just homosexual behavior.
I wanted to point out that blithely attempting to do so is most likely futile and probably destructive as well.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:And I for one find you cogent and effective on the issue. I'd like to hear more. In fact I think you should write a more extended treatment of OSC's basic logical lapses. No need to be specific if he isn't being, but you could give a general treatment of his thought process from a scientific viewpoint, which you are good at.
Someone just introduced me to the concept of "the dumbness of smart people," and used Orson Scott Card as a profound example of it: He's demonstrably smart. His good books are really good. And yet he's completely incapable of making any progress in his own personal philosophy because he refuses to let go of his preconceptions.
So, according to this guy, all we're seeing here is more evidence of the fact that people don't like letting go of their core ideology, especially if they're that dead-set on it, and that they will make all kinds of crazy arguments if pressed rather than do so. Pseudoscientific. Pseudological. Impervious. OSC is not remarkable in any way in this regard, except when you combine his stature with his cultural agenda that demands — demands — that gay marriage be stopped at all costs.
When you combine it with this agenda to assert the necessity of his social concepts, he fills up the public record of him by saying progressively more and more things which just come off as ... crazy. And as more people are driven to frustration with him or rejection of him because of this, the more you see exactly what you're seeing here.
You could no sooner convince him of the faultiness of his arguments against gay marriage than you could convince Behe of the faultiness of his arguments against evolutionary theory. As a person, he is no longer anywhere near the desire or ability to challenge those preconceptions. He is only interested in asserting them to the world. Anyone who disagrees with him can only really be interpreted by him as being, somehow, in remiss of the facts, or ignorant, or willfully blind.
All you are going to see from this point on is him playing out this mindset. He may become more apoplectic, or he might grow weary and retire from it, but his mind is set in stone.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: OSC falls prey to the most basic fallacy that encourages racism, sexism, and eugenics, the idea that he knows or that anyone knows, or that there even exists, an ideal state for a human being.
Yes! Exactly. This idea that everyone must fit into gender molds is just bizarre. Clearly, everyone doesn't fit and cramming people into them is wrong, sad, and deeply insulting to people who manage to live pretty decent lives without meeting the ideals of other people.
I can't express how angry this attitude makes me. NO, you arrogant, self-righteous jerks, you are not necessarily the end all of humanness. Everybody does not have to be just like you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:This idea that everyone must fit into gender molds is just bizarre.
It's not bizarre at all. It's a fairly well-recorded historical phenomenon.
The idea that gender roles don't exist-- now that's bizarre.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott, I think you missed my use of the word "everyone". I am not denying that there are gender roles and that lots, even most people find them reasonably comfortable.
What I find bizarre is the idea that people who don't fit these molds - and there are plenty of historical examples who don't - should be altered to fit.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:This idea that everyone must fit into gender molds is just bizarre.
It's not bizarre at all. It's a fairly well-recorded historical phenomenon.
The idea that gender roles don't exist-- now that's bizarre.
It really isn't. It's an artificial concept, like race that has caused mostly a lot of trouble and pain to people who couldn't fit the norm. The norm itself is an illusion anyway. People are much more complicated than girls=dresses and pink, boys, pants and blue. Not to mention that there are other cultures to consider.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:What I find bizarre is the idea that people who don't fit these molds - and there are plenty of historical examples who don't - should be altered to fit.
I don't know why you find it bizarre. It's a concept that's been around for ages and ages.
Of course, that doesn't mean it's right, any more than the concept of open (or null) gender roles is right merely because it's modern.
Syn:
Gender roles were not an artificial concept, historically. The sexes evolved both biologically and psychologically to fulfill different purposes-- part of OSC's premise calls out this point. (Xenocide and Children of the Mind also treat on his views)
Whether those roles are outmoded is up for discussion. But artificial, they aren't. They are ingrained in humanity's genes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Fine. I find it bizarre that anyone who is not stupid and who lives in the 21st century and is not blinded by arrogance still cling to that idea.
And goodness knows we don't want to rise above our genes.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But artificial, they aren't. They are ingrained in humanity's genes.
From my understanding of the cross cultural research on the universal differences between men and women, they are actually largely cultural artifacts and not so much ingrained in our genes.
Where are you getting your information on this Scott?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Mr Squicky:
I'm having a hard time believing that any serious research on the subject doesn't take into account the basic genetic differences between men and women, and how those differences came to create similar roles in many diverse cultures throughout the world.
I'm getting my ideas from anthropology textbooks I've studied and neurobiology articles I've read.
You?
***
quote:I find it bizarre that anyone who is not stupid and who lives in the 21st century and is not blinded by arrogance still cling to that idea.
It's an idea that all of us cling to, at some point. How strange is too strange for you to accept, kmboots?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You think everyone clings to the idea that everyone else must fit their own ideas of gender roles? Really? Who do you mean by "all of us"?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I'm having a hard time believing that any serious research on the subject doesn't take into account the basic genetic differences between men and women, and how those differences came to create similar roles in many diverse cultures throughout the world.
I'm getting my ideas from anthropology textbooks I've studied and neurobiology articles I've read.
You?
As I said, cross-cultural research done looking for universal differences between the sexes. There are surprisingly few.
What are these genetic differences that you're talking about and what sex roles do you think are ingrained in our genes? Maybe you're actually talking about the things that fall into these established differences.
---
edit: Also, the last I looked at this was back in 1999. Maybe your information is more recent. When was it from?
edit 2: I had a thought. Maybe you're talking about common cultural responses driven by biological necessities. For example, women get pregnant. This state and its importance and vulnerability can prompt a common constellation of behaviors and attitudes. But that's not a direct expression of the genes, which is what it seemed that you were talking about.
[ August 26, 2008, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't really think gender roles are engrained in the genes at all. I also think evolutionary biology is extremely irratating and those lines from Childer of the Mind and Xenocide really bugged me. I think people are a lot more complicated than that.
Or at least I am, because I never seem to fit into that pattern completely.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
Or at least I am, because I never seem to fit into that pattern completely.
