I was crushed to read that Orson is a member of the National Organization for Marriage. Having read the Ender series and connecting with the characters and many of the ideas/philosophies I guess I felt in a way I connected with the author. What gives anyone the idea that they have a monopoly on the word marriage? It is a word that has passed through many hands over many years and has always evolved to the society around it. Society today is demanding that marriage no longer dictates which two consenting adults can be married. No religion owns the word Marriage. I'm just so confused as to why Orson would invest his time and energy denying the rights of people who are in no way affecting his own personal religious choices. If you read this Orson, could you please give me some sort of rational argument as to why two men/women getting married and loving each other and possible adopting a child together could be a bad thing? There is so much hate in the world and the act of marriage between anyone is only a representation of love. Why do you choose to speak against the love of two people simply because it does not fit your own upbringing? Marriage isn't just about sex, it's about companionship and I'm so pissed off that you would work hard to destroy so many who simply want to be law abiding citizens when they hold their lovers in a warm embrace. Please consider that you may be wrong on this one.
Posted by Fremen (Member # 11984) on :
Yeah, there's a lot of things I don't agree with Orson Scott Card on, but he does write a mean novel.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
He's got a number of essays explaining his position on the subject, stargrrrl. Check out ornery.org.
Posted by Stargrrrl (Member # 12499) on :
I browsed and couldn't find any, but I did find some other content to help me get to know his political views further. If you know any specific links please share. I've never heard an argument yet that doesn't involve "because god says it's wrong" so I would love to see if he has a rational argument. Not saying that a belief in God isn't good, but since he has not been proven, and he has yet to come down from the heavens to run for any political party, he should not have a say in the matter.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
As far as I know, none of the arguments he makes are based on 'God said so.' Which does not mean that you'll like reading them.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:If you know any specific links please share.
But if you're so horrified at OSC having an opinion about same-sex marriage which is actually similar to what the (unfortunately) majority of human nations currently espouse (only ten nations around the world have SSM)... then I wonder how much horrified you'll be when you find out that in an older essay ( http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html ) , OSC had actually argued in favour of homosexual acts being illegal. "Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books...not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society. "
That puts his position not just in the majority position for an American/European (like frowning on SSM would), but in line with most of the legal ethos of African and Middle-Eastern tyrannies instead...
My advice to you: loving an author's works doesn't mean you have to love his politics. Some of OSC's politics are abominable, but "Speaker for the Dead" is still one of the most excellent SF books I've ever read.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: My advice to you: loving an author's works doesn't mean you have to love his politics.
Well said.
Posted by Ipso Facto (Member # 12501) on :
It's hard knowing that you "reinforce" or "reward" a man whose views are so contrary to yours on gay marriage. And since buying and reading books (especially ones as powerful as OSC's) can be so personal, finding out the author isn't the hero you hoped he'd be feels like a betrayal. I have a very hard time with OSC's pushing his female characters into traditional gender roles and yet I cannot stop reading what he writes.
There are lots of examples of greatly creative works done by flawed individuals. None of which are popping to mind at the moment. Do we throw out the art b/c we don't agree with the artist? It's a struggle.
You have to admit that OSC has the courage of his convictions.
Posted by Stargrrrl (Member # 12499) on :
Thanks all for your input. I will always be in favour of two consenting adults living a life they choose together (since we only have a small time on this beautiful planet). Everyone is entitled to an opinion, just like I may say "that movie was awful and offensive" but does not give me the right stop the artist from making movies. Freedom of speech and right to defend (bear arms) is a right in America, how sad is it that they don't even have the right to love. Marriage is a vow that any two people can make whether you recognize it or not, the reason legalizing it is crucial is so that these people can live the same quality of life, to legally make them Family. Because that's what marriage is, is creating a family. And family is not about male/female.
"It is never too late to give up your prejudices. No way of thinking or doing, however ancient, cannot be trusted without proof" ~Thoreau
Lets look at same sex marriage and really weigh the pro's and cons. Who's lives will benefit? If not the couples themselves, than let's talk about the millions of children that need homes (since same sex couples may likely adopt) Did you know that the children that suffer from the least abuse at home at those coming from lesbian marriages?