Gasp! You threat to society! Aaaauuuugh!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
'97. The neurobiology stuff I've looked at is as recent as 2001. Not cutting edge, but still...
Are we using different meanings for the same words?
Are you saying there are no (or few) genetic differences between men and women? How are you qualifying your opinion?
quote:what sex roles do you think are ingrained in our genes?
'Ingrained' was a hyper-dramatic word-- influenced by our genes is probably better. And even that of course doesn't do the topic justice: as you rightly point out, there's the influence of culture to consider.
However, there are very real physiological differences in men and women that have led to similarities in the development of gender roles across the world. Women all over the world take 9 months to bring a child to life, and can generally only birth one at a time. This limitation has had enormous effect on human culture as a whole-- and that's just a starting point. (For a very basic example, as populations take better care of mothers and children, their populations tend to grow; as they grow, they tend to settle. As they settle, they tend to move away from hunting and gathering; they tend to create more complex belief systems, and technology, etc)
I'm not sure, but the exception to this rule might be some of the pygmy tribes in Africa; I seem to remember that their birth cycle is much faster than other women's, and also that their life span is much shorter.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You think everyone clings to the idea that everyone else must fit their own ideas of gender roles? Really? Who do you mean by "all of us"?
Are we playing at questions now?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:This limitation has had enormous effect on human culture as a whole-- and that's just a starting point.
See my second edit above.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Biological necessities aren't direct expressions of genetic makeup?
How did you come by this opinion?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You think everyone clings to the idea that everyone else must fit their own ideas of gender roles? Really? Who do you mean by "all of us"?
Are we playing at questions now?
What good would that do?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Biological necessities aren't direct expressions of genetic makeup?
How did you come by this opinion?
The biological necessities are (sort of) direct expressions. The varied cultural responses (some of which have many aspects in common) to these biological necessities are not.
This is an enormously important distinction ni cross-culutural studies and really for anyone trying to determine what actually is "human nature".
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Syn:
Gender roles were not an artificial concept, historically. The sexes evolved both biologically and psychologically to fulfill different purposes-- part of OSC's premise calls out this point. (Xenocide and Children of the Mind also treat on his views)
Whether those roles are outmoded is up for discussion. But artificial, they aren't. They are ingrained in humanity's genes.
Scott, we are not discussing the existence of gender differences, but the idea of an ideal state for either gender. I am contending that it is a fallacy to believe that there exists an ideal man, or an ideal women, and from this contention I argue that any attempt to define clear and "natural" gender roles as opposed to artificial ones that are the product of culture is problematic to the point of impossibility.
My problem with the argument you are making is that it is not fundamentally different from a defense of any sociological fallacy. Your argument works for racism: "it's obvious by nature that white people are different from blacks, because look at the way things are now!" This logic served originally to encourage europeans to conquer other cultures because their differences were seen as corresponding to their appearances, rather than their environments. The deviation of dark skinned people from the "norm" encountered among more comprehensible and familiar civilizations allowed dark-skinned people to be dehumanized in a completely artificial way.
I also wish to point out that you, and OSC, point to the "natural" state of things, and then advocate artificially altering all other states to realign them with "natural" or "normal." I ask, how can you presume to know that homosexuality is created or exists as a deviation from our natural state, based only on your observations of your own, non-ideal, behavior? Your assumption, at any time, that you are aware of the ideal condition is a fallacy, because that condition cannot exist.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I haven't argued what you think I've argued, Orincoro.
You don't need to make up arguments for me-- though I appreciate the thought, you lack a certain...Scott R-esque nuance.
quote: You think everyone clings to the idea that everyone else must fit their own ideas of gender roles? Really? Who do you mean by "all of us"?
I haven't argued this either. See above.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:those lines from Childer of the Mind and Xenocide really bugged me. I think people are a lot more complicated than that.
For what it's worth, so did Andrew Wiggin.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I haven't argued what you think I've argued, Orincoro.
You don't need to make up arguments for me-- though I appreciate the thought, you lack a certain...Scott R-esque nuance.
It's customary to share your thinking, when you refute an analysis of your argument. From where I'm sitting, I'm still right about what you said. Granted, you didn't say that you were a racist, but I showed the similarity between your position (the position you defended, at least), and the traditional rationality for racism and Eugenics. That's my prerogative.
If you'd care to explain why you defend the idea of enforcing artificial gender roles, and yet for some reason aren't in complete agreement with OSC, I'd like to hear it.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Quote: "Ability to reproduce"- no qualifiers- as the drive for civilization? Unquote
Of course that's the drive for civilisation. Why do you think societies started in the first place? So people had the most security possible for themselves and most importantly their children. The most basic function of any civilisation is to create a safe environment for the next generation.
Quote: "I don't think that OSC even grasps how offensive his comparisons to rape are." Unquote
Quote "No... Rape and a sex drive is an entirelly different thing. I've had enough. It's just too irratating." Unquote
If you read what Card wrote: "which in other primate species is often expressed as rape" it's clear he's not talking about human rape, which, to me at least, makes what he's ACTUALLY saying much less objectionable. Also, Thornhill and Palmer's 2003 book, "A natural History of Rape", puts forward evidence that rape is not solely a matter of domination, but also is an expression of sexual desire.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_1_38/ai_75820043 A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion. - Review - book review Journal of Sex Research, Feb, 2001 by Todd K. Shackelford, Gregory J. LeBlanc A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion. By Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2000, 251 pages. Cloth, $28.95.
"A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion is an intellectual masterpiece. Thornhill and Palmer present a courageous, compassionate, and scholarly analysis of rape and male sexual coercion, informed by an evolutionary perspective. There is much to commend and recommend about this book. First, we applaud Thornhill and Palmer for their courage in tackling an area of work that is riddled with ideology, misinformation, and untethered emotional upset...."
It's a controversial book (those aspects I've eluded to anyway) but they're reputable researchers and at least indicates there's not only one reason for rape (i.e. the domination idea).
[ August 28, 2008, 04:15 AM: Message edited by: Cashew ]
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:If you read what Card wrote: "which in other primate species is often expressed as rape" it's clear he's not talking about human rape
BULLSHIT. This is such BULLSHIT that I don't believe you actually believe what you say.
Here's what OSC said and it's as clear as you can get.
quote:We expect heterosexual males -- males who are expressing the very drive that leads to reproduction of the genes, and which in other primate species is often expressed as rape -- to be able to recognize that "no means no" at every stage of wooing and coition.
In other words, our society right now says that everybody but homosexuals must curb whatever innate desires are perceived, by our society, as harmful or undesirable, regardless of how natural or evolutionarily productive they might be, or how strongly they are felt.
IF you were honest, you'd see quite clearly that he's comparing heterosexual rape (and the need for heterosexuals to restrain themselves from raping people) with the supposed need OSC believes for homosexuals to restrain themselves from entering into consensual relationships.
Basically in OSC's twisted little brain, the fact we say "People shouldn't be allowed to rape other people" somehow makes us hypocrites for also saying "Homosexual people should be allowed to have consensual sex".
So, no, OSC isn't talking about monkey rape, he's talking about human rape. Quite clearly, quite explicitly, quite unambiguously.
OSC can be accused of many things, but lack of clarity isn't one of them. He knew what he was comparing, and he was quite clear and explicit about it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:If you'd care to explain why you defend the idea of enforcing artificial gender roles, and yet for some reason aren't in complete agreement with OSC, I'd like to hear it.
Where did I defend enforcement of gender roles?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The most basic function of any civilisation is to create a safe environment for the next generation.
Honestly, I think most civilization is much more selfish than that, and exists to provide a more comfortable environment for the people currently in charge of it.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I don't think OSC is saying that rape and homosexuality are the same. I think that the point OSC is saying is that being a natural urge does not make it acceptable to act on it. He is giving an example of a sexual urge (that may be natural) which society expects people to restrain. I have used a similar argument, saying that we expect monogomy even though our urges do not necessarily tend that way. If I cheated on my husband, telling him or anyone else that it was a natural urge would not make the offense less. BUT both of these examples start with the assumption that we know why the action should be repressed and are simply demonstrating that limiting your urges is something we are expected to do in society.
And for me, that is where the biggest flaw in OSC's reasoning is. He needs to explain why homosexual behavior is wrong and needs to be actively repressed. Rape and adultry have victims, they hurt someone. That makes them clear bads. Homosexuality lacks the clearly bad aspect and therefore a good reason for repression must be made. So, he argues, lower population. Again we must ask, why is that bad? And unfortunately there is no good answer for that question. In one of OSC's books, he has like 8 adults trying to repopulate a planet, so in that case, homosexual behavior would be bad. But, that is not our society and underpopulation is NOT an issue by a longshot. Before you can force someone else to not do something, you need to show that their actions harm someone other then themselves.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
8 people? I haven't read that book but... 8? ew.
I wish folks would pour less energy into homosexuality and more into domestic abuse. It's a way huger problem than homosexuality will ever be. You can't even use the AIDS argument because AIDS=HUMANS not just gay people, Africa for example is being devostated by that, mostly through heterosexual contact.
But domestic violence. Sometimes the churches aren't even a help. They can say, "Stick by your husband, he's your man. You're not allowed to get remarried or divorced, Think of the children. If you didn't nag him so much he wouldn't hit you." And that's just disgusting. He even had that line that just drove me up a tree in Children of the Mind I think. I'm not sure if he's saying that it's better to have a father around that is abusive than to be a single mother, but he sure does like concuring characters and using them as his political mouthpiece. I don't think domestic violence is even understood. A man can terrorfy his wife without even hitting her. And teenage girls are getting into violent unsafe relationships too.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I haven't read Children of the Mind for a while, but I have had an abused woman once ask me whether or not she had made a mistake and if staying married had screwed up her kids. My honest answer, yes, without a doubt. The answer I gave- well, you know, I am sure that having a father around gave them some sense of stability and there is no point in doing what ifs since there are arguments either way. I don't know if Val was being nice and trying to give comfort to the woman or if that was really what she felt, but I do know that it is hard to look an abused woman in the eyes and say, yes your choices damaged your children. And honestly, I don't see how telling someone that helps in any way. The past is the past and people don't need more guilt added on.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Aris Katsaris: you don't have to swear at me to get your point across. And no, I don't agree with you. I think you're letting your dislike of Card ("twisted little brain") get in the way of really understanding what he's saying.
Scholarette says it clearly: Quote I don't think OSC is saying that rape and homosexuality are the same. I think that the point OSC is saying is that being a natural urge does not make it acceptable to act on it. He is giving an example of a sexual urge (that may be natural) which society expects people to restrain. I have used a similar argument, saying that we expect monogomy even though our urges do not necessarily tend that way. If I cheated on my husband, telling him or anyone else that it was a natural urge would not make the offense less. BUT both of these examples start with the assumption that we know why the action should be repressed and are simply demonstrating that limiting your urges is something we are expected to do in society. Unquote (And I agree with the rest of that post too, Scholarette.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Aris Katsaris: you don't have to swear at me to get your point across. And no, I don't agree with you.
When you said "It's clear he is not talking about human rape" that was wrong. it was what was used in the comparison.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Quoting Samprimary: When you said "It's clear he is not talking about human rape" that was wrong. it was what was used in the comparison. Unquote It was NOT human rape that was used as the comparison but rape in "OTHER primate species."
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:It was NOT human rape that was used as the comparison but rape in "OTHER primate species."
He's noting the distinction between humans and other primates which is a cultural prohibition against rape ("no means no"). The implication is that without such a cultural prohibition that rape would occur within the human species as it does in other primates.
He then goes on to say that we don't have such a cultural prohibition against homosexuality, setting up an equivalency between what happens when cultural rules don't exist in primates (rape) and when they don't apply to homosexuals (consensual gay sex).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yup. What matt said.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Regarding the science of OSC's article:
There's a link to three review articles in non-scientific publications, one of which I was able to read (the other two are in Commentary - not exactly an objective source by any means). It seemed to do a adequate job of a brief overview of the scientific understanding from when it was written in 1993.