If all that people against same sex marriage is against not not have the word "marriage" used, than let's just ****ing change the name. call it "Partnership agreement" or "Love and Faithfullness declaration"
In the one life we live, it's so crucial to find a partner/partners which you can build a safe structure for our individual needs and beliefs and live safely and withing your rights. I also believe in Polygamy or Ployamourous relationships between CONSENTING ADULTS, because it is a creation of family that is suited to the needs of those peoples beliefs.
I will still read OSC because he is an insanely kick ass writer, and I'd like to believe that one day God will show him his errors and perhaps even forgive him.
Posted by Ipso Facto (Member # 12501) on :
It's entirely possible that those who write here are just tired of repeating their arguments b/c this subject has been addressed in so many places by so many people.
Just as my "OSC is really anal about not letting his female characters be strong AND mothers, smart AND willing to let their children/husbands make their own choices" issues are old news. The "I can have more than being a wife/mother" thing. And this is written by a wife/mother.
My hope is that someone will take pity on the fact that sifting through the too-many references for same sex marriage and females-are-more-than-that topics is difficult and point us to where we can find the best discussions that have happened already. From your last post, I'm thinking you don't really want a discussion so much as you want others to tell you you're right, so this might not appeal to you. I actually DO want to read what others have said so I don't try to reinvent the wheel (that would only lead to being zapped b/c technology leads to mass murders going free), see what's been said about how OSC won't give me my heroine, and then I will be quiet.
Posted by Ipso Facto (Member # 12501) on :
Still don't know much about posting, I guess, b/c I can't do that cool EDIT thing.
I, of course, meant "technology let mass murderERS go free." It's an "Earthbound" reference.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Stargrrl, I support SSM, but I'm not interested in debating it in a thread that was about OSC's reasons for opposing it. The two discussions are different: the former is political, the latter is psychological. (The difference betwen discussing arguments, and discussing why someone else holds different arguments)
In only a few years, the public support for SSM will be overwhelming. That's how the polls of an issue looks where the correct answer has been conclusively determined (e.g. evolution, interracial marriages).
Now we just need to wait for the functioning of democracy.
[ February 15, 2011, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: As far as I know, none of the arguments he makes are based on 'God said so.' Which does not mean that you'll like reading them.
As far as I can tell, they all boil down to "God says so" eventually. The "says so" part being that the assigned gender roles and "traditional" family model are ordained.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't think that's true. OSC believes that the gender roles and such that he is talking about are part of reality. As such, SSM is wrong because it violates those roles in such a way that harms the people involved in it and society as a whole.
OSC makes many arguments that don't boil down to "God says so.", like for example, all gay people he know hate themselves for having gay sex or a large number of gay people are trapped in their orientation because they were sexually abused or I believe he asserted at some point that children raised by gay parents are inherently psychologically damaged. I don't believe that any of his arguments of this sort are at all valid, but that's not to say that he doesn't make them.
---
With the NOM thing, I think getting upset that OSC opposes gay marriage is sort of missing the point. Rather, belonging to NOM itself is something to be upset about. They're an organization that relies on dishonesty and fear-mongering and it should be seen as shameful to even be associated with them, let alone joining them voluntarily.
I think it is possible to oppose SSM in a responsible and righteous way. The same can not be said about being a board member of NOM.
Posted by Craig Childs (Member # 5382) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stargrrrl: If all that people against same sex marriage is against not not have the word "marriage" used, than let's just ****ing change the name. call it "Partnership agreement" or "Love and Faithfullness declaration"
Not to steer too far off the subject, but the use of the word "marriage" is at the core of the debate. A lot of people are ok with "Domestic Partnerships", which is the word my company uses when it offers healthcare, adoption, retirement, and insurance benefits to non-married couples regardless of gender or orientation.
By and large, however, it is the SS crowd that is pushing to use the 'marriage' rather than 'Domestic Partnership'. The reason, of course, is that the word itself carries a certain sense of permanency, respectability, and equality with traditional male-female marriage. Whereas "domestic partnership" could be anything from two teenagers 'shacking up' to a 50-year-long committed relationship.
The arguments for using the word "marriage" when referring to SS couples are to erase a perceived "separate but equal" mindset.
The arguments for not using allowing SS marriage--as sanctioned by church and law--are various and sometimes compelling.