As I said, I was able to read the other two, but, even ignoring their publication in Commentary, they were written in 1987 and 1992. If you're going to talk about the current scientific understanding of something like this, non-scientific articles (especially those from heavily slanted publication) that are over 15 years aren't, in my opinion, going to serve you that well.
I've already addressed OSC's innacurate description of the 1973/74 APA decision. It looks like he touches on the science from this time period in two other places.
quote:Evelyn Hooker's study, for instance, which purported to show that homosexuals were perfectly normal, studied a group of homosexuals who were members of organizations "extremely anxious to provide their most admirable members," and "she removed from the sample anyone who struck her as obviously pathological" (Rosenberg, p. 37).
Given the way she stacked the deck, the surprise was that she didn't find that homosexuality was better than heterosexuality.
The purpose of Hooker's study was not "to show that homosexuals were perfectly normal" and she did not claim this based on that study. If you remember from my description of the APA decision, the challenge posed was "Can anyone show that homosexuality, itself, is intrinsically psychologically damaging?" Hooker addressed this by looking at the most psychologically fit gay individuals she could find. If she ever compared them to the average heterosexual population, as OSC suggested, she would find that they were superior, which is sort of the point. They were psychologically healthy people who were gay, which was supposed to be intrinsically pathological.
The turning point on reclassification was that there was no valid evidence for regarding homosexuality this way. Hooker's study was one of many looking at this. It should be noted that further study over the last 35 years has born this out. It is scientifically indisputable that the APA made the correct decision in 1973.
The other mention of the science here is of Laud Humphreys. I am assuming that OSC was trying to reference Humphreys's famous Tearoom Study, because I can't find anything else he could be referring to. However, it looks like he has a very garbled understanding on the study, as almost everything he claims about it is wrong. Humphreys didn't set out to say anything about the "normality" of homosexuality. He was doing a survey of people who participated in the "Tearoom trade" (anonymous gay sex in reststops, public bathrooms, etc.) to get an idea of the make up of this population.
quote:Humphreys' findings destroy many stereotypes. Fifty-four percent of his subjects were married and living with their wives, and superficial analysis would suggest that they were exemplary citizens who had exemplary marriages. Thirty-eight percent of Humphreys' subjects clearly were neither bisexual nor homosexual. They were men whose marriages were marked with tension; most of the 38 percent were Catholic or their wives were, and since the birth of their last child conjugal relations had been rare. Their alternative source of sex had to be quick, inexpensive, and impersonal. It could not entail any kind of involvement that would threaten their already shaky marriage and jeopardize their most important asset - their standing as father of their children. They wanted only some form of orgasm-producing action that was less lonely than masturbation and less involving than a love relationship. Of the other 62 percent of Humphreys' subjects, 24 percent were clearly bisexual, happily married, well educated, economically quite successful, and exemplary members of their community. Another 24 percent were single and were covert homosexuals. Only 14 percent of Humphreys' subjects corresponded to society's stereotype of homosexuality. That is, only 14 percent were members of the gay community and were interested in primarily homosexual relationships (Humphreys, 1970).
OSC describes what he did as "Using only questionnaires", which is also clearly not true.
---
I don't really have much to say about the twin studies section. His description of the results seems pretty consistent with what I know. There are two sections where it looks like OSC may have just made things up that I take objection to, however:
quote:If seduction, molestation or other sexual trauma contributes to homosexuality, and if those are influenced by the perceived attractiveness of the subject to a molester, seducer or rapist, then the greater physical resemblance between identical twins may account for some of the results.
OSC ofetn brings up this - never quantified - idea of sexual abuse being a significant cause of homosexuality. This is flatly contradicted by the science. Molestation has been ruled out as any sort of significant cause.
Second:
quote:Most scientists agree that twin studies suggest that social influences play a significant role, alongside physical ones, in determining which people become identified as homosexuals in adulthood.
I'm not sure about this "Most scientists" claim. I'm pretty sure he just made that up.
---
On the anatomy, I've got to be honest. Neurology bores the crap out of me. I don't really know that much about the current understanding of relation here to homosexuality.
That being said, this part:
quote:But unrelated research has been discovering that, contrary to longheld belief, the brain's physical structures can change in response to human behavior.
, I'm not really sure what this longheld[sic] belief is that he's talking about. The change in the brain's physical structure has been known for quite some time. Long term potentiation, for example, was first observed in 1966.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Of course, what little science OSC described accurately, he uses to attack his laugably absurd opening thesis:
quote:The claims of those who support gay marriage rest entirely on the idea that science has proved several things:
1. Gays have no choice whatsoever. Genes or hormones make them gay, and it is unreasonable to expect them to control or limit their behavior in any way.
2. Even if there is an element of choice (or preventable environmental influence), there is no reason to ask gays to control or limit their behavior, because homosexuality causes no harm to anyone.
3. Because the first two points have been "scientifically proved," it is unfair to give any kind of legal or social preference to the actions and relationships of heterosexuals. Any such preference is like telling gays to "sit in the back of the bus."
If that is actually what he believes, he has an even worse grasp of what and why people like myself believe what we do than he does on the current state of science on this issue.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
This thread has evolved into a largely civilized discussion, and my normal response would be to leave it alone. But it's worth pointing out that it's grossly unfair to compare BAD heterosexual couples with IDEAL homosexual couples when trying to have a rational discussion. Society already has its muddlesome mechanisms to deal with child abuse and/or neglect. So to use worst-case heterosexuals is simply absurd - unless you can present any shred of evidence that homosexual parents never, never abuse their children in any way.
The determination should be based on whether NONabusive heterosexual couples offer to children necessary things that NONabusive homosexual couples cannot offer. And we should look at serious scientific studies on this, not declarative dogmas. There are scientists who are making a serious effort at understanding how parental role models help shape the behavior and mindset and personality of same-sex and other-sex offspring.
And everybody seems to forget that I have already said, and often, and passionately, that I think our society's embrace of no-social-stigma divorce and non-marital cohabitation does far MORE damage to our society, especially our children, than anything homosexuals do. After physical safety, children need security and constancy first.
And given the sexual patterns of the vast majority of male homosexuals, by their own report, I sincerely doubt that there would be any agitation for homosexual marriage if our marriage laws made divorce difficult and imposed stiff social and/or legal penalties for sexual infidelity.
Naturally, this remark will be greeted with outrage. But I didn't make up the statistics on the numbers of partners and the amount of "cheating" by male homosexuals. Those number come from their own reports to researchers.
Ultimately, of course, our whole conundrum here comes from the common misconception that marriage is about sex alone, or sex primarily. But since St. Paul had precisely the same idea (marriage is "to avoid fornication"), we can't claim that this misconception is some sort of modern invention. <grin>
Marriage is about promoting a regular and stable pattern of reproductive organization in a society, one that will promote peace and the maximum opportunity for universal access to reproduction while arranging for most children to grow up in circumstances that will make them productive participants in the system when they come of age. MATING is something that people handle just fine without any community intervention at all. Getting babies into the world is a cinch, and there are plenty of volunteers to make them at the drop of a hat. The problem is for a society to find a pattern of organizing and, yes, restricting all this that will lead to the MAXIMUM loyalty of the MAXIMUM number of citizens, thus ensuring the persistence through time and the extension through space of the community as a whole.
The community that best organizes itself to persist across time - which requires reproductive security for individuals, a reasonable amount of freedom and happiness, and the successful transmission of the culture from generation to generation (among many other things) - becomes a "civilization." The community that behaves in a way that causes reproductive insecurity, does not provide for freedom and happiness, and does not try to transmit its values from one generation to the next, generally ceases to exist.
So here is the question we're actually debating: Since homosexuality is NOT a solely genetic phenomenon, and since exclusive homosexuality is NOT the sole inevitable behavior of many or most persons with same-sex attraction (the statistics vary with the political winds, since they can only be questionnaire-based), it stands to reason that to one degree or another, it is a learned or chosen behavior. We also do not know, without performing the experiment, whether gay "marriage" will actually promote the freedom and happiness of those who opt for it, over the long term.
Therefore, we are now poised to make a decision to erase any social advantage to traditional marriage in order to give homosexuals something they THINK will make them happy, but at the risk of removing reproductive security from the people who actually make most of the babies. It is a vast social experiment and the only arguments in favor of it are either emotional or dogmatic. There are plenty of emotional or dogmatic arguments from the opponents. But there are also plenty of rational indicators that this experiment is not going to promote the desired result, and has a strong chance of severely weakening the allegiance of heterosexuals to the community.
In a nutshell: Consciously or unconsciously, more and more heterosexuals are going to think, or already think: Why should I be subject to laws that are designed to encourage any children of mine whose sexual orientation may be in doubt toward a NON-reproductive choice?
In other words, its about grandparenting - the persistence of genes across multiple generations.
And when it's about the perception of reproductive security, you can toss rationality out the window.
What the proponents of gay marriage take for granted is that everybody's going to be polite and abide by the decisions of the government.
What they can't seem to understand is that people do not behave rationally or in an orderly way when core issues are at stake. Whether they're conscious of them or not, many heterosexuals are going to have a deep emotional response that WILL find expression one way or another.
It is possible that even before gay marriage, our society has moved beyond the point where we can continue to command the allegiance of the people who create the next generation. Why would parents tolerate allowing their children to risk their lives to DEFEND a society that ATTACKS their reproductive security?
Minority rights persist only with the consent of the majority. right now, the proponents of gay marriage show NO regard for the LARGE majorities opposed to the idea. Don't they understand that the current level of tolerance of homosexuality is a RARE thing, and already causes seething resentment on the part of large numbers of people?
Don't they have any conception of history, of what happens when the majority gets fed up with what they perceive as a danger from a minority?
Don't they understand that what may be at stake here is NOT gay marriage per se - that may simply be impossible and, in a definitional sense, already is impossible. What is really at stake is the continued authority of our governments and courts if they try to enforce something that strikes at the heart of the reproductive security of the majority?
Here's the amusing thing: I believe MY position on this issue is very much in the best interests of homosexuals, and the gay marriage project is actually self-destructive.
If homosexuality really is completely genetic in origin, and our society really does commit to getting all homosexuals to engage only in homosexual relationships, then will that gene not be completely extinguished?
In fact everyone knows that it is not wholly or even, in all likelihood, mostly genetic. Homosexuals are a minority and one whose acceptance is only barely tolerated by the majority as it stands. In the real world, the likelihood of severe backlash increases with the degree to which the majority perceives the minority's demands as unfair, unreasonable, outrageous, or dangerous.
Even if, in some abstract sense, people "should" accept gay marriage, the fact is that a majority do not, and a large minority vehemently NEVER will, and have given clear indications that they will not accept a legal system that demands this of them.
So what's the hurry? Why is this an emergency? Are there homosexuals dying because they can't get married? Is there a gay marriage crisis that must be resolved? Obviously not. The only reason this is so urgent is because the proponents of gay marriage are, in fact, intolerant of the opposition of the MAJORITY. They place their private minority desires above the feelings (and, perhaps, legitimate concerns) of the majority.
How do you think this looks to that majority? Especially in a society that purports to be a democracy?
So setting all other issues aside, on sheer practical grounds, demanding gay marriage - whose advantages all depend on SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE - against the will of the majority seems to be ridiculously dangerous to the interests of homosexuals. Social acceptance cannot be legislated; it comes only by persuasion.
Given time, a majority might come to accept the idea of gay marriage. Pushed, the anger level will rise and the whole structure is placed in doubt.
If gay marriage advocates are patient, and the courts do not impose it by fiat on an unwilling public, and in time gay marriage is enacted by a willing majority, THEN we will find out, in that vast social experiment, just what the consequences are. I think the consequences then will be devastating ... but in a gradual way, over the long term.