OSC actually makes some good (and unique) arguments in his essay above. I don't agree with everything he says, but his opinions are very informed and cannot be justifiably written off as "because God says so."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The arguments for not using allowing SS marriage--as sanctioned by church and law--are various and sometimes compelling.
Various, maybe. I'm not sure I've seen a compelling one yet, and it's been a decade or so that we've been having these conversations.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Craig Childs: OSC actually makes some good (and unique) arguments in his essay above.
I would like to know which arguments are the 'good' ones from the essay above, as well as asking what makes them good. Persuasiveness, or validity of some sort?
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Not to steer too far off the subject, but the use of the word "marriage" is at the core of the debate
Two different debates, which is why I again oppose conflating the two discussions. If OSC still believes that homosexual behaviour should be illegal, I doubt he will support "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" or "registered cohabitations" or any other societal support for homosexual couples, with or without the word 'marriage'.
quote:The arguments for not using allowing SS marriage--as sanctioned by church and law--are various and sometimes compelling.
How "compelling" is an argument isn't an innate attribute of the argument (e.g. F(argument) = 'compelling'), but a description of how a specific argument acts on a specific listener (e.g. F(argument, listener) = 'compelling')
Even if F(argument X, Craig Child) = 'compelling', for another person it can be that F(argument X, Aris Katsaris) = 'unconvincing'
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The arguments for not using allowing SS marriage--as sanctioned by church and law--are various and sometimes compelling.
Various, maybe. I'm not sure I've seen a compelling one yet, and it's been a decade or so that we've been having these conversations.
Nor have I and I have been having these conversations for 30 years.
Posted by Stargrrrl (Member # 12499) on :
Another fact I feel needs mentioning is that every year more and more cases are exposed of children being sexually abused by priests and men of the clergy. This is something that is covered up, and these men are rarely trialed and sent away for their crimes because the church protects them. I would love to see the day when instead of protesting the right to SSM, these same people will turn against their own churches and demand justice for the many children who experienced rape/molestation.
These men of God (many of them homosexuals) have been raised to hate gays and therefore to hate themselves. They enter a life of servitude to repent for their sins, but repenting does not change who you are. It only drives you into a desperation to fulfill your carnal needs and children are easy prey because they are less likely to expose your secrets.
I firmly believe that once society accepts homosexuality, and recognizes their right to marry, we will see a huge decrease in these horrible acts in the church, and men will become men of "God" for the right reasons, rather then to hide/repents for who they are.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Hi Stargrrl. Do you like the book Stargirl?
Way I see it, of all the things to rally to protest that damage families, why pick on gay marriage? To me, you can't use religion as an argument against it because being that many of us are not mormons there's no way we'd let people ban our tea and coffee anymore then we'd let folks ban our ham and bacon because their religion forbids it. We it comes to gender roles, the whole thing annoys me. It's based on an atiquated concept. People are not that simple. Men and women are not alien creatures who want different things and have different needs. They're human beings. individuals, who each have all sorts of personalities and desires. That whole men are from mars thing is just not SCIENTIFIC when it comes to REAL ACTUAL SCIENCE that is not created by folks who just want to prove that their stereotypes are facts when they are NOT.
So, I say folks should really stop pestering gays and focus on things like domestic violence, and reforming the foster care system and ACTUALLY DOING STUFF THAT HELPS FAMILIES instead of pushing things that damage and hurt them!
Also, I've given up on OSC because there's just too much lecturing. Also I've got to stop having stomach aches and grinding my teeth.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:"Men and women are not alien creatures who want different things and have different needs."
Of course they are, if we're talking statistical averages here. For example, statistically speaking, *most* men want female sex partners, and *most* women want male sex partners. That's a pretty big difference right there.
Even if we put aside sexuality, it'd be a pretty big coincidence if the statistical variation on what men desire happened to coincide precisely with the statistical variation on what women desire. Psychology is just applied biology after all, and men and women *do* have different biologies.
It just isn't much of an argument, to say that since *most* people want such-and-such, the minority that doesn't want it should conform. The descriptive "the average woman is largely different than the average man" doesn't lead to the normative "women as a whole should be *treated* differently than men as a whole"