Pushing for gay marriage now, undemocratically, is a recipe for social cataclysm. I don't want that cataclysm. I don't want to see homosexuals turned into scapegoats and victims of a violent puritanical reaction. But that is what overpushing NOW will quite likely lead to.
Maybe not. Maybe people will sit back and let it happen. But at that point, it is inevitable that the social allegiance of vast numbers of Americans will bleed away. Their contempt for government and for their own society will grow. They will NOT transmit that culture to their children. Their children will NOT grow up accepting that America deserves their loyalty, obedience, or sacrifice.
That's how civilizations die.
The supposed advantages of gay marriage to the relatively few people who even want it seem so trivial compared to the probable and/or inevitable consequences of forcing it on a society opposed to it, that I marvel at the short-sightedness of those who insist on it. As recently as two decades ago, gay activists and the Left in general promised that the idea of gay marriage was ridiculous. Now they treat anyone opposed to it as if they were evil or pathological. Just how fast do you think a society can transform its core values, especially when there has been no serious effort to persuade anybody, based on evidence or reason, that there are any social benefits at all to the transformation?
This whole thing has been so badly handled that you could almost imagine that the whole gay marriage push has secretly been managed by the Religious Right, in order to destroy any sympathy for the gay cause. Nothing that the religious Right could have done could possibly have led to as much resentment and hostility as the court-imposed gay marriage transformation has done.
Minorities only get their way as long as the majority lets them. That's just how things work. If gay activists are going to play the "fairness" card, they have to let it be played back on them, too, or it will stop working.
But judging from my hate mail, there is zero chance of rational behavior from the extreme Left. There will be no tolerance or even patience from them - they will push their cause until it destroys them; and then they will not understand what happened ...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But it's worth pointing out that it's grossly unfair to compare BAD heterosexual couples with IDEAL homosexual couples when trying to have a rational discussion.
I think it's more fair to compare adoptive homosexual parents with adoptive heterosexual parents, certainly.
---------
quote:Why would parents tolerate allowing their children to risk their lives to DEFEND a society that ATTACKS their reproductive security?
I'm a bit vague still on why you think same-sex marriage is a challenge to your reproductive security. Would you lay out for me the rationale for this, again?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: I believe MY position on this issue is very much in the best interests of homosexuals.
I think that gay people are a better judge of that then yourself.
quote:If homosexuality really is completely genetic in origin, and our society really does commit to getting all homosexuals to engage only in homosexual relationships, then will that gene not be completely extinguished?
No one sensible claims that it's entirely genetic. Twin studies, and the studies of birth order kill that argument pretty quickly. So why bring it up?
Studies have shown that the female relatives of gay men are more fertile. This has been in the scientific literature for almost 4 years. Of course, this is probably just a single locus, and there are others involved, but all it takes is one to demonstrate that the claim doesn't hold water.
Didn't you claim to have studied the scientific facts of homosexuality? If I am misremembering, I apologize. Because surely you would have come across this, and would have seen how it would lead to the maintenance of any gay-predisposing genes in the population.
That's a link from 2004, it was the only one I saw where the whole paper was availible for free. But there are about 4 more papers, the most recent being from this summer.
Posted by mungagungadin (Member # 11746) on :
You've all put the coat over chasm and called it solid.
OSC's basic position is anti- plan of salvation.
He is fully aware that the church and Christ himself supported secular government (numerous sources). Our Church has supported equal rights to protection under the law (support- the entire early Mormon history) and divided a church court from the ability to impose any punishment upon life, limb or property- we are tried for membership only (D&C 144).
What do you have, when you combine the them?
First, a we support equality under the law, we do not support any morality in the LAW (because that is the nature of an institutionalized inequality, exactly what the church fought in the 1800s). Thus, Mormons, if we had any integrity, would unequivocably support removing "marriage" from the law, and putting that into the realm of the church.
Any civil union is a civil union- recogonized by the law.
Any marriage is a marriage- recognized by a church.
Any church that will "marry" a gay couple may, but no church can be compelled, as they already have full rights afforded by the government.
I posit that any capable of standing before a civil agency for a civil license be allowed to do so, in any combinations desired, because it is not the office of our government to define our "personal contracts" but rather to organize equal protection under the law.
The reason Mormons are in pretzels is because Alma realized this himself when the libertines were brought for judgment and Mosiah said, "I judge them not" but not being very courageous to consider jurisprudence separate from the Mormon feeling that we must prostleyte (however that's spelled) we are sure we just had better reverse Mosiah's judgment (which God approved to Alma) in today's world.
OSC's just smart enough to know that he's a bigoted hypocrite.
[ September 11, 2008, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: mungagungadin ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Munga, the "bigoted hypocrite" thing is really undeserved.
Posted by mungagungadin (Member # 11746) on :
there is no reason to have A plus B plus C which should equal D but I want to determine X.
Further, he went on a mission to declare his support for Christ's free-agency/ atonement plan.
Doesn't it all add up?
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
I'm sorry, math isn't my strong suit. What are you saying exactly? And with less variables this time.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The fact that he adds it up differently than you doesn't make him a hypocrite. It means that you disagree.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What you're saying? Not at all.
Posted by mungagungadin (Member # 11746) on :
No, if you say you believe and support certain principles, you cannot support an action that offends all three principles of free agency, equal protection under the law, and the boundaries of moral law our Church or any church may exact for moral lapses.
Most people would call that hypocrisy, but if you want to call it "I know what I said, but I want you to AGREE that I get to act differntly because we have a DISAGREEMENT" I'll let you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You are not making sense.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Still looks like you disagree over what is the issue here. Just because you disagree is no reason for you to pull out the personal insults.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Gah, the first time in what, two years, that OSC is willing to talk to us, and we would get an incoherent troll signing on at that very moment. :resigned:
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:if you say you believe and support certain principles, you cannot support an action that offends all three principles of free agency
Wouldn't a more likely answer, besides assuming that OSC is scum, be that he disagrees with you about what exactly those principles are and whether or not those actions offend them?
I'm not a huge fan of the over-used Occam's razor, but come on -- our first assumption should not be that the other person is evil.
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
Don't just type as fast as you can munga, please. I think I know what you're trying to say, but your flitting about it's hard to get a grasp. Take a minute, take it slow. The forum and conversation isn't going anywhere.
And munga didn't say anything about being evil I think. Just hypocritical.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
quote:
quote:Why would parents tolerate allowing their children to risk their lives to DEFEND a society that ATTACKS their reproductive security?
I'm a bit vague still on why you think same-sex marriage is a challenge to your reproductive security. Would you lay out for me the rationale for this, again?
I'd be very interested to hear this too, Mr. Card, if you'd indulge us. I was following you fine up to that point, but I lost the thread of the argument here and I'd like to understand it better.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
In honor of incoherency:
(Bongo drums, per piacere)
Most Highest Euchemenious Am I
Most highest euchamenious am I, And everyone knows well That when so frickfully I sigh, I've got a smail to tell.
For I, only I, can ever know your broop; I am the mighty grebnerol, the plenkmer of the sloop.
You've all got petty problems, but none of them has I; For my theckel keeps me fit, and my chergbom keeps me wry.
My mind is mighty, I've groopled hard, And every crail I've slain; I've piked the birgots to the grard And et their tiny blains.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Gah, the first time in what, two years, that OSC is willing to talk to us, and we would get an incoherent troll signing on at that very moment. :resigned:
Maybe the incoherent troll has been lying (laying?) in wait for months for the opportunity to snipe OSC with their brilliant attack.
Posted by mungagungadin (Member # 11746) on :
Why are you hanging on this OSC's interpretation? You are capable of analyzing it yourselves.
Do we support equality under the secular law?
Do we support free agency- our ability to choose which makes the reward for virtue and the punishment for vice possible in God's court?
Do we support the notion that churches and not government shall punish moral breaches?
I don't expect OSC to answer.
Posted by mungagungadin (Member # 11746) on :
...... because if I were OSC, I wouldn't.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Why are you hanging on this OSC's interpretation?
Because you called him a bigoted hypocrite, and that claim hinges on OSC's interpretation.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by mungagungadin: ...... because if I were OSC, I wouldn't.
Ah. I think we might be at the crux of the problem -- you're assuming that OSC enough like you that he does things for the same reason you would do them, if you were to do them.
If you were OSC, you wouldn't answer, so you assume OSC wouldn't.
If you said what OSC says, you'd be a hypocrite, so you assume that OSC is.
Posted by mungagungadin (Member # 11746) on :
No, I don't think he'll answer because if he responds at all, he must address the meat of the complaint, or just responding, "I am not a hypocrite!" will sound strange.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Personally, I wouldn't respond either, because I'd have no interest in discussing my views on such things with somebody being so rude.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Gah, the first time in what, two years, that OSC is willing to talk to us, and we would get an incoherent troll signing on at that very moment. :resigned:
Eh. This is a guy who can't even explain honestly and accuratly why people disagree with him about what happened in a movie.
He's never going to be able to honestly assess why people disagree with him on any subject.
No one who thinks that they are acting in the best interests of a group when they deny them civil rights is going to be persuaded by anything.
He's not going to talk, and never was.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why write him off in advance? It costs nothing to leave the possibility open, and even less to be civil about it. Personally, I'd like to have this conversation, if he's interested -- and if he's not, I don't think that necessarily means I or anyone else can conclude something negative about his character.
Posted by mungagungadin (Member # 11746) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Personally, I wouldn't respond either, because I'd have no interest in discussing my views on such things with somebody being so rude.
With all due respect, Mr. Card used his skills as a rhetor to create the impression of right around a position that violates to the core my support of the Plan of Salvation, our Church's position regarding equal protection under the law, and one of the most disastrous mistakes ever made by faithful people- the placing of God's laws into Government meant for all.
Is OSC the taliban, burning women who show an ankle? No, but encouraging the same mistake in less lethal instruments does not right make.
What Mr. Card did was very damaging to the sensitive souls who might have, over the years, been attracted to his voice.
If I was rude, he was far more hurtful.
*is there a reason the board is so slow I can't see my writing before it goes up? Is it me, or is it like this all the time? My finger problems are offending ME.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:He's not going to talk, and never was.
He has talked (assuming a slight liberty to use "talked" for posting on an internet site) - here, today. I really wish you and munga wouldn't try so terribly hard to make him regret doing so.
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
Dagonee, while I do agree with you that munga is perhaps going about it the wrong way, I kind of see their point. It would seem more his fashion to say his piece then leave, comparible with a child saying something then putting his hands over his ears going "lalala" (not saying he's a child, I just thought it a funny visual). This is not really talking to us, but talking at us.
Posted by mungagungadin (Member # 11746) on :
If you folks were doing a better job of parsing the issues, I wouldn't have stepped up.
But I've said my peace, I'll go back to Ornery
OSC is a man like any other, he doesn't have the chops to perform many analyses that he does write about, I wish he would get a little more education in his views prior to posting, but he's probably mostly a very good soul.... when he's not being a hypocritical bigot (I lay this on him because I don't think he could have really forgotten his own earlier writings and publications).
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Those things are not comparable. Posting once does not incur an obligation to post again, and posting and not returning is not the same thing as you described.
You have to being trying very hard to find negative things to think about him to reach that conclusion.
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
It's not discussing the topic, kat.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, while I do agree with you that munga is perhaps going about it the wrong way, I kind of see their point. It would seem more his fashion to say his piece then leave, comparible with a child saying something then putting his hands over his ears going "lalala" (not saying he's a child, I just thought it a funny visual). This is not really talking to us, but talking at us.
And what, swbarnes and munga have decided to make sure he's actually got a valid reason for not responding? You know - just in case he actually does do that, since they don't actually know what his intent here is.
For crying out loud, we've got someone who apparently doesn't actually know what the word "hypocrite" means calling him a hypocrite, and someone else challenging those asking for civility by making up claims about what he can't possibly know.
Enough, already.
Posted by mungagungadin (Member # 11746) on :
OSC-
I'll run back over to Ornery now. I don't want you to be afraid to come have a conversation here. I won't come back unless you post in Ornery and ask for a response. Otherwise, I promise to stay away.
There you go, Hatrack. I am sorry to have put glass in your confetti, but I thought the issue of such merit it deserved a mirror.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you folks were doing a better job of parsing the issues, I wouldn't have stepped up.
You haven't parsed anything. You've badly misused the word "hypocrite" and made barely-explained assertions about doctrines of faith.
I don't pretend to know anything about LDS doctrine on these matters. But I do know that highly influential people in your church have taken the position OSC has and based it on their understanding of that doctrine.
If you believe they have reached the wrong conclusion, you can either (1) assume they interpret one or more critical points of doctrine differently than you, or (2) assume they interpret the doctrine exactly as you do and ignore it in order to support their conclusion.
The fact that you popped in here simply to execute the second choice says a hell of a lot more about you than him.
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
I would not attach myself to a single line of munga's posts. They are the exact type of posts that kill good conversations. But my observation is so abstract or eccentric. I never once expressed my thoughts on his beliefs or being a hypocrite or not. I merely suggested his way of conversing with those of opposiiton
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't want you to be afraid to come have a conversation here.
So this inability to understand that other people might have different reasons for doing things than you would have for doing those same things is not just a one-time thing.
There are lots of reasons other than fear that might motivate OSC to not reenter this thread because of you. If you could grasp that, you might see the flaw in your earlier argument.
Maybe I should just declare force majeure on you. (inisde joke)
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: And what, swbarnes and munga have decided to make sure he's actually got a valid reason for not responding?
If he's going to run away because one person expresses the opinion, supported by lots of evidence, that he's not going to honestly face the real arguments of people who disagree with him, then there was nothing anyone could have done to make him honestly face the real arguments of people who disagree with him.
He knew he was saying horribly hurtful things. And saying horribly hurtful things brings out anger. So to say that he really, really was going to defend his statemnet that gay people know less about what is good for them than he does, if only someone hadn't gotten angry at the absurd arrogance of it, is silly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hey swbarnes, can you do the trick where you answer the questions before you open the little envelope? You know, the one where you where that cute little turban.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I actually agree with swbarnes. That was not a very... polite statement and was in fact a but condescending towards gay people. Gay folks know what is best for them (not all agree with gay marriage by the way) and not someone who isn't actually gay and looking through their perspective.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, I for one am deeply glad that we've got brave, wise souls such as swbarnes and mungagungadin over there to shine the beacon of truth and honor on shameful hypocrites like Orson Scott Card, and drive away his deceitful darkness with that light.
Man, it's indescribably frustrating that this community gets stuck with self-important jackasses like you two, while its founder so rarely participates directly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's fun watching people misinterpreting what was specifically said, by latching onto statements out of context later when the context was explained within that post earlier.
OSC believes that the way same-sex marriage is being advocated and enacted in our society, which he describes as being thrust upon an unwilling society by methods such as judges handing down new laws (that's an oversimplification, I know) will lead to a backlash against homosexuals by the larger population which is deeply resentful towards the idea of homsexual marriage.
What is so evil and awful about thinking that, exactly? Perhaps he is wrong about that. Personally I think he is. As I said to Scott on AIM awhile ago, I find his belief that there would be a severe weakening of American loyalty to America to be extremely unlikely.
That doesn't mean he's an evil frothing bigot, though.
And as for the condescension in the notion...well, hey guys? We all do that. Every last one of us, whenever we support any law that has even a whiff of controversy in it, we're saying, "We know what's best for you."
Like McCain? You think you know what's best for the country (and thus the opposition) than do Obama's supporters. Like Obama? Likewise in reverse. That's a part of every society, even a dictatorship, much less a democratic republic like we've got.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That already exists though, it's call gay bashing. It's been happening for ages.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I actually agree with swbarnes. That was not a very... polite statement and was in fact a but condescending towards gay people. Gay folks know what is best for them (not all agree with gay marriage by the way) and not someone who isn't actually gay and looking through their perspective.
I haven't expressed one iota of an opinion about swbarnes's opinion about what OSC said. What I'm complaining about is his pretension that he has any inkling of Card's motives or intent. Even in his last post he's making very bad assumptions about the nature of the objections being raised here.
Just as munga made up her mind that OSC was "afriad" of her, swbarnes has decided that OSC will run away because one person posted something with lots of evidence.
No one is predicting that OSC might decline to participate further because he's afraid or because one person posted some evidence. The worry is that he might very reasonably decide to avoid a place where some people are being horribly vile to and about him.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's fun watching people misinterpreting what was specifically said, by latching onto statements out of context later when the context was explained within that post earlier.
OSC believes that the way same-sex marriage is being advocated and enacted in our society, which he describes as being thrust upon an unwilling society by methods such as judges handing down new laws (that's an oversimplification, I know) will lead to a backlash against homosexuals by the larger population which is deeply resentful towards the idea of homsexual marriage.
That might be part of his argument, but it's not the whole.
It's not a "simplification" when you leave out relevant elements that disprove your argument.
This is a guy who wrote "Biological imperatives trump laws". Last month. That's the argument he is making.
quote:What is so evil and awful about thinking that, exactly?
But that's not all he is arguing. It's perfectly plain in his writing.
"Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Pushing for gay marriage now, undemocratically, is a recipe for social cataclysm. I don't want that cataclysm. I don't want to see homosexuals turned into scapegoats and victims of a violent puritanical reaction. But that is what overpushing NOW will quite likely lead to.
Maybe not. Maybe people will sit back and let it happen. But at that point, it is inevitable that the social allegiance of vast numbers of Americans will bleed away. Their contempt for government and for their own society will grow. They will NOT transmit that culture to their children. Their children will NOT grow up accepting that America deserves their loyalty, obedience, or sacrifice.
That's how civilizations die.
I like how charitably this post is written. You're protecting the gays from themselves; saving civilization from the destruction that would be wrought from letting them marry is just a kind side benefit.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)